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.

Mailbag #182

/

What are your thoughts on the Nameseek app? Specifically the point brought up in this Cafe thread that says people are going to be suspicious of going to a website to look up a name, especially the younger generation because these days they look up everything via AI/ChatGPT. Fair point in your opinion?—AT

Generally, I don’t have any thoughts on the app as I haven’t used it. The creator once asked me to take a look at it, but when I said I didn’t do reviews on the site, that was kind of the end of the discussion. So I can’t tell you one way or another if the site itself looks or feels legitimate.

As for the contention that the younger generation doesn’t look things up on website, I get where that’s coming from, but it honestly sounds like an old person’s understanding of young people, gleaned entirely from Facebook posts shared by other old people: “They don’t look stuff up on websites. They can’t type; they can only communicate in emojis. All their dances come from Fortnite. And apparently, they’ve stopped having sex altogether!”

If anything, the younger people I know are a little more suspicious of AI than the older generation—at least the portion of the older generation that have adopted the technology and treat it like an infallible electronic grandson.

Regardless, this particular concern is easy enough to sidestep. First, don’t say, “Let’s look up the meaning of a name. Go to this website.”

Say, “Go to this website.” Then say, “We’re going to look up the meaning of a name.”

This gets them onto the site before the subject of name meanings comes up. Now it doesn’t make sense for them to leave the site and go to ChatGPT or something similar.

This is related to another piece of advice I’ve given in the past. Don’t say, “I’m going to read your mind. Write down a word.” That’s introducing those ideas in the wrong order. It gives them a chance to say, “Wait, why do I have to write down the word if you’re going to read my mind?” Instead, say, “Write down any word.” Only then do you introduce the idea that they’re going to “just think” of the word they wrote down and you’ll read their mind.

In both cases, you get them to take the action first and explain its significance second. That way, the explanation doesn’t give them an opportunity to question the action.

The other thing you have on your side—regarding why a website makes sense for this information—is that we’re not looking up the capitals of the world, where there’s one objectively correct answer and it shouldn’t matter where you get it. Name meanings are interpretive. Different sources give different answers. So choosing one particular source to work from makes perfect sense.

If you feel you need to justify it, you can say, “Do you know what your name means? The problem is, a lot of names have multiple meanings, and if you look them up online, you’ll get half a dozen different answers depending on where you go. I like this site. It seems to have the most thorough and up-to-date information, so this is the one I use.”

So if you were genuinely testing your ability to pick up on this information, you probably wouldn’t use ChatGPT. You’d want everyone working from the same supposedly reliable source. The website isn’t something you need to apologize for—it’s probably the more logical procedure.

Okay, I love your magic style, the thinking behind it, and the tricks in your books. But I think the part that actually amazes me the most is your work ethic. Ten years of posts, newsletters, and books always on schedule? That’s rare anywhere and basically unheard of in magic. How do you actually stick to that schedule? Do you have any tips for someone hoping to start a similar project?—NG

Eleven years, actually. Don’t undersell my accomplishment.

Have you ever heard the song Bug Like an Angel by Mitski? Incredible song and an even better music video.

It’s a song about alcoholism, and it has this lyric:

Did you go and make promises you can't keep?
Well, when ya break them, they break you right back

While I don’t have any addiction issues, I can still relate to this sentiment.

We tend to think that breaking a promise means screwing someone else over so we can do what we really want. But if the promise was sincere, the greater damage is to yourself. Every time you break one, you make it a little harder to believe yourself the next time you say, “I’m going to do this.”

I didn’t promise you I would write 180 posts a year, a couple hundred pages of newsletters, and a book every 18 months. I promised myself that. I adore myself. I’m delightful. I don’t want to fuck that guy over, so I keep the promise.

You can’t rely on the universe or other people to always give you what you need. But you should be able to rely on yourself or else you’re just adrift.

The catch is that you can’t promise yourself everything. They need to be rationed. If everything is a promise, then nothing is. You’ve just turned “I promise” into a more dramatic way of saying, “I’d like to.”

So you choose a few areas—your work, your relationships, your health—and make a small number of serious promises about them. Keeping those promises becomes a priority. In other areas, you make an honest effort but without demanding perfection.

I know you want a better answer. Some clever scheduling or productivity advice or something. But none of that really matters. You get the things done that you don’t give yourself an option not to get done. If the project you’re considering is important enough to you, you’ll make that commitment. If not, you’ll probably start it with the best of intentions and then eventually abandon it because staying on top of something like that is hard as hell.

Dustings #151

/

The testing in yesterday’s post raises the question: How much does using a phone in the set-up for a trick affect the reactions? In other words, both versions have the same physical reveal, but one has a physical set-up and the other has a digital one. For example, in one version, they select an item at their chosen number from a note on your phone. In the other, they select an item at their chosen number from a page in a physical notebook. Will the digital version have the same detrimental effect?

Probably not to the same degree. I think that when you have a physical reveal versus a digital reveal, you’re comparing something that feels innocent with something that seems questionable. But with a physical set-up versus a digital set-up, both are going to seem somewhat suspicious. That’s just the nature of setting up a magic trick. So I think using a phone will have less of an impact there. Although perhaps we’ll test it officially at some point in the future.

Here’s a little magic-advertising trick for you.

Let’s say you’re releasing a packet trick. It’s just a simple packet trick. What could you possibly say about a simple packet trick?

That’s right: “Much more than a simple packet trick.”

This works with anything.

It’s just another version of the 21 Card Trick?

“Much more than just another version of the 21 Card Trick.”

It’s just a Hot Rod?

“Much more than a Hot Rod.”

The beauty of this phrase is that it acknowledges the exact objection people will have when they see the trick, then gives the impression of answering it without actually saying anything at all.

Congratulations. You’re now a magic copywriter.

Customer support at Vanishing Inc. responding with a Zen koan designed to free magicians from their attachment to owning things.

”This download can’t be downloaded.” Please meditate upon this until you no longer desire the instructions.