Ye Olde Magick Blogge

New Magicians in Vancouver blog

2011-01-16T17:32:00.004-05:00

In response to a previous problem, I've decided to start a new blog that's basically dedicated to magicians in Vancouver. The goal is straightforward -- to offer a neutral venue for magicians in Vancouver to post a profile of themselves and link back to their website(s), Youtube videos, news articles, etc. Only a few rules... one profile per person and no direct references to the competition. You can fill it with as many links and keywords as you like. Also, there will be no third-party advertising on the blog.

If anybody in Vancouver is interested in getting their profile on there, get in touch, with the desired text and a photo if applicable, and I'll get it up there.

Here is the link to the Magicians-In-Vancouver blog, and here is a sample profile, featuring yours truly. (It's rather Spartan, but you can make yours as elaborate as you like)

Magician Rob Matthies, Vancouver Birthday Party Rescuers

2010-12-30T08:55:00.001-05:00

There’s a magician by the name of Rob Matthies working in Vancouver right now with a company called Vancouver Birthday Party Rescuers, and he’s gaming search engines so that if you do a search on a Vancouver magician’s name with the word magician in it (eg: “Bob Jones magician”), then one of his hundreds of videos will pop up that have been uploaded to Youtube, Metacafe, Dailymotion, etc. that have been cross-indexed so as to improve his search results, frequently referring to Bob Jones by name, or else referencing him in the video descriptions. Making matters worse, he frequently goes nameless in these videos, so there’s a chance people might think that Bob Jones IS the $75 Elmo mascot you can invite to your party, if only you call the listed phone number.

I just want to make it clear for anybody who might have come here because I gave away my real name a while ago, or who has been searching for quality magical entertainment in the city of Vancouver, that I’m not affiliated with this guy at all. Hell, I’m not even currently in Vancouver.

Efforts to get in touch with this guy to get my name removed have been fruitless. I’ve contacted other magicians and they’ve said that so long as you haven’t trademarked your name, you’ve got no legal recourse.

If you’re at the point where you’re thinking that you’d rather not pay a higher price than what this idiot Rob Matthies is offering, do yourself a favour and don’t hire a magician, because these actions of his lack class, professionalism, and if he puts the same effort into serving your needs as an entertainer as he does into editing his videos, you’re just going to regret having hired a magician in the first place, and that hurts the entire industry, not just this guy.

Annotated Royal Road to Card Magic

2010-06-04T01:22:00.005-04:00

Just thought I'd post this here in case people were interested at all. Over at the new Ye Olde Magick Blogge I've been going through Royal Road to Card Magic chapter-by-chapter and annotating the content. If you want to read it, click here...

Resurrecting the olde blogge

2010-01-04T23:58:00.002-05:00

So, I'm resurrecting and relocating Ye Olde Magick Blogge over to the sleightly.com website. I already had a bit of a blog over there, but since the original purpose of that blog was just to try to promote the frozen magician directory project, it never got off the ground.

It's been an interesting year or so, though, and I think I'm back in a place where I've got some things that I'm interested in writing about -- tricks, techniques, theory, gig experiences, etc. Also, since I'm thinking it'd be cool to get into publishing in the long-term, I'm going to put together some PDFs for download over there. Don't know how much earth they'll shatter, but they'll probably be free.

So... yeah. If there's any more blogging going on, it'll be over there. Hope you decide to drop by the NEW Ye Olde Magick Blogge.

Farewell...?

2009-04-06T11:08:00.004-04:00

Sorry that there haven't been many updates lately. Truth be told, it almost feels like I've run out of things that are worth talking about. I think that between the Yin/Yang model for appreciating magic, the essays on exposure, and the 12 performing archetypes, I've pretty much tapped out whatever well of theory I had going on in the Ol' Gulliver.

I've been performing lately. I don't want to give away too many details yet -- either this will work out and it'll be worthwhile putting into a book, or it won't work out and it'll be worthwhile keeping it to myself. Suffice to say it's been fun and I'm learning a lot, although it's probably less about learning anything new, and more about getting insight on the stuff we've all been taught.

I joined the Vancouver Magic Circle earlier this year, and it's an interesting time every month. I remember thinking that one of the reasons I wanted to join a society was just to win a contest or something so that I could put "Award Winning" somewhere on my website, but unfortunately it might not be as easy as just showing up... the caliber of guys who perform stuff is actually not bad.

Been doing some editing -- mostly Tyler Erickson's lecture notes for his seminars (some great stuff in there if he ever decides to get off his ass and publish it), and I might be helping out another magician who's writing up his own book.

But I've felt almost no motivation to blog. I almost wonder what the point of blogging for our community is these days. I think part of the problem is a lack of proper dialogue that can occur on blogs, as opposed to the forums. I remember wanting to start a thread over on the Cafe asking people what they wanted to get out of the magic blogging community, and I realized that most of the answers that would be provided would either be things that the forums were already well-suited to provide (and probably better able to, given the size of the community), or else contentious, controversial things that I admit I find fun reading myself, but don't actually have the will to propagate. Can blogs generate new ideas? Maybe, although like I said, I think I've personally run out of those. Even if I had some, I can't help but wonder if in this new age of Twitter people don't want to read more than 30 words at a time -- an immense challenge for my verbal diarrhea condition. Can blogs foster debate? Maybe they can try kick-starting debates off, but I think the dictatorial nature of blog management makes it difficult for the really fun stuff to get off the ground. I think, for the most part, magic blogs are probably going to go the way of most co-opted media... push product, push celebrity status, push brand. Already, recent perusals of The Devil's Picturebook magic blog monitor feel like nothing more than scanning through commercials.

I don't want to be one of those douchebags who's going to make a big deal about future plans of posting. There's nothing sillier than reading a post from some blogger vowing to put more effort into updating their blog regularly, only to see that post dated "2007" or some such, and it's at the top of the main page because there's been nothing since.

I guess I just wanted to share with anybody who's read the blog with any sort of regularity that energy and enthusiasm is low, and there's not likely going to be any more coming for a long time, unless something earth-shattering happens. Don't know when that might happen, or even if it might happen. In all honesty, if I could imagine what might bring that about, I'd be writing about it right now.

So... uh... Farewell...?

UPDATE: A more recent post outlining some recent silly internet fights has been moved back deeper into the blog. If that's your bag, you may read it here. Upon reflection, I just figured it'd be best to have this "Farewell" post mark the blog's finale.

More On The Interrelationship Between Yin and Yang

2009-02-03T08:21:00.004-05:00

One thing that's important to note is that while there are instances in which Yin and Yang mesh well together, it is possible for there to be conflict between the two. For instance, there are two points in the "Strengthening Your Magic 'Yin'" which I believe to be fundamentally true, and those are these... All other considerations being equal, I believe that visual magic is stronger in Yin than implied magic, and vanishes and productions of larger objects are also stronger in Yin. Here's a key thing -- I'm not saying they're better magic effects, necessarily, only that they're stronger in Yin.

The distinction between "strong in Yin" and "better magic effect" is important, because sometimes making an alteration in Yin has drawbacks in Yang. Say, for instance, you have the chance to either vanish and reproduce an elephant, or vanish and reproduce a coin. If Yin is the only factor, the elephant wins out. However, Yin is not the only factor, and methods will complicate matters somewhat. We have multiple ways of vanishing and reproducing a coin, so that allows us to build conviction in the effect, giving credibility to the Yin. However, there are only so many ways that we can vanish and reproduce an elephant, and the concessions required (distance, inordinate amount of cover, etc.) have a drastic impact on Yang, which can influence the overall effect.

Which brings us to the concept of visual magic. Again, very strong in Yin, since they get to see the effect and the moment the effect takes place, and there's no misdirection from it. However, so much of the visual magic that we do requires us to do a bad move at a time close to the effect, and the juxtaposition of the two weakens Yang, which has a negative overall effect on Yin. This is one of the great benefits of get-readies and half-moves, in that sometimes the get-ready itself can be covered, leading us into a position whereby when we want to demonstrate an effect (or else pull off the illusion of an innocent action). Then, after we punctuate with a pause or some such, when it becomes time to do the action that has an external reality to it, it's smoother and looks closer to the way it should as if we were using no method.

(At some point I'm going to need to re-write this, and reincorporate it into the previous notes)

Lucifer's Lawyer: On the interrelationship between Yin and Yang

2009-01-30T08:07:00.004-05:00

If this whole Yin Yang theory has any merit, then it explains a hell of a lot.

Go to the Cafe or any other forum, and ask people what they think magic is all about, or what magic should be about, and you'll get interesting answers. Observe these answers and you'll see that they frequently fall into two camps based around Yin and Yang. There are performers who believe it's all about entertainment, about making sure people have a good time, about making the magic beautiful-looking, etc. These are Yin thinkers. Then, you'll get performers who aim for conviction and want the impossibility to register. These are Yang thinkers. I personally subscribe (as you might be able to tell from the fact that I've quoted it three times earlier) to the following view, that Yin gives meaning to Yang, and Yang gives credibility to Yin. I believe that if you place too much stock in Yang, your magic risks being empty, and if you place too much stock in Yin, your magic risks being weak and unconvincing. Obviously there is some leeway, and one can lean one way or the other, perhaps even switching back and forth over the course of a show. Still, I think an overall unwavering discrepancy of one over the other can create a feeling of predictability at best, and monotony at worst. What's more, I think that if people were to acknowledge these two forces and see how they strengthen each other, rather than combat against each other, you'd see a lot of dumb magic theory arguments go away.

On the adage "Don't run when you're not being chased" I think this is indicative of a situation in which the performer wants to inject Yang when he should be content to stick with the Yin. The audience is perfectly content with the presentation as it unfolds, and the performer, out of guilt, wants to resolidify Yang where it's not needed. This can lead to a distraction and a tipping off of the presence of method unnecessarily. One thing that's worth noting, though, is that an effect can change over time, starting with Yin and moving into Yang simply by virtue of repetition. Also, some performers have even stated a preference of wanting to elicit spectators into chasing. The Scientist archetype, for instance, would consider it a failure if he didn't convince somebody of an effect under the highest scrutiny.

Billy McComb had an intriguing idea that you can really only kill an audience once per show. I'm curious about whether or not this can fall into the Yin Yang model. My first impression is that, if he'd been given this model as a way to rephrase the idea, that the final performance would be slightly heavier on the Yang. The reason why I think this is that so many of the blatantly Yin-favoured effects -- such as Paper Balls Over The Head, or else Tommy Wonderish failureffects, or else Penn & Teller exposure-based effects -- could not end a show. It would simply be too much of a deflation. People are drawn to a bold claim, and one thing a bold claim does is after tickling the Yin, bringing about interest in the Yang -- Can he come through on this claim? Is the evidence going to say that he really did it? What's more, a bold claim also relinquishes the element of surprise, which puts them on alert and demands better proofs in order to gain conviction.

Many archetypes quite obviously lean towards one or the other, and I think this is natural. However, I don't know where the Gambling Demonstrator lies in this duality. On the one hand, being able to cheat at cards is a feat heavy in meaning and significance, but on the other, conviction is frequently a part of the equation, as he's constantly reinforcing his claim to power as being legitimate. So, right now, dunno.

If there is a weakness in this model, it's that the Yin embodies many things that are present in other forms of theater, and as such strong Yin is insufficient to show what we feel is magic. Harry Potter movies, for instance, are full of Yin, but have absolutely no Yang because the question of whether or not anything people see is real is dismissed outright as irrelevant. I suppose one could turn around and say there that having all Yang and no Yin means that either you're showing a feat with no theatrical context, which would lean towards Charlatanry if we're talking about impossible-seeming feats. Or, alternately, there's not even art in it, since one can attain complete conviction in something that has nothing to do with art or magic -- isn't this what is done in courtroom trials all the time, the presentation of evidence to support a theory?

More later as I think of them...

Lucifer's Lawyer: Improving your magic "Yang"

2009-01-30T05:57:00.009-05:00

This is building on the Yin Yang model for a presented magic effect -- it is an attempt to create axioms that will show how to improve the Yang in the model. A quick review: A magic effect, when performed, will have two aspects at work, first the nature of the effect (Yin), and second, the conviction in the execution of the effect (Yang).

Here are some proposed ideas in order to improve magic "Yang". It is not meant to be an all-inclusive list -- meaning, the aim should not be to pack every single Yang enhancer into the effect. There's only room for so much.

* Whatever your method is, it is proof that you didn't meet a claim of magic (or mindreading, or whatever). Therefore, your method is your trick's greatest obstacle to conviction. It sucks, and therefore must be annihilated from the spectator's consciousness. That is your first priority.

* Even if you can successfully annihilate the actual method, a spectator might believe that you did something else non-magical to make the feat occur. Therefore, after you successfully annihilate the actual method, you must annihilate all other methods.

* To annihilate the suspicion of sleight-of-hand, you must not use sleight-of-hand. If you have to use sleight-of-hand, you should eliminate moves, shows of skill, and feelings that the spectator might have missed an action. You will also benefit by making it seem that you're incapable of sleight-of-hand, either in general or specific to the trick.

* To annihilate the suspicion of gimmicked props, you must not use gimmicked props. If you have to use gimmicked props, you should make them innocent-looking, borrowed (ie: plant the prop), or easily switchable (borrowed and then switched). What's more you must eliminate feelings that you either rely on gimmicked props or else could have used one or switched one in somewhere in the construction. You will also benefit by making it seem like you couldn't have used a gimmicked prop, or wouldn't resort to using such a base method.

* To annihilate the suspicion of self-workingness, you must not use a self-working method. If you have to use a self-working method, you should make the process feel as fair as possible. You will also benefit by making it seem like the process isn't a process at all.

* To annihilate the suspicion of stooges or hidden assistants, you must not use a stooge or a hidden assistant. If you have to use a stooge or hidden assistant, then make sure that they are not memorable and do not draw attention to themselves. They should feel like an entity divorced from the performer. A stooge should feel like any other spectator, and if possible they should effectively camouflage themselves amongst other spectators. You will also benefit by making it seem like all credit should go to you, rather than to any other entity.

* To annihilate the suspicion of misdirection, you must not use misdirection. If you have to use misdirection, the audience should not feel that they were looking away from anything. The best way to make them feel like they didn't miss anything is to ensure they are looking at something important to the effect, if not the effect itself. You will also benefit by continually returning focus to your hands.

* To annihilate the suspicion of a system of outs, you must not use a system of outs. If you have to use a system of outs, make sure (a) each out unfolds identically to other outs for the same trick, or (b) it looks like you're doing a completely different trick.

* If you are using sleight-of-hand, the fewer moves, the better.

* If you are using tricky apparatus, the more examinable the apparatus, the better.

* If you are using a self-working trick, the smaller the process, the better.

* If you are using a stooge, the more innocent the stooge, the better.

* If you are using a system of outs, the more consistent the presentation, the better.

* Sleight-of-hand betrays itself through many movements. As such, it follows that the most convincing sleight-of-hand will feel like no move happened.

* Apparatus betrays itself through introduction by the magician, rather than a spectator. As such, it follows that the most convincing use of apparatus will be one which the spectator supplies itself.

* Self-workingness betrays itself by having a long-drawn out process dictated by the magician. As such, it follows that the most convincing use of self-workingness will be a shorter, clearer process where everything feels controlled by the spectator.

* Stooges and hidden assistants betray themselves by being visible and interactive with the magician in a familiar way. As such, it follows that the most convincing use of stooges or hidden assistants is to make sure they are either psychologically invisible or truly invisible (ie: covered).

* Misdirection betrays itself by the shifting between more than one point of focus. As such, it follows that the most convincing use of misdirection will be one in which there is no apparent shifting of focus.

* Outs betray themselves through inconsistency of presentation. It follows that the external reality of the trick should be consistent each and every time.

* Every method should be analyzed to figure out how it betrays itself. Every method has something damning that has to be concealed -- if it has nothing, then it is not a non-magical method, it's the real deal.

* To annihilate the suspicion of any method that undermines your claim, you must not use a method that undermines your claim. If you have to use a method that undermines your claim, then the ideal situation is for the spectator to be told the method, and for them to reject that explanation outright by virtue of the evidence that they were given during the effect.

* From the standpoint of conviction, the highest level of conviction occurs when they will swear that you did not use, or could not have used, the method that you used. The second highest level is when they do not remember that you could have used the method you used. The third highest level is when they cannot see the method that you used.

* It is normal for a spectator to be suspicious. You are making a false claim. Spectators who guess methods are being absolutely reasonable.

* For moments of magic, the closer it is to your method, the more the two run the risk of being identified as related in a causative way. For sleight-of-hand, punctuation serves as a separating agent between method and effect. This is a corollary to the Yin axiom that visual magic is the best, since visual magic frequently betrays the moment that a method is taking place.

* According to Darwin Ortiz, the critical interval is the time between when a spectator believes the trick has begun and when the spectator believes it has finished. Every action during the critical interval represents a moment when the magician could have done something sneaky. Therefore, the higher the percentage of fair actions, the better.

* According to Wesley James, there are two aspects of illusion when it comes to a move. One if the positive illusion -- you really look like you're doing action A. One is the negative illusion -- you really look like you're not doing mutually exclusive action B. Despite the use of the terms "positive" and "negative", both of these are good illusions to have, and ideally, you can have elements of both. Even though the positive illusion seems to give great credence to Yin, it's possible that a very strong negative illusion can give even greater credence to Yang. Case in point: Paul Gertner's Cups and Balls using steel ball bearings. If he's manipulating the props by hand (ie: using sleight of hand) then it would make sense that the ball bearings would clang against the cups as the props were shuffled around. The lack of this evidence makes a good case for a negative illusion -- it must be magic, because if it were sleight of hand, we'd hear noise.

* According to Al Schneider, there are actions that a spectator will take for granted, and actions that a spectator will evaluate. If this is true, then the more you can conceal the method amongst actions the spectator will take for granted, the better.

* According to Whit Haydn, it is important to elicit agreement about the fairness of a state. It follows then that if you are able to gain agreement about the fairness of a state when the state is unfair, you are in the best position to show the effect (in essence, show proof about the new state).

* According to Dai Vernon, it is important to seek naturalness. The best way to do this is to examine what is unnatural in a context and eliminate it. If it is natural to do 18 Z-flourish cuts, then doing 18 Z-flourish cuts is good. If it is unnatural to turn a card face-down, then turning a card face-down is bad.

* It is possible to use different methods to show the same effect. According to Juan Tamariz, it is important to use methods that allow you to cancel the weaknesses of other methods. If you take this approach, then all evidence should point to every phase being identical, or barring that, as identical as possible.

* Juan Tamariz also spoke about using patter to cancel suspicions. It is important to understand what the most common suspicions are in order to make a given effect work, what the intuitive suspicions are, and to annihilate them.

* It is easier to cancel a method that you're not using than a method that you're using, since you can eliminate all evidence of every possible method except for the method you actually use. Then, the best you can do is conceal.

* Keep in mind that every cancelled suspicion will put other possible explanations under heightened scrutiny. As such, it makes sense that you should cancel your actual method earlier on, pushing them towards a false method that is gaining all of their scrutiny, before finally cancelling that.

* If you want to go beyond effects and build conviction in the cause of the magic, then it would help to be able to portray the same power using a number of methods that cancel each other. Say, for instance, that you're going to show that you can predict the future. It would be weak in Yang to employ a sleight-based force three times. It would be stronger in Yang to perform a sleight-based force once, a gimmicked-based force once, and then use a system of outs afterwards.

* To manipulate and undermine suspicions a spectator might have, you MUST understand what those suspicions are about any effect you do. Research and eliminate.

* This is a fundamental axiom: Your method sucks. You must not cling to it just because it's worked before. Instead, you must constantly evaluate your audience to see if the method will work.

* If you perform for an audience that knows method X, then it is riskier to use method X than it is to use a different method. If you perform for an audience that doesn't know method X, and method X is the most expedient method, use method X.

* The closer they are, the more they can control the prop and the proceedings, the more they can see everything, the greater the conviction in the effect. The further away they are, the less they can control the prop and the proceedings, and the less they are able to take visual account of everything, the weaker the conviction in the effect.

* Conviction wavers over time, unless new proofs are offered during that time. Then, conviction builds over time with each proof.

* Nothing done in the performer's hands will ever be as fair as something done by the spectator themselves. The best false shuffle done by a magician might be good enough to persuade an audience that the deck is shuffled, but it will never be as good as a spectator shuffling the deck themselves.

* Nothing done with a prop that the magician supplies will ever be as fair as something done by a prop supplied by a spectator. A magician-supplied prop might be more aesthetic, more clear, or more expedient, but it will never be as fair.

* Nothing done with a self-working process will ever be as fair as a process truly dictated by a spectator. A magician-directed process might be entertaining, but so long as he maintains control, it is never fair.

* If you claim magic, then your claim is prop-neutral. If your claim is prop-specific, then you are not showing magic, you are showing skill with that prop. The best way to reinforce a claim is to repeat it. However, remember that our method is the key weakness is our effect execution. The best way to let an audience figure out a method that initially fooled them is to repeat that exact same method.

* If you do not tell them what you're about to do, they won't be as ready to know what to be suspicious of. However, while this allows you to fool them, the highest level of conviction will occur when they feel mentally prepared to see the effect, they see it, and then they're baffled anyway.

* It is possible to take advantage of strong Yin to serve as misdirection (in an abstract sense) away from the method. The more they are paying attention to the wand as a source of magic power, the less they are conceiving of the wand as a suspicious method-enabling object. The more they look forward to that moment of apparent mind-reading, the less they are paying attention to the way you handle a billet.

* Yin also provides opportunities to change points of focus, and degree of intensity of focus. A joke can create a release of tension. Intense focus on your part can provoke intensity of focus on their part.

* Yin also creates different problems for conviction. Even if you can convincingly change $1 into $100, then you have an issue where spectators can ask "Well, if he can do that, why is hoping for a tip after the performance?" In general, the lower the claim, the easier it is to gain conviction. The higher the claim, the more evidence is needed to gain conviction. It is also possible to have a claim so high that no amount of evidence will support it.

* Also, if the Yin is weak, it will dilute interest in the Yang. Remember, Yin and Yang are not mutually exclusive: Yin gives meaning to Yang, and Yang gives credibility to Yin.

* Resources that are good studies for Yang... Darwin Ortiz's Designing Miracles, pretty much anything by Whit Haydn, Juan Tamariz's The Magic Way, Gary Kurtz's Leading With Your Head (to understand misdirection), (more to come later?)...

Note: This is a first draft, and liable to change.

Lucifer's Lawyer: Improving your magic "Yin"

2009-01-30T02:46:00.010-05:00

This is building on the Yin Yang model for a presented magic effect -- it is an attempt to create axioms that will show how to improve the Yin in the model. A quick review: A magic effect, when performed, will have two aspects at work, first the nature of the effect (Yin), and second, the conviction in the execution of the effect (Yang).

Here are some proposed ideas in order to improve magic "Yin". It is not meant to be an all-inclusive list -- meaning, the aim should not be to pack every single Yin enhancer into the effect. There's only room for so much.

* The effect is clear and unambiguous. Refer to Dai Vernon's ideas of a good effect: "I put my foot on the card, and then it changed." vs. "Well, he took four Jacks... or were they Queens? No, they were Jacks, and then he put them in the deck and shuffled, or maybe I shuffled? Can't remember. And then he started dealing some cards and they... oh well, it was very clever, whatever it was he did!"

* The effect is inherently meaningful, or made meaningful in an appropriate way. For instance, the meaning in doing a pickpocket routine where you steal a card from a sealed card case, will not be as strong as actually pickpocketing possessions from somebody.

* The execution is of an entertaining style. In other words, there are aspects of humour, sex appeal, aesthetic beauty, lyrical beauty, metaphorical depth, etc.

* The audience is educated by matters that are interesting to them. For instance, if an audience goes to see how gambling cheats operate, then all things being equal, they will enjoy the experience more if they are given more information. First corollary: By with-holding, you can stimulate their imagination. While this can also be entertaining, if their aim was to learn (or, at least, their aim to learn outstrips their desire to be entertained), they will leave frustrated.

* The atmosphere is appropriate to the setting, the character, and the effect. Relevant and authentic details are added to build upon the atmosphere, and irrelevant and inauthentic details are discarded. The Yin will be strong with a clown doing spongeballs. The Yin will be weak with Criss Angel doing spongeballs (This is also a function of style). This can also be aided if the atmosphere borrows from schemata as it figures into the real world, so long as it is appropriate to the effect.

* Props are chosen so as to highlight important points of effect. For instance, if you want to make two things switch places, it works best if the two things are not identical-looking. Switching a coin and a poker chip is better. Switching a crumpled-up dollar bill with a sugar-packet is better still. (Switching a man with an apple, better still?) This incongruency can also work with numbers (eg: Four Aces switching places with Two Jokers).

* The props are easily-recognized, or else easily-introduced to the audience. The audience should not be unduly distracted by props that feel foreign to the proceedings.

* Movements are kept to a minimum. Punctuation is used to create start-stop gaps that isolate sleight-of-hand movement from the revelation of the effect. While there can be actions, they must point towards the effect (or the apparent cause of the effect), and not towards the actual method. Things should stay within frame.

* For changes, the location of the effect is kept static. If a coin vanishes from within the same space we just saw it (ie: Fickle Nickle), the Yin is stronger than if it vanishes from a different hand where we saw it last.

* For teleportations and/or transpositions, barriers and/or distance are used to make the transposition obvious. Corollary: If the distance is so great that we have feelings of the Too Perfect Theory coming into play, then the problem is not one of Yin, but of Yang. Also, the points of vanish and reappearance should be fixed. (see previous)

* Also, for changes, we get to see the change as it happens. Barring that, we get to see the change in stages. Barring that, we get to see the change instantly. Barring that, we get to see the change as quickly as possible. If the change is a natural-occuring one (eg: a growing plant), then speed instead is highlighted. This might also apply to vanishes and/or productions.

* For productions, given equal level of convictions, bigger is better, and if you can produce something from a container that is too small to carry it, even better.

* Texture is added to ensure the potential for breaks in monotony. We do not do fifteen pick-a-card tricks in a row. However...

* Theme and consistency are both present. We do not do 17 arbitrarily different tricks that are all completely unrelated to each other.

* There is a strong (apparent) causative agent, and the agent is well-dramatized and fleshed out. A performer who simply names what somebody is thinking of is employing weaker Yin than a performer who strains a bit and can get key details, but not always a perfect match. Paradoxically, failures can create strong Yin. Furthermore, the effects chosen should illustrate the cause as explicitly as possible. For instance, "I can change cards magically" will be better illustrated if the cards can change without any excessive handling, or better yet, with the cards in the control of the spectator. An example of Yin-weakening could be the following -- the performer makes the claim that he can read minds, and then does so by using a book test with a long and complicated page-choice procedure involving lots of math.

* Further to the above... If this strong causative agent is in play and under the control of the magician, then there is a magic moment. If the causative agent is NOT under the control of the magician, then the magic moment is a surprise to everybody, including the magician.

* The causative agent is inherently meaningful. This can be helpful in making the effects meaningful.

* There is situational meaning in the effect. For instance, there is conflict that has been brought about between opposing forces, or (and?) jeopardy if the performer fails. For instance, having a performer timed to unlock a lock is weaker in Yin than having that same performer trying to unlock a lock that's keeping him chained to the ground right below a massive car that's suspended by ropes that are on fire.

* The audience does not have their status lowered from a given mean. (Sorry if that sounds unnecessarily abstract) It's worth noting that a performer could establish himself and raise his own status over and above that mean, and thereby create a large status gap between himself and the audience. However, the audience (or representatives from the audience) are not made to feel like fools, are not put in danger, do not have their possessions destroyed, are not insulted, etc.

* A corollary to the above: If the environment is one of comedy, that rule may become blurry. Malicious hecklers can have their status lowered, or else a borrowed bill may end up soaked in lemon juice. These things can have positive effects on Yin.

* Through a contract between spectators and magician, all normal matters of Yin are set aside, so that the audience is knowingly focusing on Yang. Paradoxically, this can be made strong in Yin because the audience is aware of why there are none of the usual dressings-up of Yin. They do not feel the lack, and understand that any normal matters of Yin would be an unwelcome distraction.

* Also, if the Yang is terribly weak, this will dilute Yin. It will keep the audience from being able to accept any claim made by the performer, since the implied cause will be transparent and rendered false. Remember, Yin and Yang are not mutually exclusive: Yin gives meaning to Yang, and Yang gives credibility to Yin.

* Resources that are good studies for Yin... Darwin Ortiz's Strong Magic, anything by Robert Neale and Eugene Burger, Pete McCabe's Scripting Magic, Henning Nelms's Magic and Showmanship, (more to come later?)...

Note: This is a first draft, and is liable to change.

The Yin Yang concept in magic

2009-01-19T19:24:00.004-05:00

I'm test-driving this theoretical model for magic. This is based upon a discussion in which somebody talked at the Cafe about the importance of strengthening conditions, at which point people immediately responded of the potential dangers for doing so.

Quoth from the Cafe...

There's give and take. The fact of the matter is, not everybody in the audience comes to a show with the same mindset. Magic operates in a sort of Yin Yang duality. The Yin of it is all about the effects, the spectacular things that can happen, being able to see amazing feats and knowing what the world might be like if magic were real. This is how magic applies to imagination. The Yang of it is all about the conviction in the effects, the elimination of non-magical explanations for the feats. This is how magic applies to our rationality. Some performers can operate in both worlds perfectly. Others tend to lean one way or the other in terms of their strengths.

Our audiences are also a mixed bag. Even with sophisticated, logical audiences, there will be a difference between changing $1 into $100, than changing a white piece of paper into a green one, even if the surrounding conditions are identical. The Yin element here is undeniable. That said, many tricks that one might think are lousy can be improved simply by strengthening the conditions. Take the 21 card trick, and change it so that the spectator can shuffle the cards themselves, peek at any card they want, shuffle them again, lay them out in rows themselves, and at this point, when the magician asks what row it's in, they only have to think the answer, rather than say it out loud. If the performer can still find the card, we've got a really good trick on our hands. Here, the Yang element is undeniable.

The key is to remember that the Yin and Yang operate in a balance. Yin gives meaning to Yang, whereas Yang gives credibility to Yin. If we keep in mind Eugene Burger's ideas of texture, and make sure that our effects are able to appeal to multiple different mentalities, we can have a richer show as a result. People who come looking for fun revelations will be happy, people who come looking to be bamboozled will be happy, and people who come looking for both will be very happy.

One might say that routines with such rigid test conditions might appeal to a limited audience. I don't necessarily agree. Magicians are people too, and they can be entertained by a magic show as much as anybody. The difference for them is that experience in dealing with magic and methods has rendered them cynical about the Yin. However, tricks with strong Yang-focused effect can still appeal to them. But magicians aren't the only ones who are jaded. One reason why I hate the term "layman" is that it casts a random spectator into a generic mentality, which experience has told me is a false projection. Do three of your best tricks, different tricks that you feel are of about equal entertainment value, for a hundred different "laymen", and then ask them what their favourites are, and I don't think you'll get a hundred identical responses. Different tricks will appeal to different spectators for different reasons, and while the strengthening of conditions might seem like a boring process to apply to a trick, there will be those who appreciate it if it's done well, and will like it over another trick which is richer in Yin and weaker in Yang.

By the way, I'd been meaning to try to marry this concept with the Erland Elephant Archetypes for a while. Tyler Erickson mentioned that he thought a visual model of some kind would help make the differences between the Archetypes clearer, and the best I could come up with was a sort of Yin Yang symbol, with some archetypes on the Yin side (Mentalist, Reader, Superman, Clown, Charlatan, Manipulator, Allegorist, Bizarrist), some on the Yang side (Jester, Scientist, Magus), one straddling the middle (Mechanic), and one outside the circle (Gambling Demonstrator). At this point I'm not sure it's the right visual model (I'm not married to the locations of the various archetypes on the Yin Yang symbol), but I think it's starting to go in the right direction.

Open Offer to Other Magic Blogs

2009-01-13T03:42:00.004-05:00

Just thought I'd make this announcement to other magic blogs out there. If your blog has got a newsfeed (such as RSS) and you'd like it listed on Ye Olde Magick Blogge's sidebar, let me know and perhaps we can come to some sort of reciprocal arrangement.

Videos: Tommy Cooper

2009-01-09T16:24:00.003-05:00

Taken from the old new blog... "After a conversation last night with Travis Bernhardt, Busker Extraordinaire, the realization dawned on me that perhaps none of you guys is as interested in the development of the Sleightly Directory as I am, so here are some Tommy Cooper videos."

Spoon Jar Jar Spoon & Card-Finding Duck

Spotted Handkerchiefs

Magic Cloak

"Stuff"

...with Willem Ruis

Slow Motion

The Vanishing Clock Trick

Multiplying Bottles

What is the best way to study Erdnase?

2009-01-09T16:17:00.003-05:00

In case people were curious, I ran a poll over at the soon to be defunct sleightly.com blog asking people what they thought was the best way to study Erdnase. Here were the results...

What's the best way to study Erdnase?

"Expert At The Card Table". Duh. (47%, 33 Votes)

Darwin Ortiz's Annotated Expert At The Card Table. (34%, 24 Votes)

Dai Vernon's Revelation (no "s", recently published). (9%, 6 Votes)

Erdnase? Gesundheit. (4%, 3 Votes)

Wesley James's DVD set. (1%, 1 Votes)

Allan Ackerman's DVD set. (1%, 1 Votes)

Dai Vernon's Revelations. (1%, 1 Votes)

Marlo on Erdnase (Jon Racherbaumer). (1%, 1 Votes)

Total Voters: 70

Given that the olde blogge gets a wee bit more traffic than the sleightly.com blog did, I might try to re-run the poll here if I can figure out the widgetry for it. Interesting to see that neither of the recent DVD offerings got much in the way of vocal support (both lost to the "None of the above" equivalent).

In any case, congratulations are in order to the original text.

If you can congratulate a text, that is.

Maybe I can simply congratulate my own text.

Or, at the very least, stop using it as a coaster.

(Oh yeah, I went there.)

Selling Out: Conversion of sleightly.com

2009-01-09T16:07:00.003-05:00

I've decided to convert sleightly.com over to a proper magician's promotional site for meself. I don't suspect there are many people who read both this blog and the blog I tried to get going over there, but in any case, I'm going to be bringing some of the stuff that was over there and republish it here, if only to clear up the clutter (while maintaining a record). I'll be keeping the directory that got started, but it'll no longer be the main focus of the site.

So, if you see anything here that looks like a repeat from over there, that's because it is. In fact, there might be a magic trick I wrote here, rewrote there, which I'll be rewriting again over here. Yeesh. Plus some Tommy Cooper videos. (In fact, I'll get on those right now.)

Also, I'm going to be breaking my "No Ads" policy, in order to put up something here that will hopefully drive traffic over to there, in case random surfers that come by here are looking to hire a magician in Vancouver.

In any case, just thought I'd give people a heads up, so that if you want to follow in the development of the page, you're free to do it.

Idearrhia: Cause and Effect, where the spectator loses

2009-01-06T16:42:00.009-05:00

Christ, Derren Brown was really on to something.

Imagine a trick where the spectator always loses, or is incorrect, or misses something. Is this a bad trick?

On first inspection, the answer would seem to be an unequivocable 'Yes', and yet, people still do these tricks, and swear by them. I think the problem has been that magicians, in trying to wrap their brains around it, put too much emphasis on that moment where the spectator discovers their mistake, or their loss, or whatever. Essentially, the moment of the effect.

Derren Brown's brilliant thinking (to me, anyway) was identifying the fact that people in the audience can be just as compelled by the cause of the effect as they are the effect itself. Consider that many mentalism routines involve a revelation of a prediction or a thought or whatnot. Technically, the moment that the sign turns around to show that the word matches (or whatever) is NOT the effect. The effect technically has already happened -- it happened the moment the mentalist apparently wrote something down.

And yet the applause doesn't happen during that particluar moment of the effect, as it might after a magical surprise. It happens on the revelation, when the cause of the effect has been proven, the promise has been delivered despite whatever obstacles were in place.

Anyways, that's just one of a great deal of differences between magicians and mentalists, but that idea, focusing on what's causing the effect rather than just the effects themselves, can have a massive impact upon the way we view our magic as a whole. Meaning, if we go back to the sorts of tricks where the spectator is proven wrong, it's less important what the effect is that shows them to be wrong, and more important to instead understand the cause of that effect, and whether THAT is going to insult them.

So how do we mollify the effects of spectator failure? Some ideas...

Cause-based rationales

1) The performer is just so damned good at what he does, you know you're going to lose. That might sound arrogant at first, but think of this... If you sit down with Kasparov to play chess, you know you're going to lose. It's a foregone conclusion. There is no shame in such a loss. At the moment you resign your king, are you going to be pissed off? Of course not. It would be unreasonable, given the default unlikelihood of you winning anyway. In fact, if you did win, THAT might be cause for upset. I think the major difficulty with adopting this role is that so many magicians come into magic as a means of improving self-esteem, and they're unsure how to handle that "expert" role in a graceful, non-obnoxious manner.

2) The cause of the failure has nothing to do with the spectator. I remember watching a magic store clerk demonstrate the ring and coil. This was a simple Royal Magic or Tenyo dealer item, and he got five good minutes out of it. Besides being an excellent lesson in showmanship, it also had an interesting premise. "If I hypnotize you, you won't be able to get the ring off the coil." He then proceeded to demonstrate how the hypnotism was what made people fail. Despite the fact that the presentation was tongue in cheek, it was very smart, because it removed the jeopardy inherent in failure. A serious presentation (if it's convincing) could be just as effective.

3) The game itself is crooked. Perhaps this really just an extension of #3 and #1 above, but I feel it's another effective way to get the most out of something like con game demonstrations, or perhaps even something with a traditional magic plot. I've been doing this with 3 card monte itself (it plays better for older audiences than the story presentation does, in my hands, anyway), and the fact of the matter is that it's true. The game itself IS crooked. That's why it works.

4) Right about being wrong. This is a common one used in 3 card monte presentations. Instead of asking "Where do you think the ace is?" you ask "Where do you think most people would say where the ace is?" This has the nice advantage of discouraging guessing, and encouraging picking the wrong card, while taking the responsibility of actually being right off the spectator. Instead, they get to be right about their mistake.

There are also plenty of ways to soften the blow, not necessarily through altering the cause of being incorrect or losing, but instead just playing with the format.

Format-Based Solutions

5) The victory does not establish a switch in status between you and the performer. I think this is a key one. Michael Finney has a routine where people need to guess where the spongeball is, and of course they guess wrong a lot. At the end of the day, though, everything about Michael Finney's character is such that most people probably wouldn't want to switch places with him in real life. You're not being beaten by somebody threatening.

6) Change the target of failure. This is a reliable way used by many people to soften the blow in gambling demonstrations... rather than creating a magician vs. spectator scenario, instead you tell a story in which two characters are pitted against each other, and you narrate that story. Interestingly enough (from my experience using this approach, anyway) spectators will still feel a rather potent emotion with each loss, but the loss itself puts no shame upon the spectator.

7) Punishing the bad spectator. I don't care who says that this is a bad approach to dealing with spectators, there are those who can do it and do it well. Like it or not, one of the viable performance models for a magician is the maker of mischief, and many people like to see that in action. A performer who can take on a daunting challenge from somebody outside his control and survive by his wits is offering great theater. This won't work for everybody, but stand-up comics know that you can't let a heckler take over your show, and watching a heckler get shut down is very entertaining for an audience (go do a Youtube search on "Rogan" and "heckler" if you need a quick example). Many magicians fall into a strange sweet spot between comedy and magic, and for these performers in particular, being able to maintain control is vital. Such an interaction is so good, in fact, that for some it's almost worth stooging.

8) If the contrast between the winner and the loser is inherently funny in the effect. A big football player is brought on stage with a little girl. The performer places a steel ball onto the center of the stage. The football player is repeatedly unable to lift the thing, while the little girl has no trouble. Who is the football player going to get mad at? The magician? How can he? He's letting the little girl win! Darwin Ortiz talks about this in Strong Magic.

9) Where the loss serves as an object lesson. This is a tricky one as it almost seems to cross the line from art to propaganda, but many people still do this. Some card performers will open their show by saying, "Hi, I'm Somebody McRandom, and I'm here today to show you why you shouldn't play cards with strangers." All of a sudden, the perspective upon the loss changes. This is probably an extension of some of the ideas already talked about, but by switching the format over to a definite lesson, then failures are acceptable and even expected, since education is frequently about the demonstration of mistakes, and either learning how to overcome them, or else learning how to avoid future mistakes.

10) With the loss (or losses) as a precursor to ultimate victory. Imagine this situation (if it seems commercially unviable, imagine it's a casual impromptu thing). The spectator is given a deck of cards, and told that they must cut to an Ace. Not just any Ace, but the Ace of Spades, and that they have five chances to do it. If they get it, they get a standing ovation. If they lose, they get booed. Arguably, each loss in the first four chances at cutting is vital in order to truly maximize the payoff of the victory on the last cut. If they don't get to feel that sense of loss, how can they truly enjoy the sense of victory? Obviously, certain things would need to be in place to ensure that this works, the main one being that if the magician can be given any tangible credit for the victory (ie: a method somehow insinuates itself), the risk will be there that the spectator was being toyed with all along for the magician's amusement. Obviously, the magician will end up getting credit for making the experience happen somehow, but even in that case, the cause of it must remain a true mystery.

11) The consolation prize. Osterlind had a great idea with his presentation of Bank Night to soften the blow of not being able to guess which envelope has the $100. Look it up. My own approach was slightly different, and I found this worked with some of the older kid audiences I had in Korea. Four envelopes, one of them contains a special prize. Three envelopes are selected and swapped around etc. and finally, each person opens up their envelope to see what they got. The three kids would end up with a folded paper that said "Free Piece of Candy", which is what they got. I'd open up my own to show the 10,000 Won bill (less impressive than it sounds -- it's the largest bill they have in Korea, but it works out to about $10 Canadian). In any case, the blow of losing is softened, but there's still a fun moment where the kids raz each other for not having switched the envelope one more time. Assuming you're not doing this with every trick you do in that show, I think that properly handled it can add some nice texture to the show as a hole. (For instance, I had plenty of other routines where all credit goes to the kid for winning)

12) Systematically disproving counter-claims. If I make a claim to power and do an effect to show it, then it makes sense that if somebody disbelieves the claim, they would have a counter-claim to how it could have happened. In its purest form what we're talking about is overtly cancelling methods and eliminating false solutions (for this, go straight to Tamariz's The Magic Way), although it doesn't have to be so rigidly structured as that (refer to Dai Vernon's discussion on the Ambitious Card, the "Jack of Hearts Trick", in the Revelations DVD series). I think being humble or even eccentric about the claim is a great way to diffuse the challenge, and almost downplaying the significance of the feat to keep it from seeming like you're trying to establish superiority through the feat. The thing here is that, unlike games of chance or whatnot where there's a key moment of loss or being shown incorrect, the whole structure of the routine is that it's meant to withstand scrutiny, much like defending a thesis statement (only more fun).

13) Being wrong results in a better outcome. One big difference between the standard Two In The Hands, One In The Pocket routine (ie: "How many are there here?"), and Eugene Burger's approach to the Sponge Balls, is that, even though the spectator is consistently guessing incorrectly about how many balls are in the hand, there is more potential for an exciting surprise when the spectator opens their own hand to see the change. Also, assuming you were the generous sort, you could play some sort of game with a young spectator, in which a "bad" prize magically changes into a "good" prize.

I realize some of those overlap a fair bit. I'll try to write more as I can think of them. If anybody else has any ideas and wants to share them, I'd be all ears. (Updated twice so far...)

The Value of a Secret, part 3

2009-01-04T00:42:00.006-05:00

I feel sort of bad because these "sequels" to the original Value of a Secret entry seem to be getting progressively shorter...

Anyways, one question that's come up about taking this sort of approach to secrecy is this... How can we ensure the art continues to grow? The argument being that if there is a downside to taking this sort of heightened secrecy approach to magic methods, presentations, etc., it's that there is the potential for there to be a stunting in the development of some magicians, and perhaps even magic itself. And there's some merit in that. If some guy who's sitting on 500 bits of genius passes on without having them recorded for posterity, and nobody around the guy had access to it because he was so secretive, then we're talking about a huge potential loss for the magic community.

So how can these secrets get passed on, while still maintaining the integrity of this new credo? Well, it's fairly obvious (to me, anyways) that we can't rely on magic stores to keep the good stuff out of the hands of anybody who walks in the door, nor can we really count on online stores to be able to verify that everybody who buys something is worthy of it. The more I think about it, the more I get the feeling that one thing we'll have to give up on is third-party distribution (assuming we don't want to give up on publishing altogether). In other words, if I develop my Amazing Watch Transposition routine (patent pending), and I decide that it's worthwhile to share, then I have to make sure that people can only get it through me. As restrictive as that is, I think the other options are basically teetering on the edge of the slippery slope of rampant dissemination, and the better the material is, the more likely it'll end up being disseminated.

So, that would be the first step, and I think it's a logical one. If I don't want every magician out there performing the Amazing Watch Transposition, then I've got to make sure that it only goes to those I can trust.

But how do you know if you can even trust them? That's hard to say, although it might be answered by first making sure that you yourself are trustworthy, and then being able to identify that characteristic in other people. And sometimes nothing makes someone more trustworthy than having something to lose...

Which brings us to the next step, which people might think is just as ridiculous as my getting-rid-of-third-party-distribution idea, but here it is... Say you've performed lots of magic for people. Chances are you know what's worked really well for you, and what hasn't. Just that information alone is valuable, and is worth keeping a secret, even if everything else about the routines you do has been published. Almost all of us have access to more magic methods than we know what to do with, and it'd be nice if we could just get some sort of guideline about what's good and what sucks, based on more than just personal taste stemming from first impressions. It would certainly make research more productive.

What's essentially going on here is the reclaiming of secrets. Tyler Erickson (the guy who started all this recent insane nonsense on my part) knows of a fair number of routines out there that are published and available to anybody with an internet connection and a credit card. He's got some that he uses himself. What he doesn't do is necessarily let you know which ones he does, and which ones work, and what makes them work. Don't kid yourself, this is valuable information. I've already been getting emails requesting I tip some of it.

Once more, once you start getting that information from your own experience, you've got something that others don't have. I'd even be willing to wager the following... Take two guys, and give one guy a full year's experience with three magic tricks, and give the other guy a million dollars and access to anything he wants from a magic store, and the first guy will have something of value that the second guy cannot buy. If nothing else, if by some chance that first guy had experience with a trick that I wanted to do, I'd be just as interested to talk to him as I would the second guy, who presumably would have access to more approaches and methods for the same trick in his library. Magic literature ad copy has plenty of instances in which some famous magician has decided to tip his work on some known plot, and people snap that stuff up. So, if nothing else, recognize the value that's inherent in your own experiences in performing a trick.

In fact, this is probably one instance where we can capitalize on the problem that we're surrounded with, that of too much information being "out there". In some cases the approaches are so numerous that you're lost in a sea of possibilities. This is something the guy with the million bucks is going to be stuck with. Experience with a trick will give you access to strategies that work. You'll know how to cover your angles without looking like you're covering your angles. You'll know how to deal with the unruly spectator. You'll know how to repeat the trick by changing things up. You'll have figured out the right patter. You'll know things that I can't even categorize here. Hell, even your failures are valuable knowledge, assuming you've put even a bit of thought into figuring out why something didn't work. Imagine somebody else just started doing some coin plot, and you've been doing it for years, and you've tested it on every audience imaginable and learned from ten massive mistakes... you're now in a position to save some guy from ten embarassing experiences. That's value you can offer.

As a quick aside, there's also the option of coming up with new material on your own. If you're in this situation, and you've got original stuff that you've tested and know works, then you've got even more to offer. For those who've had difficulty with this, the original approach above of reclaiming secrets is worthwhile, but one reason to really give the whole creativity thing a shot is that, besides being able to develop material for yourself, you might in the process of brainstorming develop something which you can't use for yourself but that would be perfect for somebody else. Now you're in the rather envious position of having something of value that you can use to your own advantage, which, even if it gets "out there", won't ruin your own situation as a performer. Don't be that guy who writes it all up in some e-book and gives it away for the sake of notoriety. Use it to actually better yourself as a magician, not as a wannabe celebrity.

At this point, assuming you've put some work in, and you've managed to extract value from your experiences, you've now got something to barter with, and I believe this is where you can start to gain knowledge while still maintaining the spirit of the original credo of not sharing things irresponsibly. Rather, when you start to talk to magicians, if they need something you have, then you get to dictate terms. Maybe you'll decide that they can use it in their show, but they can't publish it or explain it to other magicians. (If they protest that this is unreasonable, that this goes against the spirit of openness and comraderie amongst magicians... fine, don't share it with them.) Maybe they can't even show it to other magicians, but they can do it for regular people. Maybe -- and you'll think I'm nuts on this one -- they can see it but they're not allowed to perform it or pass it along. Don't laugh, though. Sometimes there's amazing value to be had in a simple object lesson. Say, if everybody is stuck in a presentational rut with the Cups and Balls (Not hard when you consider how many take the old "At this time, I'd like to perform a classic of magic" approach), and somebody else comes along and shows you a totally novel approach, if you've got an ounce of creativity you can figure out how the plot is a personal expression of the magician, and get an idea of how to look at it from that standpoint, rather than the cliche'd standpoint.

Which leads us to another problem... more and more methods everyday, but presentations becoming ubiquitous. The Bill To Lemon, for instance, kills. The problem is that, back in the day, there was actually a good reason for the bill to appear inside a lemon (namely, it was a bar trick, and bars have lemons). Meaning, the time is pretty ripe for the bill to start appearing in something else that's naturally germane to the situation. Found something good? Keep it to yourself!

In fact, it doesn't even have to be something exotic like a bill-to-impossible location effect. Found a unique way to do the old set-key-card-and-find-from-a-ribbon-spread that is perfect for your character? GOLD. Don't worry too much if the method isn't as deceptive as you like... fuck the method, in fact, because that can always be improved. It's the presentation that's gold. Don't let anybody else have the chance to beat you to the punch by showing your presentation to people before YOU get to. (And, unfortunately, the only way we can trust that won't happen is to keep our yaps shut.)

So, assuming you've identified the value in what you have, and you've chosen to adopt this spirit of secrecy, then what's left, assuming you have a need of some kind, is to find people who can fill it, presumably in exchange for something you've got to offer. Here's where it gets tricky... I don't think that we're easily put into situations whereby two magicians can fill each others' needs so perfectly. In most cases, there are going to be those amongst us who have more needs than assets, and those who have more assets than needs. I guess, then, this would be my plea to those who actually do have more good stuff than they can use... if somebody comes to you in confidence, looking for help, and you've got something of value that you can offer, recognize if they're willing to make the commitment, and let something go. After that, judge the manner in which they treat the information you've given them, and if they've held up their part of the bargain and shown themselves capable of valuing and keeping the secret, or else if they've parted with something near and dear to them (regardless of whether or not you can actually use it), then consider it a successful transaction, perhaps something to build on. A reconstruction of the underground scene, if you will.

And I guess there is one last thing to request. If you do end up being one of those guys who has more assets than needs, please, don't be a twit about it. If you've got to publish them all, fine. If you've got to keep all the secrets to yourself, fine. But don't be that ass-bag who can't shut up about how much underground material you've got access to, how many big names you're giving handjobs under the table to, or how elite both you and the people you allow into your circle are. Don't talk it, live it.

Even now, from a personal standpoint, it's my wildest dream not to meet people who read this blog and tell me "Oh wow, it sounds like you know a lot of inside stuff", because to be honest I really don't know all that much. Instead, I'd much rather meet a magician who does something good, and when I ask where it's from, he gives an apologetic shrug, before shaking his head with a twinkle in his eye.

The more of that I start seeing, then the brighter the future of magic will start being to me.

The Value of a Secret... (part 2)

2008-12-30T20:04:00.005-05:00

I didn't realize that the last post would gain the feedback that it did, and last night, amongst some other magicians, a potentially weird situation cropped up that I think adds a weird dimension to the whole secret-keeping thing. Maybe it's worth exploring... dunno...

Assuming that it's time to start enforcing the keeping of secrets, what do we apply it to? Methods? Effects? Presentations? And who do we keep these secrets from?

It's hard to set up a universal code of conduct for it. In the last post on the topic, I outlined a sort of gradiation for secrecy that I witnessed in Minnesota, and it was a complicated one. To summarize... (1) Bob keeps some things completely secret from Steve. (2) Bob alludes to something around Steve, but gives no details. (3) Bob shares the details with Steve, but Steve cannot even talk about it around Dan. (4) Bob shares the details with Steve, and Steve can allude to it around Dan, but cannot share details. (5) Steve can share the details with Dan, but Dan must be quiet about it with Joe. And so on...

This sort of thing is meant to be approximate. It's less about definind a rigid structure regarding the categories of secrecy, and more as an illustration about the attitude that I think magicians could benefit from. It's this attitude that I've been trying to work with, and obviously the biggest trouble comes if you're at the level where Bob shares something with Steve, but Steve can't even allude to it around Dan, and Bob, Steve and Dan are all friends.

This is what ended up happening with a buddy last night. He shared a routine with the boys that used a move that looked very similar to something I'd shared with him in confidence. He and I had to have a quick discussion to sort it all out -- in the end, it turned out to be his own move (not the one I shared) but it wasn't immediately apparent. The interesting thing was this -- the question came up as to whether or not it would have been ok to employ something else for the boys in that context that really was something shared in secret confidence. This led us to trying to figure out the terms with which these secrets were going to be shared. In the end, I had to say something, that really bothered me to say, which was this. "If I thought that you'd do Move X around the boys, I wouldn't have shared it with you."

Yee-ouch. Sounds pretty harsh and confrontational, doesn't it? And yet it's the way it is, because in the end, that was the level of confidence with which the move was shared with me.

I guess the weird thing is this. When I think about the stuff that Tyler passed along to me, I can feel alright about him dictating harsh terms to me about the stuff's dissemination. But when I've got to turn around and start dictating terms to others, it gets more complicated -- essentially, because I'm pretty weak that way. (More on this in a second) I'm not used to having that sort of responsibility, and enforcing the secrecy. It's quite tough.

In any case, after an apology (on my part, to be clear, since it was his move he was performing) I think we managed to sort it out, although it's not really been talked about to the entire group, so I guess more awkward dialogue awaits. That said, if anybody out there is going to try to take on this same experiment that I am, keep in mind that there is potential awkwardness awaiting you. Better to make sure that this stuff is all clarified ahead of time.

As for which is most important to protect -- methods, strategies, effects, and presentations -- I don't think it's really that easy to say. There are obvious benefits to keeping a presentation secret, but sometimes all these things interoperate organically. Let's say you've got a retention of vision vanish that uses a brand new method. On the one hand, if you're using it for a standard coin vanish and reappearance that could be done in any coin flurry, it can be regarded as a standalone sleight. If, on the other hand, you've got a really unique presentation idea, and that specific retention of vision move fits perfectly with that presentation, you might see a stronger relationship between the two. I know that sounds vague, but it's highly possible. I already have this problem with a card move and the routine I've got in mind for it -- the move could have applications in other routines, but it is PERFECT for this routine, for a bunch of reasons. As such, I think it's possible that all this paranoid secrecy can apply to anything regardless of whether it's a move, a strategy, an effect, or a presentation.

I mentioned earlier about feedback on the past blog entry... Over at the Magic Hat forum, a discussion came up about the last blog entry which led to a discussion about the value of this sort of secret-keeping. One guy made the point that he envisions a community where magicians can come together and share secrets without fear or worries about it getting out amongst non-magicians. Setting aside my own personal feelings about this sort of situation, there's one BIG setback about this sort of ideal community, and that's this Tylerism: Sometimes the greatest gift that we can give another magician is the mystery of not being able to find out how something is done. This is especially applicable in this day and age when secrets are so easy to come by. The more we learn, the more cynical we get, and the harder it is to remember what it's like to be a regular person who is completely baffled by a trick, to have that burr in the back of the brain eating away at you. Those moments are infrequent and precious, and if there is a real benefit to throwing up some barriers again, it's that we can give ourselves a chance at that feeling, at understanding the experiences we want non-magicians to have, and all the feelings associated with that experience. Far from being harmful to other magicians, this sort of attitude can be immensely helpful to them, albeit in a tough love sort of way.

Finally, I wanted to reiterate that I really do know how hard it is to keep this shit quiet. Before, I offered the challenge of trying to come up with routines that nobody knew about and to keep it that way until the eve of 2010. Going into the New Year, I had two of my own. After four beers last night, I'm down to one, and unfortunately it's not the better of the two. I'm basically at another guy's mercy, and it's not a good feeling. Kind of like eating Kentucky Fried Chicken, there's an instant gratification followed by a belly-ache.

Here's wishing you better luck (or a better backbone, anyway) than I've had thus far.

The Value of a Secret...

2008-12-24T17:24:00.006-05:00

"The value of a secret is that it's a secret." - Tyler Erickson (from his forthcoming book, "Tyler Talks Tautologies")

The more I look at exposure on Youtube and television and at magicians ripping off other magicians (either on purpose or accidentally), the more I come to a rather disturbing conclusion: We, as magicians, need to stop trusting each other so much. It's a strange phenomenon that magicians, who rely on secrets during a show, tend to keep so few of them from other magicians outside of the show.

Before my views on secrecy were relatively straightforward; namely, keep the secrets away from the people I'm performing for. Now, after my recent trip to Minnesota, there are different levels of secrecy that I've found myself observing all of a sudden, to the point that, I'm becoming someone I would have previously considered paranoid.

On that trip, I was able to observe some routines of Tyler's that, point blank, I just can't talk about, except in almost useless generalities. Two in particular, a card routine and a coin routine.

The card routine is not demanding technically, it's something that anybody can do, is pretty much a self-worker, can be done with a borrowed deck, is a spin-off of a modern classic in magic while employing a novel presentational approach, and leaves the spectator with the impression that the magician did nothing. That last one is important -- first, imagine the most convincing Oil And Water sequence out there, and then imagine that a spectator believes that they just did that sequence to themselves. A big difference, and this routine is like that, but for its own plot instead of Oil And Water. The novel presentational approach is important as well, since the tradition of this card plot currently suffers from it being presented in a generally ubiquitous fashion.

The situation with the coin routine is slightly different. It's a bit more technically demanding, and for the most part, it's really already "out there" -- if you made a list of 30 DVDs devoted specifically to coins, you'd likely end up buying a DVD that has a routine quite similar to Tyler's on it. I still can't talk about it here, or openly amongst magicians, but truth be told, if you know enough coin magic, you probably already know 75% of his routine, and after watching it you could probably figure out the other 25%.

If there is a commonality to both routines, it's this -- if other magicians had them in their repertoire, they'd be falling all over themselves to publish them. Tyler doesn't even want anybody talking about them, which is why I left the names of the plots in question out.

That's a new thing for me to have to go along with, as I'm normally an open person, and there are even more levels of secrecy I've got to operate by. Obviously a great deal of what I learned went up on the olde blogge, but not all of it, yet. Some things I learned on the trip I can pass along, but on a limited level. There are also some things that I can't talk about on the blog, but that I can talk about with trusted magicians on a one-on-one basis... which makes things complicated. I'm currently a member of an informal group of magicians who meet up on a weekly basis, and I'm in a position where I can't talk about everything I've learned with the group. This goes very much against the atmosphere of open discussion that I was a part of prior to the trip.

I also learned right before I left that there are still plenty of things that Tyler kept deliberately hidden from me. On my last day there, I asked him about how many things he had work on that I didn't know about and that I could probably get good use out of, and he estimated about a hundred. Keep in mind that at one point I was able to see him rattle off about a dozen passes and a half-dozen coin moves that aren't "out there" -- in other words, despite being given a look into a whole lot of good work that is being kept secret from the general magic community, there's still more that I've yet to see, if he decides to even share it at all.

Contrast this to the current state of affairs in the magic community, when it comes to keeping things secret. The term "underground" has taken on a ridiculous usage. If somebody is truly underground, you don't know about them, period. Lately, though, the term has gained a commercial edge to it, in much the same way "alternative" did with music starting in the late 80s. It's now about exclusivity, having access to the good stuff, stuff that's not "out there"... but that one might be able to get at, either at a price or by cozying up to the right people. For the most part, it's used by magicians in a pathetic attempt to claim legitimacy, and sadly, we're all suckers for it, specifically because of the perceived values of secrets.

There's another take on this as well... magicians who've published work in the past that is now out of print, and they brag about it. Somebody over at the Magic Cafe will say that they're researching interesting phases for a specific routine, and somebody will announce that Book X has great work on it, before immediately following up with the bad news that Book X is now unavailable, with an almost nya-nya-ni-poo-poo tone. How does that help anybody? There's a great idea out there that's perfect for what you're looking for, but it's totally unavailable. Cue Alec Baldwin as he browbeats a bunch of salesmen. "These are the Glengarry Leads, and to you, they're gold. And you... can't have them."

Why would anybody do this? Would a CEO walk up to a homeless man and start counting money in front of him, before pocketing all of it and walking away? Basic decency dictates that he wouldn't even think about it, let alone do it, but change CEO and money to magician and secrets, and not only do we see this, but we see it alot. Such is the power of a secret -- you gain status simply by making it known that you have some. Crap, I've been practically doing it all throughout this blog entry.

But I don't think it has to be all bad. I just think we need to stop being disingenuous about it. If a guy is underground, don't announce that he's underground and throw his name out there. Keep it to yourself. If a piece of knowledge is exclusive, let it remain exclusive. Keep it to yourself. This is primarily the reason why I was deliberately vague about Tyler's two routines I talked about above -- ordinarily, people might parade it by saying "Tyler's got inside work on Spellbound that he's killing audiences with, and he's not sharing", and usually that's used as some sort of hype-based precursor to a product release. I wanted to pass along the exclusivity not to pump him up (or myself up through association), but instead to talk about what it is that I think we should start striving for... to stop using secrecy, exclusivity and underground-ness to sell products, or build up magicians' status, or the status of those magicians' friends, and to start using secrecy et al as a means of helping ourselves out as performing magicians. To stop using those concepts as buzzwords to tell all that we're in the know, and to start embracing what they really mean, and let that bleed over into who we are when we're working for real audiences.

There's a person in Tyler's circle of friends who has card work. Delicious inside stuff. He's known amongst people who know as having access to knowledge that not a whole lot of people know about, when it comes to cards. That's fairly cryptic, but I don't know how else to phrase it. Anyways, I got to meet him while I was at the Twin Cities Magic and Costume once, and I observed something really interesting. Other magicians were hanging about, and this guy was bringing some of them one-at-a-time to the back room, to show them things individually. At one point, somebody walked in on a discussion inadvertently, and he had to clam up -- I know this because Tyler was the one being shown things at the time, and he reported back. Afterwards, Tyler alluded to some of the stuff this guy had shared with him, but he couldn't share all of it. That might not mean much to anybody except that, in a simulated gambling situation Tyler and I played out one night, where it was understood that Tyler would be cheating, he took me to the cleaners with some great stuff, before tipping a couple of powerful card cheating techniques that he'd learned from this same guy. Insanely effective stuff, and almost certainly the sort of thing that should make any card magician think twice about claiming that "nobody wants to play cards with me" mantle just because you know a false shuffle or a bottom deal.

In any case, getting back to it. This guy has shared some stuff with Tyler. But, presumably, not everything, so that really hidden stuff would be a secret at level 1. Then there's stuff that he can pass on to Tyler but that Tyler can't even mention to anybody else (level 2). Then there's stuff that he can allude to but not go into detail about (level 3). Then there's stuff he can pass along to shmucks like me, but that I'm expected to keep hidden from others (level 4). Then there's stuff that I can allude to but not go into detail about (level 5). And then... well, let's say that by the time we're talking about the number of levels of secrecy between this guy and somebody he'd be playing against in a money game, we're well into the double digits... and we've not even considered the fact that this guy might not even be the most "inside" card guy out there. Who knows who's kept secrets from him? Or who's kept secrets from the guy who's kept secrets from him?

Tyler once described the way that this guy would pass along a secret, as an illustrative example. He'd baffle everybody in the room (knowledgable card men included) with a really impossible-seeming card trick, and assuming you were "in" with him, and he wouldn't laugh you off if you asked how it was done, if you did ask, he'd look around to see who else was paying attention, and then he'd take you to the back room, and he'd lean in close, just in case there were spy devices planted around that could pick up his voice, and he'd whisper, "It uses a key card..."

That was the point -- it didn't matter how mundane the method might be, by keeping it a secret, by treating it with that sort of reverence, he bestowed it with power. Rather than using the cleverness of the technique as a means to gain prestige amongst his peers, rather than even announcing to the group that it was a devilish secret, he would clam right up about it. It was as though he were a rich man, and the room were full of robbers, and rather than stating that his vast wealth was hidden behind a state-of-the-art vault, he wouldn't even talk about his wealth.

The reason I bring this up is that I think it's high time we as magicians started really embracing this concept of multiple levels of secrecy. As far as concepts go it's hardly new -- there are methods for tricks that are renowned as being known only by a select few (such as the Hooker Card Rise), and there are magicians who are renowned for having eschewed the company of other magicians who are too "open" (such as... well, no sense naming names here). But there's a difference between knowing about this sort of creed and really following it. I know how tough it can be, to want to share things with the guys at the magic club or the Magic Cafe or whatnot, if only to establish your own credibility. I also know how it can doubly tough when you try to set up an exclusive group -- either in more out-of-the-way magic forums or amongst groups of guys who believe themselves to be too good for the magic clubs. Trust me, I get it, and when you're with those guys, there's a tiny rush that comes from knowing that good work is being shared. And the more you've done it, the more natural it feels to keep doing it. I know from experience. On the train ride home from Minnesota I finally found the missing piece that I needed for a Triumph presentation I was working on. The two major factors that separate it from almost every other Triumph out there is that (a) it can be done with multiple selections, and (b) the face-up-face-down shuffling has a motivation that is both presentationally novel and revelatory of character in ways that most presentations of the trick can't touch. It's not a perfect trick, but already it's far better to me than the old "Drunk guy at the bar" bit. One other thing, contrary to most advice about card tricks, I can proudly announce the name of the trick to these guys, and if they go looking for explanations elsewhere, they won't find it. If they do happen to come upon a tutorial for the basic Triumph shuffle I'm using, they won't find it with multiple selections.

So, here I was with a newfound treasure of my own. First thing I did when I got back into town? I shared it with two guys. Stupid, stupid...

In any case, I just wanted to make it clear that I know this isn't easy. Fortunately, I've also got some other stuff that I can sit on that will keep me unique within this particular market. Unfortunately, Tyler knows about all of it, so the secrets aren't really secret. I mean, he might not say anything about them (he did joke about including one idea I had in his lecture notes), but they're not secrets. I'm still far away from my own ideal, which is annoying because all it takes is one measly trick to get there.

And how far can we take this secrecy? Well, one of the things that I really wanted to do during all that blogging in Minnesota was to put up a video of Tyler doing some card work, just to establish his credibility in an observable way to those who've not yet seen him work. Basically, so that people can see that in my writing, it's not just a question of me being overly impressed by somebody who can do a move or two that I can't. Getting him to agree to the video proved to be like pulling teeth, and in the end, I wasn't able to get it done. One interesting thing that came out of that badgering was Tyler's phrase about how, if he "flashed his tits" to the magic world, then his perceived value would immediately decrease.

I found that funny, because it brought to mind Denise Milani. If you don't know who this girl is, do yourself a favour and try a google image search on the name. She's quite a stunner. I first saw photos of her when she was a Sports By Brooks girl (they were advertising on Fark.com, a funny website), and soon after that she left the SBB crew to establish herself as a glamour model, posing in suggestive and alluring ways, and her success is now such that you can find her now having photos and videos advertised on the same gallery as regular porn stars... and yet she's not yet gone nude. She's not yet "flashed her tits". At first, it was a bit confusing to see her flanked on either side by rather lewd and unabashed women going all out to please the viewer, and there she is along with them, smiling coyly and holding back. I never would have thought that this extremely old school way of modelling could hold up in an environment that thrives on instant gratification. And you just know that every single time a link shows up pointing towards a new photo session of her, people will keep going back, wondering if this will be the time that she finally whips them out. Such is the power of that which is known to be withheld.

I guess I wrote all that to write this. Here's a challenge for 2009...

Develop as many pieces of good magic as you can, that you don't tell anybody about. Don't put videos of them up on Youtube, don't publish them anywhere, don't even describe them to other magicians. Perform the heck out of them for non-magicians, certainly, but as far as everybody else is concerned, they don't exist. Keep a tally of how many you've got. On the eve of 2010 I'll put up a callback to this particular blog post, and then you can write in if you like. Keep in mind that every trick you develop that fits this category must be good. So good, in fact, that it'll hurt you to keep it a secret. But if there's a bright side to all that pain, it'll be this... for every such trick that you sit on, that's a trick that people won't be able to find exposure videos of, that people won't be able to see other magicians do, and that will establish you as separate and distinct from other magicians in your market, if not around the world. After you blow away somebody with the trick, you'll be able to say with complete confidence that you're the only person in the world who can do it. Oh sure, it might rely on sleights that other magicians already know, but they still won't be able to do your trick. You might even want to think twice about sharing the number.

So, there you go. An open challenge to readers of the olde blogge.

Here's hoping I can make good on it myself...

It's dead, Jim

2008-12-18T14:45:00.005-05:00

I type this eulogy now in the backroom of a convenience store that offers relatively cheap internet. Sometime between St. Paul, Minnesota, and Vancouver, British Columbia, my laptop, a Toshiba Satellite, finally gave out. After having survived the death of its rechargeable battery early in 2003, the loss of the "1" key in 2004 due to water damage, random failures of a wonky cooling fan starting this year, and increasing effects of hardware obsolescence that gradual Windows XP bloat was inflicting upon it, it was looking like it might still have a few months left in it... until the power supply adapter connection started to give out last month depending upon which way the connecting wire was twisted. It spent its last days with the wire wrapped around the screen, in a vain attempt to keep it affixed in a functioning position. While this offered some hope, I knew that the then-upcoming trip to Vancouver would put that precariously-held stop-gap solution to the test, and when I folded it down in Tyler's house monday morning, it was with an eerie feeling that it would be the last time I'd see it working properly. Sure enough, attempts to revive it onboard the Amtrak Empire Builder were unsuccessful, and with each failed contortion of that wire, I knew then that it was time to either take it in to get it properly repaired, thereby irresponsibly running up costs that I could not afford given the prices of new technology, or to have it put down permanently.

Death is a funny thing. It reminds you of your own mortality first, and then get introspective about what it is you'll have done when your own time has come. Sad to say that at this point in time, I don't know that I've given the world as much as that machine gave to me. Oh, the ability to instantly pour my thoughts out in endless flows of intellectual enemata, the pleasure in geeking myself with Linux dual-booting and video game programming, the bridged connections between myself and other magicians over the internet, the joys of catching up on the entertainment I missed via Hulu, the hours upon hours upon hours of free porn...

Twas a good machine that served me well. It was the testing unit for a number of website prototypes, the parchment for one finished and one unfinished novel (not to mention seemingly endless reams of ESL educational material), the orchestra for a dozen or so pieces of alleged music, the machine I used to finish the first draft of the Erland Elephant, the tool that I developed sleightly.com on, and of course, the primary conduit between my soul and Ye Olde Magick Blogge in front of you. For the past 6+ years, whenever I had odd thoughts that were worth recording, or the more frequent bloody-useless thoughts that are just as well lost to time, it was there to receive them, and it never judged. Only now does my cold-heartedness reveal itself in that I never gave it a name.

Machine, you will be missed. Know that whatever computer follows you, it will never have that special place in my heart that you have now.

2002-2008. RIP

Heading back to Vancouver

2008-12-15T15:55:00.005-05:00

Well, today's the day I get back on the train back to Vancouver. In looking back at the stuff I've written about on the olde blogge about the second Minnesota trip, I think that there's a fair bit there, but there's also a ton of other stuff I've left out. I guess, to summarize the most important things I learned...

* Fundamentals: There are so many moves out there that we all know about that can look amazing, that there's not necessarily a need to find something obscure just to fool people. Just as an example... People who mourn the lack of a convincing overhand false shuffle that's on the level of the recent offerings in the false riffle shuffle, for instance, need to rediscover the Greek Shuffle. It can look really, really good, certainly better than those overhand false shuffles built on the concept of runs of cards. Same goes for the Classic Pass, the Schneider Vanish, the push-off double lift, etc.

* Re-evaluation of classics: For those who are trying to figure out their own character (as I'm still doing, admittedly), a great way to do this is to simply take classic effects and try to figure out how your character approaches them. This isn't new advice, but my own inklings in the past have been that, because I wanted to stand apart as a performer, I needed to gravitate towards complex or obscure effects, rather than the simple ones, as if I could somehow sculpt effects that reflect who my character is. Yet while this is a good long-term goal, it's not something that can be easily done while you're still evaluating your character, while you still have questions that need answering. And, truth be told, if you've got a character, certainly he ought to be applicable to simple, basic effects, such as a simple vanish and reproduction of a coin, or Copper/Silver, or Triumph, or Ambitious Card, or the Cups and Balls, or the Invisible Deck. Presumably the character can still express himself through these simple effects, which have the added advantage of being proven, so that once the character has been field-tested you can then have a better sense to how to bring it to more exotic material.

* The Biggest New Rock: Perhaps the single most useful thing that I acquired in terms of magic here was the Cups and Balls. Once you've trained with it, and trained properly, you'll find yourself in a position to do the routine impromptu -- and I mean truly impromptu, using borrowed cups and understanding how to find the final loads around you. And the knowledge learned with the Cups and Balls bleeds so much into other aspects of magic, including structure, managing suspicions, executing simple vanishes (which, if down, allows you to handle broader techniques such as switching for like or unlike items), misdirection, improvising, motivating actions, economy of movement, retuning classics to fit new parameters, etc.

* The Arsenal (Routines): In terms of classics, the Cups and Balls (using 1, 2, or 3 cups), Slop Shuffle Triumph, the Ambitious Card, vanishing and reproducing a coin, Coins Across, Dr. Daley's Last Trick. With a day's preparation I could probably get down an effective Copper/Silver routine, a good card-to-pocket, Be Honest What Is It?, a Benson Bowl Routine, Crazy Man's Handcuffs, the venerable spongeballs, some permutation of the 2-in-the-hand-1-in-the-pocket trick, a couple of coin assemblies, and an impromptu version of Colour Monte. Also, I've probably got any number of things that I can do with the sleights listed below -- card forces in particular. Truth be told, though, the part I'm most excited about is that through study of the above, I've now got some ideas on routines that I feel range from almost totally original to, at the very least, unique in my particular market. Sorry, I won't be tipping that stuff just yet except amongst trusted friends... and maybe not even then.

* Other classics studied: I got a whole boatload of notes on the Miser's Dream and some good stuff with billiard balls manipulation.

* The Arsenal (Sleights): Old sleights polished include the Classic Pass, Schneider Vanish, Top Change, Spread Cull, Bottom Palm, Top Palm (which still needs work, though), the Hindu Shuffle Force (yup, the sucky 'flash' version that I used to rail against), the $100 Bill Change, the Shuttle Pass, and the Han Ping Chen move. Stuff I didn't know before but now have a bit of a handle on include the Le Paul Natural Jog Control, a multiple-card bottom palm, and various forms of the Flying Shuttle Pass. I was also luckily able to learn new work on Bobo Switch, the Clink Pass, the wand Push-Through Vanish, the Turnover Pass, the Cross Cut Force (if you can believe that), Bill Simon's Prophecy Move, the Dribble Force, the Riffle Force, and probably a few others that I've forgotten.

* Gambling demonstrations: Anybody who wants to do them for people in a performance context needs to be burned as badly as I was burned in a proper gambling context. So much of the stuff that people actually use at the table, you don't see in "gambling expert" DVDs. I'm hoping that the reason why this stuff never makes it in there is because the people doing it realize that they've got to keep that stuff underground. Unfortunately, I don't know that the customers who pick up the material are fully conscious of what they aren't learning. What's more, when you get a chance to see the work done live, you learn whole new things about attention control, motivated actions, how there are so many different strategies to getting towards a base result (in gambling, getting the winning hand)... and these things are tremendously useful object lessons in magic. Also, it would certainly expose the folly of the "I wouldn't want to play cards with you" nonsense patter.

* The Theory: A deeper understanding of the "Magus" archetype, ambidextrous and holistic training, guerilla training in the mall, punctuation, magic as language, the gap between expectation and effect, getting ahead while impromptu, the value of a secret, FASDIUing with any prop... Also, Tyler better publish his thinking on templates sometime soon -- the information is already out there, it just needs to be codified. Frankly, Jay Sankey could probably do a DVD on it tomorrow.

* One other bit of theorizing that I came to was the fact that all moves suck. That's every move in magic, including your favourite. I might write more on that in future.

* Media notes: Since rediscovering where I want to go with my character, I've got a greater appreciation of Sankey and Richard Sanders. Derren Brown's Absolute Magic is well worth reading. Joe Mogar has some of the best work I've ever seen on the colour-changing knives in his Chameleon Knives DVD -- seriously, watching it made me want to add it to ye olde bagge of trickef. Jamy Ian Swiss's Shattering Illusions is pretty good, although it goes to show that just because you might be a smart dude with a good vocabulary, it doesn't mean your immune to the same sort of sycophancy that plagues the unwashed magic masses -- you can just rationalize it with more eloquence than most. Also, speaking of sycophancy (heh heh, hypocrite am I), Al Schneider might just be one of the most under-appreciated guys in magic -- not that he gets zero respect or anything, but the magic community throws regular parades in honour of people whose work that doesn't come close to matching what this man has published.

And that's it for the moment, I guess. There were many things I started writing and then stopped while I was here, and they're saved in the draft mode. I don't know which ones will come out and which will stay hidden... For instance, I've got a fair bit to write about regarding the uneasy marriage of card magic and gambling (most of it admittedly being regurgitations of Tyler's ideas) but I'm going to hold off on that until Tyler decides to put up a Youtube video demonstrating that he's got the chops necessary to give greater credibility to that blog post. Besides the stuff sitting in drafts, there might also be new brain-dumps needed just to totally purge the system.

It's been a good boot camp. For the most part, it's been magic training of one form or another every single day for seven weeks. I really feel like a new chapter has started, and that the next time I'm out there trying to do magic for money, I won't be hindered by self-doubt about the quality of my material. At some point, Tyler Erickson's going to start getting his work published for a wider audience, and when he does I would encourage anybody to pick it up. I understand his fear of flashing his metaphorical tits to the greater magic community, but having seen Tyler's tits, I can honestly say...

Ugh, I don't want to finish that thought.

In any case, that's it. When next I post I'll be back in Minnesota. Here's hoping the laptop survives the trip.

Introducing Pat Umphrey

2008-12-13T01:03:00.003-05:00

In my never-ending efforts to devalue the google page ranking for the olde blogge, here's a gratuitous link to yet another magician buddy of mine called Patrick Umphrey, a performer working in Minnesota who's a real hero with a deck of cards. Pat currently finds himself at a crossroads in his career. In one direction lies the tempting path of the hippity-hop rabbits, and in the other direction awaits the superstar status of somebody who could one day out-Malone Bill Malone. The dual fates of Minneapolis and St. Paul teeter in the balance.

In any case, here's the weird red-head's website.

http://www.patricksmagic.com/home.asp

Apparently, in return for me doing this favour for him, he's going to cut down on the Canuck jokes. For that, I can only say... Thanks Pat. Your heart's as big as all outdoors.

On Language, Magic, and Struggles

2008-12-06T14:31:00.005-05:00

If there is a downside to all of this training I've been doing, it's that it's very, very difficult to absorb a proper ethic if you're already set in your ways magic-wise. Despite the ironic fact that I'm flying by the seat of my pants right now in life, I've always needed plans when I felt I wanted to do things correctly.

Last night I had to go through some abject humiliation. Despite all of this learning about general theory, studying the "creature of power", the technical training I've been doing, work put into designing a future repertoire, etc., when I was given the task of performing simple tricks on the spot, I wasn't able to do it effectively or confidently. That was pretty damning considering that I've been here for about six weeks now. In magic it's often been told that we need to not just practice technique but also rehearse our performances, but I think there's also a necessary middle ground. Assuming one wants to be a flexible magician and be able to operate outside of a set theatrical context at any time, one needs to be able to come up with "chunks" of performances to rehearse, things that fit a specific situation. For instance, "I'm standing, you're sitting, you've got your hands full, I've got to force a card on you" or "We're all sitting, and somebody at the table is unsure about whether they like card tricks". These situations are going to dictate what sort of material to perform, what techniques to use, how to tackle an impromptu script, and so on... Practicing isolated sleights won't help you there, and neither will it help to just focus on the ten tricks you want to do for the rest of your life.

There's a theory in language teaching language acquisition is best done in chunks. In other words, rather than doing straight rote memorization of vocabulary and building up the largest word-set, the real skill is in getting phrases down. Not complete and perfect sentences, necessarily, but phrases. Yes, proper spelling and a good vocabulary can be effective, and yes, in any satisfying written work there's going to be an overall, larger goal that needs to be satisfied, but there's also a necessary skill in the middle, finding the way chunks of language work. It makes sense, if you think about it. We default to set ways of communicating an idea because we've found success with them, and when a situation comes up, for the most part we have the skills to communicate our way through it. Much of actual dialogue is done in phrases, as well, with no real need to make sure every sentence has a proper full format, if it's not necessary. We might not get the results we seek out of the dialogue, but we can use the words to push things forward and at least have a chance of understanding the conclusion. It's one of those things you take for granted until you're trying to communicate in a second or third language and you find yourself relieved that you understood the words somebody just said to you, with not as much thought given to the meaning behind them.

I think there's an analogy there to being a flexible magician. The sleights and props are the vocabulary, the show is the book as a whole, each effect represents a chapter, but in writing, somewhere between individual words and the actual chapter there's the use of these chunks of language -- understanding phrases, both how to make the words fit into phrases, and how to make the phrases fit into sentences, which in turn fit into paragraphs. I think the analogy risks getting a bit too strained, but those scenarios I talked about earlier, they can't all be tackled with the same sleights, even if it's the same effect. In the same way that we frequently know how to adapt our language use to the situation (not using ten-dollar words when talking to non-English speakers, for instance, or not swearing when certain people are around), we also need to realize how to make this work with magic itself. In dealing with an audience, we need (or I need, anyway) to identify the flow of things, achieving a level of understanding that's above sleights and below effects, sets, and acts. Can you see everything I'm doing? Do you trust the prop? Are you following the actions? What are you thinking right now? Is what I'm doing significant to you? What IS significant to you?

When you start looking for this stuff, it creeps up everywhere. You can sense the way some performers approach different effects using their default approaches, much like we default to certain phrases when we want to communicate things. Ever tried to ween the 90210 mode of talking from your system? "He was, like, all pissed off." as opposed to "He was pissed off." etc. If it's a habit you've developed, it's a hard habit to break. Michael Ammar in those Easy to Master DVDs sure does end up saying "There's no question about what's taking place" a whole lot, and at times it's as if he's presentationally engineering the circumstances necessary just to get into that phrase. Richard Osterlind does the same thing with "Is that fair?" Tyler for a while had a bit of a love affair with the word "ultimately".

This isn't some earth-shattering phenomenon. In English teaching there's a concept called context-based language acquisition, and it makes a lot of sense. If you go to a foreign country where you don't know the language, the first phrases that you pick up and become comfortable with are usually those that correspond to specific, common needs. For instance, if you go to any country where the first language isn't English and they're pretty culturally homogenous (meaning, they don't feel the need to rely on pictures or symbols to communicate something, because they figure everybody reads the same language), then one of the very first words you'll learn is "Bathroom". At first, you'll start by saying "Bathroom?" in an inquisitive manner, and that'll get the point across. Afterwards, though, out of pride you might try to put a full phrase to it, and consequently you'll learn "Where is the bathroom?" giving you the "Where is the ... ?" language chunk. The more fluent you get and the more practice you have, then the more nuanced a situation can be and you can still negotiate it (eg: being able to find a nearby bathroom because the restaurant doesn't have one). But at the heart of context-based learning, it's this -- situation determines language use. It's no coincidence then that a current trend in Language teaching is something called "Task Based Learning", in which a student is thrust into a specific situation that they have to negotiate, and where they might not even have the necessary language to figure it out yet. It's reputed to be very effective in some schools -- some ESL courses in Europe focus exclusively on it. In trying to figure out the meaning of the situation, we get in touch with the real meaning of language itself. It's also no coincidence that this mode of study can be very frustrating to those who have no experience with it, since with every new task you're forced to confront the limits of your knowledge, essentially being constantly reminded of your own ignorance. Those who can navigate those waters become like linguistic problem solvers, and are a valuable commodity, far more than people who might have a larger vocabulary, but no idea how to apply it. In mastering a language, one must not only learn the word, but when and how to use it. In mastering magic, one must not only learn the technique, but when and how to use it.

The parallel there seems to stretch deeper. Amongst Asian ESL students there's a problem whereby the students think that understanding the language means sitting down with vocabulary lists and absorbing as many as they can. It's a tough situation for English teachers over there, since language is traditionally very difficult to teach with an objective marking system, and as such they rely upon evaluation methods like marking spelling or simple identification, rather than encouraging more creative use of a limited vocabulary. Because of this, there are a surprisingly large number of Asian students who have better English spelling than their Western counterparts, and yet have no idea how to put a sentence together (never mind an essay). I think, similarly in magic, we've fallen into the same trap. There are so many methods and techniques, and there's this tiny little high we get with each one, that it's easy to fall into the trap of neglecting to learn the necessary surrounding context for the technique. We see a base technique, we see an effect, and we figure that it's a relatively straight road from one to the other. I know I've definitely fallen into that trap, anyways.

This shit is hard for me because it's not intuitive. I like plans. I'm used to a different sort of performance contract being established -- namely, get them interested in seeing a trick, and using that as leverage to force them into my mode of performance. In essence, setting the stage so that it's ok for me to just perform at people. I think that's a byproduct of the time I spent performing in Korea. 250 shows with a predictable format will do that to you. It's also why I had difficulty busking, I believe. I had a small repertoire of tricks that I was trying to force on everybody, and that meant shoehorning them into every situation. I kept trying to engineer the circumstances needed to pull off the trick, as opposed to adapting the trick to the scenario. There was an episode of Friends where Joey wanted to buy an encyclopedia set in order to sound smarter in discussions, but he could only afford the "V" volume. After reading through it, he kept trying to bring the discussions with others around to anything that started with V. He tried starting a discussion about Vietnam, but everybody immediately switched to talking about a related subject that had nothing to do with it, and he was totally lost. This was essentially what I was like this past summer, and as a result, the outcomes were random. Some audiences would be willing to go along with me, while others weren't, and the randomness to those results led me to question the worth of the material I was performing, and my worth as a performer. Not being able to sense what it was that would make the trick work for a crowd was tough. Connecting to a person can be relatively easy -- just talk and listen. But a crowd can be its own organism.

That lack of confidence was a problem. I think this would also indicate my hesitance to perform tricks in many circumstances where magic would have been socially Ok. Despite the fact that it probably would have been received well, this lingering feeling that the time wasn't right would stop me. It's also had stunting repercussions on how I view basic magic effects. A coin vanish, for instance, was never just a coin vanish for me. It was actually something I saw as a tool in order to set up a subsequent effect, satisfy a context, and strangely, in so doing, I think I undervalued the effect itself. While impromptu and casual, I'd do a coin vanish and reappearance as a throw-away, in order to make a point about something that had nothing to do with magic (long story). While in "performance mode", I'd play it as sort of a "lousy coin trick" that would be used to set up a Miser's Dream-ish sequence followed by a Jumbo Coin production. But simply as a straight vanish, I'd never appreciated its own inherent power, never really put myself into it. Except, even if no single word in a novel can make or break it, you still do need words to finish it, and you need to know how to use the right ones, and how to surround them with the other right ones. Sometimes, in order to figure out that skill, you need to know how to write short stories before you can right novels, and it's frustrating if you're just so focused on writing novels. It's like seeing the German girl at the bar, and having your heart sing at the sight of her, except that you'll never be able to communicate that to her if you're still struggling through "Wo ist das badezimmer?"

So, anyway, this blog post was a bit more self-indulgent than most, and that's saying something. Apologies for that. Just part of trying to get through all this deprogramming.

The Erland Elephant / Archetypes Cheat Sheet

2008-11-30T21:01:00.013-05:00

Whenever I reference this theory in other entries, I usually feel like I'm glossing over important points that clarify things. So I've decided to come up with a cheat sheet that will serve as a general outline. So, without any further delay...

THE ERLAND ELEPHANT CHEAT SHEET

The Erland Elephant: Whenever somebody is in the middle of doing a magic show, the proverbial "Elephant in the Room" is that the person there isn't capable of real magic.

* There are various ways to get around that issue.

* Some of these ways are at direct odds with each other.

* People have found success using all of these ways

* The approaches used to deal with this problem can frequently be grouped under more general approaches

* These groupings represent performance character archetypes that different magicians can follow

* Archetypes can be identified by their claims to power, the relationship with the performance character to "magic", and different approaches to presenting a feat

* On a personal level, I do not believe that any approach is better or worse than any other

* Magic of the various archetypes is generally analogous to book genres and formats (fiction, non-fiction, horror, self-help, poetry -- none of these is inherently superior to any other, although people might find differing personal tastes)

* Despite the vast differences between these archetypes, and the potentially heated divisions on certain fundamental beliefs, the archetypes have more in common with each other than they do with other genres of performance (eg: poetry readings)

* It is possible for real-world performers to be able to embody more than one archetype. In fact, it's probably rare to find a performer who embodies a singular archetype all the time

............

Archetype: The Jester

Aliases: Trickster

In a nutshell: He will fool you, and take pleasure in doing so.

Relationship to the Erland Elephant: Indifferent. Whether or not he is capable of real magic is irrelevant, because he can still fool the pants off you

Claim to power?: None is required. It's less important for him to make you believe he has real powers than it is to fool you. However, if these claims can help serve his purposes during the show, he might go with it. A cynical audience reaction would be expected, however, and for the most part the audience and the performer are really on the same page about it.

Types of tricks/presentations: Three card monte, shell game, fast and loose, paper balls over the head, sucker effects, pretty much any conventional magic trick that can be respun into a presentation appropriate for the archetype

Key Characteristics:

* Doesn't mind it if people call what he does tricks, or trickery

* Arguably one of the few archetypes that does not insult the audience's intelligence

* Embraces the cat-and-mouse, catch-me-if-you-can game

Role models: Harry Anderson, Penn and Teller

For more information...

Penn and Teller, Exposure

............

Archetype: The Mechanic

In A Nutshell: Probably what most people think of as a modern-day magician... somebody who does magic tricks. Not to be confused with a "card mechanic".

Relationship to the Erland Elephant: Not really too scared by it, although he does want to keep his methods secret.

Claim to Power?: In most cases, probably none.

Type of tricks/presentations: Unrestricted, for the most part, although he would not foray too deeply into any of the other archetypes' territory (eg: Wouldn't do a Q&A act, wouldn't do a massive levitation, etc.)

Key Characteristics:

* Probably doesn't make a claim to power, or examine the concept of power claims too closely

* Has the largest body of material to draw from

* Almost always involves apparatus and/or props of some kind. If he is able to make the props truly seem incidental, however, I believe he shifts to a different archetype

* If the trick is good, and he can present it entertainingly, it can go in the act

* Frequently tends to have a favoured prop, and will explore as broad an arsenal of tricks available with that prop

* In my opinion, this scales to stage illusions. If the performer somehow suggests that he is capable of demonstrating a power without apparatus, suddenly he changes archetypes

Role models: Michael Ammar, Daryl, Dai Vernon

............

Archetype: The Gambling Demonstrator

Aliases: Card cheat, Card Mechanic

In A Nutshell: Demonstrates sleight-of-hand and deception as it fits into the cheating at card games

Relationship to the Erland Elephant: Probably the only archetype that is completely unaffected by it, despite the similarities between the dynamics of his act and a regular magic show (ie: behold these amazing feats)

Claim to Power?: None, unless we consider non-magical powers such as the ability to win at will in a card game of chance

Type of tricks/presentations: Poker/Bridge/Blackjack deals, demonstrations of individual sleights, challenge effects centered around card games

Key Characteristics:

* The one archetype that, despite the similarities between his effects and regular card magic, doesn't make a claim to power

* Also, the one archetype defined by his chosen prop, cards

* Not immune to its own blatant deception, however, such as stacking the deck to set up the appearance of center dealing, but in fact is actually just second-dealing

* Probably could do more to examine demonstrations that involve "tells", as there's a great deal of mentalism techniques to draw from

Role models: Fernando Keops, Ricky Jay (during his card control demonstration)

For more information, click here. (feature not available yet)

............

Archetype: The Scientist

In A Nutshell: Builds as complete a conviction as possible in the fairness of the surrounding conditions of an effect, before pulling it off

Relationship to the Erland Elephant: Willing to tackle any subscribers to the theory that what he does isn't fair

Claim to Power?: That's up to the performer

Type of tricks/presentations: Similar to the Jester, it's more about tone than it is the type of effect. Could be regular magic or mentalism.

Key Characteristics:

* Chooses effects that can withstand the highest scrutiny

* Presents in a manner so as to make sure the audience is allowed to scrutinize

* Frequently forsakes the element of surprise so that the audience is not left with the feeling of having missed something

* Called the Scientist because he might treat his effects as experiments, offering necessary proofs of success

* Has a difficult road when it comes to presenting entertainingly, and avoiding making everything a challenge puzzle

Role models: Juan Tamariz, Max Maven

For more information...

Building a Tamarizian Trick

............

Archetype: The Manipulator

In A Nutshell: Of all the archetypes, the one that's most concerned with making the magic consistently aesthetically beautiful (or, at least, visually striking) on a sustained level

Relationship to the Erland Elephant: Variable. Manipulation tends to limit spectator interaction, so if the Elephant's in the room, he won't hear about it

Claim to Power?: Depends on the magician.

Type of tricks/presentations: Multiple-phase effects in which the magic appeals to the senses. The magic must be observable visually.

Key Characteristics:

* Arguably has the ability to communicate magic to the widest possible audience

* Arguably the magic equivalent of dance

* The focus on visual magic makes it such that the magic is evaluated not just in terms of the impossibility, but the aesthetic value of the product

Role models: Younger Jeff McBride, Cardini in the lobby, John Carney doing the Coins and the Glass

............

Archetype: The Allegorist

Aliases: Story-teller

In A Nutshell: Fuses magic and the telling of stories

Relationship to the Erland Elephant: Variable. Arguably, magic is not the sole focus of the Allegorist's presentation.

Claim to Power?: Variable. Probably most people are going to leave his performance thinking about the Allegorist in terms of presentational ability rather than trying to parse the magic looking for evidence of power

Type of tricks/presentations: Triumph (drunk spectator story), Gambler vs. Magician, Hollingworth's Once Upon a Time, Hamman's Two Twins

Key Characteristics:

* Has a delicate balance to strike between the value of the story and the value of the magic. Neither should overshadow the other

* There's leeway with the stories. They could also be poems, allegories, parables, memoirs...

* Similar to the Manipulator, there's an infusion of elements from traditional art

Role models: Eugene Burger

For more information...
Story-telling in magic
Using Metaphors in a Magic Trick

............

Archetype: The Bizarrist

In A Nutshell: Borrows on themes from magic as it has been known to exist in the real world

Relationship to the Erland Elephant: Variable. It's possible to bring in themes that people might actually believe to be true

Claim to Power?: Variable

Type of tricks/presentations: Anything that deals with the themes of life, death, pain, love, etc. can fit here. Things with exotic props and/or a sense of ritual fit. (See below)

Key Characteristics:

* Bizarrism has been commonly associated with storytelling magic in modern times. Insofar as my definitions here are concerned, the two are separate.

* That said, Bizarrism and Storytelling have been known to coexist quite happily. There is frequently no power conflict between the two

* Things like shamanism, witchdoctors, voodoo, paganism, the supernatural, etc. are all ripe for study. Practitioners from these and other real world "magic" groups offer potential character models

* Arguably, he might gain from embracing the special nature of his props, rather than running away from them

Role models: Eugene Burger, Robert Neale

For more information, click here. (feature not available yet)

............

Archetype: The Clown

Aliases: Comedian

In A Nutshell: Combines comedy and magic

Relationship to the Erland Elephant: Variable, but so long as people are having a good time, the Clown can probably survive if his magic doesn't withstand the highest scrutiny

Claim to Power?: Variable, although comedy's nature of usually not treating subjects seriously will probably undermine a magic claim (which would have serious implications)

Type of tricks/presentations: Anything that gets laughs is fair game.

Key Characteristics:

* Laughter is great for misdirection

* As laughter is a frequent byproduct of people expressing their surprise and/or amazement, it's natural that comedy in the more traditional sense would eventually merge with it

* Can probably get away with taking more liberties with the audience

* Needs to get laughs. If a magician's magic is solid and he's not getting laughs, he might be a great magician, but he won't fit this archetype

* Can be VERY commercial

Role models: Michael Finney, Bill Malone

For more information, click here. (feature not available yet)

............

Archetype: The Superman

In A Nutshell: Performs gigantic feats that are rife with spectacle

Relationship to the Erland Elephant: Variable. The feats themselves might not all entirely be magic-based.

Claim to Power?: Variable, although whatever claim it is that he makes, it's not subtle. He does not float if he can fly. He doesn't vanish a coin if he can vanish a Volvo.

Type of tricks/presentations: Pretty much everything Copperfield does.

Key Characteristics:

* Must play big, and there must be a sense of immediacy and drama to what he does

* Must push the envelope

Role models: David Copperfield, Harry Houdini

For more information, click here. (feature not available yet)

............

Archetype: The Magus

Aliases: The "Real" Magician, The Demigod, The Creature of Power

In A Nutshell: A magician who gives very specific and identifiable demonstrations of a power, or set of powers

Relationship to the Erland Elephant: Generally in denial of it.

Claim to Power?: Absolutely. In effect, this is what people are at his show to see -- demonstrations of his power

Type of tricks/presentations: Anything that supports his claim. Effects must be carefully chosen to reinforce, rather than confuse, the claim

Key Characteristics:

* Although this sort of character (somebody who understands and can frame their powers theatrically) is common in mentalism, it is less so in magic

* It cannot be overstated that effects are chosen VERY carefully

* Will often shy away from claims to power that are unsustainable (eg: I can change blank paper into money)

* Unlike the superman, he will float rather than fly

Role models: David Blaine, Derren Brown

For more information, click here. (feature not available yet)

............

Archetype: The Charlatan

Aliases: Huckster

In A Nutshell: The one archetype that works outside of the traditional theatrical context, attempting to convince people his powers are real

Relationship to the Erland Elephant: Defies it by undermining the usual ideas of what a "magic show" is

Claim to Power?: Very specific, similar in scope to the Magus, perhaps even more limited.

Type of tricks/presentations: Most real world success of the charlatan has been in the realm of mentalism and readings.

Key Characteristics:

* A controversial, polarizing figure in the magic community

* Will have a great deal of difficulty selling traditional "magic" effects

* Relies on a strong personality, ability to create the aura of having power

* Might be able to leverage character to add significance to what might otherwise be considered simple tricks

* Despite ethical considerations, I personally feel that real-world charlatans offer great case studies for traditional, in-theater performances

Role models: Uri Gellar

For more information, click here. (feature not available yet)

............

Archetype: The Mentalist

Aliases: Mental Magician

In A Nutshell: Does magic of the mind

Relationship to the Erland Elephant: Has a bit of an advantage over other magicians by relying on magic that is more plausible

Claim to Power?: Can make impossible-seeming things happen by the mind.

Type of tricks/presentations: Usual brand of effects are Divination, Clairvoyance, Limited Telekinesis, Influence, Thought Transference, ESP, Future Sight, etc.

Key Characteristics:

* Focuses on a different brand of effects than the traditional magician, despite using similar techniques and methods

* Capitalizes on greater real-world acceptance of the effects

* Also has to fight a different set of audience suspicions

* Set of powers goes very cleanly with The Reader archetype

* Props are psychologically invisible to the audience

Role models: Richard Osterlind, Max Maven, Banachek

For more information, click here. (feature not available yet)

............

Archetype: The Reader

In A Nutshell: Works to connect with a spectator to get hidden information

Relationship to the Erland Elephant: Has an even greater advantage over the Mentalist in terms of plausible nature of the effects

Claim to Power?: Can get hidden information from audience members

Type of tricks/presentations: Q&A Demonstrations, Cold Reading, Psychometry effects, mind reading, muscle reading

Key Characteristics:

* Under common definitions, the Reader would fall into the more general category of Mentalist

* Differentiates himself from the regular mentalist in that the key is on revealing information from spectators

* The more personal the information, the better

* Well-done readings are so entertaining, frequently they can be done without the usual promise of pay-off that comes in traditional magic shows

* Readings can also be fairly controversial, due in part to affiliation with charlatanry. Some mentalists have elected to leave that aspect out of a traditional Mentalism show

* There's a modern movement in mentalism to go propless in this area

* Set of powers goes very cleanly with the Mentalist archetype

Role models: Richard Osterlind, Kenton Knepper

For more information, click here. (feature not available yet)

............

Further information:

* The information presented here is a basic summary of "The Erland Elephant" manuscript, the first draft of which was written in fall 2007 in Jinju, South Korea

* Other parts of the manuscript included a study of the Key Card principle in card magic, additional theoretical considerations, and effects, routines and presentations that could be applied to each of the archetypes

* This body of theory had its genesis in the dichotomy between the performance models of the Con Artist versus the Card Cheat, identified by Whit Haydn as being the two major influential performance models for modern close up magicians

* In trying to identify other potential types, I eventually created different definitions, broadening the context towards everything that might be considered a "magic show"

* Despite any inferences that might be drawn from the above, I do not consider any archetype to be superior to any other, with the possible exception of the charlatan

* This experiment is not meant to pigeon-hole every performer out there, but instead to provide potential models of study, abstract examples to draw from

* These archetypes might not adequately address escapology, stage illusions, and "geek" magic

* These definitions are my own, and are not necessarily meant to be imposed upon the general magic community

* This page may be updated periodically

So you want to be a creature of power...

2008-11-28T07:50:00.006-05:00

Derren Brown might refer to this sort of magician as a demigod, a gateway figure between us and a world of wonder. Tyler Erickson would call him a creature of power. I've got an archetype assigned to him that I've blabbed about elsewhere. Regardless of what title you throw at this sort of magician, there's a commonality to them all -- when it's showtime, every single thing that the magician does points towards them being the real deal. They're not some bringer of miscellaneous tricks, they're not comedians first and magicians second, they're not gambling demonstrators or con artists or glorified jugglers... You watch them, and during their show, you get this unsettling feeling that they are truly capable of whatever it is they claim.

Let's assume you want to become one yourself. Let's assume that you feel the same way Tyler Erickson does, and that by embracing this sort of character, you're ready to cross the line between doing tricks and performing magic. How do you get there?

Derren Brown's talked at length about this in his own published works, and I'm not going to bother rewriting what he wrote. Also, I've blabbed at length myself about what I think about all this, and since I'm not yet personally invested in making a transition to that sort of character, I've decided to make this entry focus more on Tyler's thoughts on it, as this is a way of performing that he believes very much in.

I suppose, at this point, it's worth mentioning that this is all theoretical. If armchair quarterbacking isn't your thing, you might want to check out some other magic blogs. Otherwise, read on.

First, some axioms.

Axiom #1: Every magical effect has an implied claim to power.

You tear apart a tissue paper and then you restore it. Whether or not you personally make the outward claim to have the power of causing tissue fibers to heal themselves, that's essentially the illusion that you're creating. To put it another way, even if you feel it's over the top to make any personal claim to that power, you probably wouldn't be happy if people believed you just switched a bunch of torn up pieces for a new tissue paper, or if people believed you just had some sort of invisible glue. We might diffuse this by saying "It's a trick" or "It's an illusion" or whatnot, but the truth is, the strength of it is going to come from people's perceptions of an impossibility, and the power that caused that impossibility is going to go hand-in-hand with the impossibility itself.

Axiom #2: It is inherent in the performance of a strong magic effect for the spectators to seek a power-based explanation, whether or not you claim it.

For the moment, we're going to assume that the trick is so good and so compelling that people aren't going to dismiss it outright. Some might anyway, but if the effect has strength, they're at least going to give credit to something. The explanations here might be supernatural-based ("He can read minds." or "He can fly.") or they might be non-supernatural guesses ("He's got fast hands." or "He does fantastic illusions."). But unless the spectator knows (or believes they know) the exact solution to a strong magic effect, they are going to be naturally inclined to attribute something to the performer, and the implied power being claimed is going to be a filter in all that, either in terms of it being an explanation that they embrace, or an explanation that they're desperately looking for evidence to disprove.

The idea of being a creature of power is to understand these two axioms, and to try to build your performances to take advantage of them. Tyler offers four steps to get there, and the first three steps are actually pretty simple.

First, imagine yourself having the power. "I am capable of telekinesis."

Second, figure out what could exhibit the power. "I can make things move and shake and float."

Third, find effects that match the exhibitions. PK Pen, Floating Bill, Glorpy, etc.

Fourth, have an assortment of methods to exhibit the same power, but using different methodologies. Meaning, you need to be able to cancel methods on the macro scale. (For a quick introduction to cancelling methods, read here.) Cancelling methods is usually talked about in terms of a single effect, but the idea here is to find different effects that showcase different dimensions to the power, and build off each other.

Now, there are some very tough powers to claim, claims that are unsustainable because they're simply too big. Perhaps you can find the evidence to back the claims up within the show, but again, it's possible to come up with a claim that disproves itself theatrically. For instance, consider the Headline Prediction. The implied claim to power is that you know what's going to happen in the future. When you successfully pull off the effect, the implication is either that (a) you cheated anyway, or (b) you know when planes are going to crash and you're an asshole for not telling people.

The idea, then, is to find ways to soften the claim a little bit. You could try to add limitations to the power ("These things come to me randomly in dreams, and I write them down.") or else change the effect to a different style of prediction (go from a headline prediction to a clipline prediction) or else say that the whole thing is a "psychological illusion", or else... well, it's hard to give out hard and fast rules, mostly because it's going to be claim-dependent, and art basically resists that sort of rule imposition by nature. But there are creative ways to get around the problem of a claim that is dismissed outright as implausible. For instance, Eugene Burger talked about how he resisted the idea of framing his effect "Inevitability" as a demonstration of the power to predict the future, opting for a more metaphorical and ambiguous presentation. Others have said that they liked the idea of claiming that they while they can't predict the outcome of random events, they can subtly engineer certain outcomes if they have access to the agents at work. For instance, Brown in Something Wicked This Way Comes shows that he forced the audience as a whole to end up with the final word, and Banachek says that while he can't predict how the lottery will turn out, if he were locked in a room with somebody who was randomly choosing numbered balls from the bin, that he could influence the person into choosing the balls that he wanted. In both cases, we've got people who have really studied not just the effects, but the powers that they want to say are the cause for the effects.

But even mentalists have to be careful about the powers they claim, despite playing in the realm of the more plausible magic. After all, it's going to be difficult to support the claim that you're a mind-reader if you have to ask for a spectator's name before each routine. Again, though, these things can be played with. Performers have been known to secretly get that sort of information before the effect starts, and even trying to downplay the revelation of the name as not really being an effect (a dual reality ploy to ensure that the spectator knows the performer didn't really mean it to be an effect, all the while giving the audience the evidence they need to believe the performer just divined the name). Also, you can state that perhaps some things are easier to read than others -- for instance, emotions and imagery -- and in fact this can open fun doors presentationally, by using emotions and imagery as the motifs necessary to bring about an effect to a successful conclusion.

Getting back to traditional magic, though, the idea of embracing power is a bit trickier. Consider a Cups and Balls finale. If you think about it, lifting a cup to show fruit where there was no fruit before should be perceived as an outright impossibility. The magician willed new matter to come into the universe. Truth be told, though, this claim is undermined by the fact that the Cups and Balls usually has a feeling of sleight of hand, in which a dozen moves might be involved in making a half-dozen effects happen. It's still possible to combat this. I watched as Tyler once did the Cups and Balls for a person, and afterwards we asked the guy how he thought it was all done. He gave some guesses that were pretty close to the truth, but in the end, Tyler was still operating with high enough prestige that the guy didn't want to offer any guesses lest they be taken as ridiculous. It was a while ago so I can't remember precisely, but his general sentiment (paraphrased) was "I think you would have to sneak stuff from the pockets, but if that happened, then I totally missed it." He was clearing avoiding committing himself to a theory of how it all could have happened for fear of sounding stupid (thus is the power of prestige), but even then we still have a situation where the intuitive solution is pretty close to the actual solution, and an effect where the implied claim to power in the Cups and Balls climax ("I can create new matter.") is unsustainable given that the more palatable explanation ("I've got super fast hands.") has not been explicitly disproven.

Thinking on a larger level, there are gray areas where, if the magic isn't obvious, the power could be ambiguous. If you're a high diver, and you do ten backflips from a ten meter platform, people will be amazed by the implausibility of it, but the implied power will be one of skill. If, on the other hand, you dive off the platform, levitate in space for several seconds, and then do the ten backflips, you've just shown something that skill doesn't explain. In most cases, with the Cups and Balls, the spectators, even if they're fooled at the time by the revelations, will probably be able to come up with explanations in retrospect that approximate the truth. Our hands might not be fast, per se, but our choreography of actions are usually too brisk to decode on first viewing, and in actuality our hands are very much involved. Sleight of hand in general is a difficult tool to use, because Tyler's "poison of the hands" principle can easily be applied to explain away too many magic effects as being skill-based. It's not the same as the Coin in Bottle, for instance. "Fast hands" can't explain that.

The issue is that magicians are usually sending mixed messages all the time about what their powers are. If they don't look at things through the filter of claiming specific powers, they lose (or compromise) the tool of macro cancelling, and they lose the ability to do post-production performances of a given ability. A magician who is armed with several strategies for doing a transposition, for instance, might be better able to fend off suspicions that he just switches things all the time. So, while it might be overkill to do a ten phase copper/silver routine in the show, he could have a couple of extra strategies when approached by people eager to tell the magician that they know what he's doing.

So what are some good powers to claim, then? According to Tyler, the best part of claiming a power is its limits, establishing why you can't do something bigger. An example might be showcasing the ability to affect small pieces of metal -- coins, keys, paperclips. Related powers could be changing the metal's temperature (making it hotter or colder), making it move (PK), imbuing it with magnetic properties, and making it warp or bend or morph (the cigarette through quarter effect, for instance, could easily be reframed as a morphing of the coin, rather than a straight-forward penetration.)

An example of a routine that Tyler thought would be particularly good at supporting a power claim in this realm, would be something like the following... A magician borrows a quarter, and holds it in his fist for a while, and when he gives it back to the spectator, the coin's actually colder than it was before. The magician then takes it back, and warms it up so that it's a bit hotter than usual. Finally, he squeezes it once more, and the coin is shown to have bent. This series of effects would help sell a very specific power.

If the magician took that borrowed coin and changed it into a British Penny, though, the implied power claim would be too strong to be believable. A thinking spectator would be more likely to think a switch... but a different performer claiming a different power could always run with that and still remain in the realm of wielding a plausible power, and do a routine in which a borrowed coin and a British Penny kept switching places. Then different things would need to be evaluated. Would a spellbound change work? Or would it be too strong, pointing towards manipulative skill and away from a switch under impossible conditions? When discussing his $0 Bill Transposition, Jay Sankey makes the point that in order to really sell the effect, you don't make the things transpose when they're across the room from each other, you make them transpose when they're inches away from each other, with only a purse separating them.

Extrapolating to a larger point, if the claim is too unbelievable, people can't follow you because it's unsustainable. David Copperfield, for all the compelling illusions that he offers, is going to have trouble selling himself as a creature of power. Things like flying, making the Statue of Liberty disappear, these are going to have to be sold as illusions even if all evidence within the performance points towards the effect actually happening. David Blaine floating a couple of inches off the ground is going to be more believable than Copperfield flying. Few stage illusions in general are sustainable -- the ones that survive (like Metamorphosis and Zig Zag) do so because there's a plausible quality to them that an audience can follow. A trick with too much scope and scale will risk testing people's "bullshit threshold" (quoting Tyler), because deep down people know that an actual exhibition of too strong a power means that the government would lock you up.

Tyler believes that the best approach in figuring out a repertoire is to group effects to see which ones reinforce each other, rather than contradict each other. It also means figuring out different ways to demonstrate the power. If you're limited to a single prop (such as only cards or only coins or what have you) then you're akin to a body builder with one really big bicep. With cards, there's a concept called "From A Shuffled Deck In Use" (shortened to FASDIU) which encapsulates effects that can be pulled off, well, from a shuffled deck in use. In my view, somebody who can operate FASDIU has a better chance of claiming many different sorts of powers -- when it's time to do a transposition, he can find a way to do it with any old ratty deck of cards, rather than pulling out the nifty little packet trick that nobody else can examine. Going outside of cards, what's necessary in claiming a power is to adopt a FASDIU mindset with any prop, and having a toolset capable of handling a variety of venues. Tyler likens this approach to magic as being similar to Jackie Chan and bucket drummers. Jackie Chan doesn't need to run away from fights if he doesn't have a sword or nunchaku on him because he can kick ass with various random items in his immediate vicinity, and bucket drummers look at everything as a percussive instrument, as something they can create music with. This mindset can be brought to magic as well, with the right training.

Of course, if there is a downside to playing the creature of power, it's in not understanding that there's a time and a place for playing that character, and risking becoming Job from Arrested Development. There's almost an inevitable hint of controversy when you portray a character in a magic show and refuse to call what you do "tricks", or else lead the spectator into places where they actually wonder if magic is at play. There's also no doubt that people would expect you to be "on" 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, in much the same way that they'd expect a standup comedian to say something funny at the drop of a hat. Still, when done well, this sort of magic can lead to very compelling theater. Again, I don't know if I buy into the whole "tricks" vs. "magic" dichotomy, but there's definitely something there that separates this sort of performance character from the others.

Ye Olde Friende Whoringe (continyude)

2008-11-23T21:20:00.003-05:00

Just thought I'd mention that Jamie D. Grant, a magician from Vancouver and a magic reviewer over at the Magic Cafe, has taken his popular review column and created a blog around it. If you aren't aware of the format, it's a good one -- Jamie takes a magic trick, and goes and tests it live on bunches of people, before reporting on the results. My favourite feature is when he tests the trick on Angry Bob, and if you don't know what that means, do yourself a favour and check it out.

Without further delay, here's the link: http://magicfriday.blogspot.com/

(And no, I don't know if that's accurate olde englishe in the blog entry title.)

The superhero character model for magicians

2008-11-21T19:23:00.007-05:00

My computer is starting to fail me. I don't know if it's the power cord connection at the back, or just another in the long line of weird internal failures that seem to point towards me needing to get off my ass and buy a new one. It's a nice fantasy to think of somebody covering my computer with a hankerchief, saying a few things, and when they whip it away, revealing that it's transformed into a brand new laptop. Lighter, faster, more functional, etc. Of course, people like that don't exist. Things like brand new laptops don't just magically appear.

And yet, magicians spend their days transforming 1's into 100's.

In other words, given what I've seen magicians do, I ought to be able to take $10 to a magician, ask him to repeat what he just did, take back the $1000, and go and get myself a new computer.

Except he won't do that. Not necessarily because he's an asshole or anything, but because he can't, despite the proof he's just given me that he apparently can. If he COULD do that sort of magical wizardry with cash, then he'd probably not be working as a magician, for one thing. He'd just spend his days borrowing dollar bills, changing them into one hundred dollar bills, getting change, and leaving with a profit of 99 dollars each time. Even if he was a philanthropic soul, he'd probably end up in deep trouble with the government for having a negative affect on inflation.

So this is a weird thing. We've essentially disproven the possibility of magic being at work when a magician changes 1s into 100s, and yet we've done it without taking a single look at methodology. We don't need to see TTs, or extra bills, or complex packages, etc. We've shown the magic to be false essentially within the theatrical reality of the trick itself.

And that's one of magic's better tricks.

This, I think, is a key part of the problem that Teller points out in the passage quoted by Derren Brown in Absolute Magic. Brown and Teller make the point that the modern magician is a sort of whimsical god-figure who gets what he wants by snapping his fingers, and that this has an alienating effect on the audience. There's no drama, no conflict, no honest exploration of the powers being displayed. There's also no acknowledgment of the theatrical extensions of the effect. Even if the magic effect is totally deceptive, it fails on the basis of theatre. To a certain extent, it's almost like a man going to meet a quadriplegic and saying "Here, watch me dance." The man may be charismatic and charming and a great dancer to watch, but there's bound to be no real connection between the man and his audience.

This is one of the big problems with magic, when you think about it. It's not that we don't have enough strong magic effects, it's that we have TOO many. I can make a copper coin change into a silver coin. How much value did it gain in that transformation? If I can do that, why aren't I on the cover of Fortune magazine? I can make a card jump from your pocket to my pocket. Conceivably I ought to be able to do that with a Mastercard as well, and yet I'm still doing card tricks for a living. I can produce fruit from underneath my cups. Amazing! I'll never have to go hungry again! And so on and so forth, pummeling the audience over the head with these miracles, and then after all that showing off, having to do a complete 180 and requesting some sort of reward for it, be it in cash or applause or recommendations or...

Seems odd when you look at it that way, doesn't it?

Here's a link to Derren Brown's performance of Something Wicked This Way Comes. I'd recommend going and watching that right now before coming back to this follow-up paragraph, as it essentially contains spoilers.

Finished? It's a great show, isn't it? Lots of fun, really entertaining routines, and an absolute killer moment right after the final effect, slightly reminiscent of The Usual Suspects. And yet, look at the "magic" he gave them. He correctly predicted an animal under less-than-test-conditions. He correctly guessed who was supposed to be lying to him, dictated under terms that are essentially a 1 in 5 chance. He hammered a nail into his head. He walked barefoot across glass. He correctly guessed the number of buttons chosen by a spectator, and he needed to adjust his guess TWICE. The final effect was that he apparently correctly foresaw a single word. When he finished that effect, he then turned around and showed that he was able to influence all the choices leading up to that word through subtle linguistic engineering -- not exactly magic, since we're all aware of the power of advertising and propaganda. In fact, the closest thing to an impossible demonstration was when he was able to reveal the name the one girl early on was thinking of, and even that can't compare, on the impossibility scale, with making a single card change into another card.

So what on earth is going on here?

I think the key is that Brown has a strong sense of what his performing character's power is. He's studied it, figured out everything theatrically-pleasing that he should be able to do with it, and perhaps just as important as anything else, he's aware of his power's limits.

Let's back up for a second. If Brown is able to correctly predict a future event, then he ought to be able to predict lottery numbers, win himself a bundle, and retire in perfect comfort, finding new devilish ways to torment Guy Hollingworth. But he hasn't claimed that power. Instead, he's claimed that he can influence people into making certain decisions, and do it so subtly that they won't even know they're being influenced. He's essentially killed two birds with one stone there, from a dramatic standpoint. On the one hand, he's relieved himself of the theatrical responsibility to answer for a character that nobody could connect to (the future seer), and on the other, he's added the outside agent of the spectator (the person he must influence) so as to create drama and conflict. Rather than alienating himself from his audience through his successes, he's established the necessity of an intimate connection WITH the audience in order to find success. That's pretty clever.

Now, while it's a great show, I don't necessarily believe that we're all forced to abandon traditional magic effects in order to produce something similar. Instead, what we need to do is look at what's being done in Brown's show, realize that much of it is just as false as what we want to do, and figure out what he does to make it feel true. He doesn't just snap his fingers in order to enter the necessary mental state to walk across the glass. He COULD have, but he didn't. Look at what he did instead. Ditto for the button-counting -- he doesn't just make the clairvoyance a token moment, he has to get into it by inflicting pain on himself.

So how do we apply this to magic? Well, first, I think we have to abandon the character model of the whimsical god figure, and instead embrace a different model...

...comic book superheroes.

Hear me out.

Take even a cursory examination of any superhero out there, and you'll notice that he (or she) has got some very interesting things going for him. He's got a defined power or set of powers. We've got an understanding of his relationship to his powers -- where they came from, what he needs to do in order to invoke them, what scope they have, etc. He's also constantly in situations of conflict, and he uses his powers to get through them.

There's also the parallel with the magic moment. Superheroes typically aren't cavalier about the gestures needed to make their powers come to be -- when they don't put any effort into it, comedy gets associated with the moment. Instead, when the Hulk wants to lift something heavy, he needs to put a little effort into it. When somebody wants to fly they have to crouch down a bit, then jump up into the air, and then fly. When somebody wants to shoot lasers from their eyes, they find the object, focus on it, and then their face tenses up right before the moment the lasers come out -- imagine how funny it would look if their face was relaxed and nonchalant and the lasers were still coming out of the eyes. Our magic moments could have that same feel to them. I think Sean Cudeck is on the right track with this. Look how he makes an event out of the coin vanishes, and in essence claims all credit for it, giving none to a wand, or a magic word, or some token gesture.

Getting back to the superhero, he also understands the limits of his powers. Arguably, the more limited the powers are, the more compelling the character is who can overcome them. There's a reason Superman is less easy to identify with than Batman -- in most instances, our identification with Superman is strongest when he is shoehorned into the weaker Clark Kent character, when he is dealing with the problems of having to keep things secret, of being unable to fit in. As Superman himself, though, he's just some exhibitionist fantasy figure that gets to be borderline annoying. Consider also that, despite all the powers that a fictional magician should have at his disposal, there haven't really been any truly great magician characters in comic books.

Unfortunately, if there's any basis to this, it's that if we want to take on this sort of character, our magic needs to change. Thankfully, they can be really subtle changes -- we might not even need to change much in the way of skills and methodologies, but rather look at what we're applying those skills and methodologies to. Look at Tommy Wonder's idea for the Cups and Balls. In the end, he doesn't produce foreign final loads. What are traditional final loads, if the effect is to be perceived as magic? Essentially, they are new matter being brought into the universe. But Wonder doesn't create things out of apparent nothingness. Instead, the final loads are items that we've seen all the time which just inexplicably end up under the cups. If we look at things in terms of pure impossibility, it's NOT as strong as causing fruit to come into existence from nothingness. And yet, theatrically and artistically, it's a MUCH more satisfying experience -- we are not surprised by things we could never have expected, we are surprised by things that were right there in front of our face the entire time. Now Tommy Wonder's execution is such that an audience is left with two potential explanations of how the final loads occur. Either the bag and pom-pom have got a mind of their own and just end up under there of their own accord -- on the surface, this seems to be the explanation for how the magic is happening. Anybody who thinks beyond this and decides to sanely disbelieve the concept of sentient bags and pom-poms, then has to consider the alternate explanation, that Tommy Wonder is so fast, so deceptive, that he can sneak things under the cups right under your nose and you don't know it. In essence, this is what's happening, but at the same time, how can these things occur when he's obviously working so hard to present the 'other' magic? Greater analysis yields a different mystery -- since loading them under the cups himself is too bold to do openly, how could he get away with it? These things point towards a deeper power.

I deserve no credit for the superhero analogy, by the way. Again, I blame Tyler. The whole line of thought began for me during a magic video depot discussion about how to perform coins across. The inevitable question was "Why coins?" At the time, my answers were all from the point of view of the magician -- because I'd had training learning how to manipulate coins, because I was comfortable with the sleights and concealments, because I could think of a lot of good methods, etc. The problem was, these things aren't theatrically relevant to the audience. From their standpoint, there's not a whole heck of a lot at stake in a coins across routine when looking at it from the point of view of props. Even if I'm using four half dollars, the scope of the effect is two bucks. Where it starts to get interesting is when it's looked upon as a demonstration of a power, because the ability to make things teleport is quite intriguing. During that discussion, Tyler made the direct analogy to Nightcrawler, who has teleportation powers, but they're not all-encompassing teleportation powers. His range is limited to two miles, and long jumps exhaust him. He can also teleport himself, his clothing, and a limited additional mass he's in contact with -- meaning, he can't make other things teleport without himself going along for the ride. His training allowed him to eventually teleport another person with him for small distances, but while he could handle it, the person with him would become instantly disorientated. Ironically, that made it an effective combat tactic, in that he could grab an enemy, teleport a few times, and they'd be overcome with dizziness and nausea, making them easy to subdue -- an intriguing example of how to turn a power limitation in one context into a dramatically compelling feature.

Do you see where this is going? All of a sudden, now, we can see coins across not just as a good trick, but a demonstration of a power, something that points deeper. Maybe the magician can make anything teleport from one hand to another when he has complete contact with them, but he's using coins specifically so that you can hear when the magic happens. Maybe he can make your watch jump into that box over there that he hasn't touched. Maybe he can have a pile of buttons that you count out, and he stands on the other end of the stage, and you bring him three of them, and he makes each of them vanish, but when you count your pile of buttons you find out that you're not three short anymore.

Maybe the magician has an affinity for metals. He can make coins jump from one hand to another. He can make forks and spoons bend. He can drive a spike straight through his body, and then remove it, leaving no damage (alright, I don't know a method for that one yet). Doesn't that seem like a compelling magician character? And by narrowing his focus to metal, he doesn't have to explain things like, if he can manipulate coins, why he doesn't do it with bills or credit cards.

Maybe he's trying to sell the idea of "fast hands". Maybe he starts with coins across, and then realizes that it doesn't work as well for him as Tommy Wonder's Socked Coins would, so he switches to that. He also does a coin snatch. He makes cards switch places right under your nose. He can pick your pocket and steal your watch. And so on... Each of those three examples strike me as someone who will easily be remembered as separate and distinct from other magicians.

Incidentally, I don't have a set opinion about whether or not the claimed power is one that should be stated outright for the audience. I think sometimes it can be helpful to define a power for others, and other times it could be just plain awkward. I do think that the magician defining a power for himself makes a ton of sense, though, particularly in the avenue of determining power conflicts.

Consider the following theatrical incompatibility. In one trick, three cards are taken by a spectator and placed into his pocket, and the magician, blindfolded, correctly names each card as it's pulled from the pocket. In another trick, the performer launches into a magician-in-trouble scenario where he believes he's found the spectator's thought-of-card, and shows it to her, and she says it's not hers (we'll presume that later he changes the card to the right one or some such). Both of these tricks might be equally good, but there's an incongruency here. How was he able to determine one card correctly, but not the other card, when presumably he's got a consistent set of powers at his disposal? Solving the incompatibility might be as simple as saying that the mindreading works only with men and erratically with women. But leaving that sort of discrepancy there it is artistically unsound.

Another possible theatrical incompatibility might be a performer who mixes mentalism and magic carelessly. Now, while many (including Derren Brown himself) are quick to say that the two can be mixed effectively, I think most would agree that some effort would be required to ensure that one ability does not explain the other. For instance, if I do a mind-reading routine involving three billets rolled up into paper balls, and then immediately launch in a "paper balls across" effect, I believe I've undermined the mind-reading claim, since whatever secret method I was using to make the paper balls jump around, I might also have been using to manipulate the billets for the mind-reading. The routine construction for both individual effects might be exquisite, but are two different powers being displayed here? Or is it just one power masquerading as two?

This is also why I have a lot of sympathy for those who say cards shouldn't be used in mentalism effects. In order to succeed, I think that the key thing is to make sure the performer interacts with the cards in a way that a mind-reader would, and that essentially, the performer would have to come through on the effect in the fairest possible manner. If the power claim is such that the mentalist can really read minds, then a spectator should be able to bring their own deck, shuffle it, look at a card, put it back, and then have the performer name it. If you think about it for a second, that 1-in-52 miracle is better than most mentalism-themed card tricks out there, and yet even it is nothing compared to what many mentalists can do with a swami or a book test.

So let's get back to the initial bill switch trick. Is there any way to apply this whole superhero/power/limitations/whatever line of thinking to the bill switch? Thankfully, yeah, there are tons of ways. The stated claim might be that he's training in origami, and after creating a few amusing shapes, he accidentally transforms the bill into a mismade bill. Or else, he might change the bill, and claim that it's only an illusion, and that it won't remain a 100 forever, and in fact with a bit of a wave it visibly transforms back into a 1. Or else, he might decide to look for less obvious applications of the method. Instead the transformation isn't the effect, but instead an indication of a moment of transposition -- the bill has switched places with another bill. Or else, he's torn the bill almost in half, and then with a rub, he's restored it.

Or maybe he's not even using money to begin with...

Guerrilla Training, part the second

2008-11-17T21:44:00.009-05:00

Went to the mall today to test out various things and try to reconnect with people I performed for the first time. Learned a few things as well.

First, the troublesome news... The Ambitious Card consistently went over well. If you read the olde blogge at all, you know this is problematic for me given that I detest the routine. That said, there are many things in its favour that I cannot deny at this point, even after just a handful of performances.

Aside from the usual strengths (can be done FASDIU often with a borrowed deck, straight-forward and easily understood effect, etc.) one specific virtue that I'm forced to accept is its flexibility. I greatly underestimated this particular aspect of it. While I tended to stay on a general script of about 5 or 6 phases, there were times today I could have just opened with a pass (phase 1), done a Tilt (phase 2), and then just moved into the Pop-Up Card as the climax (phase 3). One other time, though, sensing a wary spectator, I was able to put off the climax and add a few extra phases in there. Tyler has said that one of the notable things about the ACR is that there's probably no other piece of magic whereby you can create as much conviction in the effect, and while I agree with that, I think that it's also worth elaborating on the point, that there's no other effect whereby you can as easily alter the performance on the fly to gain the conviction that you need. To put it bluntly, you can use a switch if they suspect a control, and you can use a control if they suspect a switch, and if you've trained properly, you can make the jump from one to the other without really any outward difference in the appearance of the effect, and you can do this impromptu. That's fairly powerful. How many outs have we got for the key ring?

An example of how flexibility can save the day (which is certainly old hat to those of you who use the top change regularly)... one time, whilst jazzing, I had poor misdirection for a top change and the eyes went down right during what would have been seen as a suspicious move. Remembering what I was taught, it was easy enough to replace the card atop the deck, DL to show everything was copacetic, and then move into a different phase. I don't know if you're into top changes at all, but if not, don't be afraid of them because of the bustability factor -- just employ the out as described. It's a great way to add additional flexibility to the ACR.

Speaking of the Pop-Up Card, a while ago the Smiling Mule said that it was worth doing a bare-bones ACR just for the sake of doing this particular effect, and unless you're dead set against the plot being in your "A" set (like I am) then I agree with his judgment. As I've ad-nauseumized before, part of what makes me hate the routine is that it claims a power that I just don't want to be seen having, although I'm sorely tempted to keep the routine anyways, just spun under the presentation of its historical context and popularity amongst contemporary card magicians, and that's really just because of the climax. More on the Pop-Up Climax in a bit.

Other observations... In Strong Magic, Darwin Ortiz talks about how, in general, there are more similarities than differences between audiences. The more I get out there doing this stuff, the more I feel that his point is oversimplified. (Truth be told, I've had this suspicion for a while, but today cinched it) Yeah, we can learn to bank on certain things working, certain things not working, certain suspicion sets amongst spectators, certain misdirection tactics being reliable, etc. What's more, if we're doing large shows, I think we can predict certain group mentalities as well, that there's an overall social normalization that happens when a bunch of human animals are corralled together with a magician figure in front of them doing pretty stuff.

That said, I can't help but feel that we can easily make too much of this point. Between these mall-walkings, the time I spent busking, and whatever casual performances I do when other magicians aren't around, where most of the time the interactions were limited to myself and a couple of spectators, I found that the variances between performances were striking. Specifically, in order to figure out the best material for me to be performing, I've been making an effort to get feedback from different people about what routines they like best, and patterns are hard to find. Take today, for instance. Spectator X liked Dr. Daley's Last Trick the best because he can put his finger on the cards before the reveal. Spectator Y liked Triumph best because of the drama built into it (I've got a real-time presentation where I apparently really fuck up). Spectator Z liked the Ambitious Card the best because he was able to see the trick over and over again. Spectator Q freaked out the most over the repeat Card to Pocket, but when asked, his favourite trick was Dr. Daley's Last Trick. Spectator K can't even narrow down a favourite trick... I could go on. This sort of thing happens all the time. The striking thing isn't so much the fact that different tricks played strongly for different people, but that the reasons for those differences reflect different attitudes from the spectators about what they think magic is all about. This strengthens my belief in my theory that there are multiple archetypes for magicians, and there's just no supporting any argument that says "Magic should be like 'this' and not like 'that'" with varying quantities for what 'this' and 'that' might be, when it comes to things like comedy, theatrics, level of challenge, level of impossibility, the effects themselves, etc. This would seem so self-evident in any other art form, and yet we're still plagued by nonsense bullshit discussions on magic forums: "Should I go for bewilderment or astonishment?" "Is the magicians' job to entertain or mystify?" "Is it meaning that turns tricks into magic?" etc. Ye eyef, yea verilie, rolle upwardfe. Be thankful that people don't all expect the same thing out of a magic performance, and tell anybody who tries to browbeat you with mantra to shove it.

(That said, Strong Magic is an excellent book that everybody should read etc. etc.)

Another observation... (again, old hat for those who already do this sort of thing regularly) if the routine requires the card be signed, insist upon the card being signed up front, even if people resist because they don't want to ruin your fancy shmancy cards, or because "they trust you". Just get it over and done with. I asked a guy if he wanted to check out the cards, and he waved it off, saying that he trusted me. Two phases into the Ambitious Card and he concluded that there were duplicates. D'oh. I've not quite figured out how to make the signing of the card presentationally interesting without ripping off the usual lines (ie: To the pretty girl: "Make sure you've got your phone number on there NYUK NYUK NYUK!"), although I've got some ideas... which I'll be keeping to myself at the moment.

One other thing that was tough today was the guilt about being in a store, getting some clerk to watch my magic, and then buying nothing. My way of dealing with that guilt? Buying something. So now I'm sitting here typing this, wearing my fancy new Golden Gophers baseball cap, with a stomach full of salted cashew nuts and wondering what to do with these five casino chips in my back pocket. Bleargh. If this keeps up, I'll be lucky if I leave Minnesota with any money at all.

I'll conclude this portion of the blog with this query from Peng Huang yesterday: Ahhh yes...the famed Card to Pocket and ACR. Speaking of which, are you going to perform them as seperate effects, or combined? And if the latter, do you think it is possible to do Card to Pocket first, then the ACR? Cheers, Peng

To answer, I ended up performing them separately in most instances. Of the times that I performed them together, I found that the Card To Pocket, while it played alright, wasn't as well-received as the ACR, and neither seemed to play as well Dr. Daley's Last Trick, if you can believe that. My personal belief is that it's very difficult to do anything after the ACR because it's such a strong demonstration of power over a selected card. As for whether or not you can do them together, my instinct says that in order to properly sell the effect in Card To Pocket (particularly Grippo/Carlyle's approach) you need to create a massive distance between the deck and the pocket, and the gestures necessary to communicate this are just too damned awkward if you're closely surrounded. If they're close, I think a well-done ACR is better, since the stage is so small and everything can happen under pretty intense scrutiny. Up on stage, the Card To Pocket just has greater visibility. That's just me pulling theories out of my ass, though. (So what else is new?)

.............

At this point, I've got to get some thoughts out of my head, a cranial evacuation as it were, on the Pop-Up Card climax and the concept of magic moments.

After writing yesterday's entry where I said I wouldn't use the Pop-Up Card, I figured "What the hell..." and went ahead and decided to give it a shot, figuring that signatures would be destroying the card anyway. Having seen the reactions, I believe that if you want to stay within the realm of the Ambitious Card plot (and not deviate outside of it by segueing to a Card To Impossible Location effect or some other) then it's worth having this down. Never mind card magic or the ACR, there are very few effects in magic period whereby something visible and undeniable can happen at a determined moment without any apparent action on the part of the magician.

Which brings us to a necessary brief aside for some Tyler Erickson theory here: Part of the problem with many magic moments is that they don't correspond in a plausible manner to the effect. For instance, many magicians ask the audience to believe that snapping the fingers makes a card rise, or else sorts out a face-up-face-down mess of shuffled cards, or perhaps something else. For the most part, if the magic moment cannot be perceived, if there's an element of mystery about when it might have happened, then the magic moment gesture must adjust to the effect. If we show mastery over a full deck of cards, ala Triumph, then we should contact the entire deck somehow before the reveal. (Didn't I just rail against the use of 'should's earlier? Yeesh. Anyhoo...) If we show a card rise, we should riffle the deck or else do a twist of the deck, again, implying contact or an impossibly quick sleight. Keep in mind that these "moves" should not themselves explain the action, but they should create their own weird sort of plausibility.

Sometimes it's hard to know what that plausibility should encompass. We all know that in most cases the "magic" is well done before any magic moment 'action', rendering all magic moments logically false, and yet this does not render all magic moments equivalent. With apologies for conveniently poaching a supporting argument from a book I'm currently reading, Derren Brown talks about this in Absolute Magic a fair bit when it comes to mind-reading. The process of getting the information, the external reality of it, needs to be connected to the effect. One could, for instance, steal the necessary information via center tear and then say that a quick rendition of "Hello My Baby" will allow him to reveal the hidden information verbatim. Alternately, one could use the same secret method to get ahead, enter into a struggle-dialogue with the spectator to try to wrestle the information from their head while the spectator remains silent (Brown outlines a nifty example in the text itself). Now, in both cases the performer is in a position to make good on his claim and reveal the information, and from the point of view of the internal reality, both outward explanations of what makes the effect happen are equally false and even ludicrous, and yet from a dramatic standpoint, the "Hello My Baby" approach is clearly inferior given the nature of the claim. I believe that Tyler's argument says that there's a similar relationship between snapping one's fingers to show the card has risen to the top, and riffling the edge of the deck to show the card has risen to the top (in the context of the ACR).

And yet, in contrast to this, one cannot argue with the Pop-Up Climax. If I were to say that tapping my wand on the deck causes the card to rise to the top before I show it to be the case, it would be met with some healthy skepticism, and rightfully so. And yet, if I tap a wand on a deck, and something striking apparently happens at the moment I tap the wand, with no other possible explanation at hand for what else might have caused that something striking to happen, I believe now the choice of the more "unbelievable" magic moment is justified. Brown's idea of the relationship of "cause and effect" is more fully realized, so long as the cause is clear and unmistakable, with no ambiguity that there might be some other cause.

If any of this theorizing on my part means anything, then it's this... On the surface, it would seem that snapping the fingers is a weak way to show you're making magic happen. Paradoxically, though, it might actually be that snapping the fingers to make the magic happen is in many instances too STRONG of an implied claim. We might as well just omit it altogether in most effects, since it's difficult to come up with a demonstration of an effect, with the surrounding conditions, to give it any credence. It's not that finger-snapping is itself a trivialization of the magic moment, it's that the unbelievability of it renders the magic that follows less credible. To make finger-snapping a believable magic moment, every other detail, no matter how trivial, must point towards finger-snapping being the only catalyst possible for the effect. Rather than just making it a perfunctory action, the audience must accept that the state before the finger-snap is fair, and the state after the finger-snap is undeniably different, and that there is a direct corelation between the action and the moment of the effect. If the noise is one of the defining features of the fingersnap, then it follows that we must surround the magic moment with silence, a contrasting sound-picture that shows that all other noises are unable to cause the magic to happen, allowing us to create the specific moment in which the only thing in existence is that snap. If the suddenness of the fingersnap is another defining feature, we should preface the action with a delay of some sort, to highlight the corelation between the suddenness of the fingersnap and the suddenness of the effect undeniably occurring.

Does this mean that the fingersnap cannot be plausibly used early in an ACR routine? I think it's possible to still get away with it, particularly if you eventually move to a presentation whereby the fingersnap comes into its own as a "magic maker" (as it can with the Pop-Up Climax). But this is the really interesting thing about all this to me, in that the power is not just from the perception of the effect, but in a magician's ability to make the magic moment itself resonate somehow. Consider the implications that this can have for developing individualized characters. The story the spectator leaves with changes from "the card changed" to "he snapped his fingers, and the card changed" or "he coughed, and the card changed" or "he waved his hand, and the card changed" or "he looked away, and the card changed" or "he flicked the card, and the card changed". Arguably, one could take the same effect and make a hundred different stories out of it simply by coming up with a hundred different plausible magic making actions.

I get the feeling that, despite the fact that this line of thinking excites me tremendously, many people reading this might think, "Well duh, moron. Didn't you know this already?" I guess what makes this particularly interesting to me is the fact that I believe that many modern conjurers, inundated with so many books and DVDs and tricks and stuff, are tempted to take some things as a given, and look at magic moments as things that are to be glossed over, lest we insult the audience's sensibilities. Perhaps in some sort of post-modernish cynicism we pay cursory homage to the magic moment by just creating any identifiable moment in time that we can, so that we can get on with arriving at the effect. Perhaps these magic moments are made deliberately quick and painless so that we can pack more of them into our multiple-phase darlings and not worry about them becoming interruptions. And yet, if we take Derren Brown's advice seriously, and look at things not just as "effect" but also "cause and effect", with much emphasis given to both, perhaps we stand a better chance of making our performing personae unique.

But now we've got a problem. If a magic set has a few routines in it, each of which contains several magic effects, now we might have a dozen individual magic moments or so that each need to be properly developed and fleshed out. And by problem, I'm not thinking along the lines of magicians being lazy or anything -- that's the easy analysis of the problem. Now the problem is finding a way to correctly balance those magic moments within the context of the show. If we don't make every magic moment resonate, we risk diluting the magic itself. On the other hand, if we make each one as powerful as they can possibly be, we might be walloping our spectators over the head so much that they become tired of it after the second trick.

This (along with many other arguments) might point towards the case for a smaller performing repertoire. The more effects we clutter our repertoire with, the more disparate implied claims to power there are, the larger a set of necessary magic moments are required in order to make those claims believable, to the point that if we were to look through the different requisite gestures the magician has to make in some sort of slide show, it would come across as a sort of epileptic fit. Usually, in fiction, when we want to make a strongly-defined character, we look for consistencies. If we bring this idea to the magician character, that means that, assuming we don't want a weakly-defined character, our effects must not only maintain some form of consistency, but our chosen magic moments must also have some sort of consistency as well. If we have a wide, varied repertoire, it would make sense that in order to keep that consistency, we adopt a vague magic-making moment, such as a snap of the fingers or the waving of a wand. If we do a wave of the wand here, a finger-snap there, a magic word here, a riffle of the deck there, an audience-determined action here, an unintended magical occurrence there, we're giving the audience too much to chew on. It's practically a parody of magic, in much the same way that Beyond The Valley Of The Dolls, by embracing the motifs of so many incompatible film genres in a single story, becomes a sort of parody of film. A more generalized action on the part of the performer would be the best approach, since it would allow a consistently even relationship between the action and the effect brought about.

And yet, when confronted with the idea of vague magic-making moments from before, we're brought into a dilemma. Either our Swiss Army Knife magic maker does not do the effect justice, or else we have so many different magic makers appropriate to all the different effects, that it becomes difficult to come to terms with what our character is all about. The suggested solution, for somebody who wants to embody a true magician character, seems to be reining one's self in, choosing fewer effects with greater consistency between them.

Fewer effects with greater consistency? That sounds pretty damning. I suppose perhaps it's less about limiting one's number of effects and instead limiting one's range, and I also suppose that given the endless potential for human creativity one could come up with an approach to magic that allows a wide variety of effects that doesn't have too much variation in the power that lets the magician do them. Arguably, on that second point, we've got one of the triumphs of mentalism, since so much of the power is internal, inside the performer. But for regular magicians, if any of this is true, we're in disturbing territory. Now, all of a sudden, a magician has to ask himself why he needs a wand to make the ball travel from his pocket to underneath a cup, whereas he doesn't need a wand to make a card travel from the deck to his wallet. I wonder if this is the sort of soul-searching that most are going to want to do. Hell, I'm not even sure I'm ready to do it myself.

God, I was excited, but I'm depressed now.

Time to go eat some more cashews.

EDIT: I finished off the cashews and came back to have another look at this. After a re-read, I realize that not only am I saying nothing new, I'm using a hell of a lot of convoluted phrasings to say it. Bleargh.

Ambitious Card Dread...

2008-11-16T22:31:00.004-05:00

I'll be making another trip to the mall tomorrow, and this time the repertoire will be consisting of two things -- Card to Pocket and the Ambitious Card. Now, I've worked with variations on the Card to Pocket theme and I'm looking forward to the opportunity to work with it, particularly if I've got a borrowed deck situation, but the Ambitious Card, on the other hand, yeesh...

A while ago I wrote about my feelings about the ACR, and I'm in the weird situation where I've now got to do it, despite the fact that those feelings haven't changed. My own reasons for not wanting to do it are very similar to Tyler's... the power demonstrated in the ACR (making a card jump to the top of the deck) is one I don't want to claim. I'd rather have a card secretly come to the top of the deck to get set up for a totally different effect. Unfortunately, Tyler's calling the shots on this one and I have to go along with it.

I know there are many useful things I can learn from doing this -- understanding the power of the offbeat, capitalizing on the right timing, adjusting to the needs of the moment (ie: switching methods depending upon the situation), understanding how spectators' suspicions evolve.

I've got ideas on how to present the ACR as well (the current favourite being a spin of the way Eugene Burger introduces Triumph -- eg: highlighting its place in the history of card magic), but unfortunately, another part of this exercise that's important is eliminating all presentation and concentrating purely on execution -- presentation being the luxury and privilege of the experienced. Plus, there's also the fact that the venue that I've got isn't conducive to large presentation pieces anyway. I'm not even supposed to write down a set plan for how the routine will go, but instead keep overall strategic goals in mind. When I went to Tyler with an idea that I wanted to do something nice and brisk, three phases and then the Pop-up Climax, ta-da, he said that was too short. When I told him that I didn't want it any longer than five, that idea was shot down, in favour of this... I'm to perform ACR phases until I've completely sold them on the conviction in the effect, and then end with a Climax in which they get to see it arrive, such as a face-up rise or the Pop-up Climax.

So, instead of being able to map things out, I've got to look at ACR phases in terms of sequences and combinations, and use their reactions as the routine evolves to make alterations on the spot. In a sense, this is very much what Daryl talks about doing in his Ambitious Card DVD (and by proxy of Minch in the Omnibus) with the term "jazz-magic", and while I can certainly see the merits in this, under no circumstances do I want to do anything close to Daryl's juggernaut of a routine.

So instead of actually doing a routine from start to finish, I've been practicing units -- pass and top change, tilt + DLs, Bluff Pass + DLs, and finding a way to get into a face-up rise. I'm putting off the Pop-Up Climax for the moment since I might have to use borrowed decks and I'm already spreading myself pretty thin with all this new stuff.

The ubiquitous nature of the plot does make it pretty risky to be doing this routine for random people, and while thankfully I do have a couple of secret weapons that you won't find Youtube tutorials for, I'm hoping I don't need them.

I'll report back on how it goes.

Derren Brown's Something Wicked This Way Comes

2008-11-13T01:17:00.004-05:00

Derren Brown's "Something Wicked This Way Comes". This is a great show. I don't know how long it'll stay up on Youtube, but if this link works, follow the rest and make sure to watch the whole thing, right up until the very end. This is up there along with Ricky Jay's 52 Assistants act as a show I would gladly buy a performance-only DVD of without question if I could find it (anybody got a link?), with no complaints about not being able to learn the secrets, since there's just so much to learn from simply watching the show.

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Mall-based Guerrilla Magic Training

2008-11-12T22:20:00.005-05:00

To all those of you who've been holding your breath wanting to hear my personal updates (yes, all five of you) I'm sorry that I've not been posting more regularly. For the most part, things are still a whirl... if I'm not learning new techniques, I'm refining old techniques, trying to figure out a personal character, reading about magic, talking about magic, taking notes in Tyler's classes, etc. At times, it's hard to figure out what to put down without it all seeming like some sort of magic orgy soup thing.

However, yesterday was an experience worth documenting, if only because it involved Tyler and myself going to the mall and wandering around, looking for bored store clerks to show magic too. I was actually surprised by some of the things I learned, and it's caused me to re-evaluate my own biases, including some which I consider to be fundamental. It's also worth noting that Tyler considers this a worthwhile training tool assuming you go about it the correct way. I'll post more on that later.

Another thing that was unexpected was the fact that we were actually able to work with supplied props. One store was giving away "stress sponges" that you squeezed with your hands. Tyler was able to rip them into sponge-ball substitutes. Once, when Tyler needed a coin for his copper/silver-esque routine, he was able to get a nickel from a clerk. And TWICE clerks were able to provide their own decks of cards. This is one advantage to the sort of holistic, flexible training that Tyler is a devotee of -- when somebody is in a position to want to know if you can do the trick without your potentially tricky magicians' apparatuses (apparati?), you don't need to offer an excuse or an apology. Instead, you can blow them away with their stuff. Anybody who's interested in the concept of building a claim to power ought to know the immediate value in this. The downside, of course, is that you need to be prepared to handle that sort of situation. The plastic cards I got from one guy, for instance, made it really difficult to find the natural break between packets on the Slop Shuffle, and I fumbled my way pretty roughly through that one before finishing. Again, this is not a new idea -- Harry Lorayne's been saying this for decades -- but it's just interesting how it resurfaces, and what the implications for that sort of thing are. (More on borrowing items later)

As for the experience itself, I was pretty much limited to three tricks... Dr. Daley's Last Trick, Slop Shuffle Triumph, and a singular performance of an Ambitious Card quickie involving two phases, with no climax -- I just hit him twice (pass, DL to show it's not there, ask the card, show it's there, top change, insert into the middle, have it jump to the top) and then afterwards just left it at that. Anybody who knows me knows (a) I like big presentation pieces and (b) I hate the ACR, but it's hard to argue with the reaction of a spectator who's just been smoked.

That was the last trick of the day, for a guy at a kiosk whom Tyler had shown stuff to earlier, and most of the other tricks prior to that weren't quite so positive. No tricks failed outright or anything, and it wasn't that people weren't impressed, it was just that I didn't have the presentations to take advantage of the venue. Somebody in a store, even somebody who looks like they're willing to give you their undivided attention, might have to be taken away at the drop of a hat to deal with a sudden phone call or a new customer. That means that the sort of tricks that work well in that environment are so short, that by the time they're finished, I'm usually getting started blah-blah-blahing my way into my intended presentational framework. Magic, I suppose is like alcohol -- sometimes it's best to savour the fine wine, and other times you've got to throw back the tequila shot. The flexible magician is prepared for both. I'm not a flexible magician yet.

Other things I've been working on lately... polishing the cups and balls routine (word to the wise, practice on coffee mugs -- you'll be better prepared for an impromptu performance, and if you do happen to have your own set, it gets almost ludicrously easy)... trying to figure out better presentational frameworks for all these tricks... learning Crazy Man's Handcuffs, Copper/Silver, and 2-in-the-hand-1-in-the-pocket... trying to develop an Isn't/Is card trick (a card that isn't theirs changes into theirs, ala I've Got A Surprise For You or Dunbury Delusion)... taking the pass live... etc.

Oh, it's also been great talking with Pat Umphrey a lot lately about the sort of material that he wants to bring into his stand-up act, although I still think that he's only going to see the success he deserves to get when he fully embraces his inner asshole and unleashes it. Once he figures that out, the guy is going to be a sensation, as he's already got technical skills galore.

And now, for a break-down of Mall-based Guerrilla Magic Training, or, How Ye Olde Magick Blogge Learned to Stop Worrying And Love Ellusionist (Musgrave/Erickson)

* First, before starting, this is damned important. READ EVERY BULLET POINT BELOW. Somebody who browses quickly through this, and only takes away the idea that bored store clerks are great targets for practicing magic, runs the risk of messing the whole opportunity up in a big way, both for themselves and everybody else involved. If you decide to pass along any of the advice in this topic, then pass along ALL of it. Either refer them to this blog entry, or else copy and paste it in its entirety if you have to -- you've got my permission as the author of it, and Tyler's as the purveyor of most of the really good insight.

* Essentially, what this is all about is going to a mall, locating store clerks that are bored out of their skulls, and offering to show them a magic trick. This is primarily a great training technique, and although obviously networking and other opportunities can come of it, I won't be spending any time exploring that. The sort of magician who can benefit from this is anybody who's looking to refine a technique or break in new material, mostly the sort of hard-hitting stuff that would work well not just in the Blaine-ish Street Magic sense, but also potentially for walkaround or strolling magicians.

* The major advantages to performing magic for this type of audience are twofold. First, the person in their shop feels empowered. It's not the same as accosting random people on the streets or in a park or in a coffee-shop or something. It's their space and they have power, and they enter the trick with a good mindset from that standpoint. Second, there's also the already-mentioned fact that, depending upon the store, they might be in dire need of something interesting to happen. One store where we found two willing participants sold sunglasses, and upon talking to them we discovered that they really didn't get much business during the winter months from about 5:00 on, since people don't usually have sunglasses in their mental shopping list when it's cold and dark out. We were there for ten minutes, and not a single customer came in during that time. It wouldn't surprise me if they went a half-hour without seeing anybody.

* If you're lucky and you've identified the right people, and you give them a good, hard-hitting magic trick, then the next time they see you, you are now a known quantity and they are now more likely to be a willing audience. Suddenly, all that fear about approaching them, concerns about the right opener to use, dealing with rejection, etc. are practically rendered moot. What's more, if you do a really good job, you might find them recommending you to others, and that endorsement can make things easier as well. One of the major (unfortunate) functions of openers for walkaround gigs is that part of what you need to do is establish prestige and credibility. This might mean making concessions in terms of material, performance style, etc. Winning them over once means you can have a bit more leeway the next time.
* Before I go any further, one important key... SHOW COMMON SENSE AND SOCIAL GRACE These people, first and foremost, have a job to do. They are not there to help you practice your magic performance skills. They have product that they must sell. Customers, phones, etc. are an immediate priority. I was able to do Dr. Daley's Last Trick for one counter-person, and while she liked it, I immediately saw that she was in the uncomfortable position of having customers just walk into her store, and while I knew that on the one hand she'd like to see another trick, on the other, duty was obviously calling. Contrary to logic, to make an offer to show her another trick would have been far from generous on my part -- frankly, it would have been inconsiderate, since it would have had to put her in the position of having to say "no", which is frequently just as unpleasant for the person who has to say it as the one who has to hear it. Similarly, when Tyler and I were at the sunglasses store, one guy just went off-shift, and recommended to his replacement to watch Tyler do a trick. Tyler immediately said, "Please, if you're busy, don't let me get in the way. We're in no rush and can wait for you whenever you like." The new guy, who might have very well stood there in his jacket and watched the trick out of politeness, was grateful and went about getting set up to mind the store, before making sure that he had the spare time to watch the trick. The result? Tyler, having shown the clerk respect, had in turn earned it, and he also made sure that by the time an actual trick would be shown, that he'd have the guy's undivided attention.

From Tyler: "This sort of thing is like returning to my roots. Back when I was just looking to perform, the mall was always a safe place or (more frequently) polish old material. ... Assume the sale. I know I have 99.9% will love what I do. So long as I treat them as a person and recognize their position, there's little reason to decline the offer."

* The approach isn't quite as tricky as you'd think. Tyler told me afterwards that he made a point of using the most horribly cliche'd of all approaches as often as he could: "Would you like to see a magic trick?" As terrible as magicians will tell you this is, you frequently don't really need anything sneakier than that to get a "Yes" out of them. Instead, it's a matter of following this general strategy: Find a bored store clerk, acknowledge that things seem a bit slow, and ask them if they're busy. They say "No", and then, without any hint of pretension, ask if they'd like to see a magic trick. Tyler got one rejection all day, and he called it ahead of time -- a surly-looking older woman who just didn't seem really all that friendly. Everybody else was keen, although that had a lot to do with the fact that the targets were well chosen.

* Incidentally, Tyler stresses that acknowledging that things are a bit slow is a crucial step. Building rapport before introducing magic to the scenario is important, far more important than obsessing to the point of paralysis over the precise wording to use when offering to show them magic.

* If you've got misgivings about this sort of thing, here's an attempt from Tyler to describe the right attitude for a magician to have: "I've got a gift. What I'm showing them has the power to affect their day, week, or possibly month in a positive manner. It's like you have $20 in an envelope, you know it's valuable, and you're asking if they want it. When they say no, it just means they don't know what's in the envelope. But your magic and training has value in a very similar way. This helps maintain confidence, a belief in the product."

Regarding rejection, malls are great because there are so many stores that, if you're rejected, you're seconds away from the next one. Don't take it personally if you get rejected. They might love magic but be unable to see it due to temporary circumstances. There's also no shame in having a performance cut short because of any minor distraction.

* Less-than-ideal targets: Stores where the sales staff obviously work on commission, where the boss is present, where the staff is obviously busy with a task, where there's a lot of loose valuable product out there (a clerk may be easily distracted because they have to worry about shoplifters), where there's at least one customer there, etc. Kiosks are tricky, because the people working there need to be of the mindset that everybody who walks by is a potential customer, so if their attention is on you, even for the minute or so magic trick you've got for them, they might be missing out on a sale each time somebody walks past and doesn't get attended to. That might mean a dozen people, or more.

* (One additional less-than-ideal target: Assuming you're a guy, a single woman who might fit the demographic of somebody you'd date. It's very difficult to keep that sort of thing from becoming a distraction. Even if you don't intend it, she might assume it.)

* Better targets would be anybody who doesn't fit the above criteria (there's more than you'd think -- I think we visited more than a half-dozen stores, and we didn't even have to resort to assailing people in the food court), younger staff, stores that had more than one clerk there (meaning that one could watch and the other could field potential distractions). Making sure to operate outside of peak hours or heavy shopping seasons (like Christmas) is a great idea as well.

* The material needs to adjust for this venue. If you're like me, you'd consider a proper Ambitious Card trick to have five phases, the fifth being a killer climax, and all the usual bits of byplay, convincers etc. In this sort of venue? Overkill. An ACR with five phases isn't one trick, it's five tricks. All those extra bits of theatrical gold? In this venue, they're unnecessary, and potentially a harmful distraction. Tyler advocates "bullets" -- tricks that get the point across with minimal presentation and don't demand too much of the spectator's ability to focus. He makes the point that despite his misgivings about Ellusionist, "Brad Christian is striking a very workable model of performance for this particular kind of venue." He adds that "[Ellusionist's] emphasis on sleight-of-hand competency, selling the magic moment, attitude during performance, and basic style of effect" make for the sort of magic that works well in this venue. I have to confess that as much as the prospect of endorsing Ellusionist makes me die a little inside, when it comes to this sort of thing, he's right, and I had to learn the hard way.

* One other aspect to the brevity argument... If you're in the position of needing to get as much performance practice as possible, what's better? One two-minute trick, or two one-minute tricks? Keep in mind that a clerk who thinks all your magic is quick and easily digestible is likely going to be in a better position to ask for one more, whereas even a clerk who loves your five-minute Out Of This World presentation is probably not going to be prepared to see another one. Let's say you go back. Do you want them to remember you as the guy who can show them a fun trick in under a minute? Or do you want them to remember you as the guy who needs five minutes to get the trick over with? These concerns aren't universal in magic -- the sort of magic "bullets" that work well in the mall could be extremely unsatisfying for the spectators who come to your venue expecting a proper show. Still, lately there's a huge bias amongst serious performers in favour of rich presentation pieces that could easily spell your death in the mall.

* Now, that said, if you already have made a great first impression, then the next time you come, you are in a better position to make more demands of the audience. What that means is that on your first go-round, it would be a bad idea to use a trick that had a slightly-more complex presentation (Triumph with the usual accompanying story), and ludicrous to ask to borrow a finger ring or a large denomination bill. On the second go-round? You might have a bit more leeway.

* Keep in mind that some routines just shouldn't be attempted, period. Doing a 2-in-the-hands-1-in-the-pocket routine using store merchandise that you hadn't bought would be absurd. On a more general level, think of the position a clerk's in should that happen. "This guy I don't know is putting our stuff into his pockets." Similarly, while doing a complete vanish of an item and not bringing it back can be a great way to let a mystery linger while at a strolling gig, this sort of thing at the mall with a borrowed item would be showing form so poor that it's practically destitute. While the idea of putting one's self into the spectator's shoes isn't exactly new, it does need to be re-stressed that it's not enough to put yourself into a spectator's mindset, but a clerk's mindset. The exercise is simple enough... how would you feel if you were on the job and somebody wanted to practice their magic trick on you?

* Tyler's comments on the socialized approach, or the Re-Tangled Web: "Eric Meade makes the case for bonding with the group and asking their profession, even in professional settings, and when the question is returned and answered 'Magician', even then waiting for the request to perform something. Granted this is a rather stylized approach, and not always possible, but the benefits are enormous. If somebody says 'Hey, show me something,' it's all there. You have a better hold of their attention, you have their permission, all the things that normally need to be overcome are taken care of. All those opening questions are gone, no fear of rejection, etc."

* The benefits of this sort of thing? Probably the greatest is the prospect of an ever-changing audience. Constantly performing different tricks for the same audience is the downfall of the amateur. Being able to perform the same trick a half-dozen to a dozen times in the same day can help you evaluate a trick in a more generalized way -- to develop a sense of what works, to understand how to adapt to the venue, to understand when theatrics are necessary and when they are not, these are all good things for the magician-in-training.

* Again, this can't be stressed enough: if you decide to give this a shot, use common sense and display social grace. They aren't there for you to feed your ego. You're there for them, to give them the gift of entertainment.

* As stated above, if you want to pass along any of this information, then you'd better pass along all of it. Either refer them to this blog entry, or else copy and paste it if you have to.

* If you suspect that there is additional information that is being held back in this blog entry, the "inside work" if you will... you'd be correct. I've included what I believe is necessary so as to arm people with good information responsibly, but there are additional items that would be beneficial for many magicians to explore, be it amateur or professional. Personally, I think that's up to Tyler to decide how to part with it, under what terms, and for what cost.

* Also, one last piece of advice: Don't dress like a bum.

Pre- And Post-Performance Tactics

2008-11-09T12:33:00.004-05:00

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.

Sean Phillips

2008-11-06T22:29:00.005-05:00

Sean Cudeck, who performs under the name Sean Phillips, is a young magician in Minnesota who runs around in the same circles as Tyler and his ilk, and who currently does shows in Minneapolis and St. Paul. He asked if I'd be interested in putting up his promotional video to show off his wares. I wasn't really all that thrilled by the prospect. Then he gave me his last Guinness, and so, I wanted to let the world know that I'm THRILLED by the prospect of introducing you all to Sean Phillips, doing a neat-o magic trick with three coins.

Also, here's his website: www.sean-phillips.net.

I'm such a whore.

Wednesday, November 5th

2008-11-06T02:59:00.004-05:00

The day's performance field trip didn't really yield much, just one performance of Dr. Daley's Last Trick for some guy in the magic nook as Tyler conducted a class. Meh. It got him, but... Meh. Still, I managed to talk him into buying a Johnson Copper/Silver/Brass set (where's my commission, TCMAC?) and got to see Fred demonstrate a whole bunch of stuff. Man can he talk a blue streak.

After that, Pat Umphrey came by the house and we ran through the reduced Dai Vernon Cups and Balls routine, and after that, we were given challenges of applying the principles inherent in the Cups and Balls template to a 2-cup and then a 1-cup routine. It's a bit tough to explain, as it relates to Tyler's pretty complex thoughts on templates of magic routines. Still, some interesting stuff came of it. After that, we went into the Benson Bowl routine, and it's amazing just how awkward the thing felt. Despite the fact that it uses balls, a wand, a big load climax and a loadable receptacle, it feels nothing like a Cups and Balls routine. I suppose that's obvious enough to anybody who's familiar with these routines, but for me... Just way out there.

Later, it was back to TCMAC for another lesson, got into the bill switch (Tyler's preferred handling is a combination of the Kowslowski method coupled with Roger Klause's ideas of half-steps), and subsequently messed up my cuticle. Given that I've got some bad habits anyway I think I might give it a shot from scratch working from the left hand. So many exercises that we've been doing have involved building up ambidextrous ability that I might as well put some of that new motor function to work.

After some basic practice later on we had a bit of a jam session, where Tyler whipped out as many of the card moves that he's worked on, refined, or invented as he could remember, and I think in the near future I might be able to pester him to get some of his work on film to upload to the world. He's conflicted about it -- on the one hand he understands that it would help his credibility to show that he can in fact follow up talk with walk, but on the other, he's always been a strong traditionalist about video, and how it can take something away from you almost permanently. None of this is for sure, but we might be able to get some shuffling and passing technique up. If we do... boy oh boy, will that be a treat, if only so that the guys in Vancouver Seven (and I guess any regular readers of this blog) will have an idea of what I've been talking about.

Finally, got to watch Don Alan's Greater Magic Library video. That was nice, as I'd never had the chance to see him work. The man sure can throw a lot of show at you in a short time.

Coming up soon will be a discussion on pre- and post-performance priming that I think might be of interest.

Daily Update

2008-11-04T23:24:00.003-05:00

Tyler's with the girlfriend for an election night party, and I was left with a few items of homework -- simple wand vanish incorporating the Ramsay Subtlety, a covering action on the classic pass, classic palming multiple coins, and working through all sorts of shuttle passes (for continuous productions, acquitments, etc.). Not much else to say except that I've been practicing the moves while watching the coverage myself.

Coming up soon there's going to be a shift in focus towards live performance. This is going to be a particularly painful aspect of the training, I think, as I'll be doing it with tricks I've never done live before, using a presentational style that is quite foreign to what I'm used to. I'm not going to say anything more on that until afterwards, when I've had a chance to evaluate how it's gone.

Back soon...

The Anatomy of a Pick a Card trick

2008-11-04T20:09:00.004-05:00

Want to break this down?

There's the initial selection of the card, the replacement of the card, and the discovery of the card. Those are essentially our three main portions. The initial selection has within it the ideas of whether the cards were just mixed and if it's by the performer or spectator, and then the method of selection itself (eg: dribble, hand-to-hand spread, giving the deck to the spectator, etc.). Then we go into the replacement of the card, and even "replacement" of the card can be a misnomer because there are tricks where the card is not removed from the deck. And then we are into the cleanliness in which the deck is manipulated -- active controls and passive controls, and how well the replacement is punctuated.

What do you mean by "punctuated"?

I mean that when somebody puts the card back into the deck, and you close the deck and set it down, that's punctuated. If they put their card back in, you go instantly into a double-undercut, and then pause afterwards, you might as well have told them that "I've just put your card where I want it." The timing of when you execute the control should come after the punctuation if at all possible, with notable exceptions -- shuffle controls, immediate bottom placement (Kelly bottom placement), immediate bottom placement (aka Marlo's Convincing Control), these are all controls you can't delay because they are a part of the replacement.

We all know the method of revelation has a great degree of bearing on the strength of the effect. But we rarely give consideration to the initial selection and replacement procedure.

Consider this description: Somebody picks a card, and the magician goes through the deck and finds it. Is this a good trick? It's a trick question, because we don't have enough information. What if it was the spectator's deck and you didn't touch it and they took any card out that they wanted and then shuffled it back into the deck, and then, you found the card? That's a good trick. What if you weren't even in the room when they did that? Now, it's even better. But initially, you might have said that this is not a good trick. But all of the strength rests on the conviction that you couldn't have known what the card is or where it is. Osterlind's Test Conditions 2 is a good trick in that sense, despite having an unspectacular revelation.

Any art is about choices, and the majority of our choices are a give and take scenario. Every choice brings with it strengths and weaknesses, and we need to decide what strengths we need, and what weaknesses we can best conceal. For instance, the card trick described would have great conviction that the card has been lost. But, it takes a significantly longer time to have a spectator follow all your directions. So, ultimately the choice is made by the nature of the effect. Does it require that level of conviction? Or, can you use a more expedient (but weaker) selection process?

This brings up your early baiting strategy... the process of getting the spectators to want more control over the conditions of the effect, by subtly arousing suspicion. In other words, cutting the cards once and saying "Now the card is truly lost." counting on the fact that they'll not be impressed with that.

Yes. Once you've proven that you can find a card under test conditions, should you choose to have them pick a card later on, you can use a much more direct control because they are already convinced that you will find it, because of their earlier conditioning.

But that means you have to change the quality of effect.

Exactly. You need to increase the revelation of the card, the payoff.

So the baiting trick might be...?

The initial baiting trick would be one where there's no way that you can find the card. As an example, I think Gray's Speller (Double Speller) would work, as you're not just going through the deck and pulling out their card, you're revealing a magical positioning of the card within the deck. If the control you use forces you to look through the deck face up, you might as well use a trick that has this built into it. Gray's Speller needs you to look through the deck, so you might as well use a trick that involves this (eg: key card, force, glimpse). My preference would be to force. The reason being there would be no need to glimpse, which may be an intuitive suspicion for a spectator. Also, because I'm not using the force for a prediction trick, it does not betray itself in retrospect (like painting the revelation on a wall might). Also, not a key card, because they can't shuffle, which would lessen the ability to convince them that it's lost. With baiting, I want to play that game all the way to the hilt, and the force is the most efficient means of doing this. You start with unconvincingly losing the card, and you engineer the interaction to culminate with them shuffling and them shuffling that they're convinced that it's important, they have to feel that their shuffle matters.

Selling the lie.

Right. And they're only going to be convinced that the shuffle matters, if they believe I don't know the identity of the card. That's why I prefer a force, because I can sell the idea that there's no way for me to peek.

What sort of trick could you follow with that would take advantage of the "I can really find any lost card" power you've just shown?

Honestly, we're now where most magicians start. Most magicians use a more direct control (eg: pass, double undercut) and then go immediately into a strong visual effect. For instance, an indifferent card changes into a selected card. Or even better, some trick that involves the entire deck, like Triumph. When I have the time, I prefer to open with the longer, more convincing "baiter" trick. When I'm on the clock, I cut straight to the chase. And this is again one of the sacrifices of the professional, as opposed to the amateur. The amateur can take advantage of the flexibility, and build deeper conviction, without worrying about getting bogged down.

What do you think makes for a good revelation?

There's tons of them.

Anything in particular or general?

Well, Triumph is a revelation. Card on Ceiling, Card to Pocket or Wallet, Ambitious Card (initially it's capable of being a revelation). It depends, sometimes they start with the selection being secret, other times, it's open.

But those times when the card selection is open, you'd want to push those off?

It depends on how you want to frame the effect. When the card is selected in secret, you get the one-two punch of finding the card, and that it's on top (for the Ambitious Card). The sacrifice is that you've started with another pick a card trick. My preference is for the latter, if I was to do it at all. There are a number of tricks that can be improved by minimizing or eliminating the selection process, such as Ambitious Card, which in a sense allows you to create texture by not doing as many pick-a-card type of effects.

Do you like pick a card tricks?

I LOVE pick-a-card tricks, but they're also cliche.

How do you keep them from becoming cliche?

My job as a magician is not just to meet expectations, but to completely exceed them. When you have somebody pick a card, they expect you to be able to find it. So that is not enough.

This brings up something you said in your class, about lowering expectations so that when you ultimately exceed them, the reaction is stronger?

Creating maximum contrast between expectation and result. We need to go into the trick starting with a low claim, or a great expectation of failure. Again, this is why the baiting trick is good, because if they don't even think that you can find the card at all, any magical revelation goes well beyond their expectation. Card to Wallet is a very strong effect. You can frame it as "I couldn't find the card, so I'll give you the contents of the wallet."

All this magician-in-trouble stuff requires good acting, right?

It requires exceptional acting, that's why people don't do it. They don't know, they don't want to know, and so they don't practice doing it.

Who do you think is good at it, who's worth studying?

Tommy Wonder probably had the best take on "failureeffects". He's one of the only people who's written specifically on the topic in a fashion that most people can follow. Another might be David Williamson, who is an exceptional actor. For Torn and Restored Transpo, there are several elements -- he acts like he missed forcing a card on you, he acts like you messed him up on the return of the card, he finds the wrong card when it spins out of the deck, and he acts appropriately as he rips it into pieces. He then asks you for the name of your card, and pushes through the deck to find it, all the while acting like the trick has gone wrong. A perfect model of method acting, and a great trick. Exceptional construction, timing, execution -- a perfect trick as far as I'm concerned. And yet, the pieces don't restore visually, and the card isn't signed, but those shortcomings are more than outweighed by the fact that (a) ripping the indifferent card up made sense, (b) making the two cards change places made sense, (c) the restoration happens in THEIR HANDS, and (d) the card's final restored condition makes it USABLE in a deck of cards. A folded card is just as unusable as a ripped card in a regular deck of cards meant for playing card games. So the torn and restored transpo has an internal logic that runs through its entire execution.

One other aspect that you wanted to impress upon me was to not tip the fact that I might already know the card, even if I didn't force it. Are there general guidelines for this?

Card College 1, in the discussion on the classic force gives key advice on how to act during and after the selection of the card. Also, find a way to watch David Williamson do the previously mentioned trick, as it has all of that baiting in there.

Are there specific features of good revelations?

I think that the average magician gets a sense of what a strong revelation is. The part I think they miss is the importance of what leads up to that revelation and the difference that strong conviction on loss of the card plays in its later discovery. So while card stabs are theatrically pleasing, a card stab when the spectator shuffled the deck before the revelation is significantly stronger.

What general mistakes do you see magicians making with pick-a-card trick?

Well, if a magician is an actor playing the part of a magician, most card magicians are acting like they're putting the card where they want it. This is probably not what they want to be conveying to their audience, but ultimately their body language and scripting tend to give us a strong feeling that is exactly what they have done. An example -- they're talking a blue streak, a card's been selected, they open the deck up at a specific spot, they say "put your card back here", the two halves of the deck barely come back together, they become dead silent as they stare at their hands, and they do a double undercut. As soon as that action is finished, they resume their regular personality, and start to talk another blue streak. This sort of thing, sadly, doesn't go away in time. The only way I think it can go away is if you repeatedly get burned by vocal spectators, but many people don't say what they're thinking and so bad habits become permanent actions.

And this is why pick-a-card tricks have a stigma?

Yup.

Anything to conclude or summarize your thoughts on this?

Here are four steps to stronger card magic.

1) Borrow the deck whenever possible, even if it's inconvenient, even if the cards suck. Whatever you can do with those crappy cards beats what you can do with your own beautiful slippery Black Tiger deck.

2) Let the spectator shuffle, particularly in the beginning of your set. Getting it out of the way upfront will curb their desire to shuffle later on, provided you don't do anything to raise their suspicions of a secret arrangement.

3) If possible, make your first pick-a-card trick extremely convincing in the loss of the card, as described above. This will also aid the conviction (and efficiency, without sacrificing conviction) for any further pick-a-card tricks down the road.

4) Adopt an indifferent attitude towards your own mixing of the cards. The more arbitrary and unconscious the action appears to be, the less suspicion they will have regarding your shuffles. The ultimate goal is to make them forget who shuffled the cards, and only remember that they were indeed shuffled.

Tyler on the Role of Sleight of Hand

2008-11-04T14:00:00.005-05:00

When it started to become obvious that note-taking was a bit cumbersome for our talks, I broke out the laptop and things went alot easier, so much so that it seemed worthwhile to change the format to an interview style.

What do you see is the major role of sleight of hand in magic?

I consider sleight of hand the #1 functional tool for the flexible magician, because gimmicks will only get you so far. Even if you carry around some of the most flexible gimmicks we have (eg: TT, IT, PK Ring, Topit, Quarter Shell, and so on) it's still extremely limiting to the overall number of objects out there and effects that you can create, if you do not employ sleight of hand. In fact, in most cases, even a gimmick requires sleights to manipulate it in and out of position.

It is my belief that all things being equal, spectators look for gimmicks first. They are far more savvy to the idea of fake things than they are to tricky and deceptive moves. In fact, sleight of hand and gimmicks are almost on opposite levels of the spectrum. The concept of gimmicks is high-tech and James Bond-like, whereas the concept of sleight of hand is crude. Look at it this way -- the reason why hustlers consider sleight of hand a good tool is because the damning evidence really only exists in a fleeting moment in time. Not so for the holdout.

Awareness of sleight of hand will affect your ability to present things even with sleights are not required. Watch someone demonstrate a Svengali deck that has never trained in sleight of hand -- frequently, they are clumsy and lack a basic familiarity with cards. Sleight of hand training allows for a quicker acclimatization to a prop. You can handle things, you can prepare outs, you're better prepared for situations that come up.

Let's suppose you're well-trained in sleight of hand, and somebody drops a gimmick in your hands, such as a splitting coin. The sleight of hand practitioner stands a much better chance of immediately knowing how to apply the coin in a functional and deceptive way.

What are the dangers of not devoting one's self to sleight of hand?

Sleight of hand magic, as opposed to gimmicks or self-working tricks, has a direct quality and a cleanliness to it that is hard to match because you have both the examinability factor on your side and the immediacy and the directness that sleights provide over procedural effects (like "Thieves and Sheep" coin tricks). What's more, if you've got the audience thinking you've got excellent sleight of hand, then discrepancies and gimmicks are helped by the foundation that your reputation provides. If you have high credibility with a deck of cards, a cross cut force probably won't be scrutinized the same way it would as if you were perceived as having no skill. People will look for explanations that match their belief in your abilities. Ergo, no skill means you must be employing a gimmick or a discrepancy. Known sleight of hand ability then has the residual effect of making gimmick or discrepant methods less necessary in the audience's eyes. If they credit you with the ability to just do it, they're not looking for an excuse. Eg: If they really believe you're strong, they're not looking for how you faked bending the bar.

What are the dangers of intense devotion to sleight of hand?

Becoming myopic and looking only for answers in the realm of sleight of hand. To become a purist in the worst sense of it, where you will not accept a superior solution because it doesn't fall within the given brackets of sleight of hand. This is akin to the idea that if you only have a hammer, you perceive every problem you encounter as a nail. There are people who in the face of a vastly superior solution for a trick, will still cling to a sleight of hand version out of the need to remain a purist. You could have this super super clean trick, and they would look for ways to do it with sleight of hand, and be happy as a clam that they duplicated it (apparently) with sleight of hand, and even think it's better.

People have tried to improve the Invisible Deck, and they've have different levels of success. Michael Close uses a memorized deck coupled with a cull and a half-pass. Now, to a thinking spectator, what's the intuitive solution for how an invisible deck works? "Somehow you found my card quickly and flipped it over with your fingers." In Michael Close's case, the intuitive solution matches the actual method. If you do the ID appropriately, you leave them with no room to go there. You eliminate that as an option. It couldn't be done. Presentationally, you can probably even address it.

The overall reasoning to do it with a regular deck, is to be able to hand out the deck at the end of the trick. All things being considered equal, why don't you just switch decks? If we really want to get into it, Close's method involves doing the work when the heat is on, during Ortiz's Critical Interval. With the ID, there's no move. You can switch decks after the effect has taken place, under no heat, and let's face it, how many people want to see and examine the ID anyhow?

The ID does not come with the same "I need to examine that deck" baggage as the Svengali Deck (after an all alike display), the Rising Card, the Colour-changing deck, Haunted Deck, etc. Focusing in on the ID, the two solutions that the spectator comes up with are that either (a) he flipped that card over with superhuman speed and ability, which seems grossly unlikely because he told me to watch and make sure he did no funny moves, or (b) psychologically, he knew I would say that card, or influenced me to say that card. In one shape or another, for the most part, these are the two main families of suspicions, with some slight deviations. The ID disproves both, if handled and presented correctly. This leaves them fighting back and forth between two untrue options, leaving them with a burr in their mental saddle.

To me, this is one of those cases where sleight of hand will not cut it, as it will not give you as strong an illusion as using the gimmicked deck. You can certainly accessorize it with the deck switch for the extra convincer.

We have to paint a holistic picture. What is our end goal? It's to fool the shit out of people, and to do that, we don't fight fair.

How often do you spend practicing sleight of hand a day/week?
I guess it depends on what you qualify as practice. I'd say I average four to six hours a day. You can break that down into several subcategories. I do piggyback practice, where I practice a sleight doing other activities (eg: palming a coin when talking on the phone), I do mirror practice to get a general sense and immediate feedback on how a sleight looks, and what angles are good and such. Then I do video camera practice so I can do more focused evaluation after recording the practice, by watching it without distraction. I can concentrate on looking, and I don't have to be doing something else at the same time. Lastly, because I teach, I end up practicing moves as I'm teaching them.

I also have an eccentric version of rehearsal, where I rehearse being improvisational, and I have rehearsed templates of presentation, for steering conversations or physical choreography to set me up for whatever I wish to do, so I also get practice of sleight of hand within shifting contexts. I rehearse setting a scene in my head, these are the points I need to cover, this is the place I need to get them, and sometimes (not always) sleight of hand comes into it. This last one I'd only recommend to others based on their goals, but it's incredibly powerful for my purposes.

How often do you recommend a new magician practice sleight of hand a day/week?

Depends on the goal. The best advice I can give is this, in general, the number of times you practice is more important than the length of practice. Practicing 10 minutes a day ever day of the week is far better than 1 hour on one day of a week. Piggybacking as much as possible is also excellent for those sleights that allow it (such as palming objects, false transfers, small object stuff).

If someone wants to develop good general sleight of hand skills, what sort of curriculum should they assign themselves? (Assuming they can't get a class)

It's going to depend a bit on their goals. They might want to be a specialist or a general practitioner. You can apply the 80/20 rule, that 20 percent of the sleights will do 80 percent of the work. These sleights are for small objects -- false transfer, shuttle pass/utility switch, bobo switch, han ping chen, and some form of continuous production/acquitment. For cards, there's the force, control, switch, and palming, and different contexts demand different sleights. Someone far away needs one force (distance motivates a force that would make less sense than if they were close enough to take a card), whereas someone close by needs another force. Similarly, a DL is weaker than a top change depending on distance and angle of view (top change benefits from distance and a lower eye line, with a standing magician performing for seated spectators at a table, for instance). Within those four categories, you have sleights that represent the different performance venues, for instance, different passes depending on lines of sights, standing versus sitting, surrounded vs. not surrounded, dynamic between you and them, standing while they're also standing, sitting while they're also sitting, over a table or not, etc.

What do you feel is the importance of general small object manipulation (as opposed to cards)?

Primarily, it is the infinite variety of things you can do, if you're prepared with general small object manipulation abilities. The key isn't in the sleight alone, it's just a gear in a mechanism. There are a good number of very strong templates of magic that can be done with a number of random small objects. Cups and Balls, Yang-Hoe's Sympathetic Coins (which could be done with things that aren't coins or even small/flat objects), a continuous production from the air or mouth, objects across (three ball trick or coins across), copper/silver transposition, and many others that don't really apply to cards.

General small object manipulation can aid your card work in profound ways, mostly because cards are much safer. A lot of small object magic is dependent upon palming. In fact some tricks involve palming something the entire time, whereas the majority of card magic doesn't involve a sustained "dirty" condition. Most of what happens occurs within the deck itself. If I make one card turn into another, the dirty evidence is hidden in the deck. If I make one coin turn into another, odds are the original coin may still be hidden in my hand. Because you need to keep those things secret, you learn better choreography, timing and audience management skills out of necessity, and these adjunct skills translate directly to card magic.

Here's a specific example that should win some of the beginning card guys over. Somebody that is well-rehearsed in the false transfer would do a better top change than somebody who had only trained in cards. They'd pick it up quicker, understand the timing better, etc. They would also be less scared of palming cards. In fact, in many ways, they would find it easier.

Unfortunately, I don't believe that this transfers well the other way in most cases (ie: card skills helping small object skills). The major exception would be if you were one of the very few that has been hammered on motivated actions, eye contact, tension/relaxation, etc. Even something like palming cards won't necessarily make you palm other objects better -- the two main differences are when you palm a card, typically people don't know that it's gone from the deck. When you palm a coin, it's much easier for people to become aware of its absence, and start looking for where it is. Also, most of the time, when you palm a card, most of the time it's for a brief interval to move it to a new location. Palming a coin or other small object can often last for a much longer duration and require superior directional (ie: misdirectional) skills to prevent detection.

I do understand the temptation to stay with cards. There are certain properties with cards that leave them open to compelling plots that you can't substitute other objects for. For example, Triumph is hard to do with coins. However, I warn against it strongly. Case in point: You rarely hear the word miracle associated with "card trick", except within the magic community. (Father Guido Sarducci had a funny line about this on Saturday Night Live)

Are there any major tips that you recommend for somebody studying sleight of hand?

Focus on the fundamentals. Search for as many applications for those fundamentals as you can find (a FT could be a vanish, teleportation, penetration, etc.). Perform as often as possible. Evaluate those performances. Be sure to get feedback from spectators in ways that don't ruin the magical experience they just had (I believe strongly about this and will talk about it at length very soon). Develop a core set. Have an ever-changing audience.

That last point is important. If you just want to do some tricks for a few people, friends and family, you're probably not in the target audience for this discussion. Learn a few tricks, like them, perform them, but if your audience isn't changing, you're probably not going to get any good, and they might get hip to your methods. You're not getting enough performance time on a specific trick to get better. You need a constantly-changing audience so you can do the same thing over and over again and tweak it until you get it right. Every magic trick, regardless of sleight of hand, requires that commitment. You will never be a great magician, until you can put your periscope up, and if you have to constantly think about what you are doing, you can't see outside of yourself.

If you want to be good at sleight of hand, you have to have access to a changing audience, and doing this will improve not just sleight of hand but all your other tools. If you a good outline for a cycle of development, it goes like this: Play around with a move, practice, perform, evaluate, play again while correcting problems, practice, perform, re-evaluate, etc. I don't think you can get good without going through this sort of cycle.

One more thing: Learn the classics, even if you never plan on performing them. Cups and Balls, Matrix (Al Schneider's original version), Triumph, Ambitious Card, Cut and Restored Rope, Professor's Nightmare (Karrell Fox's version gets you into position nicely), Linking Rings, Multiplying Balls, Miser's Dream, Egg Bag, Vanishing Hankerchief, etc. Every prop has its given set of classics associated with it.

Familiarity with the strategies primes the mind for creativity with new and different props. Try to figure out if there are lessons in general sleight-of-hand to be taken from them. If you don't like a particular classic, try to ask someone who put out their favourite version, and explore that. (eg: If you hate the Cups and Balls, go watch Tommy Wonder do it. If you hate the Miser's Dream, go watch Al Flosso.)

Who is good to study, if I want to improve my sleight of hand?

It's tough, because while we have so many good teachers of sleight of hand, nobody really presents a pure message, and there's so much nuance.

David Roth for coins, specifically execution. Coins are the king of small object manipulation. 20 percent of the coin moves do 80 percent of the work. Coin magic allows for all five of the important moves described before. However, some coin moves don't translate to other objects very readily (eg: edge grip).

John Carney for general magic. Any sleight that Carney does is probably going to look good. He has good quality control and provides a good context for sleights, timing, tension/relaxation, etc.

Michael Ammar is good at picking effects that look like they go beyond sleight of hand, Daryl is a good general resource (good rope, card execution, has clean execution and can also entertain). Michael Close, for timing and integration of sleight and presentation.

DVDs are superior to books in teaching sleights. The people who argue that it's easier to learn sleights from a book than a DVD are full of it. Books are wonderful and should never be set aside as archaic, but it is provable that we can learn faster from seeing something than reading it. The joy of the book is that it tends to give more nuance and more detail, so when you get the gist of a sleight, you can often improve a sleight you know by careful reading of its description. In that sense books are often superior. However, it is difficult to know if you're deviating from a good model without a visual reference. The DVD will give you the base, and the book will give you the polish. In the purest sense, if they do a good job writing or a good job filming, the DVD will win out for technical and timing purposes.

It's tough to choose specific products, because people have different needs that I don't know. Can't ask for pills when we don't know the affliction. (Maybe one day I'll talk about what's wrong with the state of magic instruction)

Basic Card Controls (shuffling, cutting, double-lift, etc.): Daryl or Ackerman to see it done, Card College to get the finer details.

Card Palming: Michael Close, for context and timing. For an overview, Carney on Palming and the Bob White Palming DVD. To approach expertise, Alan Ackerman, Advanced Card Control Palming. Be it known, I don't think you need to know all the esoteric palm positions.

Card Pass: I'll need time for that one. It's so difficult to learn from a book. If you've got a decent pass, a good book like Card College will improve it.

Also, since sleight of hand is just one part of an organic whole, it's worth looking at Darwin Ortiz's Designing Miracles to see how to apply sleights to a routine.

Busy weekend

2008-11-03T16:36:00.003-05:00

It was a busy weekend, although not all that much of note happened magic-wise other than meeting a bunch of magicians. Went with Tyler to a Cancer benefit, and I had a chance to hang out with Sean Cudeck, Pat Umphrey, and a new guy called Dave Harris who mixes magic and comedy. Harris was a nice guy, and I'm actually looking forward to see him perform something for people, as I suspect he's good at eliciting laughs mid-trick. Had a chance to talk with both Sean and Pat about magic as well. Pat's a bit conflicted about his show, and resisted my encouragement to play up the sarcasm/asshole factor a bit because, despite being a sweetheart, he's so damned funny when he's got something nasty to say. As for Sean, I suspect that in the not-too-distant future there'll be a Youtube video of him going out and destroying people's minds.

Sunday was spent with Tyler, Becky (Tyler's girlfriend), Brett Bishop (he of the mythically large hands) and his wife Abby. After sharing a few moves in the living room whilst the women watched Family Guy in the computer room, we all went out for bowling. It should be noted that not only is Bishop very adept with cards (he has a one card flurry, or all things) but he's also able to not just bowl a strike from a release between his legs, but call it obnoxiously ahead of time. Your humble bloggiste, needless to say, sucked ass, and speaking of which, has a cramped left buttcheek to show for his efforts. Mildly disturbing anecdote of the night: After knocking over a single pin on my first attempt, Bishop heckled me on my approach, something involving Eugene Burger, myself, and some form of cuddling. The disturbing part was that it somehow inspired me to pick up the spare. Yeesh.

One interesting thing that did happen magic-wise, was that after a little bit of playing around yesterday afternoon, Tyler set me up with some props and told me that he wanted to see a two-ball transposition trick involving two coffee mugs that were meant to be mouth up. Messed around for a while to come up with a three-phase routine, and after swapping for coffee mugs that had colours which matched the balls, the first two phases actually looked quite good. The final phase was alright but still needs some work to make it a proper climax, but maybe at some point I'll get a recording up of it.

As for today, I was given a short list of tricks that were going to be in my repertoire, to focus on those aspects of training that were specifically about performance (scripting, timing, misdirecting in a live situation, etc.). I've got mixed feelings on the choices. On the one hand, I do need simple effects, and the ones we're going with are bona fide classics (slop shuffle triumph, Dr. Daley's Last Trick, Be Honest What is it?, etc.), but on the other, I feel almost like I'll be taking a detour away from the material that I really want to do (Everywhere and Nowhere, etc.). Again, I understand (and agree with) the reasoning, but to draw a parallel, it feels like I'm being forced to write short stories when I so desperately want to pump out a novel.

Ah well.

Tonight I've got to get around to transcribing a discussion Tyler and I had on sleight of hand (just general thoughts about it), and we've also got another one planned on the anatomy of a pick-a-card trick. Hopefully I can get both of them up before passing out.

Lucifer's Lawyer: Thoughts On Exposure (10)

2008-10-31T00:26:00.005-04:00

I figured since I already had a pretty long series dealing specifically with exposure, that I might as well run the topic by Tyler to get his thoughts on it. He already teaches classes to beginner students, and a big part of the hard-core bootcampish nature of what I'm doing here is to help Tyler test out his own philosophy of magic education in general, not just for students of a particular level. One issue that I think typifies most beginning students in magic is trying to figure out what the hell to do about exposure. So I asked his thoughts.

The answer is predictably more complicated than it appears, and he came to the same conclusion that I did a couple of essays ago -- that in trying to deal with exposure, you eventually come to terms with the idea of how to deal with deception itself. We've not yet figured out a system of recording our discussions on these things, so I'm going to be writing this next part as a basic paraphrasing of what he said, so any flat-sounding statements are really his opinion, not my own attempts at statements of fact.

--------------------- Tyler's views on exposure -------------------

There's very little to be worried about with the exposure of sleights or techniques. Tutorials on the False Transfer, the Classic Palm, etc. are not worth caring about. Specific tricks getting exposed, on the other hand, are a real problem. Something like Healed and Sealed getting exposed is more than just ruining a method. Something like the Ambitious Card Routine is also troublesome because it's a trick, but in most instances you can change methodology to adapt.

When it comes to coping, though, it's a waste of energy to obsess, since exposure will always be there. Act like it doesn't touch you, as if those phoney baloney exposed secrets on television don't apply to you.

In general, it matters less what they come to your performance with, and more what they can find when they leave. For instance, if a magician produces a fish, and someone can go online and find a fish magic tutorial, then the memory you've given them is in jeopardy of being dissolved. If it's the other way around, though, if they've got the information ahead of time, you can frequently get a sense from them, a look in their eyes about what they think is going on, and you can adapt. A pretty good idea is, whenever performing for a new person, actually asking the spectator what sort of magic they've seen before, and by judging from their answers, you can figure out which sorts of things might work and which might not, and tailor-make the appropriate magical experience for them. This has benefits that extend beyond exposure, but its applicability to this discussion is self-evident -- if you make even a smidgen of effort you can usually coax enough information out of them to know whether or not the person you're about to perform for is a Youtube secret hunter, and protect yourself accordingly.

It also helps to just make the effort to make your magic more deceptive. Don't rely on the basic features of a move, but analyze what it is that can give that move away, either through flaws in technique or basic logical deconstruction of a trick -- if the chosen card is painted on the wall, for instance, any intelligent spectator is going to assume that they didn't really have a free selection of the card, so did he really stop riffling where I said stop? And it's actually a really good thing when a spectator applies their intelligence in that manner, because magic is arguably a more powerful experience when somebody tries hard to figure something out, and they're unable to.

The major problem with instant access to information is that somebody can leave your show and research what they saw. Some tutorial about a magic trick, if it's seen before your show, is still something you can protect yourself against -- you can fix potential new problems, maneuver differently, change methods, even elect to not do the trick. If it's after the show that they find this tutorial, on the other hand, if it can sufficiently explain in retrospective what they remember seeing, then it colours their memory. It's impossible to deal with that problem if you're not there. If the process in the exposure could apply, could jive with their memory, that's often good enough, in much the same way that somebody might be content to think you used your sleeves because you left them rolled down -- even if they're wrong, they might as well be right. Magic is no longer observed, the feeling will no longer live in their mind, the burr is no longer in the saddle. The itch has been scratched.

But the techniques that can be used in order to enhance magic effects can also be used to deal with exposure. Case in point, in a cut-and-restored rope routine, you flood them with imagery of the two pieces of rope being held apart. This can help deal with the explanation that it was all done through some tricky loop, since that explanation doesn't quite fit with the images the magician gave them. Manipulative patter can influence this as well, distorting or even making them forget key aspects of the process, that can potentially render the explanations in the exposure moot. If you do your job properly, they should disavow the exposed method.

You'll never know who will walk away and go look on Youtube, so you've got to get sneakier. Quit being lazy. Understand what it means to work hard to make your magic deceptive. Sitting in front of the mirror and making your pen-through-bill effect look good is easy. Going out and buying 50 identical duplicate pens and littering them in your regular hangouts, so that you can borrow the bill and the pen and do the pen-through-bill effect? Not so easy. But learning how to deceive on that level allows you to plant details that an exposure video can't touch. "But it wasn't his pen! He borrowed it!"

It's worth re-evaluating all methodology from this standpoint. Take two magicians. Magician A has a beautiful and flawless Push Through Shuffle, a perfect illusion. Magician B's Push Through Shuffle is mediocre, but he's got a great deck switch. Who wins? Remember, Magician B can give spectators the memory that THEY, not the magician, shuffled the cards. The performance with the Deck Switch has the potential to live longer in their memory. Of course, using a Deck Switch brings about its own perils, and those have to be dealt with as well.

The key thing is, when they're in a position to look at an exposure video, they're going to ask "Is that what he did to me?" Our job as a magician is to make them answer no, even if the method you used happens to be the exact same one being exposed right before their eyes.

This is where the concept of cancelling methods within a routine comes in, using the strengths of each method to deal with the weaknesses of the others, creating a compounding illusion of the effect in its purest form. Much has already been written on this, but another idea is to explore cancelling methods on the macro level, using several completely different tricks to cancel the weaknesses of each other.

For instance, the magician decides that he wants to claim the following power: I can put something in your hand, and it will change. To further this end, he chooses tricks like Scotch and Soda, Spongeballs and Be Honest, What Is It? In each of the three tricks something changes in their hands, but they use three different methods, offer three different proofs. The growing impression that the magician can make is that "Something will change in your hand without your knowledge." Tricks need to be chosen correctly, though, so think in terms of your props as objects. It's possible to do a coin trick using the same principle as what's used in Be Honest, What Is It? and this could hurt the power claim. A magician wanting to do this can't think in terms of selling a coin trick, or a card trick. He has to sell the idea that he can take any random object and make it change while it's in the spectator's hands. When this happens, the amount of credit that non-magical factors get diminishes, be it props, sleight-of-hand, self-workingness, etc.

Another example might be a "thief" magician who can steal your watch, your wallet, and your cigarette. Sure, in each case, something is stolen, but in the first case, the item is being worn, in the second, the item is in the pockets, and in the third, the item is something they're supposedly paying active attention to (it's at their fingers, or in their lips). The techniques needed to pull them off would differ, but all three point to an overall impression of the thief, namely, he can steal anything he wants from you. He's going to less of a chance of making this impression if he's only stealing things from the pockets. Zip up your pockets, and where's his power? But if he can still steal from you, there's no sense zipping up the pockets, since he'll get what he wants anyway. (refer to the Martial Arts Master vs. Gym Coach analogy)

Getting back to exposure, try to find as many ways as possible to throw them off. If you do a spongeball trick, don't call them spongeballs. Call them pieces of foam. If you can FIND pieces of foam, by all means dump the spongeballs and do the trick with them. This is one way that the amateur has a distinct advantage over the professional. A pro might decide that he has to use sponge bunnies (I mean, "foam rabbits"), since the effect is simply too good to pass up. You can't do a walk-around gig and expect to get lucky and just borrow that sort of prop from people. A great deal of power resides with the amateur, however. The pro has to come out on stage with his own cups and balls. The amateur, on the other hand, can create the experience where the memory is that he borrowed everything he needed. A pro could easily be prepared with the means for advantage (extra balls, final loads in place). The amateur, on the other hand, can take advantage of the impromptu nature of the event and create the impression of having no apparent advantage. "He wasn't prepared to do magic, and yet he still did this." Essentially, this is why David Blaine has had success in his early Street Magic specials, since he knew how to take advantage of that atmosphere and play it properly.

Exposure is a nuisance, but it's really a major danger if they believe that the exposure applies to their experience with you. But we can even take away some of the added sting of exposure, by laughing at it if it's brought up. "He used a forklift to levitate? He used a piece of paper to read minds? He held two cards together?" Frequently, they don't know. They're guessing, with varying degrees of certainty. Again, if you've been able to pull off three tricks that point to the same power, but one of them has been exposed, you can use the other two tricks as leverage. "You switched it before it went into my hand." We have tricks that can deal with that suspicion. Even a trick like Be Honest, What Is It? has built into it the seeds of doubt that make the core method seem impossible. I can figure out how somebody can switch one card, but both?

One more reason to embrace the concept of displaying a power, rather than just being a doer of individual magic routines, is that the power itself points to a mystique, an aura, one that seems to say for you that you don't need to use those silly methods they saw the Masked Magician talk about. The force of personality can have just as much an impact upon the believability of a power claim as anything else. Broadening one's magic education to really explore what it is they're trying to do with magic can deal with exposure and so much more, since exposure is really only one aspect of the greater battle, that of removing the doubts that prevent them from witnessing magic.

------------------------ Here endeth Tyler's opinion ------------------------

Just one thing to add to the above. Yesterday Tyler fooled me with a card trick that I hadn't seen before. I didn't ask the exact methods, but thinking about these exposure essays, I asked if I should have known about the exact methods. He said yes, that they were classical methods.

And yet I was fooled. Again, things like understanding context, applying the correct psychology, etc. were able to defeat whatever knowledge I should have been bringing with me into the trick.

Drills

2008-10-31T00:00:00.005-04:00

Relatively short diary entry for today. Got to watch a couple of Tyler's classes, the first of which involved a guy called Chad, who didn't look like your typical magic geek. Tyler threw out a challenge to him to do a trick, and Chad wasn't sure what to do, so Tyler tossed him some coins. After a brief moment of thought, Chad displayed a coin, vanished it, and made it reappear under the close-up mat. Cool thing about it was that even though it was just an arbitrary trick, they worked on it together, trying to figure out how to motivate the transfer (make sure it's in the midpoint between where it starts and where it ends up), changing the effect to something a bit more believable (a penetration effect, lowering the claim), adding an extra coin so as to make the effect cleaner, figuring out how to properly hold out the palmed coin during the effect and afterwards (the CP starfish, usually a terrible hand pose, actually makes sense if you're leaning over a table and putting your weight on that hand...).

One great thing about this was that Chad was answering questions for himself, already trying to keep theoretical principles in mind, but far from it hindering him, he was actually trying to get creative with his magic. At his job he had a bucket full of screws, and he couldn't figure out what sort of trick to do with them. After a brief deliberation they worked through the Reflex Trick, where seven coins are placed into a spectator's hand, and the magician snaps his fingers, and shows he's somehow magically stolen one of them. Tomorrow Chad's going to be freaking out his coworkers.

Other stuff happened, there was another class with a different student afterwards, but it was really those things that stood out. Oh, one other thing I guess -- Terry Rose's push-through shuffle is the shit.

Received further education on the clink pass, and how to adjust it so that it's now a Bobo Switch. It's totally fucked up everything, because now I'm getting a clink when I'm trying to Bobo Switch, and I'm getting no clink when I'm trying to Clink Pass. That needs to get ironed out pronto.

Also got introduced to some of the drills that I need to practice. Today's Wheel of Pain... Classic Force, Tyler Pass, dribble (optional), double lift, turn down, remove from the deck, magic moment, card changes, top change, magic moment, card changes back, insert into the deck whilst top palming, reach into pocket to produce card, repeat until hand cramps.

Soon afterwards, it was coin changes. Magic wand to the right, Silver coin displayed in right hand, Copper hidden in left, shuttle pass to the left, grab wand, magic wave, show change to Copper, set down wand, pick up Copper coin, show both sides, Bobo Switch, pick up wand, magic wave, show change back to Silver, set down wand to the left, and REPEAT THAT ENTIRE SEQUENCE LEFT-HANDED, and then back to right-handed, and then left-handed, stopping after 20 cycles to curse like a sailor.

Got into the multiple card top palm, which led to a new drill, cull four of a kind, backjog the top card, do a one-handed flop of the deck, use the backjog to get a pinky break, execute the top palm, produce from the pocket.

Then Simpsons and the Family Guy came on, and that pretty much ended that. I worked on the multiple card top palm, and then classic palming four half-dollars (both hands again, yee hah), and Tyler mentioned that the point of the exercise for tonight was to just throw more information at me than I could handle, to prevent me from thinking to much. I asked him what educational philosophy it was that was guiding this approach, and he just smiled and said, "Something I'm trying out."

Tyler's singing "The Rainbow Connection" on the piano. I just thought it would be worth mentioning that I'm taking magic lessons from a guy who likes the Muppet Movie.

October 29th (further training, amendments)

2008-10-30T00:28:00.004-04:00

Got to watch Tyler teach his class the basic principles behind Miser's Dream (if you can call seven pages of notes "basic"), and I'll need to type those up shortly. I don't think they can go up on the blog, though, as even though I've taken on a relaxed exposure stance with regards to my training, this is a pretty thorough introduction and deconstruction of the plot. Plus, if Tyler gets around to doing a proper course in magic, all this stuff should really be in there, not here.

Yesterday's training after that was pretty rough, and to be honest a bit discouraging at first. Tyler decided that I needed to get to work on my pass, and he got me working on a grip that really feels quite awkward compared to what I'm used to, and again, because I've been self-taught from several sources, required some de-programming. Thankfully, I've seen where this pass is going, so I know it's worth it, but as far as I know I'm only the third person he's taught it to.

After that, it was the coins. My Classic Palm was already pretty close to what it needed to be (yay, I didn't learn something wrong, thanks David Roth) and quickly after that we went into getting used to switching from CP to FP (CP when the hands are low, FP when the hands are higher) as a showing-the-hands-empty display that could eliminate the hand-washing acquitments. This turned out to be harder than I thought it might be, since there's a sort of half-state (akin to the Klause half-move, I guess) that I need to get into when going from CP to FP, and I've always been used to just going straight there. After that it was going from FP to CP, and I learned a method that involves keeping the coin from flipping over entirely and potentially flashing from a bad angle. After a bunch of practicing of this, it was the Clink Pass. This move was so knacky that it took a long time just to be able to execute it without fumbling, let alone do it deceptively.

Between all that while Tyler was watching the news, I was back to the Cups and Balls, only I had to execute it completely left-handed (minus the wand spin sequence, generous soul that Tyler is). After that, we had a talk about exposure which I'll be writing up soon, and I was given my homework assignment -- getting ready to develop routines (presentations, etc.) for Triumph, Copper/Silver, Professor's Nightmare, Isn't/Is (indifferent card changes to their card), Spongeballs, and Matrix. Still no clue where to begin with these.

Lastly, Tyler had a chance to read the entries so far, and woo-hoo, only three things I need to fix.

In the Gym Coach vs. Martial Arts Master analogy, when each allows you to get them in the proverbial headlock, one thing that Tyler feels is a defining aspect of the way a participant would engage the scenario, is that with the Gym Coach, they'll try to clench a lot harder, whereas with the Martial Arts Master, they'll be a bit more tentative. Just another thing about having the mystique. Bringing this to magicians, the analogy might be to see whether or not the spectator comes into the interaction with the almost self-fulfilling prophetical mindset that they're going to lose (Martial Arts Master) that it's taken as a given, as opposed to coming into it with the mindset that they might win if they put up a struggle (Gym Coach).

With the Copper/Silver routine analogy, in which the magician has a tough time extracting the Copper coin from the tough and burly spectator, Tyler wanted to make it clear that he doesn't actually wait for the opportunity to come to him (as was implied by the story in which the girl introduces the magician to the boyfriend), but that he actively seeks it out. He labels this sort of person as the "prover", and if he's got a set in which one of the routines can benefit from somebody making it difficult for him to make the effect happen (but still possible), then he makes sure that he does that trick for that person -- be it the strong man who will make the C/S hard, or else the skeptic who doesn't believe in mental powers who will make the muscle-reading exercise not work, etc.

Finally, in that same article about the prover, I mentioned that an example might be the magician who has somebody come up on stage, wave a wand, and say Abracadabra in order to make a coin change. In my example, the spectator buys it as nonsense a couple of times, and only when they really give it a shot and put some effort into it, does the coin finally change. While I still think such a scenario has a chance of working and be dramatically satisfying (perhaps I've performed for too many kids), Tyler wanted to make it clear that he thinks that in order to succeed, the process that makes the magic happen or that fulfills the claim can't be such that the spectator believes it to be too silly to be true, and thinks that believability is key. The C/S and muscle-reading exercises have contained within them elements of plausibility and applicability to the real-life scenario, and he thinks that the process of using the prover needs to reflect that. The C/S proof involves an exchange of coins that is outwardly difficult because the assistant is a tough man with strong hands. The muscle-reading proof involves two spectators, one of which is skeptical, the other of which is more open-minded.

In any case, there ya goo.

Next up will be another "Thoughts on Exposure" essay.

Fundamentals, part 1

2008-10-29T01:42:00.003-04:00

The first real intense bit of training happened today, and it was... well, intense. In total it was about seven hours worth, with breaks scattered around in there to maintain sanity. It started with basic humiliation -- people who know me know that I tend to be apologetic when I perform for other magicians, since it usually feels socially false to me to switch back and forth from performance mode to chat mode. That said, I had to run through two of my four routines to get an initial sense of what needed work. The coin flurry was alright, but needed refinements, and the rope routine was terribly fumbly, and pretending that Tyler was a young kid (the sort that I usually directed those two routines at when I was busking) felt ridiculous.

After checking it out, he decided that it would be best to start with Cups and Balls. Don't get me wrong, good decision, but if there's a more blunt way to tell someone "Yeah, we need to start at the bottom", I can't think of it off-hand.

Thankfully, the routine I'm on is a good one. It's basically a standard Dai Vernon routine minus the penetration sequence and the 2-0-2 sequence (which is fine by me, personally) and with no flushtration displays (yay), no Charlie Miller moves (yay), and no three ball production at the beginning (indifferent -- in time I might want to add that). So, it goes like this -- three cups and three balls are introduced. (1) Each ball is vanished one at a time, shown to have appeared under the cups. (2) Each ball is placed under each cup, shown to have gathered in the middle. (3) Balls are shown to travel back to the cups even when placed away in the pocket. (4) 4 Final Loads. So far I've only gotten into (1) and (2), if only because there are SO many fundamental issues that need addressing. The manner of handling the cups for loads is tricky, since it involves a different approach than I was used to back when I was dabbling with it. The choreography leading up to the vanish is also complicated to me, since I've programmed myself on the John Carney method as talked about in his Cylinder and Coins lesson, and so this new way is creating issues. Finally, the very nature of the vanish, the display of the hand, feels weird -- I just don't like to open and hold my hand that way to present something (or in this case, nothing), and yet I need to make sure that it registers to a larger audience.

Plus there's all these little tiny things to have to keep track of, such as keeping the dirty wand in the hand, remembering to tilt back using only the finger on the middle assembly loads (phase 2), etc. Still, it's a good solid routine, and I'm grateful, because it could have easily been a lot worse.

Next were the card drills, and more adjustments. Tyler wants me doing the push off double. It's funny, because he talks about how some people find it so difficult to do deceptively that they settle for the pinky count as a get-ready, whereas me and my thumb count regard both those moves in the same way that a four-year-old might regard Calculus. The drills were straightforward... push off and lay one down, then two, then three, then four, then five. Repeat twice, and then gather the cards are start over. Each lay-down is separated into columns, and as you lay them down you maintain the distance between the cards (no square up) so you can see exactly where the issues with the push-off are -- ie: if the cards are blatantly misaligned when you lay them down, you know it's an ugly situation on top of the deck before the square up. Keeping them separate helps to monitor progress, and a nice thing about the drill is that eventually the difficulty of doing four or five makes doing two or three pretty simple.

After this, it was simple doubles -- push-over, square up, turnover, take off the deck, table. The method of lay-down for this was interesting as well, since Tyler believes it needs to vary depending upon where you're placing it down relative to yourself, and he bases it off a Juan Tamariz column that appeared in Genii but nowhere else (so far as he knows). Essentially, assuming you're holding the deck in the left hand, if you're tabling a double off to the left side, thumb it off with the left hand and then come away, but if you're tabling off to the right side, after the turn down, take it with the right fingertips, let the left hand with the deck retreat off to the left side as the card is kept in approximately the same space as it was when it was on the deck, the left hand getting a slight wrist turn that exposes the bottom card -- this is done not to make a big deal out of the action, but instead to present a picture in which the card just shown is isolated from the rest of the deck, before the change is made. If I get a chance to read that Genii article I'll see if I can elaborate more on this. It seems weird that this sort of thing would make a difference, but there you go. One thing Tyler is extremely big on is keeping things in a presentational frame, minimizing a lot of movements that might otherwise be bad distractions. This is a huge adjustment that I'm going to have to make, since my time as a teacher has ingrained within me gesture patterns that, when applied to magic, create problems. The dropping of a hand outside the presentational frame, for instance, might make it seem that the spectator, focusing in on a produced coin, might be missing the steal of another coin (from a sleeve, off a hold-out, whatever) and even if you're not using those methods, you're still suffering from their tells, giving spectators more rationalizations as to possible non-magical methods. Not easy stuff.

Next it was palming drills. Palm the top card, then undercut, replace the palmed card on top of that packet, undercutting the rest of the cards one last time. The undercuts basically facilitate good repetition practice of palming and replacing, and (if done well) allow you to basically practice the action anytime you might have a deck of cards, including out in public where you might not want non-magicians to see you practicing your palming, since the external reality of everything you do is just squaring and undercutting. It's tougher than it sounds, though, because even though I've got a relatively decent steal, I've only ever used the palm as a means of loading away from the deck, which means I've been having enough trouble getting a deceptive deck replacement, let alone in the context of cutting the deck. Still, it's good to have an idea of "good" drills.

After this, jog shuffle controls. Place the four aces at the top of the deck. Undercut, jog first card, shuffle off, rotate the left hand's cards into a pseudo dealing grip (doable whilst still maintaining the pinky on the jog, I was happy to discover), table in a nonchalant manner, pick up in a similar manner, and then do a triple cut, reveal an ace, and repeat the above three times. Also learned about the necessary attitude for dealing with the cards in the context of the shuffle, and even some diabolical little touches that you can add to give the impression of lack of control while still maintaining the jog. Good stuff, not having too much trouble with this.

Next we went into Tyler's theories on baiting. This needs a better title, since it's more akin to the fish begging to have the hook placed in its mouth. Essentially, it's managing interaction with the spectator so as to get them to demand conditions that you're already prepared to handle, and to finally get them to a place where they feel the condition is more than satisfied, not realizing the irrelevance of it. That's a bit abstract, and it might be an oversimplification of the general idea Tyler's getting at, but essentially this is what's going on...

A card is selected, replaced back into the deck, the magician finishes a very brief shuffle and then proudly announces that the card is completely lost, and asks the smartest person at the table (hereafter TSP) to agree. TSP looks at the deck skeptically. The magician acknowledges the apparent suspicion and says, "Alright, well, you can give it a cut." and when the TSP makes a cut, the magician is staring straight at the deck, evaluating the size of the packets. When the cut is finished, the magician then proudly announces that the card is completely lost and a spectator has even given the cards a mix. TSP doesn't seem all that impressed by the use of the word "mix", and says so. The magician looks at him and says "You want to cut again?" TSP asks if he can shuffle. The magician's eyebrows shoot up, before he eventually agrees, but he asks that the shuffle be a nice one like this (he mimes the overhand shuffle) because it's easier on the cards.

I could go on, but suffice to say that TSP is being baited into a situation whereby he makes as many necessary demands as possible so as to have complete conviction that the card is lost (we'll assume the effect benefits from that condition -- Triumph, for example). It's all irrelevant, because the card was forced in the first place, but if TSP is in a position where he can do several riffle shuffles with the magician looking away, and he's happy about it, then that participation makes the effect that much more impressive when the challenge is overcome.

Which brings up the problem -- how to keep this from being the sort of challenge effect that can create animosity between the magician and the spectator. Immediately, when it was my turn to play this sort of role with Tyler acting as TSP, I was inclined to use phrasing and word choices that would have immediately tipped the baiting as obvious. It's a subtle game to play, and it's going to take a lot of study. I do feel that this dynamic would be a particularly valuable addition to the general discussion of Eliciting Agreement that right now is a big part of the theory being put forth by Whit Haydn. These are really exciting times for magic theory, in my opinion.

Incidentally, one other peripheral benefit to having this sort of trick early in a card set, is that, done correctly, it can lead to a sort of efficiency for later on in a card set, in that the whole card-selected-and-replaced-and-lost can be glossed over, since the magician has already proven that he can find a card that's unquestionably lost. That's a double-edged sword (sorry Louis CK), since it obviously requires the magician to be able to present more impressive effects -- almost certainly no effect should follow whereby the only thing that makes it impressive is that a magician can find a lost card. That'd just be poor theatre. On the macro level, it'd be almost like following an Ambitious Card routine with another Ambitious Card routine.

After this, there was more talk about card effects, and I had to confess the fact that at this point in time I'd spent so much time in the world of methods and approaches and plots and such that I no longer felt I had a good sense of what was a good, strong trick. We talked about Triumph, and Tyler lamented the fact that the default presentation of the trick always seemed to be the story of the unruly spectator who mixes face-up into face-down. I was given the task of trying to find a better presentation for it, and when it became obvious that my head was stuck inside that box (for all its flaws, I actually really like the Triumph story), Tyler shared his own approach to the plot. It's quite strong, and certainly a very, very novel way to go about it. I don't think I'm allowed to share this one openly -- I've actually been instructed that I'm not allowed to use it myself. Bastard. He's right, of course, but still... bastard.

After this, most of the rest of the night was spent practicing the Cups and Balls, and then some random talk and jamming. At this point I've got the rotten feeling that I've missed something in the above. I know I didn't talk about the "Poison of the Hands" (that'll be sometime tomorrow), but I'm worried there might be something else...

Ah, fuck it. It's been seven hours, and now two thousand or so words... I'm going to bed.

On embracing the effect

2008-10-28T15:18:00.004-04:00

Talked to Tyler last night after posting. After I mentioned the example of Richard Osterlind with Janel and the ESP cards demonstration, he liked the example but realized that there was a lot more to say on the subject, which is why I'm going to try to squeeze in one more essay before he gets back and becomes the taskmaster who will make me do double lifts for the rest of the afternoon.

This may ramble, as I'm working from hastily-prepared notes from a conversation that did evolve. My apologies.

A magician shows up at a party for a strolling gig. One of the key routines that he does is the Copper/Silver trick. For anybody curious about the method, just throw in your preferred handling, perhaps one with a couple of Bobo Switches and a lot of spectator management. The magician does the trick for several ladies, and gets the appropriate reactions of surprise when they open their hand to see that the coin has changed. The magician, later on, approaches a group, and he sees a lady that he's already done the trick for, and her huge hulking football-player boyfriend. She requests that the magician perform that coin trick for her boyfriend that she liked so much. (Let's pretend that she didn't do the horrible and give away what happens in that quick description of the trick)

The magician looks at the boyfriend and seems a bit nervous. The guy is friendly and likable enough, but he's also pretty big. Snatching the coin from the ladies earlier is one thing, but this guy looks quite strong. The magician finally accepts that he'll give it a shot. He performs a quick vanish and reappearance of a copper coin, and then acknowledges that most people would prefer to see it vanish from the spectator's hand. The magician offers to do it for the lady again, but she points to her boyfriend, requesting that he get to experience it. The magician sighs, asking the boyfriend if he can believe it possible that he might be able to steal the coin from his hand if he made a fist around it. The boyfriend shakes his head, and the magician nods, explaining that it would be difficult. Still, he offers him the coin to hold in his fist, and says that perhaps it might work if he tried something different. He pulls out the silver coin, and places it into his fist. The two of them touch fists, and the magician grimaces, before bringing his fist away and opening it. The silver coin is still there. He shakes his head, and tries again, and fails again. The third time, he tells the boyfriend, "This might feel a bit weird." They push their fists together again, and the magician makes a twisting action that rubs their knuckles together slightly uncomfortably, before the magician opens his hand, showing the copper coin. The boyfriend opens his hand, and the silver coin is there. The magician wipes his brow, and thanks the boyfriend.

This magician has embraced the effect.

How, exactly? Well, I left out the part where he makes the coins transpose effortlessly with the female spectators, since he'd probably be using a presentation that's akin to what most magicians might use regardless of who they're doing it with. What this magician has done, however, is take the same effect, and alter the presentation of it because the conditions have actually changed. Now, he's doing it for somebody who's got a really strong grip on the coin. The overall method might stay the same, the general effect stays the same, but the event changes because the conditions change. The magician recognizes that this audience member is different from the last one, and as such the performance needs to be different for this one situation. It's not just about demonstrating the power of how to make coins transpose, it's about showing how the power itself isn't some static thing, but is affected by the surrounding environment. In defining limits and showing challenges, the power itself takes shape.

Taking this approach to magic is also a great way to manage spectators. For instance, let's say you're doing a mentalism effect and you've stolen the information from the center tear. You've got a person there who's not buying any of your mentalism nonsense. Even if you've got the information already, instead of actually going ahead and naming it, consider giving a sigh, shrugging your shoulders and saying "Sometimes it just doesn't work for some people." Why? Because the power you're demonstrating is that you can read minds -- except, if you really had that power, it would make sense that it might fail if your subject decided he wasn't going to try to help you. Consider that if you were able to reveal the information, even if they weren't really actively participating, it might let on to the possibility (the unfortunate truth, actually) that mind-reading itself has nothing to do with it. It's also a good way of flattering spectators, acknowledging their participation in the effect, showing that it will only work if they play along, that their role in the event matters.

Another neat aspect to the above is that it allows for a routining dynamic that I once labeled (for lack of a better term) the Table-To-Table Progressive Story. (You can read more about it here.) The basic idea is that you can design tricks whereby if somebody is following you around at a party or table-hopping gig or whatever, they actually get a richer experience from it, since the effect seems to change. In the above case, now that lady spectator has two stories, one in which the magician was able to perform the effect effortlessly with her, but had a bit more trouble performing it for her boyfriend. In ways that matter, she did NOT see the same trick twice. Something has been gained in the way the trick changes depending upon who's participating. Similarly, something is lost when variances in the audience are not acknowledged and shown not to have an effect on the outcome.

There are different ways to create these sorts of obstacles. Compare the following scenarios. Scenario A: The magician brings up a spectator, places a copper coin in his hand, gives him the magic wand and says, "Wave it over the top and say abracadabra." The spectator rolls his eyes, does what he's told, and the copper coin changes to a silver coin. Let's assume that it's deceptive. Has the audience really been given the necessary information to know that the wand and magic words matter?

Scenario B: The magician brings up a spectator, places a coin in his his, gives him the magic wand and says, "Wave it over the top and say abracadabra." The spectator rolls his eyes, does what he's told, but when he opens his hand, the copper coin is still there. The magician looks at the coin and is a bit confused and disappointed. He picks up the coin, places it into his own hand, takes the wand, and changes it into a silver coin, no problem. He grabs another copper coin, hands it to the spectator to give it another try, and the spectator tries again, and fails again. Finally, the magician suggests that the spectator really try to focus his will upon the wand can do it, and to say the magic word with the appropriate conviction. They do. When they open their hand, the coin has now changed. Suddenly, what the spectator is thinking is less clear, since by not allowing the spectator to just go through the motions half-heartedly, now one of the apparent ingredients that made the magic happen was actually in the spectator's own mind, the intent to try to impose his will via the wand and magic words. How could the magician have gotten in there?

Scenario A and B both give the same effect, but scenario B makes the effort to define the power at work behind the effect. This isn't so much about trying to make people believe you're a real magician once you get off the stage. Instead, it's about creating good theater, showing not just magic, but also showing how it apparently works, the necessary ingredients that make it happen. The spectator might not be completely converted away from the mindset that caused him to roll his eyes the initial time, but he does have some extra mystery to chew on.

This brings us to a new benefit to embracing the effect, specifically, not just to create good theater, but also to aid deception. Tyler's summary -- there's no such thing as an idle mind, and if you don't give them something to think about, they might start thinking about things you don't want them to think about. Both Scenario A and Scenario B might involve the same technique, but Scenario A has less information in the way of the effect and the technique. Scenario B, on the other hand, gives continued focus to the wand and the magic words, and even to the spectator's state of mind. Given the fact that most spectators will be hip to the idea that the magician is there to fool them, their mind might not need all that much encouragement to wander away from the effect and towards the method -- to borrow the terminology from the Secret Art of Magic, away from the Cheng and towards the Chi. Scenario B makes it harder for the spectator to go the opposite way that we want them to go. Scenario A, not so much.

That example I gave above might be considered a bit harsh on the spectator, since it puts them in the position of having failed multiple times. A better one might be a card trick involving muscle reading (this is similar to an effect Tyler does). Two cards are selected, and two spectators are involved. The one that is resistant to the magician is asked to go first. They're not buying it. The magician takes them by the wrist and passes it over the spread of cards, but he's getting nothing. He nods, and says, "Sometimes it doesn't work." He goes to the second spectator, who's been showing much more interest and enthusiasm in the event, and together they find her card with relatively little difficulty, doing exactly what he did with the first spectator. The magician then turns back to the first spectator and asks them if they want to have another go. Assuming the method is reasonably deceptive and the spectator is fooled by the revelation of the second card, then suddenly he's been given an interesting poke to the brain. The magician couldn't find my card but he could find her card, and the only real difference between the two is that she was more into it. Needless to say, if the first spectator decides to play along on the second attempt at muscle reading, you'd be helping establish your performing character's power if you manage to find the card that second time.

An interesting parallel case study is that of the Watch Steal (and again, this is all Tyler, as I'm too much of a pussy to do this particular effect). To a certain extent the Watch Steal is dictated by technique and deftness of touch, but most experts on it say that it has to do with what you're making the spectator think about, the context of the trick. For instance, is the spectator's hand occupied with holding a curtain or spongeballs, or something else of apparent importance? The good ones (in Tyler's opinion) have a built-in effect of some kind, or at the very least don't fail to come through on an overtly stated claim. In order to be sustainable, the moment of contact needs to be psychologically invisible, so that the spectator doesn't believe they were being distracted, and the covering agent isn't recognized for the tool of distraction that it is.

Again, two scenarios. Scenario A: The magician has the spectator hold onto a spongeball in each hand, and says that he can make one jump from one hand to the other. During this moment he has separates the hands to keep them apart, dramatically building up the effect. After, making Tiki Tiki, he shows that he's failed to make the spongeball jump, but later, he produces the spectator's watch. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to conclude that the promised spongeball effect was a mere red herring.

Scenario B: The magician is doing a coins across effect with a middle phase in the spectator's hands. Two coins are placed in one hand, and two coins are placed in the other. The magician separates the hands to dramatically build the effect. The magician makes Tiki Tiki, and the spectator opens their hands and one coin is shown to have traveled. Afterwards, without making contact with the spectator at all, he promises to try to make the last coin jump, and when he fails, he declares that the spectator wins a prize. At this point he goes to his pocket and produces their watch. Consider that in this scenario, the moment in which the dirty work is done, the contact with the spectator's hands is justified both by the set-up and the ensuing payoff. If somebody's going to try to do Al Schneider's rewind, they've got more confusing data to sift through.

Incidentally, Tyler recommended Kevin King's Watch Bandit as a good source for studying the Watch Steal, in that the surrounding context of the trick gives motivation for everything the magician needs to do in order to get the watch, and in turn make the risky moments more psychologically invisible. He also pointed out David Blaine's performance of the Watch Steal in one of his early specials as an example of how the technique is poorly covered, which surprised him because he considers Blaine to be normally very good at creating a character of power. In it, Blaine asks the spectator to hold something, and he promises some effect, and he takes the spectator by the wrists and waves their arms in front of his face. Afterwards, the promised effect doesn't happen, but Blaine is able to produce the watch. Is there any spectator out there who isn't going to be able to identify the moment in which the effect happened? If the purpose is just to perform a stunt (and not even a pseudo-magical stunt like Eugene Burger talks about), then Blaine's approach works well enough, but to make the effect really magical, the spectator needs to leave with the memory that "The magician didn't touch me."

Anyways, these are just about some reasons to look at your magic not just as a series of good tricks, but as expressions or demonstrations of power. If you have an understanding of that power, you can introduce concepts that are theatrically relevant, that can help occupy the spectator's conscious thoughts, and in turn use these thoughts to push out potential observations that can otherwise explain the effect to the detriment of the performer. We can't necessarily control the spectator's belief in the power claim, but we can control the consistency of the feats of magic that demonstrate that claim, and in giving shape to the power, we can increase the likelihood that the credit for the effect doesn't go to things like sleight-of-hand, or self-workingness, or tricky props, etc. and instead goes towards the magician himself.

This leads to an intriguing idea. Most of the time, we as magicians want to find those spectators who will play along with us no matter what. Tyler, on the other hand, is very much interested in those people who might provide the obstacles talked about above (either through physical advantage or skepticism or what have you), and he actively seeks them out, because he feels that it's them, and not the "easy" spectators, who give him the chance to really define his character. These reasons for failure, paradoxically enough, can have just as much of an impact upon the portrayal of power as any number of successes.

On First Impressions, Martial Arts, and the Wheel of Pain

2008-10-27T23:18:00.002-04:00

There was more to write before, but now that I've slept away the afternoon and thereby doomed my sleeping patterns for the next week at least, I'm writing this up now. Three things of note...

I was given my first set of impromptu exercises today. Essentially, it involved me standing in front of the camera and fielding commands. Force a card, bring it to a location, change it to another card, make the first card reappear somewhere, etc. I'll talk more about this in a sec, but at the moment the first impressions were thus... Technique was alright, but overall the important thing to get rid of is hesitancy when the task is assigned. There were a few deer-in-the-headlights moments when I was sorting through the necessary actions to come in my head, and one thing that needs to develop is an automatic response wherein the magician immediately looks like everything is underway (or perhaps even already completed?) and all the needed what-the-hell-do-I-do thoughts are camouflaged by actions that I would have needed to take anyway. In other words, if the card needs to be controlled and shuffling is ok, beginning to shuffle even when I've not yet determined where the card will end up. Ditto for forcing, setting up a palm, etc. Perhaps more important than polishing any specific technique, Tyler said, was the impression that the magician is under complete control at all times. It doesn't have to be authoritative necessarily, but hints of anxiety or nervousness should be toned down. After all, a snap of the fingers makes everything happen, right?

Which brings us to an interesting talk that began in the diner this morning after getting picked up at the train station... An analogy about the magician character that Tyler expressed was like the Gym Coach versus the Martial Arts Master. It goes like this...

Imagine you're an able-bodied athlete who's brought to a demonstration. A Martial Arts Master shows up to give people an idea of what's involved, and he's brought with him several students -- none of whom are slouches either, mind you -- and he stands in the center of the mat, and signals that it's time for the demonstration to begin. Immediately the students all charge the Master and he deals with each of them appropriately and with varying degrees of ease. Once they've all been dispatched post haste, and without seemingly exerted himself to greatly, he looks around at the crowd, and points to you, and gestures for you to step forward. It's your turn to attack.

As you shitte ye olde brickes, you go out there, and he directs you to put him in a headlock or some other position of apparent advantage where you know he's going to have a whole arsenal of effective and likely quite painful ways of reversing things to his advantage. You pray that you're going to get out of there alive. Then it starts, the inevitable reversal is made briskly and expediently, he breaks nary a sweat, and you find yourself at his mercy, but with absolutely no more pain than is necessary. The point has been made, his authority is established exactly as you expected it would be, and yet at the same time it was not a demeaning experience for you. You bow at each other, he commends you for coming out, and you're sent back to the crowd. You never were expected to be able to handle him, and the fact that you "lost" (for want of a better term) was foreseeable from the outset. You go back out there, and your buddies perhaps wonder if it felt for you the same way it seemed to from their vantage point. You chuckle that yeah, it was freaky, but altogether it was not a terrible experience. You almost appreciate it.

Contrast this with the Gym Coach, who sets up a similar mat for you and your buddies after school, and he invites you all to try to take him down. Perhaps he has many of the same advantages over you that the Martial Arts Master did, except that he's not quite as in shape, not quite as polished, and the mystique just isn't there. For the most part, you feel as though you could take him. Several guys are brought out to try to take him down, and you see weaknesses emerge, things perhaps you can take advantage of if it suddenly becomes your turn. In fact, soon you are brought up, and he tells you to put him in a headlock, which you do. When it begins, you notice things -- he's sweating, he's favouring an injury, the exertion he's making is palpable, some of his attempts to gain leverage over you aren't working. In the end, he still comes out ahead, and maybe he's not even being an ass about it, but when you head back out, there's talk between you and your buddies about what you might do to win the next time, assuming there's a next time.

Tyler believes that the Gym Coach vs. the Martial Arts Master is a great analogy of the way a magician might confront an obstacle or a spectator. Set aside the confrontational aspect that's inherent in the fighting -- the idea is that, when the challenge arises (inevitable, given that the magician supposedly has powers that mere mortals do not), how does he face them? Is there strain? Does the spectator (or participant, or whatever) feel like the magician achieved the feat only because they were a step or two ahead? Or instead, does the spectator feel like the magician is just so far ahead of the spectator that he wouldn't even want to try to challenge them? Does he dispatch of the challenge effortlessly and pleasantly? Does the spectator leaving in awe of the apparent skill? Or does he leave thinking "You know, I bet if I had another crack at that trick, I'd be able to figure it out..."

None of the above has to invade the surface level of the trick. We're not necessarily talking about challenge effects, nor are we talking about pure improvisation in presentation -- arguably no matter how impromptu something might feel, it only makes sense that a game plan for success will have emerged over the course of hundreds to thousands of performances. The important thing is the feeling of mystique, the authority you project, even if only subtly, that your character has complete control over the situation no matter how he might be acting. It's reminiscent of a performance piece that Richard Osterlind has on one of his Mind Mysteries DVDs, in which Janel is brought up and asked to sit next to him, to flip through some ESP cards and try to send him the image, so that he can write it down. So great is the prestige and conviction that he has built, that she actually asks aloud "Do you want me to think of the shape, or the name of the shape?" I always loved that moment (as well as Osterlind's quick response) because it typifies the sort of thing that many magicians could be going for -- complete conviction on the part of the audience member that you can pull off the effect, on his own apparent terms, from the point of view of the powers he has. She doesn't ask about shuffling, or hiding them. She wants to know the specifics of the mental signal he needs from her. That's control.

The reason why the above is so important (from Tyler's point of view, anyway) is that this aura and mystique that the performer presents is a key part of dealing with the Bad Apple. There are going to be audience members who think they've got the magician, and their reaction can pollute the rest of the audience's reaction. If you think about it, it only makes sense. Do you want to feel like the guy who didn't see the Thumbtip? Do you want to be the guy who missed the move because you were so close? Do you want to head back to talk with your buddies, and have them point out that he might have switched here when you were looking there?

Probably not. This is very similar to the idea of playing chess against a grand master, or (to borrow an analogy favoured by Whit Haydn) golfing with Tiger Woods. Defeat is inevitable, it's only a question of by what margin. If you're playing chess against Kasparov, you know that the checkmate will be coming, you're just wondering how many moves it'll take. It's folly to even think you have a chance. In the end, you're left with the experience (and requisite accompanying story) of having had a chance to take on the master, even if, for him, it was obviously only going through the motions. The magician wants to leave the spectator with the palpable impression that he had a brush with greatness and mastery. The magician's character might not let it on -- he might be humble or goofy, there might have even been things built into the impression that suggested the spectator "could" catch him, but in the end there is no question, the magician was in control the whole time.

That's my first impression of the Gym Coach/Martial Arts Master theory, anyway. It feels incomplete, and I'll need to write an update the moment Tyler's had a chance to read this and clarify. Hopefully I didn't get anything major wrong. I also think that the Bad Apple spectator needs his own passage.

Anyways, from grand sweeping goals back down to baby steps, I was given my curriculum this afternoon, as we outlined the things that would be tackled in the training. Regarding technique, I'd be taking on the following:

Handling small objects...

False Transfers in either direction, involving the classic palm, the finger palm, the thumb palm (where applicable) and the retention of vision (where applicable)

The Bobo Switch, in either direction

The Shuttle Pass, in either direction

The Clink Pass (where applicable), in either direction

The Han Ping Chen

Handling cards...

Here I get the Wheel of Pain, cyclic drills in which I have to be able to...

Force: riffle, dribble, classic, cull, cross cut(???)

Control: with an external reality (eg: shuffling, cutting) and with no external reality (eg: side steal, pass) -- also termed active and passive, respectively
Switch: Top Change, Double Lift, Packet Switch

Palm: To either hand, from the top, bottom or middle from the deck, any number of cards.

Despite the fact that the Wheel of Pain might involve any number of variations on the above, the key sleights that will be focused on above the others will be the Pass, the Double Lift, the Top Change, the Cull, the Bottom Deal, and Palming in General.

One more key point is that the cyclical nature of the drill is deliberate. The choice in force is going to influence the choice in control, which is going to put you in different positions for switching or palming, etc. This is a question of being able to handle fundamentals, so larger concerns (ie: how to present and add meaning to the revelation, for instance) will not be tackled until later.

Cups and Balls...

Here the focus will be on more than just individual techniques, but also how to chain things together, routining moves, dealing with the multiple phases, etc. Tyler was a little less clear how this will play out, but he mentioned the intriguing idea that the sympathetic "objects" or the matrix plot were essentially manifestations of the Cups and Balls motif. In other words, while I might need a specific vanish to handle a flat object, and a different vanish to handle a bulkier one, there would be parallels involved in the way the vanishes are executed in the context of a larger series. Again, I know that sounds vague and I apologize.

More fundamentals that are as-of-yet unspecified. Things like scripting, choosing a character, etc. will be covered, but not yet -- at the moment that would be like choosing a fighting style before I even know how to punch (again with the martial arts...).

We also talked about how certain plots were going to be explored. For instance, certain required routines, such as the Ambitious Card, the Professor's Nightmare, and Coins Across, were going to be added. Even if they weren't going to be a part of my "A" set when performing, I'd still need to know them inside and out and figure out the lessons that can be taken from them and brought into other effects. In an earlier blog entry I trashed the Ambitious Card as an effect I just have no interest in, but even with that in mind Tyler made the (irrefutable?) argument that the ACR allows the magician to do something that few other effects in magic allow you to do, which is to build conviction in a core effect. I can't really argue with that. What's more, when learning these tricks I won't be thinking ahead to presentational twists.

I've been reassured that we will get to work on specific tricks that I want to develop, including things that will stray outside the norm for a traditional magic education. For instance, I want to be able to do an ungaffed in-the-hands three card monte, on which there is relatively little established work out there (there is some, of course, but relatively little compared to, say, the ACR). In approaching that (and other routines that I want to tackle) I'll have to figure out things like what power is going to be claimed and displayed, what the purpose of the trick is, what conditions it has to work under, etc. I'll also have to defend choices like making it ungaffed, and that's where the dreaded Socratic method is going to rear its ugly head...

Until then, though, that's the preliminary outline of the things I'll be covering in my training.

And yeah, I'm not kidding when I say we'll be talking about the cross cut force. Tyler has work on that. Yeesh...

Dusting off the cobwebs...

2008-10-27T12:05:00.005-04:00

A while ago I wrote about my two week trip to Minnesota and how it caused me to drastically re-think the way I wanted to approach magic. The year or so since that time has been a series of ups and downs. Mostly downs, I'm sorry to admit. Sleightly.com started strong but stalled, and the apathy I was met with by companies I contacted eventually got to me (note to self, you graduated with a Creative Writing degree, not an MBA) and I've not updated the directory in a while. The summer of would-be busking started less strong but still pretty strong, but it stalled as well, mostly due to a lack of faith in my material -- it's hard to feel good about hatting people when you're not sure that the magic you've given them has been any good. Online Skype sessions with Tyler Erickson started strong, but when I decided to move out to Langley, I was in effect trading reliable hot water (yay) for an internet connection that cut out a lot (not so yay) and so that phase of training didn't get much traction. Writing for Magician Magazine (formerly Street Magic magazine) didn't lead to anything, and to be honest there just hasn't been all that much to blog about, hence the inactivity over here. Meetings with the Vancouver Seven (a group of young magicians by the names of Wesley, Travis, Jamie, Sean, Shaun, David and your humble bloggist) were all I had to keep me going, but for the most part it was pretty clear that professional development had stalled.

So, when I got the offer from Tyler to come back to Minnesota and study directly under him, I jumped at the chance. If I'm going to be a deadbeat, I might as well be an educated deadbeat. And as I've said before, the Twin Cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul aren't a bad place to be if you're a young magic geek. I still don't know why that is -- maybe it's because it's so damn cold here during the winter that practicing sleights is a good way to keep your hands warm. (Granted, there are other fun activities that deal with that problem just as effectively, but I hear legerdemain gets pretty tricky with hairy palms.)

Complaints about the weather aside, I feel tremendously fortunate for this chance, although it does come at a price. I'm going to have to learn magic Tyler's way, and I'm going to have to chronicle it. Hence the resurrection of the olde blogge. In thinking ahead to learning Tyler's way, the more I think about it, the more I actually feel kind of bad for him. I'm probably like a lot of the amateur magicians out there in terms of where I'm coming from -- got into magic haphazardly, mostly self-taught from books and DVDs, loaded with bad habits (including some that I thought were actually good habits), clinging a bit desperately to mantra that's served me and my heroes in magic well, and lacking in general fundamental skills. And oy, am I not kidding about lacking fundamental skills -- my double lift is shit, I have trouble getting a push off break under two cards (mostly because I was always a thumb-counter), and simple tasks like double-undercutting are taxing to me simply because I never bothered to learn them properly (since I'd never envisioned using them in performance anyway). Even two things I might normally consider positives -- my affinity for studying theory and my brief professional stint in Korea -- might actually be obstacles, since I'm going to have to undergo a fair bit of deconstruction in order to start from a blank slate here.

And these are just the simple things. I've got larger, more abstract concerns as well. James Dimmare said on the Fuck Street Magic DVD that he thinks that most people getting into magic these days are idiots, largely in part because they don't know where they want to work, and they don't have any clue about a plan of action to get there. While I'm only pretty sure that the generalization there is largely accurate, I'm very sure that it's dead on applicable to me. I don't know how many lists I've worked through trying to figure out those two things -- where I want to work, and how I'm going to get there.

These things, and perhaps other yet-to-be-arrived-at challenges, are what I was getting at when I alluded to the possibility of Tyler having troubles with me as a student. For further contrast, I suppose it's time I gave a bit more background on who Tyler is. He's hardcore about his own magic in ways that I'll elaborate upon in blog posts to come. He's perpetually evaluating the latest in theory on all levels, from grander presentational thought down to the nitty-gritty of technique, and trying to build off it and add to it. He's a teacher conducting multiple classes at the Twin Cities Magic and Costume shop as well as doing Skype tutouring online, covering topics from stage to close-up. He's also a FFFF member, but he's not some elbow-rubber eager to give his peers handjobs under the table to further himself -- his thoughts on some long-standing practices in magic range from envelope-pushing to near iconoclasm, at least compared to the sycophancy that runs wild in magic today. He's a believer in the Socratic method, and while I know it's got its proponents, I've personally never been able to escape the suspicion that this is the favoured choice of teaching methods for megalomaniac instructors who enjoy enacting the sadistic fantasy of watching students drowning under open-ended questions as they desperately try to read their teacher's mind. (I say that not because it's a valid condemnation of the Socratic method per se, but just to foreshadow almost inevitable clashes between him and I.) Also, despite having been in magic for decades now, he's not yet even 40, meaning that I'm going to have to perpetually switch gears between dealing with Tyler-the-guy-I'd-hang-out-with, and Tyler-the-mentor-I-should-shut-up-and-listen-to.

In any case, at his request, the olde blogge is going to serve as an ongoing diary of the things I'm learning and the process of development I'm going through. As you can see above I've decided temporarily against being all cloak-and-dagger about techniques and secrets and such. We'll see how that goes, but for right now I can't perceive much benefit in throwing in those sorts of entry barriers when the only people who'll be reading this are going to be those who already know the basic secrets anyway. In addition to these diary entries there's going to be a ton of abstract thought being dumped in -- mostly Tyler's, written through (and clashing with) the filters of all the influences I've had on me up until now. The goal in all this (aside from me addressing my own personal issues) is the development a codification of a philosophy about learning magic, as told from the point of view of somebody who's undergoing it.

Oh yeah, and he's mentioned more than once that he hopes I'll be able to write this with a certain amount of humour to take the edge off the rest of it. No pressure. Who the hell told him I was funny?

Next entry: The Gym Coach Vs. The Martial Arts Master, initial video sessions, and Erlandish confronts the curriculum (cue scary music)

Blackpool 2009

2008-08-11T18:27:00.003-04:00

Yeesh.

Ok, over at the Magic Woods there's a discussion about recent developments regarding the upcoming 2009 Blackpool convention. Apparently, if you work as a dealer or performer in any United Kingdom magic convention in the five weeks prior to Blackpool, you will be banned from working at Blackpool. Clicking on the Magic Woods link will take you to scans of the letters that have gone out from Derek Lever, the Convention Organizer, on behalf of the Blackpool Magicians Club, confirming that this is the new policy, although I'm not certain if the ban is just for that calendar year or if it's permanent. From the way it's written in the letters from the BMC, it sounds like it's just for the year.

This hits the new Southern England Magic Convention very hard, as they are slated to have their convention on the 31st of January. The convention, being aided by the Surrey Society of Magicians, has already apparently lost four dealers as a result of Blackpool's announcement, including JB Magic, Hocus Pocus, Big Blind Media and the Merlins of Wakefield. According to the Magic Woods thread, the BMC has apparently approached other dealers who were slated to work at SEMC, told them of the potential ban facing them, and has even said in general communications that they would help out dealers who planned to work at SEMC, by deducting any fees paid to SEMC off the Blackpool registration, if they pull out and remain exclusively with Blackpool. The gloves are off, from the look of it.

The chronology of events leading up to this is a bit unclear. From what I can make of it, according to a letter signed by Derek Lever, a Norwegian magician called Carl De Rome was harassing him over the internet. De Rome has been banned from Blackpool, but I don't know which came first, the flaming or the banning. Anyways, to hear Lever talk about it, when they first learned about the SEMC being timed to start three weeks later, the BMC was very surprised, as they were about the development of similar features that the Blackpool Convention had, including VIP tickets and similarly-themed events. Quote: "However, we let it all pass without a word until a few days ago..." when comments from De Rome about Lever and Blackpool were published on the SEMC website, which the convention organizers Collin Richardson and Geoff Pescud apparently refused to remove, although he was removed from the SEMC performer's roster. I couldn't find a trace of De Rome's comments at this point, but maybe they're still up there and I wasn't looking hard enough. Their refusal to remove the comments apparently lead to Pescud and Richardson being banned from Blackpool, and Lever said he was looking into filing charges against them. This, combined with the "However..." part I quoted above, seems to suggest that Blackpool was going to tolerate the SEMC until that incident, although none of the scanned letters from Lever have dates on them. I'm looking into checking that stuff out. You can see the letters for yourself over at the Magic Woods discussion.

I was fortunate enough to meet some great guys involved in the organization of last year's convention, in particular Harry Robson, and as such I'm really hesitant to speak about the controversy above and beyond any of the information that has come to light. I also had a chance to meet Derek Lever himself, but only briefly, and if he remembers me at all it'll probably be just as the Canadian guy Harry was being nice to. I will say that I'm a bit troubled by this decision, as judging from last year's convention it really doesn't seem like a necessary thing to do -- Blackpool simply has a ton of drawing power. Also, I know that many dealers make their living out of globetrotting from convention to convention -- some of the guys I helped set up booths for in the 2008 convention I remember seeing as dealers over in Busan, South Korea. For these guys, having an extra local stop at a time when they'd be in the UK anyway would be great for their business, and similarly, losing potential income from an extra convention would be rough for their business.

The stated reason from the BMC for this decision is to make sure that the magic presented at Blackpool is fresh and new. I can sort of see the logic in that, but given the incidents with De Rome and SEMC, in my mind there's more to it than that. It's hard to see if this is a move to squelch SEMC altogether, or simply to pressure SEMC to move their dates to after Blackpool.

I'll report more here as more information comes out. The story is still young, and it has not been broken over at the Magic Cafe yet.

A series of free card tricks

2008-07-25T20:25:00.006-04:00

Hey thar hi thar hello thar...

Over at the new blog, I've put together a list of five free card magic tricks that are there for anybody to learn if they want. The tricks have been specifically designed to help anybody who might be a little bit intimidated by some of the harder, bolder moves in card magic, such as the TC and the CF, amongst others.

Each of the tricks has been specifically designed to help you carry out the move under the most advantageous conditions possible. Choreography, blocking, misdirection, and effect choice have been carefully chosen so as to help lead spectators away from the method you're using. As well, in each case, there's a trick provided that can be done under impromptu or near-impromptu conditions, with a borrowed deck if need be. The idea is to give somebody the ideal situation within which to practice a method, so that when they get comfortable with it, they can turn around and use that same method in a more advanced trick. This philosophy is very much inspired by Tommy Wonder's trick The Magic Ranch, which allows a magician to practice applying misdirection in an effect where, even if the misdirection fails, it's still a pretty good trick -- but if it succeeds consistently, the magician can now feel like they're armed with a tool they can take to the next level.

There is one important thing to mention. While the tricks are all free, all the methods have been coded with references to either Hugard and Braue's Royal Road to Card Magic or S.W. Erdnase's Expert At The Card Table, because it is a publicly viewable blog, and I don't want the methods up there for just anybody. (It's bad enough I hinted at two of the moves above.) I figured ownership of the books was good enough to ensure that somebody is at the very least interested in learning how to perform card magic, rather than just trying to hunt down secrets.

In any case, here they are, with links to the Sleightly Blog's pages.

The Mystic Coin

Two Card Transposition

Jacks Got Your Back

The Magic Wand

The Ghost Card, Revisited

Condolences for Johnny Thompson's family

2008-07-24T01:50:00.003-04:00

News has gotten around that Johnny Thompson's son John Jr. passed away after a battle with brain cancer, at the age of 41. Apparently, in lieu of flowers or similar, the Thompsons have asked for people to make donations to the Nathan Adelson Hospice.

Sorry for your loss, Mr. Thompson.

Note to Andster... get over here.

2008-07-23T19:06:00.003-04:00

Andster's having Wordpress problems over at his blog with adding new posts, and since I couldn't respond to the post (similar database errors) nor could I find the email off the main page, I'm sending up this flag.

Andster, you there buddy? Post over here if you are and let's see if we can work out the Wordpress issues. For what it's worth, it seems like a general database problem because I can't add a comment to an existing thread.

Wordpress recently put out a new version (2.6). Did you upgrade? Did somebody on the server end upgrade it for you?

Who Shall Triumph Amongst The... Triumphs?

2008-07-14T17:36:00.007-04:00

Recently there's been a bit of a battle waging over at the Magic Café regarding Culligula (although it seems to have died down a little), and it brought up some interesting points with regards to the Triumph plot in general. If you don't know Triumph, here's the basic idea: A card is chosen and returned to the deck. The cards are then shuffled face-up into face-down, showing that the deck's condition is truly in disarray. The magician snaps his fingers, and suddenly all the cards are shown to be facing one way, except for the spectator's chosen card, which is facing the other way.

Now, while that's the basic effect, there are variations on this, and that's where things get interesting.

Culligula, Kostya Kimlat's version of Triumph which has attained noteriety amongst many performing magicians, involves an added bonus – the spectator is the one who gets to do the shuffle. Magicians on the Café thread who've done Culligula swear by it, citing greater reactions to it than the traditional Triumph. If you know the regular method for Triumph, you'll know that allowing the spectator to do the shuffle would render the effect undoable. It would seem that this added extra condition would almost certainly make Culligula a classic, right?

If not for objections raised by others to the method, perhaps. If you don't know the method, a quick look at the title of the effect ought to give it to you. If not, maybe the abbreviation RRC will help. If not... well, can't help you further. Now, in my opinion, when Kimlat does the RRC, the speed and smoothness and the fact that it doesn't stand out as an anomaly in the performance, makes the final revelation appear stunning. A while ago I wrote about how certain methods can be done in such a manner that even if someone knows the method and is looking out for it, they'll swear that the method could have never happened (Click here for "Disproving the Method"). I think Kimlat's attained that level of mastery with the skill. Arguably, if Kimlat had not put the method out there, he could have used it to haunt the majority of magicians until his dying day.

And that's an important point, because some people at the Café were saying that Culligula is, at best, a magician-fooler, that it lacks the directness and impossibility that regular Triumphs (with the PT shuffle, the TSO shuffle, etc.) have, that of righting the condition of the deck in a singular moment.

Perhaps that's a valid argument. Let's explore it.

Triumph By Skill

It's Mind Movie time. A deck is shuffled face-up into face-down. We snap the fingers, and it's back in the correct orientation. This is the power we're claiming. If we think about it in terms of Darwin Ortiz's Critical Interval, then we've got to identify start and stop points. The deck is taken, shuffled face up into face down. Things have just started, the critical interval begins. The deck is later on ribbon-spread to show the cards have corrected themselves. The effect has ended, the critical interval ends.

The importance of identifying the Critical Interval is that in seeing it, we identify the most dangerous time period of the effect to do a "move", assuming that we're claiming that something other than a move is making the effect happen. Arguably, if we can do the effect without doing a move in that time period, then we've proven that we don't need non-magical moves (sleight-of-hand or perhaps some arrangement discrepancy) to pull off the effect. If we've taken care of all the other suspicions (gimmicks, stooges, etc.) then we've essentially just eliminated all other possible suspicions that something non-magical made it happen. At this point, the only possible explanation is that when you snap your fingers, the cards rearrange themselves according to your bidding. That would be a pure demonstration of the power.

Now, of course, we can't actually do that. The best we can do is make it look like we can do that. Which is where the various forms of cheating come in.

We've just looked at the Critical Interval, and identified it as a time when it's dangerous to do a move. I believe the major exception that people take with using the RRC at this point is that it is a blatant, prolonged method being used to accomplish the effect, being done at a time when people are expecting the magician to do some sort of move. Once can't really argue with that.

Breaking it down... You've got a regular deck of cards, all cards facing the same direction. This is Condition Y. You take half a deck, flip it over, riffle shuffle it face-up into face-down, and square. No moves. The cards really are screwed up. This is Condition X. Our aim is to get back to Condition Y.

Speaking in absolute terms, if we actually create Condition X, then to actually get back to Condition Y, to fulfill Triumph, we must do a move or moves to undo Condition X. That's just logic. In Culligula, that's what we've got. Establish Condition X, do a move, get to Condition Y. Condition X signifies the start of the Critical Interval, Condition Y signifies the end of it, and the RRC is happening all over the place in the middle of it.

Here's the interesting thing... While people arguing against Culligula might have a point, the PT Shuffle or TSO Shuffle, apparently the more magical methods, these ALSO violate the Critical Interval. They need a move to get from Condition X to Condition Y, at a time when the spectator is going to be at their most alert for it.

Notice the established procedure. Cards are shuffled face-up into face-down. The cards are then given a cut. The cards are then shown to STILL be in Condition X. They really aren't, but since we've just done a move, even an innocent-looking one that makes sense after every shuffle, we've done something during the Critical Interval that we want to establish as a non-factor. So, we show that some cards are face-up, some are face-down, some are back-to-back, etc. Or else, perhaps we do Daryl's Six Packet display with some cards face-up, some face-down, etc.

Some people say this is overproving, but here's the thing... If you leave out this display, the sequence of events is like this.

You shuffle the cards face-up into face-down, spread them out to show the damage. (establish Condition X, Critical Interval starts now.)
You square them up and cut the deck.
You snap your fingers.
You spread them out to show everything's fixed. (establish Condition Y, Critical Interval ends now)

An observant spectator who's not about to buy the nonsense of magical snaps of the fingers MUST assume that the magician has righted the deck somehow. If the only action the magician takes is to cut the deck, then somehow that cut must have fixed things. And, in the case of the TSO or PT Shuffle, they'd be 100% correct.

Hence the inclusion of the convincer which people might think is overproving.

You shuffle the cards face-up into face-down, spread them out to show the damage. (establish Condition X, Critical Interval starts now.)
You square them up and cut the deck.
You then show that some cards are face-up, some are face-down, some are back-to-back, etc. (Condition X is still apparently valid, previous Critical Interval start point is shown moot, new Critical Interval start point begins now)
You snap your fingers.
You spread them out to show everything's fixed. (establish Condition Y, Critical Interval ends now)

At this point, the cut that occurs at Step 2, while still happening at a dangerous time, is now established as harmless (theoretically, anyway). Now, if Condition X is still believed, the Critical Interval then shifts, and the only action that apparently explains the effect is the display at #3. And, again, if we're using the TSO, they'd be partially correct, since there's a reorientation involved there as well. But I think things just got a lot more complicated for the spectator looking to try to rationalize the effect. If the cut did it, how come the cards were still messed up after the cut? If the display at #3 did it, how can that innocent-looking sequence of actions correct a dispersal of about 26 face-up cards? Things just got tougher for the spectator.

Anyways, getting back to the argument between Culligula and a straightforward TSO method, I think the main argument is that the corrective action is a lot more mysterious with TSO than it is with Culligula. I've also had the concern voiced privately to me that they believe that using the RRC in Triumph is doing exactly what the spectator would think you'd HAVE to do in order to fix the deck. That sort of thing is admittedly dangerous.

What's more (and this is an idea that I have to admit I sympathize with) if somebody were to do Culligula five times in a row, and a regular TSO method five times in a row, which would be less likely to give spectators clues as to the method? Not that this is always a valid concern (plenty of effects rely upon the fact that spectators are only meant to see it presented once) but it's something that perhaps might turn off a few from using it.

But let's grant those arguments for a second and change to a new question, since it implies that the TSO Shuffle or the PT Shuffle are the better methods. Is there something that's better than either of those? Specifically, is it possible to eliminate #2 in the above sequences altogether?

Triumph By Subtlety

Let's consider some alternatives.

People swear by the Tipsy Trick in the Royal Road to Card Magic, and it's certainly a good method for a few reasons. For one, it's a novel way to mix cards and it certainly looks like a condition that would be difficult to get out of. If we're using the story-telling presentational angle, it certainly seems dramatically plausible that someone who's drunk and out to get the magician would handle the cards in something approximating that manner, certainly moreso than a neat and tidy riffle shuffle. What's more, we've got a nice situation whereby the sequence could be this.

You shuffle the cards face-up into face-down. (establish Condition X, Critical Interval starts now.)
You then show that some cards are face-up, some are face-down, some are back-to-back, etc. (Condition X is still apparently valid, previous Critical Interval start point is shown moot, new Critical Interval start point begins now)
You snap your fingers.
You spread them out to show everything's fixed. (establish Condition Y, Critical Interval ends now)

That's pretty good. There are no really bad moves during the Critical Interval. Yes, there's the discrepancy whereby #2 is partially fixing the situation, but that's present in all the methods shown thus far.

The problem with the Slop Shuffle is that the shuffle itself relies upon a discrepancy, and we never get to fully establish Condition X, that of the cards being mixed face-up into face-down fully. The usual response to this is that it "flies by laymen". That might be the case, I don't know. What I do know is that others swear it is concretely establishing Condition X that is what makes Culligula play stronger for them than a TSO method. If that's the case, then a compromised Condition X is a problem, depending upon what we're going for.

Yet another way to do this is to actually not shuffle face-up into face-down, but to make it look that way by the use of a slight reorientation of a card or block of cards just prior to the shuffle. Again, I don't want to expose specific tricks, so I'll keep it general – these have the great advantage of allowing a full weave and a lack of bad moves during the Critical Interval, but a distinct disadvantage in that Condition X cannot be fully presented, only implied.

Yet another method relying on subtlety would involve a gimmicked deck. Without stating the exact method, the following presentationally is possible. A card is selected and returned to the deck. Then one enters the following procedure.

You cut off half the deck, spread out both halves to show half the deck is face-down, and the other is face-up. The cards are then fairly riffled together. One can even keep both portions outjogged a little to show that they truly are interweaving. (establishing Condition X, Critical Interval starts now.)
You then square up, and show that some cards are face-up, some are face-down, some are back-to-back, etc. (Potentially optional).
You snap your fingers.
You spread out the deck, and show that all the cards are now face-down, except for the selection, which is face-up. (establish Condition Y, Critical Interval ends now)

If you really think about it, this comes closest to the Mind Movie. We can even employ step 2 in such a manner that it lacks the discrepant actions required in traditional methods, or perhaps even eliminate it altogether. (Some of that is going to involve how we're dealing with the selected card). If we're able to eliminate it, though, that leaves us with the following situation: Condition X, finger snap, Condition Y. That's pretty hardcore, and comes closest to the visual of what real magic would look like.

The downside is that the deck is gimmicked, and therefore cannot be examined under intense scrunity. To become clean, one would have to hope that Condition Y really does signal that the effect is over, to the point that some things are taken for granted.

So, the answer is, yes, to do the traditional Triumph, we can eliminate moves from the Critical Interval entirely, but not without compromises. But have we exhausted all the possibilities yet?

Not All Triumphs Are Presented Equally

So far we've looked at a straightforward presentation of Triumph, as described in the first paragraph many moons ago. Consider what happens, though, if we change the claim to power slightly. Look at John Bannon's Play It Straight Triumph, for instance. It allows for full face-up-face-down weaving, no bad moves during the Critical Interval, and an impressive climax. It's a deviation away from the traditional effect, however – not that this is in itself a bad thing, but by incoporating a little magician-in-trouble, we make them think we're looking for their card, when in actuality we have something completely different planned. If you state before the shuffling starts and finishes that you're going to try to find their card by the process of elimination, suddenly there's a lot more heat on that shuffling process. Others have tried different approaches, incorporating more shuffles, doing it in the context of a poker game or locating a 4-of-a-kind where the fixed-deck is only one of many climaxes, etc.

Here's where the nature of this examination of the effect begins to change a little bit. Which Triumph will be the best for someone to perform? Well... now it becomes complicated. I hate saying that old maxim of "You have to find what works right for you" as it seems like such a cop-out response. But we sort of have to go there. Thankfully, it doesn't have to be a trial and error thing, where you try everyone's version 100 times and keep track of the best responses. We can do some initial weeding out of the versions that would be wrong for us. But it still requires an examination of your presentational aims.

If you like storytelling, if you want this done as a story, then it seems that the original plots and presentations, either the one in RRTCM or else Vernon's in Stars of Magic – where a fictional somebody takes the cards and mixes them face-up into face-down, and you've got to fix it – would fit the bill nicely. In fact, even if you're not a storyteller, this is one of those stories that's difficult to do badly. Lots of magicians have entertained lots of people and made lots of money doing it this way, and would likely consider this entire essay to be lots of overthinking BS. There's something to be said for that. Of course, I've got a blog entry to finish, so we'll keep going.

If you want to present it as a challenge to the audience, calling the effect before you do it, you'll have to do a really good job at manipulating the suspicions of the spectator to take care of each of them in turn. It might help to figure out what things the audience takes for granted about you before you enter the effect, and then capitalize on those assumptions. For intance, if you can establish that you've used a regular, examinable deck five routines in a row, and you can ring in a gimmicked one, you've got a huge advantage on spectators, and can present the magic in the same manner that a Scientist might demonstrate an experiment. That said, there's always the problem of how to make such challenges entertaining to the audience rather than pissing them off. For those who are capable of it, this might be the best option.

If, on the other hand, you've established yourself as a guy who has no card skills, then doing a method that would obviously rely on great skill might help you out. For both this and the previous presentations, suddenly, the choice of Triumph involves understanding the context in which you present it within the rest of your show.

If, you're going to go for the "I'm A Real Magician" illusion – you've done Tommy Wonder's Mind Movie exercise and you want to stick to it without making any compromises – then you also might want to take the gimmicked route described earlier, and find ways to misdirect around the dirty bits before or after the Critical Interval. I think you'd need to find a presentation that would be less overtly coersing than the challenge effect above, using subtler convincers to deal with suspicions. After all, if you're a real magician, you're playing on a different level than the "Scientist" above is.

If it's ok to introduce gambling into the scenario, then consider Ricky Jay's approach. In his 52 Assistants show he talks about it in the context of shuffling demonstration, where the deck is shuffled a number of ways in keeping with the accepted shuffling procedure of different gambling venues (At a casino they'd shuffle like this. At a game with ma and pa they might shuffle like this. If they're playing Anaconda or Pass the Garbage they'd shuffle like this... etc.). Notice, though, that in this instance he's not claiming a magic power so much as showing card control. That might not seem like a big deal, except that in his case, the suspicion of "sleight of hand prowess" is ok, whereas for other performers the suspicion is a problem. Upping the ante on the impossibility side of things could involve having Darwin Ortiz's Greek Poker or Derek Dingle's Quadra Convincing Triumph, Derek Dingle's Rollover Aces, perhaps Draun's take on Ed Marlo's Face Up Aces, etc.

If you're going for comedy, well, you'll need to choose a Triumph procedure that allows you to inject as many jokes as you can make fit (presumably without detracting from the magic in a damaging way). Then it REALLY becomes a question of knowing what's right for you.

Failing To Improve The Method...

If you dislike stories and would prefer to have the effect play out in real time, and all the other demonstrations seem too out-of-character for you, you could take the John Bannon approach where you proudly show clean shuffles of face-up into face-down, and only realize when you're finished that they still have their card. Suddenly this isn't a story that you're telling but an effect that you have to bring about on the spur of the moment.

This brings up another thing. The Critical Interval isn't necessarily carved in stone – the presentation can actually have an impact on its dimensions.

Shuffling cards face-up into face-down is in almost every instance a silly, stupid thing to do. Why would anyone want to do this? It's no surprise then that Triumph usually is taught to new magicians to be presented as a story, where an unruly spectator took the cards, shuffled them in this way to mess with the magician, and the magician is now forced to correct the situation. Suddenly, the initial process is explained away via suspension of disbelief.

Here's the thing. Told as a story, the Critical Interval starts early – the moment the shuffle happens. The story makes the shuffle and everything about it an important part of the effect. That might seem obvious, but it doesn't have to be this way.

We've already considered John Bannon's contribution, but what about an orthodox Triumph effect? Let's rewrite history for a second. Triumph never existed. Sid Lorraine never put out the Tipsy Trick, Dai Vernon took up painting instead of magic, whatever. The history of card magic has still unfolded, but without the Triumph motif at work.

Fast forward to today. You're a magician. You're in a bar. You're doing magic for people. A card is selected and returned to the deck. You shuffle. A drunk guy there asks if he can shuffle the deck. You say alright. He deliberately shuffles face up into face down. You get the cards back and only now notice the extent of the damage. You've got to chose between trying to rescue the effect, or putting the cards away. It has not been established yet that you are even going to do a magic trick at this point. Notice how, in contrast to the story presentation, the Critical Interval starts before the shuffle. Here, the Critical Interval starts NOW.

This creates an interesting situation. Suddenly, a move like the RRC which is dangerous because it is prolonged and blatant because it's being executed during the Critical Interval, now becomes incidental to the proceedings and even understandable. After all, if somebody did do this to you, and the Triumph plot had never existed, it would make sense that you'd have to go all the way through the deck to see just how badly the spectator had loused things up for you, if only to see if you could get out of it.

Now, how to actually use that idea? How do you get into it gracefully? If you can't think of an answer for that, then you'll have to bug a guy called Ben Train over at the Magic Café. Personally, I think his approach is ingenious. That said, even then, if there is a weakness to be had with Ben Train's idea, or John Bannon's idea, it's the same as with most magician-in-trouble plots, in that they aren't easily repeated.

One last consideration...

Plus, there's also a route that some might not like – ditch Triumph altogether. Ye Gods.

After all, it's a pretty strong power to claim, the same sort of power that can make a lot of your other tricks weaker in comparison if you're not careful. What's more, while the argument can be made that the RRC used in Triumph calls into question the fairness of the external reality of the move (ie: "I wonder if something's actually happening as he spreads those cards."), I think that knife can cut both ways – arguably, Triumph done using the TSO or PT Shuffle exposes the fact that one cannot trust the magician when he shuffles. For some, it might be preferable to save those false shuffles for something different.

It's worth noting that Kimlat offered a different use for the RRC is his routine "Shuffle First, Ask Questions Later". That's an interesting point, because it's a less direct application of the RRC, with a lot more time misdirection between the shuffle and the final revelations. For those who dislike using the RRC in a Triumph context, this option is always available.

As to the original question... Which is the best Triumph? I submit that's an unanswerable question. Each good approach has a weakness in it that is trumped by the strength of other good approaches. Culligula offers an initial condition that is stronger than most others. TSO offers a quicker correction of the deck. Gimmicked methods remove moves, at the cost of examinability. This is the state of affairs for most magic effects and methods, so long as we're not capable of real magic. That said, so long as we're capable of figuring out the weaknesses of our methods and working around them, we can get that much closer to, if not real magic, then the perfect illusion of it.

And if even that is still not a great answer, well... go to Sleightly.com and click on some links, because the more people who do that, the more likely it is that I can stop boring you with 4000-word blog essays.

The Card Magic of Andy Hall... Poof!

2008-07-11T20:46:00.002-04:00

Apparently Andy Hall has decided that he wanted to take down his Youtube videos, and as such that page on the blog is no longer functional. It's a real shame, and I hope it's because he's in a position to start capitalizing on his own work.

So, an apology to any readers of the olde blogge about this. I only found out about this just now, and he hasn't responded to my attempts to contact him. I hope you were able to see them before they were taken down.

Best of luck to you, Andy, if you end up reading this.

here's some more sleightly.com

2008-06-27T21:16:00.003-04:00

Here is the link to the new magic blog, as opposed to Ye Olde Magick Blogge. I'm going to be splitting time between here and there, mostly logging the site's development and such, and perhaps moving over some of the features from the olde blogge as well...

So, check that out if you like.

Actually, no, even if you don't like, check it out. Check it out now...

sleightly.com

2008-06-25T00:34:00.005-04:00

A new project called sleightly.com is in the works. It's so heavily in the alpha stage that it's practically irresponsible for me to even be talking about it, but I'm an irresponsible guy so what the hell.

It's an online directory for magic and magicians. Not every category in the directory is ready yet, but some sections are open... basically anything clickable on the left hand side is there for you to add to. So, if you've got a blog or a product or a website or what-have-you, and you want on there, go ahead and add it.

There is more stuff planned. I either foresee this blog moving over there, or else closing this one down and opening up a new one that's more in line with an appropriate editorial mandate. Eventually, I want it to become the sort of place where, if somebody is asking somebody else about a magic product, the other person says "Well, have you checked 'Sleightly' yet?"

But I'm a long ways away from that. But, I'm far enough in that I might as well start seeing what people think.

If you check it out and see an error or problem that you want to talk about, feel free to post about it here. Rest assured I already know there's a lot of small issues (escape codes on apostrophes and quotation marks, and some of the required fields aren't exactly required, if you know what I'm saying), but I'm more than happy to field criticism. If you want to get anything of your own listed there, go nuts. It's free. I've been my own stuff up as I go along, and Owen Packard sent along Big Blind Media's DVD catalog to open that page up a bit, and I'll be in contact with the major vendors out there. But it is open to anybody to post a listing to whatever they want, so long as it's magic-related.

Review of Dai Vernon's "Revelation" at Genii

2008-06-22T23:34:00.002-04:00

Yeah, that's "Revelation" without the "s". Mike Caveny's just got the book printed, and if you go over to the Genii forum, Richard Kaufman put up Jamy Ian Swiss's review from Genii for anybody to read if they so wanted. The short of it is that Swiss is very happy with the book, but if you want the long of it (over 3800 words long), then click that little link thingy above.

Magic Cafe Stuff: "Osterlind's DVDs"

2008-06-19T21:29:00.007-04:00

Every now and then some pretty silly things are written over at the Magic Cafe. Here's one of them...

Yeesh. One Cafe poster had the following to say about Mr. Osterlind's DVDs.

Osterlind's DVDs constitute, I'm sure everyone agrees, the first mentalism DVD series that has been broadly marketed. He is described as "one of mentalism's leadings minds" ... whoa! After a couple of years of reading about this, I finally got around to ordering these DVDs and just spent some time watching them.
A disclaimer first: I really like the hypnosis routine you can find on youtube (I think it is on one of the DVDs as well, but I haven't found it yet). Very, very impressive. I also like about 20% of the effects he presents on the DVDs, but please! .... He's without a doubt the least charismatic and most unrehearsed professional performer I know! I'm not qualified to talk about the sophistication of his mentalism - maybe that's as far as we've gotten in the 21st century (that's good ... think of all the great things that will be developed in the future). But, for example, the fumbling with the thumbtip, the magazine, the nail writer... I skipped to the end of "change of mind" and "radio sum total", beause it was just waaaay tooo loooong. I know I might now hear "make it your own, do it better" etc., but that's not the point. I spent money on these DVDs to see mentalism by "mentalism's leading mind". And just because that unbearably annoying blonde guy in the audience seems to enjoy himself when O. makes really silly jokes, doesn't mean any of this would go over with an educated corporate crowd.
One more point: You can even see how annoyed Jim Sisti is - I'm serious, he looks like he's going to explode any second on that tape screaming "Aaaaaaahhhh! What am I doing here? Do I have to listen to this guy? Am I getting paid enough for this?"
Definitely one of the bigger mal-investments in my life.

Click here to read the rest of the thread...

So far Mr. Osterlind hasn't shown up to the thread, and I hope he doesn't. This sort of silliness isn't worth his time. I, on the other hand, have more time than anything else, so here's my take on it.

(Before I begin, a friend has pointed out that I need to be more positive, so I'm going to do my best to comment on this without using any swear words or personal insults. If I can manage that, I win a cookie.)

The first volume of Osterlind's Mind Mysteries, where he tips his act, is in my opinion one of the tightest sets that L&L Publishing has ever produced from any magician. It is a lesson in audience management, capitalizing on extras, how to properly routine a set, how to make every moment count. I don't know how others feel about Radar Deck versus Tossed-Out Deck, but one of the great features of Radar Deck is being able, not only to name the card they're thinking of, but also the card they almost thought of. That extra touch elevates this greatly above most mentalism/mental-magic effects involving cards. The Magazine test closer is just brilliant. The Watch Routine and Bank Night also played very well. Thought Scan has a much more fun energy than the usual Q&A does -- of course, if you still want to learn a traditional Q&A, there's a nice method elsewhere in the series.

Speaking of elsewhere in the series, there's a ton of great stuff to be had. People who've used Osterlind Design Duplication System and the Breakthrough Card System swear by them both, and I can easily see why. With ODDS, the construction of it allows you to get more matching details than you have any right to otherwise. As for the Breakthrough Card System... Imagine all the ease of dealing with a cyclical stack, except that you can fan the cards at the spectators without fear of betraying a pattern. Volume 4 has a great method for pre-show work. 5 through 7 have his takes on Mental Epic, a clip line effect on steroids, more cutlery bending, a memory demonstration, a blindfold act... He's even added some things in there that have potential for regular magicians. The glass of water production, the newspaper tear, the marked coin in bottle, the Miracle Flying cards, a very good Six Card Repeat effect, etc. There's some great stuff on there.

His Easy to Master Mental Miracles performances seemed (from my vantage point, anyway) to have a good effect on the audience, and the effects chosen represent some of the true classics of mentalism. It is a great opportunity to see how work from Koran, Annemann, etc. would play live, as well as to get some updated touches on those classics. In my view, the way to approach that series is exactly the same way to approach Michael Ammar's Easy to Master Card Miracles... if you like the effect and think it fits well with your performing persona, absolutely substitute the patter and introduce small touches. Those elements aren't there to be emulated, they're there to be replaced. And the effects are no slouches, neither. I wasn't aware of Tervil before I saw it performed (somebody didn't read his Annemann's PMM closely enough, eesh) and when he did it, I could have sworn there were stooges. You've got the clip line, book tests, Seven Keys to Baldplate, Pseudo Psychometry, peek work, swami work, CT work... I have a hard time thinking that one couldn't put together a very professional set out of the material in that series, even though it's relatively introductory material compared to the stuff on the Mind Mysteries series.

I'm not familiar with his No Camera Tricks DVD series, but given the quality of his work to this point, I'd be willing to bet it's a worthwhile investment.

Perhaps the saddest thing about this is that Richard Osterlind has shown himself to be VERY helpful when asked for help involving any of his products. He's been extremely open and generous both at the Cafe and at the Mentalist Sanctum, and if the person who wrote the above had bothered instead to get in touch with Richard to figure things out, he might have had all his concerns dealt with, to figure out how to get the value he was looking for in the purchase.

I think he deserved better than the superficial analysis given in the above quote. Jim Sisti himself showed up to refute a good portion of it, but apparently, if the discussion later on is any indication, the original poster is clinging to his belief that Osterlind is uncharismatic and lacks polish with his skills.

Regarding the "uncharismatic" comment, that baffles me, because I've rarely seen a connection between a performer and his audience that matches what's on Mind Mysteries 1. The two effects listed in the original criticism are from Volume 3, and fair enough, I can see how some material in the series might not be for everybody, but in my view one of two things is going on here (and I'll try to make this dichotomy a little less harsh than ones I've made elsewhere)... Either this guy hasn't watched MM volume 1, in which case he's missed an enormous chance to see Osterlind at his best, or he's maintaining that opinion despite having watched volume 1, in which case I'm just baffled. Regarding the "lacking polish" comment, all I can say is that when I originally watched volume 1, I wasn't aware of the methods in play, and he got me with everything in that first set (I was ignorant about a couple of the plots and methods, and when I went back to watch them again, looking for tells, I had a hard time finding them). The methods were well-concealed, I thought, and I think it's a fine line that mentalists have to dance, insofar as not being too slick with their methods and prop-handling, lest they risk giving the hands and props too much credit.

Anyways, I'm just having a hard time seeing where the guy's coming from. If I was posting over at the Cafe, the above constitutes pretty much what I'd put in a response. Hopefully some others will try to show the guy reason. I can understand people not totally falling in love with a guy based on an impression they get off a DVD, but Osterlind put so much value in those two series, I'm amazed that it's not being acknowledged. An intrepid reader of the olde blogge might want to consider contacting the guy to purchase them at a discount.

So yeah, that's it. I'll have to doublecheck, but I think there's no swearing in the above. Where's my cookie?

Discussion on the heritage of packet tricks

2008-06-16T17:49:00.004-04:00

If packet tricks interest you at all, you might like this discussion at Genii about Sam Schwartz's magic, specifically his packet trick called Back Flip. If you don't know Back Flip, it's a great trick. Four Kings turn face up and face down, change their backs from Blue to Red and then finally to mirrors. You can learn it from various sources.

The Genii discussion itself gets interesting when the question arises as to whether or not Back Flip was actually Derek Dingle's effect, at which point Jon Racherbaumer and Max Maven try to set the record straight that it wasn't Dingle's, and in the process a fair bit is talked about concerning packet tricks in general.

Unless there's a typo (and it's Maven, so I doubt it), apparently there's historical records of a packet trick from as far back as 1593. No word on whether the spectators can handle the cards.

Controversy over Paul Green's Card Warp Finale (part sam-bon)

2008-06-13T19:17:00.005-04:00

Weird times. This blog started out as a venue for an amateur magician to share his thoughts with other amateur magicians. I have to confess I never thought it would turn into something that high-profile pros would read.

Well, Michael Weber himself read the past two installments on the controversy about Paul Green's Card Warp Finale DVD, and he got in touch with to let me know he had some serious concerns with what I'd written. While he steadfastly maintains that the material on Paul Green's DVD is what he himself shared with Green decades ago, he wanted some things to be clear...

He doesn't consider Paul to be a thief or some villainous bad guy. On the contrary, he pointed out that Green is a respected performer, lecturer and Magic Castle Magician of the Year. In his emails to me, he didn't portray the events leading up to this controversy as an act of theft so much as a big mistake.

He didn't like my dichotomy -- specifically, when I stated that either Green had published material he had no right to, or Weber was making irresponsible accusations. He didn't like the speculation I was entertaining with writing that. He felt that my phrasing was an oversimplification, and it wasn't helping the issue. He said that it didn't adequately express the nuances at work, given that time has caused the recollection of events to differ. I think that's a fair complaint.

He expressed gratitude at what he perceived as well-meaning actions on the part of those who've spoken on his behalf, but also said that it was not his intention that it would turn into a high-profile issue and get out onto forums or blogs. He dislikes the fact that this issue may have turned into ammunition for an internet turf war.

He did say that the main issue is one of seeking permission whenever looking to publish a variation on someone else's work, especially when that source work itself has not been published. He feels that this is the crux of the entire issue, and the source for his complaint about Green's actions.

Finally, he also stated that it's best to stick to the facts agreed upon by both sides. Quoting Weber himself, "Paul put out a DVD, Paul thinks Weber is unhappy, Weber thinks Weber is unhappy, Paul believes he is in the right."

Now, I must be clear that Mr. Weber did not want to use me as some henchman doing his dirty work in writing the above. I figured that since I'd speculated about the possibility that his accusations might have been false beforehand, that it was only fair to give him the floor afterwards. It seemed the responsible thing to do.

So, in any case, my apologies for my role in helping this get further out of hand than both Weber and Green wanted. Personally, I've got an instinct that goes back to my journalism days that tells me whenever a legitimate issue is being suppressed, that's the time to shout it from the rooftops. As such, whenever news in the magic community of something being lifted without permission comes up and is subsequently squashed, I like to point it out if nobody else is (or, in this case, defending the person who pointed it out when nobody else was). Usually in this situation it's in the best interest of the lifter to have it squashed, but not in the best interest of the lifted-from. In this specific case, though, Michael Weber's the one wishing it never got out this far. In trying to make things right on a larger, philosophical level, I inadvertently acted against the interests of everybody involved. So... I'm really sorry about that.

At this point I'm hoping that this is the end of the issue. Note to self: Hang up the cape.

Interview with Dan Sylvester... in Spanish

2008-06-13T05:44:00.004-04:00

If you can read Spanish, you're in for a treat. The Argentinian Blog De Magia has a spotlight and interview with Dan Sylvester the Jester. Now, I can't read a word of Spanish (I actually had to double-check what language it was... it IS Spanish, right?) so I don't know if it's only three parts long or if there's more coming, but in any case, here are the links to those three parts that are up...

Parte Uno
Parte Dos
Parte Tres