Dustings #145

Just a note—as per my typical 18-month schedule—there will be no Jerx posting next month. Instead I will be barricading myself in a cabin somewhere and working on the next book for Jerx supporters.

Because of my prolific output, people frequently ask questions about my book-writing process (probably because magicians are often left waiting for years for magic books that were promised.)

Technically, the material is all complete. I won't actually be trying to come up with any new tricks during June. That's what the past 17 months were for.

For every chapter I have:

• Notes on the trick or technique—the method, the handling, and all the technical details.

• Notes from testing the trick

• Notes from actually performing it (the best or most unusual reactions, my favorite performing scenarios, etc.)

During book-writing month, I'll go to a cafe in the morning and spend 2-3 hours outlining the chapter. I'll take a couple-hour break. Then I'll work the rest of the day—about 8-10 hours—from home (or wherever I'm staying) and write the first draft of the chapter.

I'm a slow, distracted writer, so it takes me about an hour per book page. So a 240-page book will take me 240 hours to write. (I did the math for you.)

That's the writing process. 17 months of daily creating, testing, and note-taking at a relaxed but consistent pace. Then 1 month of focused writing with all other obligations off the table (a luxury not everyone can afford, I know).

During that month, it's 10-13 hour days: 2-3 hours outlining the current chapter and 8-10 hours writing it.

Simple (but it's not easy).

---

Regarding Monday's Mailbag post, I think spoon bending would feel a lot more real if—at least once during the performance—while deeply concentrating your energy on the spoon, you accidentally let out a small fart.

"Sorry. It requires such intense focus. Sometimes things just... slip out. I’m really embarrassed"

Wow! He's really putting everything into this.

---

Sometimes magicians are so fucking stupid…

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Oscar Owen (@0scar)

Gee, what a perfectly sane and normal way to show your hands empty.

Imagine it wasn’t a magic trick. Imagine you were at a party and the host said, “Hey, someone stole my expensive pen. Okay everyone, show me your hands. I want to make sure they’re empty and you’re not hiding my pen.” And then one person did this.

You think everyone would be like, “Oh, okay. You’re clean”?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. All magic tricks are “extraordinary claims.” Your proof needs to be better than the proof you would use in a normal situation.

In this case you need to show your hands empty more fairly than you would normally.

But I can’t, because I’m hiding the pen in my hands.

No shit, dummy. That’s why this trick is not worth learning or showing people. It’s not a magic trick. Everyone knows what’s going on. It’s a broken trick. It makes you look ridiculous and it’s bad for magic.

That being said, consider this movement to be the new Jerx gang sign.

New Contest: Anyone who sends a video of themselves doing that gang sign in an interesting or unusual situation will be entered in the contest. What type of situation? On stage with David Copperfield. During your wedding ceremony. Whatever.

The prize: I will refund or comp your membership payment for a full season at the high support tier.

The Jerxian Approach

Every year or two, I feel obligated to explain more directly the style of magic I like and that I write about on this site.

New people find this site every day, and not all of them are going to go back and read the thousands of posts in the archive. So it’s not always 100% clear what type of magic I’m advocating here.

I know the time has come to do this when I start getting more frequent emails asking if there’s something potentially manipulative about the my approach, or if I’m blurring the lines a little too much.

Here’s a recent one…

[D]o you ever wrestle with some of the ethical implications of the Jerxian style?

Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of your work and think your writing is some of the most forward-thinking of this century. I'm aware of your magic philosophy and think it's intent is positive and noble.

I suppose my worry is, when people are less inclined to believe in any reality, presenting magic that purposefully blurs the line between performance and reality might end up leaving some people feeling uncomfortable? Or weirded out in a bad way? I don't know. 

It might just be that this is an online/offline divide, where in reality this style comes off as intriguing and wonderful. It might be that I'm from the U.K and that there is a different social temperament in the U.S.

And I'm aware that the whole point of magic is to entertain and get people to question their reality.

I just wonder if any of this crosses your mind when you're thinking about magic.—GR

The broader question in GR’s email was whether, in the current political climate, I have any compunction about a style that intentionally tries to mess with people’s realities.

The simple answer is no, I don’t.

Think of haunted house attractions. Let’s say, broadly, there are three levels to them.

Level 1: The rinky-dink kind you find at county fairs—you sit in a little cart, roll through a dark corridor, and plastic skeletons on strings lurch out at you while a tinny speaker plays spooky organ music.

Level 2: The walk-through haunted attractions that pop up every October in warehouses and cornfields. Live actors in masks jump out from around corners, chainsaw guys chase you to the exit. You’ll get a few real jumps, maybe a scream—but it’s still squarely in the “this is fun” category.

Level 3: Fully immersive experiences—places like McKamey Manor or Blackout—designed not to startle you but to psychologically dismantle you. Where the line between performance and genuine threat is fully blurred and participants frequently can’t finish.

If we map magic onto those levels, where do most tricks fall?

I would say level 1.

The experience has a theme of “magic,” but the participants rarely actually feel it. They look and see cards, or cups and balls, or linking rings and think, “These are magic things. I’m watching a magic performance.”

They might be completely fooled by what they see at this level, but it doesn’t feel “magical” in any meaningful sense. In the same way, the carnival ride isn’t actually “horrific,” it just borrows the language of it.

At Level 2, magic starts to feel less like “tricks.”

This is where people shift from “I don’t know how he did that” to “Wait… what is going on?” The performance frame is still there, but the effect hits hard enough to punch through it. It’s no longer just a puzzle—they start to feel like they’ve seen something that shouldn’t be possible.

Level 2 is brute-force wonder. You got there through sheer impossibility—you overwhelmed the skeptical mind until it had no choice but to feel something.

The only issue is that it usually comes off as you being clever. The underlying story is just, “I’m going to show you something you can’t explain.”

Level 3 is what I’m going for when my material is at its most Jerxian. This is where you take a Level 2 effect and drop it into a context that fits so naturally and seamlessly, that people are pulled toward the fiction as if it were real.

It can be a small fiction: “This crystal has weird powers,” or “This ritual has unusual effects.”

Or a big one: “This thing is haunted.” Or “We’re stuck in a time loop.”

Here’s what makes Level 3 different. At Level 2, they’ve witnessed something with no explanation they can conceive of. At Level 3, you give them one—except the explanation is somehow more impossible than the thing they just saw.

Now they’re stranded between two positions: admit they have no idea what happened, or accept an explanation that goes against their understanding of the world. There’s no comfortable exit—no version of this that lets them sidestep the feelings of wonder, amazement, awe, or mystery.

---

Level 1: You offer to show them a trick and float a small object between your hands.

They think, Ha, neat. Thread? Some kind of magnet? Hmm.

Level 2: You offer to show them a trick and float a borrowed object from across the room.

They think, Wait—how? That’s my pencil. He’s not even touching it. That’s crazy. Very clever.

Level 3: You borrow their pencil and ask if they’ve heard about the gravitational anomalies people have reported in this neighborhood. You take them to a quiet corner of their house and have them set the pencil down. After a moment, it floats.

They think, Holy shit. How did he…? That was him, right? Oh, don’t be stupid—he does magic. Of course it was him. It’s just a trick. But how? That’s my pencil. There’s no way. Could it be?… no. Stop it, Dave. He didn’t come into your house and reveal some anti-gravity pocket in your attic. Okay… so its a trick.. But maybe it does have something to do with something affecting gravity somehow? Hmmm….

---

But the questions still remain.

Is this manipulative?

A little. I’m trying to guide people into engaging with magic in a way that’s harder to dismiss. But there’s nothing unfair about that.

Does it make people feel “uncomfortable” or “weirded out”?

Yes and no. Does a deep-tissue massage hurt? Yes. Some people find it intensely painful and would never get a second one. Others find it pleasurable. Others find it painful—and still love it enough to pay $150 an hour for it.

Some people are uncomfortable with even the simplest tricks performed in the most straightforward way. They don’t like being fooled. They would hate my style of magic—but they’d never encounter it. I’m not springing this on strangers at bus stops.

Like the haunted house, people have to opt in. And that matters. It opens them up to being messed with, because it means they want it.

The people who experience the most extreme forms of this kind of magic from me have sought it out. They’ve seen things get progressively stranger and more impossible, and they keep coming back. Can it be disorienting? Yes. But that’s why they like it.

Like the people who want the haunted house that actually rattles them, or the deep-tissue massage that leaves them sore for days—they like the intensity. They don’t just want to be fooled. They’re looking for an experience that, for a moment, feels like stepping into another version of reality—one that’s better, weirder, or more magical.

---

Traditionally in magic—particularly amateur magic—there were two primary approaches:

1. Try to convince people it’s real.

2. Present it like it’s something completely trivial—something so fundamentally unimportant that you can safely smother it in corny jokes and hokey patter.

My approach is different. I perform a trick with a storyline that contextualizes it, and I present that story as if it's real. Not with winks and jokes and patter. But by talking how I actually talk and reacting how I actually react. I ask myself: "If I really had this weird thing to show someone, how might I do that?"

But because I’ve acclimated them to this style of performance, everyone knows it a trick.

I’m not trying to get them to think it’s real. I’m not even trying to get them to consider it might be real. I’m just presenting it in a way that gives them a chance to forget it’s fake.

Bizarrely, I Have More to Say on the Matchbox Penetration

I never thought I'd be doing multiple posts on block penetrations… but here we are. Apparently it's something people were eager to talk about if my email inbox is any indication.

The problem with these tricks—as mentioned in previous posts—is that they ask a lot of spectators. They have to be certain of what they saw to understand the true power of the effect. And the way it's typically presented, magicians don't establish that certainty.

I tested this out with a Digital Focus Group last week.

Twenty people watched this video.

At the end they were asked: "On a scale of 1-100, how certain are you that you saw all the sides of the matchbox?"

Answers clustered in the 50-80 range with a couple even lower. No one was 100% sure.

But Andy, he shows the box so cleanly.

Yes. If you know what to look for he does. That's my point. Spectators' minds are not video cameras. They need to be cued what to look for before it happens.

Unlike most tricks, these penetration effects have such satisfyingly complex secrets that allow you to be very clean in performance. But if you don't do something to highlight that cleanliness, people will just think, "Oh, the block must have been sticking out the side of the box that he didn’t show me, and then he pushed it fully in somehow." Or they’ll think you somehow snuck it in the box at some point.

That wouldn't work as a method.

You and I know that. Other magicians know it. Spectators, however, will consider anything.

I once performed Out of This World for an intelligent friend of mine. At the end she said, "You must have switched the packets." She thought I somehow invisibly switched four semi-spread packets of cards without her noticing. Spectators will consider anything that lets them dismiss the effect.

This is the issue I was attempting to address in this Salvage Yard post and this post on Weaponizing Contradiction.

Here are a couple of other approaches sent in by readers…

Louis G. writes:

The framing can be anything, from picking up something from one person in the group or asking for mundane help and one person volunteers. The rest are simply hanging out.

You give this person a pen and paper, and tell them to push it through, focusing on the feeling of the pen *piercing through* the paper*. *Then you give them different objects to pierce through and to pierce through with (ideally sth similar to what you're going to use later on to perform the trick). While they do this, you go back to the other people and explain to them that you read about a way to "prime" people so that you look like you perform real magic when you're only doing the stupidest tricks. You show them an example here, by doing a "penetration trick" with the gimmicked props where an object clearly passes *behind* rather than *through.

*Then you go to the person who has been primed and say something like "now I'm going to do the piercing and you simply watch and focus as if you were the one doing it" and perform the penetration trick with your back turned to the rest of the group. The person visibly sees the penetration. But the object is intact as if nothing went through.

And now the fun part begins when both sides of the room have conflicting versions of what just happened. This could be the moment to switch to examinable props as what makes people tick here isn't "how does the trick work?" but "how could you think you saw what you said?" and "of course I saw it go through!".

I think the difficult thing here would be turning your back on people without them thinking you're actually just switching stuff in and out. So the choreography might be difficult.

A related idea is something similar I put in an old issue of the JAMM. You give someone a VR headset, or even just oddly tinted glasses or something. You have him watch the trick through those. "From your perspective, it will look like the match is going directly through the middle of the box. For everyone else they can see it's actually going along the side of it. But isn't it a convincing illusion?"

Of course, everyone else is just seeing the same trick as well without the glasses or VR headset in the way. So it's just a kind of strange moment where they're fooled, but then join in on misleading the other spectator. "Wait, what did you see? It looked like it was going through the middle? Strange. It was clearly going along the side of it."

Steven B. writes:

In Salvage Yard, you wrote:

"I know this doesn't look like much, but imagine it wasn't matches in there. What if it was a block of wood, or ice, or.… imagine something *completely* impenetrable, like a brass block. Then what you're seeing would be truly impossible."

What if the trick isn't the impossible penetration, but it's framed as the penetration is to prove the box is empty, and the act of them imagining something manifests that thing, so have them think about a wooden or brass block in the box, and it appears.

The weakness of this presentation is why not just show them an empty box instead of stabbing a sword into it, but I wonder if there's something to the trick is an exercise in them manifesting reality.

He identified the weakness here. Just show the box empty. That's how you would prove a box is empty.

I think maybe a switch would be the way to go here if you wanted to try something like this.

Talk about a "manifestation exercise." Show a matchbox, empty except for three matches in it. Dump them out. Now switch it for the gimmick.

"Remember the image of the empty matchbox. We can't look into it while manifesting, but we'll place these matches through it as a visual representation of the emptiness of the box." Or something. There's a logic there, I think.

It's so early in the procedure I think a switch wouldn't be that difficult. And the matches do sort of suggest it's still an empty box.

Now I'd allow them to "choose" a material: wood, brass, silver, ice, rubber, etc. A force, of course (DFB, Quinta, Equivoque with small pieces of these items).

"Okay, you selected… brass. So let's imagine a solid brass block in the matchbox. Ignore those matches. Just pretend they're not there, of course."

Focus. Do some quick something-or-other to manifest the block. Pick up the box. Remove the matches and dump out the brass block.

I feel like that has the potential to be very strong. The switch, gimmick, and force are a strong combination. And I think the box sitting isolated on the table, propped up by the matches is a fairer picture than holding it in your hands.

I guess I need to buy one of these now.

Hey, by the way, if you watched that video above, with its very serviceable (on the edge of bland) presentation, and you thought, "Oh shit! That's so good. I need to steal that presentation!" You are, at the very least, creatively bankrupt. And potentially actually braindead.

Solving the Unnamed Magician Issue

I figured out a way to solve the Unnamed Magician issue in a manner that will make everyone happy.

At this stage, he’s been reduced to making the debate about whether or not I removed my offer to buy the trick.

Yes. As I stated multiple times, I removed my offer. The point he's forgetting is that I removed it because I was given proof his effect wasn't real.

Evidence from HIS OWN EMAILS [verified] to one of HIS FRIENDS IN MAGIC [also verified] that the trick as advertised didn't exist.

His defense for this is, "That person must have lied to Andy. Because I've never told anyone the secret to my trick."

Of course you didn't. One of the defining features of a trick that doesn’t really exist is it’s hard to tell people the secret.

What he did do was email people details of the effect that contradicted what was in the promotional material.

When I believed the advertisement was false, I put out an offer if he could prove it was true.

When I knew it was false, then I removed the offer. Seems pretty straightforward. I'm not quite sure why that is surprising to him. Or anyone.

When somone tells you the Babe Ruth home run ball you’re bidding on is fake, you generally stop bidding on it.

Before that happened, he had A MONTH to accept my offer and he didn't. But jussssttt when I learned the trick wasn't real and removed the offer, it became: "Oh I was JUST about to let you buy it!"

In other areas of life, this is called gaslighting. Dumb people do it.

But lets leave this ugliness behind usl. I want to tackle this situation head-on.

In the Unnamed Magician's version of reality, there are a number of problems here:

1. His reputation has been severely damaged by this.

2. He lost out on an additional $5000 that I promised over what the buyer paid.

3. The other buyer—the "famous magician"—who bought the trick is "very disappointed" in the method. Not because it doesn't live up to all the conditions, mind you. But, uh, for some other reason!

Now, you might say, "Well, none of those issues are your problem, Andy. So why do you care?"

I care because I'm a problem solver.

And fortunately, I can solve these problems for everyone!

It's true that I did take my offer off the table once I learned the trick wasn't real.

Well… it's back on, baby!

That's riiiiiigggggghhhttttt! Your boy's back! I'm putting my offer back on the table.

But it's already been sold?

Yes. My offer is to the "very well-known and rich magician" who we're told bought this. I will pay what you paid for it. You'll get all your money back and you can wash your hands of the whole thing.

On top of that, I will pay the Unnamed Magician the $5000 additional he would have made from me if I bought it in the first place.

I will also take out a full-page ad in Genii magazine for one year, letting everyone know how wise the Unnamed Magician is and how ashamed I am for ever doubting him. If Genii allows it, I will include a picture of my penis from its least flattering angle for purposes of mockery and pointed ribbing.

Problems solved!

UM gets his reputation back.

He also gets his extra 5k.

The unsatisfied buyer gets all his money back for the trick.

You all get a definitive and satisfying end to this story arc on the Jerx.

I get the genuine joy of being proven wrong (seriously!).

Yeah, but then you're saddled with a $60,000 shitty trick?

Don't you worry, my loves: there's nothing I can't make work if I set my mind to it.

It's a turd? That's ok. I will polish this turd until it truly gleams. I will also put some of the best minds in magic on the project as well. In the end, I'll recoup a good chunk of what I spend when I release a hardcover manuscript detailing this whole saga, with a description of the trick and a bunch of variations. I'll still probably lose money on the deal. But I'm okay with that.

So, now what I've offered here is an obvious solution that solves every issue. Everyone is made whole. And there's no risk for anyone other than me.

In the world where this trick really exists and was really sold to a real person, I will be hearing from them soon in order to move forward with the deal.

That's going to happen, right? Right?

I'll be waiting!!

Mailbag #171

Maybe I’m in the minority, but I love this whole Unnamed Magician (Pete!) situation. It reminds me of your old site when you had idiots regularly trying to engage with you. Viva MCJ!—CN

Well, sadly for you, I think that storyline is wrapping up. Tomorrow I’ll solve the problem once and for all.

---

I just have to know your thoughts on this: 

https://www.vanishingincmagic.com/mentalism/rolex-system/

This AI-image-splattered, $1000 pdf has just dropped on Vanishing Inc, and I've never seen pricing so absurd in my life. Pretty sure this guy was charging for a DEMO at Blackpool, too - I'd love to hear what you have to say—AT

It's telling that within hours of this being uploaded on Vanishing Inc's site, one of the written endorsements was removed and then the video was edited to remove another seeming endorsement. I've never heard of such a thing in magic before.

And now it looks like the product has been removed completely from VI. Although you can still read about it here.

Here is how the effect was described to me by someone who witnessed it:

"He had me think of my star sign. He closed his eyes and said 'if there's an S, hold your right hand out in front of you. If there's not an S, hold your left hand out in front of you. If there's an A in your star sign, turn your hand palm down. If not, leave it how it is. If there's an O in your star sign, leave your hand the direction it's facing and close your hand in a fist. If there's not an O, do nothing.'"

This is done while the performer is seemingly not looking. He then reveals the star sign.

Now, I'd like to assume this is the stupid version he came up with on the way to the good version. But this is what he was showing someone he hoped would buy it or endorse it, which makes me think this is pretty much the primary idea behind the whole thing.

This is what's described at the link above as:

A once-in-a-generation idea.

A hot McDonald's apple pie with Colgate toothpaste in the middle instead of apples is also once in a generation, technically. I'm not sure that makes it good.

The full ad stated:

"Anagrams are a tool that mentalists have used for years, but they've always been slightly awkward in the way you get the information from your participant. If not performed correctly, it can come off as fishing for information. The Rolex System completely changes that because everything is done without any words being spoken."

So… just to be clear, asking if there is an A in the word might come off as fishing for information, but saying: "If there's an A in your star sign, turn your hand palm down. If not, leave it how it is," is a perfectly natural method of gaining information?

In my opinion, saying "do this with your fist" makes the anagram procedure more convoluted and "awkward" than acting like you're picking up on letters. And far more conspicuous than having someone read their horoscope online (Xeno) or write their star sign down (peek wallet) in order to determine their sign.

To be fair, I've only heard about this second hand. He may have some absolutely brilliant rationale for the hand thing that makes it feel fully justified and not just an obvious way of signaling information to the performer.

And I'm judging it against methods that work best one-on-one, where this is designed to be done for a crowd primarily (I believe).

So maybe there's some genuine gold in that $1000 pdf. I'd be shocked, as the infrastructure it's based on feels incredibly weak to me. But don't let me talk you out of it.

By the way, I'm going to extract what I wrote about pricing in magic from a post a few weeks ago so I can link to it directly in the future—as it seems like this may become more of an issue going forward.

I do love this final line from the original VI ad:

Because of its nature, Shay has intentionally priced The Rolex System to ensure it ends up in the hands of performers who are committed to learning and using it long term.

Ah, okay. Why is this trick so expensive? It's because of its nature. Got it. That makes perfect sense. 👌

Also, you must apparently be "committed to learning and using it long term" before you buy it and learn the method and determine if you even like it. Does this seem rational? Is this a good direction for magic pricing to move towards? By this logic, shouldn't you get a refund if you determine the method is not good enough to learn and use long term? Considering that was factored into the price and all?

What's next?

Because of its nature, Rocco has intentionally priced the D'lite at $899 to ensure it ends up in the hands of performers who are committed to learning it and flashing it at least 14,000 times in performance.

---

I'd imagine the ultimate zero carry would be cutlery bending, a routine like Liquid Metal. Sadly I can't do this because of my weak girly hands, but forks and spoons are everywhere: restaurants, other people's houses... That's it really.—SS

"They're everywhere." Two examples. "That's it really." I laughed. Thank you.

Here's the deal with spoon bending. You'd think it would fit great into my Zero Carry philosophy, but honestly I've never had much luck with it.

I'd put it in the same category as cold reading.

Huh?

(Here I'm specifically talking about cold reading when it's used in a direct way—"reading someone's mind." Not when it's filtered through some other oracle.)

Cold reading and spoon bending routines are both effects that need to be presented with confidence. And I don't mean you have to be confident in the technique you're using. I mean your attitude needs to be: Here's something I can *definitely* do. And here's me doing it.

The reason you have to be confident is that the methods are blatantly idiotic.

Cold reading = guessing.

Spoon bending = bending the spoon (with your hands).

If you take a chill, casual approach to either of these, it will just look like you're doing exactly what you're doing (you could maybe get away with one phase of a spoon bend).

It's the confidence that makes it feel like something else is going on.

When you're performing professionally, that confidence makes sense. You're The Mindreader. You're The Spoonbender.

That's harder to pull off when you're someone's buddy. You're not The Mindreader or Spoonbender. You're Dave. You work at the car wash. Your favorite show is Tulsa King. You chipped your tooth trying to make your friends laugh by fellating a Perrier bottle like Madonna did in Truth or Dare. Oh, and YOU CAN BEND METAL WITH THE POWER OF YOUR MIND!!!

It's just too cartoonish to be particularly interesting for people who know you. It becomes less of, "How is he bending the spoon with his mind?" And more of, "When is he bending the spoon with his hands?"

For the casual style, I think spoon bending is a tough fit. Which is why I don't bother with it despite the fact that spoons are—as established—everywhere: Other people's houses, restaurants, restaurant supply stores, other stores that aren't specifically restaurant supply stores yet still have things you'd find in a restaurant, heroin dens, Willie Mackay concerts.

Until May...

Sorry for the delay in posting this. I was at the White House Correspondents' Dinner, and stuff got crazy.

---

This is the final post of April.

The next issue of Keepers will be sent Sunday, May 3rd.

Regular posting will resume on Monday, May 4th. Which is some Star Wars shit, if I’m not mistaken.

---

"Pete," The Unnamed Magician, is still sticking to his story about his trick. Skip this section if you don’t care.

Just to update you… He's now telling people he's going to retire from magic because he made so much money selling his trick to a "very well known and rich magician."

He also is telling people that this famous magician is "very disappointed" in the method but they "had to pay up" because the trick met all the conditions.

But Andy, if he's making it up, why wouldn't he say the magician was thrilled with the trick?

Because he knows suggesting that would be a bridge too far. He can't say the method was good because that narrows down the possibilities drastically. Instead he's suggesting he has some byzantine method that he was able to conceive of that somehow meets all the conditions, looks exactly like the video, works 95% of the time… but somehow it's not good. (As a creative exercise, try to imagine what possible issue someone might have with a trick that works 95% of the time and looks exactly as it does in the video.)

Now, I told you a while ago you'd never see the trick and that he'd pretend to sell it to this fake magician. And I also knew this was going to be his next ploy: "It was a real trick all along, it met all the conditions. But the reason you'll never see any famous magician actually perform this is because the method isn't great."

He set this up in his emails to me when he said, and I quote:

"I can tell you that the method is quite disappointing. People wouldn't like it or perform it."

So now you have two possibilities to believe.

A. The Jerx Theory

He came up with an average trick. Realized he could frame it as a great trick if he just showed one part of it. Got caught up in the marketing of the trick and used some questionable language to describe the conditions. Then was forced to lie about it once he got called out on it.

B. The Unnamed Magician's Story

1. In February, he was so desperate for cash that he was selling his entire backlog of downloadable effects for $40.

2. In March, he just so happened to create the cleanest looking version of the most classic challenge in card magic.

3. Strangely, this effect looked nothing like any other trick he'd ever released.

4. Coincidentally, he chose a brand new method of selling his tricks which involved an incredibly high price (for a card trick), months of pre-sales, and no actual details of when and where the trick would be released.

5. Conveniently, he told absolutely no one the method. Not even the well-respected magicians he had shared tricks with in the past.

6. Oddly enough, when I offered to sell the first 200 copies for him… he wanted nothing to do with that idea.

7. Remarkably, a mysterious, wealthy magician broke with all known understanding of price negotiation and offered him an amount that was multiples of the highest public offer. Weird! And this, for a trick that had never been performed on record anywhere for anyone. Not only that, but it was a trick that had conditions no layperson would ever appreciate, but at the same time, it couldn't be performed for magicians because they could easily make it not work.

8. For some unknown reason, he preferred to deal with the Secret Millionaire Magician, rather than make the same (or more) from me, retain the rights to sell the trick, preserve his reputation, and make me look like an idiot for questioning him.

9. As luck would have it, some dastardly person who had verified conversations with the Unnamed Magician lied to me—fed me a fake method and claimed it was the real one. A fake method that, coincidentally, would have produced an identical result to the videos released.

10. By chance, just when I had learned the (supposed) method and realized it was pure horseshit… that was when he was finally ready to let me buy the very real method for the very real trick! I just missed out by only waiting a month. What rotten luck!

11. Thankfully, one of the many millionaire magicians was still interested.

12. Amazingly, the escrow process (which typically takes 3-5 weeks) took only days this time and he now has all his money.

13. Unfortunately, the method WHILE LIVING UP TO THE CONDITIONS 100%, isn't good (somehow), so you'll never see the trick performed. Aw, rats!

14. And wouldn't you know it, now he's decided to retire from magic. That's certainly the action of someone who just created one of the most deceptive tricks of all time that sold for one of the highest amounts of money for a single card trick in history. And not the reaction of…oh, say, someone whose pseudonym is now burned—someone slinking off the magic scene because he knows this release will follow him forever.

So those are the options.

In my version of events, his actions are flawed, but feel very human to me. You don't sell hundreds of dollars of downloads for $40 unless you're desperate. He needed money and got swept up in a way he thought would get him some. I felt for him when I thought that was the case. I asked him to let me help him get out of this predicament. I imagined collaborating with him—working on a project where I took a few of his very procedure-heavy tricks and came up with some different premises or presentations to make them more interesting to non-magicians. Put that together in an ebook, or very limited edition hard-copy, sell it to my supporters, and let him keep the proceeds.

But now I guess I was wrong. I was lied to by my source. The Unnamed Magician really did have this "Ultimate Open Prediction" effect. The method was "quite disappointing" and "people wouldn't like it or perform it." This was a trick he was willing to sell to people for $100. He didn't sell it as some trick that was just an exercise in meeting conditions—he sold it as "the strongest trick he ever created." In the end, he sold this unappealing method to someone for somewhere between 50,000 and 100,000 dollars.

That's the story he wants you to believe. He thinks that story makes him look better than mine. Okay fine. I changed my mind. I believe him now. But I also have to change my assessment of him from an earlier post where I said I didn't think he was a scam artist.

Claiming a trick is the "ultimate" version of the Open Prediction, saying it's the strongest thing you've ever created, and then asking anywhere from $100 or $100,000 for it—all the while knowing the method wasn't something anyone would use—makes you a scam artist.

---

I've gotten on Murphy's Magic in the past for using AI to write their ad copy. I think they used AI for their ad for Shinkansen by Max Maven as well. And by that I mean they used An Idiot.

First off, what is this abortion: "From MAX MAVEN, an innovative evolution of the timeless 'Cards Across' miracle that has been streamlined, powerful, and absolutely fooling."

Quick grammar lesson: Items in a list must all have the same grammatical form. This is called parallel structure.

Rarely does parallel structure get so monumentally jacked up that it becomes perpendicular.

• "has been streamlined" → This is a verb phrase in the passive voice

• "powerful" → This is a simple adjective

• "absolutely fooling" → This is a participial phrase

It would be like if I held up a banana and said, "This banana has been peeled, sweet, and absolutely delicious."

Okay, no one here cares about that. I know.

You may care about this issue though. The ad copy clearly states "They merely think of any one. No forcing." Which is odd given that the trick relies 100% on a force. How does this slip into the ad copy? What could they possibly have been thinking? I have no clue. My goal isn't to become the magic police, but when it's this egregious, I feel it needs to be noted.

Maybe it's a punctuation problem. Perhaps it was supposed to say:

"They merely think of any one? No. Forcing!"

---

Were you involved in this? —MC

I got a few emails about this trick and whether I had anything to do with it. At first I had no idea what they were talking about, but then a reader reminded me of this post from 7 years ago.

So, the answer is no, I had nothing to do with it other than having a similar idea in the past.

By the way, this logic is kind of insane

Uhm… okay. I get it, coins aren't as common as they once were. But there are still about 3,000 times more coins in the U.S. than AirTags.

The death of coins isn't the argument for this trick.

The argument for the trick is that a coin vanish doesn't allow you to explore where the coin goes after it disappears—which is an interesting premise. You can leave it at that. You don't have to pretend people are going to be scratching their heads when you pull out a quarter. "What's that thing??"

---

Peace. See you next month, my little may flowers. 😘

Turn and Face the Strange

Premise

In the most recent issue of Keepers, I talked about the idea of using things in the environment as de facto predictions or revelations for magic tricks, instead of just writing something down or pulling something up on your phone.

The premise I use with this isn't that what I'm showing them is a prediction, but that together we're "manifesting" this thing in the real world.

Consider the difference…

Prediction: I use DFB to force Michael Jackson on you. Then I show my prediction and it's Michael Jackson.

Manifestation: I use DFB to "select a random target celebrity for us to focus on." That celebrity is Michael Jackson. I tell you about this manifestation exercise I read about and the idea that if you focus on something hard enough, reality kind of echoes it back at you in certain ways. I walk you through a quick visualization exercise. We finish our lunch, leave the restaurant, step outside, walk down the street, turn the corner, and there's a Michael Jackson impersonator performing there.

Identifying the Target

Part One

I don't use DFB for this sort of thing. I use a winnowing technique because it feels more natural to me (and allows me to do it impromptu).

So, let's say my friend is visiting and I know that on our drive into NYC there's something I can use as a revelation.

At dinner I'll bring up the manifestation idea that I've been "reading about." Then I'll say, "The first step is to identify a fully random target."

From there I'll use some sort of 50/50 forcing technique to narrow down to the general category.

So I might do:

Person or Thing?
Celebrity or Someone you know?
Living or Dead?
Man or Woman?
Actor or Singer?

Forcing each "random" option along the way.

How?

—You can use the impromptu technique I discussed in the last issue of Keepers.

—You can use a controlled coin flip.

—You could use a magnetic coin. Have the person hide the coin in either hand. "If it's in this hand the target will be an actor. If it's in that hand the target will be a singer."

—You could use a dime/penny gimmick. Introduce a dime and penny. Say that you'll secretly choose one of the coins and isolate it in your hand, and then they get to designate one choice as the dime option and one choice as the penny option. "This way we're both involved so neither of us can control the outcome." You put your hands under the table and come out with a coin in your fist. You ask them to designate one coin to the Singer option and one coin to the Actor option. Whatever they say, you open your hand to reveal the coin that moves you to your force object.

Part Two

Once I get down to a general category, I use a technique from Phill Smith's Organic Mentalism lecture to force the specific thing. It's called The Universal and it's a way of associating different options to your fingers, and then using Quinta to force one. It's a very conversational, casual approach and works perfectly for this kind of situation.

So at this point I'll say, "Okay, so a dead, male, singer…" (Or whatever the category.)

"Let's come up with some options. Freddie Mercury… David Bowie… uhm, give me some more."

I then let them name the last three themselves.

You could just let them name all the options, hope they name the force option as one of their selections, and if they don't, offer it up yourself at the end. But I don't love that. It feels like you're trying to get that one option in. Which is especially suspicious when it ends up being the ultimate selection.

I'd rather act like I'm going to be the one making the selections and then open it up to their input as well. That feels like moving in the direction of freedom. As opposed to me shoving in an option at the end.

So I then use Quinta/The Universal to force David Bowie from these options.

I do a quick "manifestation exercise" to focus their visualization. This could be anything. I could have them think of three powerful memories from their past and imagine David Bowie is part of the memory. Or whatever.

I now set the stage for what's to come. "Okay, so if this works, we should manifest some element of David Bowie into the world in some way. Maybe hear a song from him or something like that in the next week or so."

Twenty minutes later, as we drive into the city, we see this.

"I don't believe this shit," I say, dumbfounded.

A Quinta Finger Force Finesse

Quinta is always strongest when you can tell them what you're going to do before they do it.

"You're going to think of any number. And then you're going to count on the fingertips of my left hand, starting from left to right, and going back and forth, until we end up on your number."

This sounds very definitive. But there are two natural ways to hold your hand out to them to count on your fingertips.

So you can control the orientation as you need to for Quinta.

Afterward

My experience with this premise is that the revelation gets an initial surprised reaction. A sort of, "Oh! Wow!" That initially seems to strike them as funny. But then, as they think back and consider how we got to the "manifestation target," it feels more and more impossible. We randomly selected a category. They helped choose the options. They chose the number that would select the random option.

Of course, while this is dawning on thm, I'm just stoking the situation by being a little freaked out. "That's never been there before. I lived here for 20 years and that mural was never there. I thought a song would just come on the radio or something.”

My friend was roped into the fiction enough to actually look it up online and see if she could find evidence of when the Bowie mural was made. "It's been there for years," she said.

I laughed. "Well, of course it would say that, goofball. You don't just manifest some object into existence. The whole universe shifts. We manifested a universe where that mural was painted years ago."

Later that night, after brushing her teeth, she came into my room and I was sitting on the bed looking at my phone.

"This is crazy," I said. "Wikipedia has David Bowie as having all sorts of hits he never had. Space Oddity? Star Man? Life on Mars? A few other ones too."

"Those are Bowie songs," she said.

"Huh? Those are T. Rex songs. Marc Bolan wrote those." I paused. “Oh shit… it’s rewriting your memory now too? I’m sorry. I… I don’t think I can stop it.”