Mailbag #149
/
When you were starting to explore weird presentations, Presentations that are so over the top that they “self disclaim”… what helped you get used to keeping a straight face and treating it like a “fact” (inside the fiction)?
I find that depending on the premise, its very hard for me to always keep a straight face.
I have noticed i can keep a straight face if there is a “logic” that I can understand and follow. For example: if i imagine something, is it in my head or is it a window to another dimension? (To me this has a “logic”, even if its weird. The logic would be that if there are multiple dimensions that also means that whatever i imagine is necesarily happening in some other dimension… so imagining something could be just a window to it)
On the other hand lets say i dont have a logic that to me “makes sense”.
For example. Another idea im trying to play with: so there is this ritual that the CIA discovered when they were experimenting with remote viewing. The problem with it was the middle step of this ritual involved palm reading the targets. So they planted multiple gypsy agents that could “offer” palm readings to the targets they wanted to spy on. Obviously it wasnt a real palm read, but it acted as a bridge…(Unless i actually say that this story is horseshit im actually not confortable keeping a straight face. I just end up laughing myself)
So, how do you keep a straight face when you are trying to have fun but also be convincing and not break the fiction for them? Even when they know its all made up. You dont actually want to be the one that takes them out of it.
It might just be too big of a jump for me right now. Maybe i just have to build to it more. —JFC
Honestly, this never really came up for me. Mostly because I wasn’t following anyone else’s blueprint by reading about it on a blog. I was just doing what felt natural, so I wasn’t pushing myself past my comfort zone in that way.
It sounds to me like you have a hard time keeping a straight face when you can’t manage to fully buy-in to your presentation. It’s not like you’re just “so amused” that you’re compelled to laugh. It’s more like you’re lacking confidence in the premise and “breaking” is your way to lower the tension in that moment.
This is very common with magicians. They often do things “with a wink” or “with tongue in cheek” as a way to say, “Relax, I’m not taking this too seriously.”
It’s human nature to do that when we’re not fully confident. Playing it off like you’re just screwing around lowers the stakes. That’s why guys are usually more comfortable tossing out a corny pick-up line than walking up to a woman and saying, “I just had to say you look incredible in that dress.”
That being said, I think you have three options.
1. Filter it. Use your inability to keep a straight-face as a filtering system. If you don’t have the confidence in the premise to play it straight, then it just doesn’t make the cut for your repertoire.
2. Frame it. Explain early on in your presentation that the premise sounds ridiculous. “I can barely keep a straight face when I think about it. But apparently it’s true. Or, at least, there are a lot of people who believe it.” In this way, you’ve “framed” your inability to keep a straight face in the narrative of the presentation.
3. Sit in it. If you’re letting yourself smile or laugh as a sort of “escape-valve” to break the tension—as a way to say, ‘Don’t worry, I’m in on it too’—just realize you don’t need to do that, because magic has a built-in escape-valve: the climax of the trick.
Try to practice sitting in the tension at least until that point. Afterward, you can drop all the pretense and make it clear it was all bullshit. “Yeah, I was just messing around.” But train yourself to sit in the discomfort without needing to let them in on it at least until that point.
Re: The last item in this Creep Update
The venue (House of Magic) that hosts the SAM#4 and Jeff Carson is owned and operated by Marc Desouza who should know better, he's currently Vice President of the SAM and a multi time national award winner. Yes, the SAM that just months ago (May 2025) had a cover story about Youth Protection in Magic in their MUM magazine.
The Theater (Smoke and Mirrors, inside the Venue is owned and operated by Danny Archer and Marty Martin).
Those 3 plus former SAM president [Mike Miller] and Jeff Carson/Leach/Ron Geoffries used to run "The East Coast Magic Spectacular" together. They are all close which is why Jeff continues to be welcome at SAM #4 events and that venue. I prefer to be anonymous but a google search will turn up those names all over the place together.—XX
Hmmm… okay. That sort of explains things. I was wondering why this essentially unkonwn performer was even being asked to lecture at this place, given his history.
Here’s that “history” courtesy of Philly Mag.
According to the indictment, he was accused of molesting a girl more than a dozen times, starting when she was 10. In that indictment, Leach was accused of “placing or rubbing his penis against her,” “having the victim touch his penis for the purpose of sexually arousing or sexually gratifying himself or to humiliate or degrade” her, “showing videotaped pornographic images of adults engaging in sexual behavior” to her, and “masturbating in view” of her. Because Carson pleaded guilty to a lesser charge, there was no trial and no judicial determination that those were the specific acts in which he had actually engaged.
But okay, I guess this clears things up. The people behind the scenes are buddies with the guy. So they’re cool with it.
Let’s just hope they’re not that cool with it.
I mean, the last theater that hosted Jeff Carson was this one…
Which was run by this guy…
Do you still do the focus group testing of magic tricks and moves and all of that? I’ve missed reading those posts. —CA
Yes and no.
The friends I started testing with years ago and I still get together a couple times a year. These days, most of that work is contracted testing for a performer we’ve been collaborating with.
Part of the reason you don’t see as much testing written up here is:
1. It’s really expensive.
Which I’m fine with, but also…
2. We’ve already tested most of the “big” questions that have a real impact on performance.
I don’t want to test stuff just to test stuff. I want results that either answer a fundamental question or give us data that’s broadly useful. Things like: which forces are most deceptive, whether audiences inherently understand invisible thread, if conditions should be stated or implied, whether props need to be examined, what triggers suspicion… those felt worth the time and financial investment.
But once the question becomes, “Does this specific move in this specific trick fool people?” the return on investment drops off.
All of that is to say, yes, the infrastructure to do the testing is still in place. We’re just waiting for the right questions to test.