Pre- And Post-Performance Tactics

The format's a little bit wonky for this one. No Q&A, and there's an essay that's been added to the end that I revised for Tyler. Still, these are all his theories (although it includes some additional insight from Pat Umphrey).

This whole idea of the post-performance interaction serves multiple functions. First, to reinforce whatever impact you had from the performance. Second, to identify problems or suspicions that may have formed. Third, to patch or cast into suspicion those accusations. These techniques can help you make an effect better in retrospect, figure out what might not have been good, and fix that part to the best of your ability (fix, in the sense of, reducing its importance to the spectator).

First, a qualifier, this is generally for casual performance. You've done some stuff for people and you've got a chance to talk to them about it afterwards. Although a professional might have some natural default prestige that can lessen the problems a casual performer might not encounter (ie: He couldn't have used a cross cut force on me.), a casual performer, by virtue of the fact that he's not tied down to a performing format, has more leeway in how he can interact with a spectator through all phases of an effect, specifically before and after the effect has been performed.

Hopefully you've done a performance, something that's got the power of synergy. Let's say you've done a show. Here are some questions you can safely ask, since they don't tip concerns you might have had that you don't want a spectator to get wind of. (Before we begin, let's assume the following tricks were performed: the Slop Shuffle, spongeballs, and coins across)

"What do you remember from the show?" To some extent this one is obvious -- it's to find out what they connected with the most. They may remember the effect, they remember the prop, they may remember possibly catching you. But, you'll know what they retained from the performance. They may even remember something that didn't happen, and they remember something that's stronger or weaker than what actually occurred. This can lead you to your next questions. These are going to break up into those that reinforce a positive image, and those that patch possible problems.

"That one with the coins was neat." A good follow-up question would be: "Any particular reason why you liked that one more?" To me that phrasing they chose kind of indicates that it might just be that they liked coins rather than cards. You need to find out if it was arbitrary that they liked it, or if there was something truly exemplary about the effect. At that point, it allows them to mention the prop. The first thing that they mentioned was the prop, so we need to clarify if it was about the prop or the effect.

"I think I figured out what you did with the red balls there." Response: "Go ahead." (QUALIFIER: This depends if it's in front of other people. Typically I try to conduct these interviews off to the side.) "Well I think you didn't put it in the other hand." If they're right on that, there's nothing you can do, unless you can re-do the trick, re-creating the effect so as to eliminate that suspicion. If you need to gracefully exit that subject, you can say: "I suppose that might have worked..." That's a worst-case scenario, though, since most guesses are wrong. However, you did learn valuable information on what you need to improve, and you did it without confirming the suspicion outright.

When the suspicions are incorrect, you've got a bit more leeway.

There are also opportunities to employ cancelling methods on the Macro level for damage control. For example, you perform an effect where something changes in their hands. Their stated suspicion: "You switched it before it went into my hands." Doing a trick that gives the same effect using a different methodology, allows you to reinforce a power claim while also undermining the suspicion of the previous effect. In this specific instance, if you can have something change in their hands without employing that sort of switch, then suddenly it's conceivable that you didn't switch it the last time either, because you've shown that you don't need to rely on that method.

Pat Umphrey had an interesting anecdote based on the incorrect suspicion. "I was performing a packet prediction effect. Cards are mixed randomly based on a spectator's choice, and the order of the cards at the end of the mixing process matches a prediction previously handed to the spectator. Somebody afterwards came up and said 'I think I know how you did that.' I pulled him aside away from the others and said, 'I'd really like to hear what you think happened.' (Again, notice that he's set it up so as to elicit information without actually tipping the method) He said, 'You HAD to have switched packets after the cards were mixed.' That's not the method, incidentally. I said, 'That's a very good guess, but don't you remember that as soon as the mixing was done, I did not touch the cards?' He paused, but then said, 'Oh yeah, but you HAD to have switched the packets.' I said, 'Again, that's a very good guess, but no, I honestly did not.' It's funny too, because he was so confident that he'd figured it out. It's so fair that any incorrect guess is so far-fetched in my experience. Either you have the correct solution, or else it's WAY wrong. In the end, he was satisfied, and went back to being fooled by it, because he trusted me.

There's more to this than just damage control. Read the essay entitled: "Recapping" at the end of this blog entry.

Also, here are some personal guidelines for this sort of interaction.

1) I will never directly lie, because it keeps me very safe, it allows me to cleverly word things. I lie through omission, or through implication. A lie through omission is recounting specific details and leaving out a key piece of information, such as with spongeballs. "You had a ball, I had a ball, then you had both." without ever mentioning the transfers. The mistake would be to say "I gave you a ball" which by the way, would be a direct lie, since I gave him both. (Pat: It's not a lie because you did give him one, you just gave him an extra one. Tyler: You're right, but still, it's bringing into emphasis an unfair action, so I'd prefer to leave it out. The best thing is to make them forget me handing them anything.) The lie sandwich, false chronology, false gesture, these things all come into it.

"Oh man, I remember this trick, and I was holding this card, and it turned into my card." And then I would interject, and say "And remember, you looked at the card first (false gesture) and it wasn't your card" and then maybe I might go on to describe the magic moment. This goes back to the initial reinforcing of things that are strong, you push on them to take them to the next level of impossibility.

Keep in mind that although the gesture is false, but what you say should be absolutely and undeniably true. Remember that this is during an interview, so the back-and-forth on details is already established. Some of these you can do within a show, although I tend not to bog it down with what has passed. If it's a casual performance, you might have more opportunity.
2) When possible and if necessary, I will make a hard line stance on a true statement, like "I swear to God I did not switch packets." It's important to make that claim, "I would not cheat you like that." It creates the feeling of integrity. That you're willing to stand up for your own actions. By saying "I did this, and it is absolutely true", you form a base of "There are true things in the show." Ultimately, when it comes to a magic effect, you need to eliminate all solutions, including false ones. As far as they're concerned, the false ones are just as good as real ones.

On a slightly-related note, there's also a lot to be gained from conducting a pre-performance interview as well. "Have you seen magic before?" "Have you ever seen a magician before?" "Who did you see?" "What did they do?" "What do they remember?" Affirm what it is they remember as being cool. The information I get from the answers tells me many things. The level of detail, the points of interest, the amount of exposure to magic (in the sense of how many magicians they've seen). It may even tell me as much as a specific trick that I shouldn't do because of what they say. ie: "I have a cousin that does a trick with a plastic thumb and a handkerchief." I wouldn't avoid the bill switch because of that, but I'm not going to be some twit and rub it in their face. If anything, I would look for a similar effect without the TT. To me that proves more.

You get all sorts of answers, and it can tell you anything from whether or not they like magic, and have seen it all their life, to the fact that they've never seen anything before.

PS from Umphrey: Tyler's rear palm can suck my ass.

-------------------

Recapping, the art of building your legend

The Premise

Imagine you're with a person who's telling you about a magic trick he saw that blew him away. He tells you this story vividly.

"Alright, he had these two red balls. He gave a girl one of them, he took the other one, and then they both snapped their fingers. When he opened his hands, there was nothing there. When she opened hers, she had both of them. It was amazing."

You might be thinking, "Ah yes, spongeballs. Two to the spectator's hand. Very commercial, nicely done..."

But hold on a sec... take a closer look at that story. The sequence of events is the following. He gave the girl a spongeball first, and then he took the other one. Method-wise, that's certainly doable if he had a third one in play. But now there's another problem. They both snapped their fingers. He opened his hands, not his hand. How could he do that while holding out the extra spongeball?

At this point, you might want to ask extra questions. "Were his hands ever in his pockets?" "No," the guy says, honestly. "Were his sleeves rolled up? Did he roll up his sleeves just before the trick?" "No, he was wearing a T-Shirt," the guy says, again honestly. Suddenly, we have to come to terms with the fact that this magician might have found a new method. Things just got interesting, yes?

Welcome to the power of recapping.

Effects are temporary, finite things –- it's the memory of the effect that people will keep with them. Whit Haydn has likened this to the "Ghost Story" –- a story that spectators leave an effect with that they want to tell others. That might seem obvious, but it points to an extra tool of deception that magicians have, which is that we can influence the memory of the effect, simply by the way we recap things.

In the above example, here's what might have happened. The magician produces a spongeball magically. He then takes that spongeball and splits it into two. Standard fare. Next, he does the old gag where spongeball one and two change places in his own hands. Finally, he FT's a sponge ball into his own hand, and then L's it with the other into the spectators hand. And then, the recapping starts.

"I want you to remember this moment very clearly. I want you to remember the story of the amazing Clown Noses of Cairo. I want you to remember that just now, I put one of them in her hand, and I put one of them in my own, and we closed our fists tight. I want you to remember that all we did was snap our fingers, and then this happened..."

He opens his hands to show they're empty, and then she opens hers and both of them pop out.

At this point, the method to us is much more clear, but the story that the spectator will take away with them is less so.

This is all still theoretical, at this point, but at the same time, listen closely to how different people describe an effect, and amongst the little inconsistencies you'll hear, you'll notice that there's a lot of potential to tap into in order to shape the memory of that effect.

Specific Techniques

Obviously, as with any patter, there's an opportunity for many things above and beyond just deception – you can evoke emotions, tell stories, give insight to your performing persona's character, etc. But, at this point, let's look at some techniques that can be used, within patter, specifically for the sake of enhancing and distorting the effect. Taken directly from Tyler Erickson's studies on the subject...

Glossing and Emphasis: This is from an essay by Michael Ammar in his book "The Magic of Michael Ammar". The basic idea is that if you emphasize the details you want them to remember and gloss over the ones you don't, they will forget the "non-emphasized" facts. This is essentially lying by omission.

Example: "You just looked at a card and took the deck from me..." Told to gloss over the fact that you held the selection for a moment, putting a crimp in.
"...and you shuffled that deck as much as you wanted." Told to point out a fair condition that ought to impress anybody who missed the crimp.

Lie Sandwich: This is a technique commonly associated with salespeople. You tell an undeniable truth followed by a lie, then immediately followed by another undeniable truth. Because you offer all the statements together as one bundle, the spectator accepts the entire phrase as truth.

Example: "We put both cards under your hand. You could pick whichever one you wanted, and you gave me the 4 of hearts..." True.
"...leaving you with the 4 of clubs..." False
"...and then I changed the 4 of hearts into the 4 of clubs, leaving you with the 4 of hearts under your hand." True

False Chronology: By recapping specific details out of order from how they actually occurred, you can create a false impression on what has happened.

Example: The recapping in the spongeball example above is an example of applying false chronology.

False Gesture: The words you use to describe your actions are correct, but the gestures that accompany them are not. Instead, they are idealized actions that can eliminate the possibility of the sleight occurring and also exaggerate aspects of the effect.

Example: For the Cut and Restored Rope you would say, "The rope was cut in two." but the gesture you use is one of having a piece of rope in each hand, separated from each other. This technique is one of the best for "post performance" recapping, because only the rarest of spectators would argue with the accuracy of your gestures.

False If/Then Statement: You create a false ("if") scenario (utilizing other recapping tools) and compare it to an idealized statement ("then") that seems to be equally true, given what they've already agreed with.

Example: A card is selected and returned and shuffled into the deck by the spectator. You say, "Now you must agree that I have no idea of what your card is, or where it is, right?" They should say yes. You then ask, "It's as if you just thought of a card, and then I walked into the room, yes?"

The Four Sided Triangle: While not exactly part of a recap, it is a technique that fits in to the overall theme of this essay. This is a very clever ruse that relies on the multiple interpretations a statement can have, based on the perception of the listener.

Example: Michael Close (in his "Workers" book series) uses this principle in one of his effect called "A Trick for O'Brian". I do a card trick for Bob. I show a card that says, "Happy Birthday" to Bob. As I do this I say, "And on the back it says 'Happy Birthday', Bob." While Bob can see the card says "Happy Birthday", the rest of the audience (who can't see the card) assumes that it says "Happy Birthday Bob!" on it. Bob has no reason to correct them because he does not know they have misinterpreted the statement!

The Nod Technique: Again, this is not recapping, but is used in association with your recap, allowing you to get an immediate positive response to your question. The basic idea is, while you are talking, you are subtly nodding your head in agreement (with yourself) and the spectator will start to nod along with you. While some people may nod to anything you say, it is best not to abuse this technique, but consider how powerful it would be if you could get somebody to nod with you when you say "You could have taken any card you wanted, right?" after you've forced the card on them.

Some additional thoughts:

One of the great benefits of a good recap is that it can give a moment of clarity to the audience, freeing them from the burden of remembering every detail on their own. They won't necessarily believe anything you tell them, but if it is well-structured and ostensibly consistent with what they saw, the recap won't be argued with, and everything you say will be accepted as true.

A spectator's idea of verbal deception is usually relatively direct. For instance, they might be put on guard if you've got a closed fist and say "I now have a silver coin in my closed fist" without actually showing them the coin. Generally, they're more likely to question a statement the magician makes about a condition where he could provide proof of it, but he doesn't. A well-done recap is a bit less direct and as such has a better chance of escaping suspicion.

Keep in mind that while it is most common to recap before the climax of the effect, it can be equally effective (if not more effective) when done after the effect ends, and you are casually discussing what had occurred. Never forget that we are always trying to prevent detection of our methods, not just during performance but after the performance as well. After the performance, when the surprise and shock where's off, the spectator might be in a better position to logically reconstruct everything leading up to the effect. If you're able to subtly reinforce the points in your favour and also subtly play down the weaknesses, you can regain some control over their memory.

Also, when formulating your recap, consider both the conditions that you know promote the impossibility of the effect and also the conditions that, if remembered, would weaken it. When making your points, consider the most powerful way of expressing them. (ie. "I had you pick a card" vs. "you picked a card" vs. "you picked any card.") Additionally, try to stress the actions that they have done and minimize your presence in the recap. Tyler's a big fan of only mentioning himself only when he's calling attention to the fact that he wasn't involved.

One last example:

If you're able to get creative with your recapping, you might find that even the most ridiculously simple method, the sort that you'd normally feel almost apologetic for using, can be used in a manner that allows them to remember a very impressive feat. Tyler's got a great story exactly about this. When he has a new student coming to him to learn card magic, he'll offer to teach them a technique involving the following impossible-seeming conditions.

The magician looks away.

The spectator shuffles and cuts the deck.

The spectator takes any card they want.

They put it back wherever they want.

They mix the cards again.

Finally, the magician turns around.

It's as if they just thought of a card, and then the magician enters the room.

He then goes through that sequence in a manner very consistent with what he said it would be. He then recaps the sequence, and they have to agree that it all seemed to unfold as he said it would. When he still manages to find the card, they're fooled. Even to magicians, told in this manner, it seems that the conditions are fairly impressive.

So... What did he fool them with?

For the answer, turn to the Royal Road to Card Magic, Chapter 6, for confirmation on the devious power that recapping can have.