Smartass

Imagine

“The thing is, you know, you can obviously take in information with your five senses. And then, when it comes to magic, we talk about mind reading. Or picking up on information beyond our five senses. But why would it stop at the mind? Maybe other parts of your body can pick up on information too.”

I’m sitting on the couch in my living room with my friend, Alina.

“I’ll show you. Uhm, name any part of your body. Like, not your head or your hands or anything normally used to gather information.”

“My ass.”

“Okay, of course. Fine. Focus on your butt. Inhale. Exhale.”

“Through my butt?”

“Funny. No. Seriously, settle in for a moment and just focus on the pressure of the cushion against you.”

We sit quietly for a few moments.

Softly, I say, “Now I just want you to name a color. Like a common color.”

“Green,” she says.

“Great. Now name a number from 1 to 100. Don’t name a favorite number. Just let a number come to you.”

“66.”

“Okay, good, good. Let’s see…”

I tell her to stand up, and I remove the couch cushion she was sitting on.

Under the cushion, we find a ChapStick, a crumpled receipt, a peanut M&M, and some change.

“Green,” I say, picking up the M&M. “Just like you thought.”

I tell her to pull out the change and total it up.

It’s 66¢.

“Dammmnnn!” she says and looks back at her ass, giving it a little smack.

Method

After I wrote up last month’s post on the Z-Fold Couch, I began thinking of using a couch as the centerpiece of a trick rather than just a methodological tool. And from that, this idea came together relatively quickly.

It uses Greg Wilson’s Exact Change gimmick. This is behind a pillow on your end of the couch. You have all the time you need to get the required total as you talk with your friend: “So… is there a tingling in your butt at the moment?”

You get what you need in your right hand finger palm, get them to stand up off the couch, and, as your right hand pulls up on the back of the couch cushion, you drop the items from your hand down the crack of the couch.

The first few times I did this, I used just the change. I added the M&M because I wanted it to feel like she was picking up on what was under her cushion, rather than simply naming a number that matched an amount of change that happened to be under the cushion. If that distinction is clear.

I did the M&M part with the five M&M colors (in rainbow order) in the crack of the couch behind the pillow on my end.

I just grab the one I need before picking up the Exact Change gimmick.

You don’t have to do the M&M bit, but I think sensing a second thing really adds to the experience. You could use a playing card, a bill, or a watch set to a certain time. I’d just choose one. Two hits make it feel like she’s sensing what’s under the cushion. A whole inventory starts to feel like you’ve stocked the couch for the occasion.

How do you make them choose their butt?

I don’t. But I’ve taken away their head and hands (which also makes them unlikely to say their arms), so they’re geared toward naming something on their lower half. In the times I’ve performed this, I’ve had two butts, one vagina, and one pair of feet named. With the person who named her feet, I told her to sit on them.

If someone were to name something around their torso, I’d have them lie on the couch with their legs over my lap so their torso would be above the section of the couch on their end.

I don’t worry too much about it. The premise—“Other parts of your body can pick up on seemingly unknown information as well”—isn’t something that demands to be taken too seriously.

GLOMM Industry Standard #4

The GLOMM Industry Standards were introduced in this post. Today I’m introducing a new standard.

GIS #4—Examinable

Don’t advertise your trick as examinable if the item in question is only examinable after it is switched out. This is a meaningless statement. It applies to every trick in existence.

“So you’re telling me that if I take the completely gimmicked, tricky item and secretly exchange it for an identical normal version of the item—without anyone noticing—I can then let people look at the normal item?”

Yes. Of course. This isn’t fucking news. It’s essentially built into the definition of a switch: the dirty thing goes away and the clean thing takes its place. This statement can be true for every trick.

It’s true of Cigarette Through Quarter.

It’s true of the Invisible Deck.

It’s true of a Metamorphosis Trunk.

If you forge the Mona Lisa and then secretly switch it for the real one, congratulations: your forgery is now “examinable” too.

“The pen goes through the bottle cap, and the bottle cap is examinable.”

For this to be a meaningful statement, the bottle cap the pen actually goes through has to be examinable. We already know a bottle cap you secretly switch in afterward is examinable.

What you can say is something like, “Includes a matching ungimmicked bottle cap.” Or, “Routined so you can end clean.” Or something that suggests you’ve given some thought to the examinability issue and have a solution for it. But you can’t say it’s examinable unless the actual item in question is.

Saying something is examinable because you switch it for something examinable is like saying your Rubik’s Cube is edible because you can switch it for one made of cake.

Mailbag #183

Do you have an upper limit you would pay for a magic trick? I’m considering picking up Impossible Bottle, but it’s $2500. Do you cap your spending at a certain amount? And would this trick make the cut? I guess maybe I’m looking for someone to talk me out of buying it.—ZD

I don’t have a set limit that I won’t exceed when I buy magic. Generally, I’ll take a chance on anything under, say, $75. Around $75–$250, I need to hear good reviews or have a lot of faith in the person releasing the product. And above $250, it would have to have incredible reviews and a wide variety of uses.

So no, I wouldn’t pay $2500 for this.

Object in bottle is a classically beautiful, impossible effect. Object in my special bottle that I brought with me in this giant bag is a little less romantic.

Remember, you’re not buying 100 times better reactions than you’d get from a $25 trick (as you can tell from the demo). You’re buying an expensive methodology.

I asked two people I was with earlier today how they thought this trick might be done, and both of them independently landed pretty close to the general idea of what’s happening inside that bag. That’s not ideal for such an expensive trick.

For $2500, I’d want all four of these things:

1. Something that left people with no conceivable idea how it could be done.

2. Something that wasn’t one Google search away from a product page with a demo video.

3. Something that could be used to accomplish a variety of effects. (And no, I don’t consider “8-Ball in a Corona Bottle” to be a significantly different effect from “Padlock in a Corona Bottle.”)

4. Something that felt less puzzle-y.

I’m not saying it’s not strong; it just doesn’t feel especially magical. It feels more like an expensive engineering puzzle.

If you perform professionally, you can potentially justify the expense. But if you don’t, you’re eventually going to become the guy dragging a Corona bottle and a comically oversized paper bag to every barbecue because goddammit, you spent $2500 on this thing and people are going to see it.

---

Just a thought after your latest post. [The Misfire Principle]

You have talked about this concept in the past but misfire got me thinking about how it could be applied to other potential advantages.

Suspicious magic props always pose a challenge.

What if they fail at what they are “supposed” to accomplish, but benefit you in another way during a demonstration? A ruse to accomplish a different setup to your benefit.

A simple use of Quiver, which is a difficult prop to justify these days.

“Can I borrow a dollar?

Thanks.

I have this weird coin purse that my grandma used to carry all of her Susan B. Anthony dollars in. The problem is that every time I put money in, it ends up disappearing. The exact opposite of what it’s supposed to do! I’ve lost enough already, so I am using yours now.”

Try to affect the vanish of their bill a few times, but it keeps failing and the bill just falls to the table instead of vanishing.

“Weird, I guess it must only happen with my money.”

Give them their bill back.

You have switched out their bill for a known SN/prepared for a completely different effect later on under the guise of failure of this weird thing. —LT

It’s an interesting idea and may have some benefits in certain scenarios, but I think in this case you’re probably putting more emphasis on the purse than might otherwise be there.

You’re openly saying, “This is a special purse,” and you’re openly putting their bill in that purse. Even if you don’t end up using the purse in the effect, I think you’ve already spiked their suspicion.

That’s my perspective, at least. But I don’t find the Quiver purse to be inherently suspicious in the first place. Yes, if you’re carrying it around in your pocket as you go about your day-to-day life, then that’s definitely weird.

But if you’re at home showing someone something and you say, “Okay, I need, like, a small drawstring bag or something,” then leave for a bit, come back with your Quiver, and dump out whatever you keep in there—change, enamel pins, guitar picks, etc.—I don’t think they question the purse. They may not own that exact kind of purse, but everyone has a handful of weird little boxes, bags, and containers around the house that have become the permanent homes for specific categories of crap. If you treat Quiver like one of those, I don’t think it comes across as particularly suspicious.

Until October...

This is the final post for October. Regular posting resumes on Monday, October 5th.

The next issue of Keepers comes out Sunday, October 4th.

---

Can you believe this guy sexually assaulted a 9-year-old?

Honestly, yeah, that’s pretty believable. This is literally the picture AI would give you if you said, "Generate a guy who just pleaded guilty to sexually abusing a nine-year-old and possessing 1,767 child abuse images."

And that's what Kevin Doig admitted to doing. He's a 66-year-old former teacher and the treasurer of the Bexley Magic Society. He's been booted from the GLOMM and, hopefully, from all of respectable society.

He was the Chairman of the Young Magicians Club for the Magic Circle because… of course he was. And, according to a Magic Circle Foundation report, he was also the Magic Circle's Child Protection Officer.

This is how you know he wasn't some tortured soul suppressing inappropriate feelings all his life. If that were the case, he would have put himself on a fishing boat in Alaska or stepped in front of a bus like a decent human. No, he’s just a pathetic, predatory cunt taking every opportunity he could find to put himself in close contact with kids. Who knows what other horrors he got into over the decades.

Oh…now you're willing to cover your face with a bag? See, you could've been having sex with women your own age all along if you were willing to make that concession.

---

Post-pedo eyebleach/brainbleach

---

A little presentation inspiration for your next gambling-themed effect…

---

A little presentation inspiration for your next math-themed effect…

---

Marketing tip: Look, I know they say, “don’t judge a book by its cover,” but if you're releasing a book on creativity, your cover probably shouldn't look like you typed "creativity book cover" into a stock-image search and bought the first result.

A glowing lightbulb hovering over an open book? Bold, impactful ideas, indeed.

---

---

Bye for now. See you back here in October.

The Misfire Principle

This is a technique for giving an Imp a little more narrative weight and your presentation a little more depth.

As an example, let’s take the laziest possible Imp: snapping your fingers.

“I put a coin in this box, close it, snap my fingers, and…” You open the box. The coin is still there.

“Huh…”

You close the box and snap again. You open it, and the coin remains.

“What the… Hold on.”

You leave the room and return with a page of instructions. You quickly read them under your breath.

“Okay, it looks like you’re supposed to use your nondominant hand to snap. Whatever.”

You close the box, snap with your left hand, and open it. The coin is gone.

“That’s fucking stupid. Why does that make a difference,” you say with annoyance.

You can see that even with a bad Imp—and without putting much thought into it—this adds a more interesting dimension to the effect.

This is a Charismatic Magic technique. The snap—which would typically be a meaningless gesture—now has some resonance. It pulls the effect further into the real world, where entering one wrong digit, using the wrong ingredient, or skipping a step can be the difference between something working and not working. If the snap were just a theatrical flourish—if it were simply a trick box that vanished any coin placed inside—then what was all that business with the instructions and the nondominant hand? Why would you bother going through it if your only goal were to fool them or present yourself as someone with magical powers?

✿✿✿

A year ago, Jake G. wrote me this:

Hi Andy, wanted to share a quick dim thought inspired by your writings. Keeping it brief, you get together with your friend to perform a test where something has to happen at a certain time on a certain day, you try the test and it doesn't work. You get upset and go pick up your dusty old book to "research" and realize you had the time zone wrong. Reinvigorated, you try again in an hour at the "right" time and the trick works.

This is another good example of The Misfire Principle, which I’m sure is already clear to you.

The Misfire Principle: Allowing an Imp to fail under the wrong circumstances before demonstrating that it works under the right ones.

✿✿✿

Here are some more examples.

Wrong component

• You attempt an experiment using your friend’s house key, but nothing happens. You check your notes and realize it needs to be the key they use most often—which turns out to be their car key.

• You try to make something in a photograph change, only to discover that the process works with original instant photographs, not digital prints.

Missing component

• The incantation doesn’t work until you figure out the last line got cut off. When the full incantation is repeated, it now works.

• A pendulum refuses to respond until you discover that the participant first needs to sign their name on the surface beneath it, establishing a connection between them.

Wrong condition

• You attempt to reveal a thought while the participant concentrates intensely on it. The instructions actually say the thought must be “released,” so you have them distract themselves and try again.

• An attempt to contact the former owner of an object produces nothing. Then you realize that a phone sitting nearby is supposedly interfering with the process, so you remove it from the room.

Wrong interpretation

• You thought “turn the card” meant turn it faceup, but the illustration reveals that it means rotate it 180 degrees.

• A mistranslated word you took to mean “conceal” actually means “bury.”

Wrong execution

• You wrap a length of thread clockwise around an object and nothing happens. Looking more closely at the diagram, you realize it needs to be wrapped counterclockwise.

• Your friend says the required word after blowing out a match. The instructions actually require them to say it while the flame is still burning.

✿✿✿

What’s the benefit of this? Well, at first, you treat the Imp casually, and it fails. You discover your mistake, correct it, and make the second attempt with greater care. When the magic works, it seems to teach you that the Imp demands to be taken seriously. And as you begin treating it that way, your friend is subtly encouraged to do the same. You never ask them to believe in the Imp. Instead, they watch as you become more invested in the premise—and, almost without noticing, become more invested themselves.

Z-Fold Couch

For years, when performing at home, I've used my couch to switch things. For example, shoving a deck between the cushions and removing another from behind a pillow.

It's not very sophisticated, but it works, and it makes sense for me since I'm frequently performing on the couch when I'm showing someone something at home.

Recently I've perfected the technique, which may sound ridiculous given that it's such an unrefined thing, but here's the method I use that makes the switch easier and smoother.

To make it work, you need a couch with two pillows on each side. If you're a fancy lad, like me, you're already good to go.

That blue triangle is where you’ll ditch the original item. It’s essentially a servant. The item to be switched in is between the pillows where the yellow area is pointed.. Let's say it's a stacked deck of cards.

Here’s the way to do it if you want the most cover.

You and your friend are sitting on opposite sides of the couch. (Let's say you're on the right side facing out.) You have her shuffle the deck. You take it back and continue to shuffle.

Now you are going to look for something on your end table—a Sharpie or the card case or whatever makes sense with the trick. This will bring your right hand near the “servant” area. Not seeing what you need, you'll ask if it's on her end table. As she grabs it, you will drop your deck behind the pillow closest to the couch, then flip forward the inner pillow and grab the deck to be switched in.

This is a much cleaner technique because the objects are separated the whole time. Switching can be tricky if you're trying to hide one object and extract another from the same location (similar to the way it's more difficult to switch one deck for another in the same pocket). Here you're dropping off one object and removing the other from the same general area, but the pillows act as "flaps" which keep everything separate.

You can do the same switch as you lean forward to grab something off the coffee table with your left hand.

What we're trying to avoid is any tell-tale weird action with your right arm. This is why I wanted to get away from stuffing things into the cushions, which requires you to sort of straighten/stiffen your arm to press it down. This is the sort of thing the audience can notice even in their periphery. It's similar to when you're trying to secretly put something in your pocket—even if they're not looking at your hand, they can still register the movement.

Dropping off the first item behind the pillow is essentially invisible. And picking up the other object can be done without looking or fiddling with anything.

[If you don't have two pillows, because you're a savage, you can have the object to be switched in behind one pillow. Then when you sit down, subtly remove it so it's now between the pillow and your leg. Once again, to effect the switch, you'll drop one object behind the pillow and then pick the other one up from next to your leg.]

[[f you have the last issue of Keepers, this is the switch I mentioned for the trick on page 19]

A Quick-Force Tweak

[This post is an example of the concept of Fencing, which I wrote about last year.]

I tend to like card forces that take some time, involve a few different steps, and allow the spectator to make multiple free choices along the way. I call this Slow Forcing.

But that doesn’t work in many tricks where the selection isn’t the primary focus. It would just seem like a weird interruption of the effect.

It makes sense to spend 15 minutes picking out the best spatula if you’re buying one as a gift for a friend. It doesn’t make sense to spend 15 minutes picking out the best spatula if you’re in the middle of making pancakes.

Similarly, if the selection and reveal are the whole trick, a Slow Force is the strongest option. But if the selection is just one step in a larger trick, you want to get a “random” card into play quickly.

Here’s a technique I’ve been using for months in those situations that’s very effective. I get the sense that it feels more fair to the spectator. And it definitely feels more natural to me—as opposed to immediately presenting them with a less-than-free choice.

Here’s how it works. Any time I need to quickly force a card, I say, “Okay, now I’m going to take a card at random. It doesn’t really matter.” I spread through the cards a bit. “Actually, why don’t you say stop as I flip through?” Or I hand them the deck: “Actually, why don’t you just cut the cards for me.” Or I spread the deck and say, “Actually, why don’t you touch the back of one?”

Almost anything seems more fair than me taking out a card “at random.” So any option you give them—“Actually, why don’t you name a card between, say, 10 and 20?”—now feels like a step up in fairness from what they thought they were going to get.

This gives the moment a feeling of loosening restrictions. Their freedom isn’t being judged against a completely free selection. It’s being judged against what they thought was about to happen: me taking out a card myself. You’re not giving them a free choice. You’re giving them a freer choice than the one they thought they were getting.