Maibag #146

/

Idiot Savant is genius (pun not intended, but acknowledged). Thank you for sharing it on the site. I like the Savant Deck version but love being able to do it with a normal deck. I was wondering why you didn’t write it up with your usual format with “Imagine/Method”? I enjoy hearing the story of the trick’s performance. —DD

No real reason. I just hadn’t performed it much yet, so I didn’t really have a worthwhile performance to relay. When I lay out the full story of a performance, it’s describing a real interaction. I don’t just fabulize some scenario. So that’s something you’ll see less on the site and more in the books, because that’s where I put the tricks I’ve worked out fully.

That said, supporters will read a performance/presentation of Idiot Savant in the next book, because I’ve come up with an alternate presentation for it that takes it out of the, “I’m great at addition” sphere.

Did you help Craig Petty with his latest video? It’s very “jerx-coded” to the point of plagiarism in some spots. What do you reckon? I can’t be the only person to have mentioned this. It’s all about social magic and Craig has said he doesn’t perform socially, so where is this video even coming from?—VR

No, you’re not the only one.

But the full question you should be asking is… Did I help Craig Petty… or am I Craig Petty?

I’ll never tell. And unless you have some sort of futuristic de-pixelation machine to use on this photo of me ranting, you’ll never know for certain who I am.

Look, here’s the deal. Anyone talking about social magic is going to sound somewhat like me. And that’s because 99% of all the discussion on the topic has come from me. Before I started writing about it, “social magic” was basically just a loose way of saying “magic for friends and family.” And it was usually treated as if it were just a small-scale version of professional performance.

My whole contribution was saying: no, social magic should be the opposite of professional performance. Scripts, routines, audience management, sitting behind a close-up mat like you’re auditioning for the Magic Castle—that stuff smothers the social connection aspect of social magic. That’s the drum I’ve been beating for over a decade. So now, whenever someone makes a similar point, it’s going to sound like me. I don’t mind it. If I was writing this site to make a name for myself… you’d know my name.

The only issue I have with Craig’s video is he once again brings up this trick when talking about me. That’s one of the weakest ideas on the site! At the time, it was fine. There was maybe a three-month window where it was viable, back when programmable colored lights were new. But once everyone knew about them, the method was cooked.

So, while I appreciate the kind words, there are literally 1500 posts I’d probably recommend before that one.

Here is Justin Flom’s response to last Monday’s mailbag regarding magic on the internet. You can agree or disagree with him, but if anyone can offer some informed perspective on the subject, it’s him.

Your mailbag on magic and the internet was 100% spot on. With Magic Live in town and some renewed heat around my online videos, I had this conversation a lot last week.

The rules of retention are not the same in person as they are online. Astonishment and wonder are absolutely worthy goals and if you can reach them, grab them. Absolutely. But on a screen, wonder is almost impossible. Too many variables get in the way: viewers can’t trust it’s not a camera trick or an actor, and they can’t fully invest because their life won’t be changed by what they’re seeing. Nobody online will sit through a slow, procedural counting card trick even with a romantic presentation. However in person people will take that ride because they’re actually involved and can touch and feel the trick with the critical eye that’s required to be fooled or astonished.

As AI keeps eroding trust in what we see online, live experiences become the only way to know something actually happened.

If you looked only at online metrics, you’d conclude that no one ever wants to see a card trick again. Retention graphs for them are a cliff. But in real life, the same people who swipe away in two seconds online will happily give you three minutes in person, even for a complicated card effect.

Here’s the challenge with magic in a news feed online: magic traditionally starts ordinary and ends extraordinary. Ordinary doesn’t stop swipes. A bottle of Coke being placed in a paper bag isn’t novel. It’s just a couple inanimate objects and a viewer isn’t really apt to believe that it’ll lead somewhere interesting. There’s no reason for someone to believe it’ll end anywhere worth waiting for. And if the viewer knows they’re watching a magician they also know they won’t learn the secret at the end so why hangout if they can’t even trust that it’s “real” (e.g. not a camera trick)

So I’ve flipped it by starting these silly videos with the secret and show something novel, interesting, and marginally educational up front. Magic secrets check all three boxes, and once you’ve earned attention with the secret, people stick around for the payoff. Totally different game than live magic.

One note that I’ve taken from the internet for my live interactions however...No matter your feelings on magic exposure I’ve found it useful in person to lower a participant’s guard. When someone sees I’m willing to share a secret, they stop thinking I’m there to fool them for my ego, and that openness lets me fool them harder. (I combine that with your Peek Behind the Curtain saying, “Can I show you something I’m working on?”) So I’ll start by showing a finger-flicking-angle-sensitive-color-change then transition into a simple two card transpo. After being conditioned into believing that magic secrets are highly complicated and angle sensitive, a double lift flies past them even easier. —JF