Lucifer's Lawyer: Thoughts on Exposure (8)

It is an old maxim of mine that when you have excluded the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. -- Sherlock Holmes

This series of articles about dealing with exposure has sort of evolved... really, in trying to come to terms with the problems of exposure, we're really coming to terms with deception in magic itself. Exposure can take multiple forms -- we think of the obvious examples, exposure on Youtube, perhaps Penn and Teller giving away the Cups and Balls, etc. But really, any unfortunate knowledge that's out there and can enter a spectator's head, that has some basis in reality, is exposure of a form. If you do a perfect Triumph routine, and some guy next to you says "Nice PT shuffle there"... that's exposure. A non-magician might have no idea of what a PT shuffle is, but they'll know it's not magic.

In fact, in any case where you've got somebody on television saying that there's no such thing as real magic... that alone is its own form of exposure. First, it's the truth. Second, it's the starting point for any logical deconstruction of events, to remove "magic" as an explanation and come up with something plausible. This is one of the reasons behind downplaying the process -- in downplaying the importance of everything leading up to the effect, you make it harder for them to remember important details when trying to figure out the effect after the fact.

The truth is, though, that in approaching our magic entirely in this manner, we almost inevitably come back to the problem of the old maxim: "Never repeat a trick." Why is that? Because maybe they might find out the truth behind the effect. But what if we could create a magic trick that COULD be repeated?

Arguably, we can.

Enter Juan Tamariz's The Magic Way, and his thoughts on False Solutions and Cancelling Methods. What follows are some of the basic ideas behind creating a trick that satisfies the highest level of audience scrutiny -- I'm going to refer to it as a Tamarizian Trick. How much scrutiny can it withstand? Let's just say that in contrast to a trick in which the process is downplayed, a Tamarizian Trick can basically thrust the process right in their face, challenge them to deconstruct that process, and leave them with nothing. Not only that, but done well, a Tamarizian Trick can counter all the exposure in the world, because all of that schemata doesn't help you when you're stuck in the moment, trying to figure out what the hell the magician just did.

Now, this is essentially a bit of a book report... for the best knowledge, you've got to find the source. That's not an easy thing to do given the relative scarcity of copies of The Magic Way out there (I had to go all the way to Minnesota to borrow one), but hopefully with the popularity of reprints of The Five Points of Magic we'll soon see a new print run of The Magic Way as well. But you shouldn't take my word on the contents as gospel -- it's really just my take on the text, and conversations with Tyler Erickson (a very, very good magician in St. Paul) on that text. Plus, all of this is about magic theory that is still very much in flux -- an attempt to systemically analyze things that have been up until now a lot more nebulous -- and it would be foolhardy to think that it's not going to undergo further evolution of understanding. Plus, I know I talk a good game, but I've gotten this stuff wrong before, so proceed with caution.

How many times have we done a trick, only immediately after the effect we're stuck with somebody trying to figure out aloud what it is that you did. In essence, verbalizing a thought process that starts with the premise that "It couldn't have been magic." They suddenly start pointing out things that you wish they wouldn't, for instance, "Ok, so I said 'stop' and you showed me a card" instead of saying "Ok, I took whatever card I wanted." How much of a world of difference is there between the two. If they're even allowed to think in this manner, they're a few steps closer to figuring out the truth. I recently had somebody compliment a coin vanish that I do, only in the act of complimenting it they made gestures with their hands that mimic what it is that showed the coin vanishing ("I like it when you're doing the coin magic", she said, moving her hands around in pantomime of moving a coin from hand to hand). Sounds like a compliment, but since I don't want them to think gestures has anything to do with it, really I was busted.

So how do we confront this? Routine structure. You have to conceive your effect. You then have to sit down and make a list of all the different possible non-magical explanations for the effect. This part is key. They have to be all the different possible non-magical explanations including the methods that you're actually using. Then, through choosing a valid routine structure, you've got to convince people that you couldn't possibly be using any of those methods. That's really all there is to it.

Sounds simple, doesn't it? Trust me, you still have to read The Magic Way in order to really get what this process is all about. Imagine this effect -- You vanish a coin in your hand, and then show it to reappear at the ear. Sounds simple, doesn't it? Well, Tamariz comes up with over 30 different possible non-magical explanations, and the crux of our problem is this... if the spectator is allowed to leave the routine convinced that you could have used one they had in mind, then the magician hasn't done their job. No magic observed.

We'll start with Multiple-phase effects because, to a certain extent, this is a bit easier. If you repeat an effect using two different methods, you can use the strong points of each method to counterbalance the weak points of the other.

The ACR is probably the easiest thing to attack. You might think that somebody yelling out "DL" in the middle of your routine would destroy it, but that's thinking like a magician. As my friend Jeremy Macintosh bluntly states, you've got to speak in absolute truths. So, let's do that. Here's the effect: their card goes into the middle, a magic gesture, and it's shown on top. You've got to convince them that (A) it's their card, (B) it's really going into the middle, (C) all you're doing is a magic gesture and not some manipulation, and (D) it's now on top. The DL has just become a very popular way of doing the ACR, but if they're not convinced of A, B, C, and D above, then it doesn't matter if you've eliminated the DL from the effect, you're still not showing them magic, because they have non-magical explanations at their disposal. Conversely, if you can convince them of A, B, C and D, then you've essentially eliminated the DL as a method (along with a whole slew of other methods).

Now, if we really could do A, B, C and D above, we'd have real magic. We can't. What we CAN do is repeat the effect so that it looks exactly the same each time, but take advantage of different subtleties and convincers each time to create a cumulative illusion of A, B, C and D throughout the entire routine. For instance, in phase one you do a method that stresses B, C, D and implies A (eg: impromptu duplicate). In phase two, you have the person sign the card (stress A), and then do B and C while implying D, but in making phase 2 look exactly like phase 1, they see the same effect. In phase three, you use a method that stresses A, C, and D and implies B. In phase four, you use a method that stresses A, B and D, and implies C.

That's pretty cryptic, but with some thought and research you should be able to figure out methods that imply the above. The Magic Way does break down the ACR to this extent and offers a 7 phase routine -- another reason to find a way to read the book. Really, you've heard all this advice before in a more causal manner -- don't repeat a trick unless you can use a different method to get there. The major point is that, in choosing different methods, you don't want to use two methods that share the same discrepancy (a DL or a Top Change, for instance, can have the same discrepancy... can you spot it?).

You've also got to ask yourself if other things can offer methods that have nothing to do with the trick -- for instance, doing a coin flurry with no sleeving, but with your sleeves not rolled up, allows the audience to have a rationalization that allows them to believe no magic is taking place. What's even weirder is that in determining the explanations you've got to come at it from the audience's point of view -- which means that in doing a feat of mind-reading involving billets, you could probably get away not only with keeping your sleeves rolled down, but ALSO using sleeving to effect a billet switch. Finally, you've got to make sure not to tip them off to an important aspect of magic -- that we can often do the same effect using multiple methods. Wherever possible, make sure that even if the methods are different, what the audience sees while they're paying attention to details (during Darwin Ortiz's Critical Interval) looks as close to the same as possible.

The single phase routine is a little bit more difficult. Now you've only got one shot at convincing them. Doesn't seem like a big deal since that would appear to make it look like you can get away with more -- using a system of five outs for a prediction effect, for instance -- but if we're going for the Tamarizian Trick, we're looking to create something that can actually be repeated, and that means watching the same trick that uses two different outs in two performances of the same effect basically gives away the fact that a system of outs is in play. No magic observed. If they leave the routine with questions and theories, then, ideally, if they get a second crack at watching the same routine with those questions and theories in mind, hopefully they're going to be cancelled or undermined a second time. Taken further, since a Tamarizian Trick destroys all possible explanations including the one that we're actually using, we've got only one shot to convince them that the card is not forced when it is forced, that the cage is solid when it's not solid, etc. Not easy, and Tamariz only gives one routine to show how to attack this problem -- a book test, not everyone's cup of tea to begin with.

Whit Haydn talks in various sources about how applying the psychology of Con Games can help you do this to a certain extent. When doing the Chicago Surprise, he talks about how he essentially wants to get the spectator to agree that the card couldn't have been forced, and the other cards couldn't have been switched, which is a pretty valuable skill to have given the actual methods involved in the trick. Al Schneider's done some interesting work on this as well, where he says what you do is, in the process of designing the trick, you identify the things that spectators will consciously focus on, determine what things the spectators will take as givens, and do whatever you can to have all the dirty work happen in those givens. Darwin Ortiz's Designing Miracles also has a lot of great thoughts. Plus, you can rely on aspects of showmanship (such as artistry and/or comedy) to try to get away with whatever routines still contain unaddressed discrepancies -- this sounds like laziness, but not only do some acknowledged masters of magic do this, but they admit doing it as well. Throughout all this, you've got to keep exploring and researching theory -- far too much that can be covered in a blog essay. Arguably, this is a venture that will differ from trick to trick, a journey that involves psychology just as much as artistry just as much as hardcore magic methodology just as much as performing experience just as much as knowing thyself and what thou can get away with.

To revisit that point of showmanship above, another major problem with all of this is how to stress all the fairness of the conditions without sacrificing a more entertaining presentation. That's not easy... the only guys I've seen who embrace the process leading up to the climax but also (in my opinion) still present really well are Max Maven and Juan Tamariz, and even then they take a bit of a hit (not getting as many laughs as a comedy magician, not able to force as much visual artistry as a manipulator, etc.). Entertainment can be thought of as being by definition a form of distraction, but to truly benefit from having the audience understand the fairness, we want to distract them as little as possible. It's not an easy problem to tackle, and it's probably where a lot of creative exploration and experimentation has to come in. Not all convincers have to be overt, so how do you present a convincer while also portraying your character (eg: telling a funny joke, acting mysteriously, etc.). How can you be sure it's working? This isn't easy stuff.

Getting back on track... what does all this have to do with exposure? Well, if you've successfully developed a Tamarizian Trick, you're not only destroying possible nonmagical explanations, but you can also destroy the nonmagical explanations that have been publically exposed. In fact, you're not only subverting exposure, you're also apparently destroying the methods that you're actually using. That's pretty powerful -- from the standpoint of conviction, you can't really go much further than that. Suddenly, you've got a routine that sticks them on the horns of the Haydn Dilemma ("There's no such thing as magic"/"There's no other possible explanation"), and by a weird twisting of Sherlock Holmes's famous quote, by convincing them that you've disproved all the possible non-magical explanations, the only thing thing left, must be exactly what you say it is -- magic.