Mailbag #107

Regarding: The Logbook of Notable Events trick

I love the idea. Im curious on one thing that i guess spreads to other tricks of this type when you wait for it to start:

How do you keep such a long clear story in mind for when the moment arises? I mean, it cant be fully scripted im guessing, but you must have some "go to" things you keep in mind when the moment arises and you decide to go into the trick. Or strategies... for just making most of it up in the moment.—JFC

It’s like the advice Tim Roth gets at the beginning of this scene from Reservoir Dogs.

Look, man, just think about it like it’s a joke, alright? You memorize what’s important, the rest you make your own, alright? You can tell a joke, can’t you? Pretend you’re Don Rickles or some-fucking-body and tell a joke, alright?

The rest of the advice in that scene doesn’t hold true as much, because we’re not undercover cops trying to tell real, believable stories.

My goal when working out my presentation is not to have a story that’s 100% down pat. My goal is not to have it down 50% or even 25%. My goal is just to remember the key details 100%.

With the Logbook of Notable Events, what do I need to remember?

1. When I was a kid, I used to keep a log of when something interesting would happen.

2. I found the logbook again some years ago and when reading through it, I found a pattern in the timing of something (when I’d see a deer). I then noticed some other patterns.

3. From that point on, I started tracking events again. Not everyday events. And not once-in-a-lifetime events. But those sorts of things that happen every now and then. And I’ve found more patterns.

I now try to put that as succinctly as possible.

1. As a child, I logged interesting events.

2. Rediscovered logbook, noticed patterns.

3. Started tracking again, noticed more patterns in the timing of occasional events.

Now, wherever I keep track of my current repertoire, those three statements are included in a “presentation” section for the trick. And any time I’m running through my repertoire, I force myself to recall those statements, just as I would force myself to recall the steps to the handling of a trick.

Everything else I just make up on the spot when I perform.

I want it to sound unrehearsed. I want it to sound like this isn’t something I’d planned on telling them. I want it to have the delivery of a real story. And real stories from me don’t come out in one perfect narrative.

I frequently record myself performing when I plan on writing up a trick for the site. For your benefit, I remove or edit all the asides, and doubling-back, and clarifications that happen when I’m delivering this type of story in the real world. But they’re there in actuality. And they’re not there because I don’t work hard enough to eliminate them. They’re there because I want them to be there. I want it to sound like me relating a real memory. Not me reciting a story.

I’m very comfortable making up shit on the spot. But even if you’re not, if you have those tent-pole statements or concepts memorized, and you’re completely okay with the rest being imperfect, I think you’ll probably feel pretty safe going into a story like that.

---

Your Dad Magic post is one of the best things you’ve ever written and one of the best bits of magic writing I’ve read in the past decade at least. I read it literally minutes before I opened up a package containing [a trick where a lighter grows in size] and it made everything hit home even more. I know the limitations of that kind of trick and card tricks and all of that and I also know the types of performances I’ve done in the past that have truly enthralled people. What I don’t understand is why I’m still drawn to these minor effects and feel so much more comfortable performing them than the type of trick that I know is capable of creating a much stronger response? Thoughts? —FE

Yes. You’re feeling the fear of doing anything with magic that reaches beyond getting a reaction of “Hey…Neat!”

That makes sense. Think about telling a dad joke. Do you worry about it? No. If they laugh, they laugh. If they don’t, they don’t. If they groan, they groan. There are no stakes to it. It’s not personal.

Dad Magic is similar. In magic, we have the inherent stakes of fooling them or not. But if the only thing you’re concerned about when you show someone a trick is if it fools them, then the only thing you’re ever setting yourself up to do is fool them. And these days, people seem to give less of a shit about being fooled then at any point in my lifetime.

What I find is that people WANT to be fucked with a little more. They don’t want to just not know how something happened. They want to be toyed with. That’s been my experience. But it’s still intimidating to try and do something like that rather than just say, “Hey look, I made these silver coins turn brass.”

I wouldn’t take that apprehension you’re feeling as a negative sign. There’s a saying in improv comedy: “Follow the Fear.” It’s the idea that when we lean into the more challenging and uncomfortable impulses we have, we often create the most interesting and profound moments. That’s true with magic too. Well, it’s true with everything.

If you’re confident you can perform a trick well and you’re still a little freaked out to try it for someone, that’s probably a good sign. It means you’re going for something beyond the binary proposition of them being fooled or not.

Dustings #102

If you do some random tricks for people, they generally enjoy them and forget them over time. The disconnectedness of most magic effects is a big issue when it comes to creating moments that stick with people.

Here’s a structure for a memorable evening of magic.

You invite some friends over for an old-fashioned fondue party.

After dinner, you admit to your real motivations here tonight.

“I definitely wanted to see you guys and spend the evening together. But I had an ulterior motive bringing you here tonight as well… Tyromancy.”

You then explain to them the ancient art of predicting the future with cheese. And, via a few demonstrations, you show them their fondue-induced abilities that allow them to do some simple but impressive predictions of the near-future.

“I have a another confession,” you say. “I’ve been eating nothing but cheese for eight days.” And you draw their attention to the sealed crystal box that’s been hanging from the ceiling above the dining room table. (Or the sealed envelope you mailed to one of the guests to bring with them before the party. Or whatever.) And you open it up to reveal a description of tonight’s party written (apparently) days ago. Including what people would wear, conversations they would have, who would spill a drink, etc.

Now, instead of just plying them with random tricks, you’ve given them this story, this event, this experience that’s going to stick with them. No human is going to forget the time they got together with some friends, had a cheese party, and then were able to “predict the future.”

And for anyone who is new here… NO… I’m not suggesting you can convince your friends to believe they were able to predict the future after eating cheese. It’s a framework. A story for the evening. An immersive fiction that exists somewhere between a casual dinner with friends and a murder-mystery dinner-theater show.

And yes, I read the article I linked above. I know the “real” Tyromancy involves looking at the physical qualities of the cheese. But it’s much more fun to imagine it’s about eating nachos and fried mozzarella and that you can gain the prediction powers yourself.

(Thanks to Cary S. for the link.)

---

In Tuesday’s post about the three effects that work together to make it seem like you can transmit a touch sense to someone, I wrote this:

I also like to include other little touch-based “experiments” in the mix.

Soon after that post, Tomas B. sent me the following video, wondering if maybe it could be used as the foundation for a PK Touch style of effect. I don’t think the illusion is strong enough or predictable enough to be used in that context, but this is the exact sort of little experiment I would pepper into the Touch Triptych series of effects to flesh out the experience even more.

UPDATE: It turns out Raj Madhok has already played around with using this illusion in a magic context. Check out his book Mysterious and Mysteriouser and the trick Fossa Nature for his take on it. The whole book is worth your attention.

---

A few people have asked me if I’ll kick Copperfield out of the GLOMM if he’s convicted of a sex crime stemming from the stuff that’s coming out regarding a possible connection to Epstein.

Of course! I’ll kick out anybody. I don’t have allegiance to, or reverence for, any of these folks.

At the moment, though, it’s not much more than a rumor.

We’ll keep our eye on it.

The Greatest Time and Energy Saver for the Amateur Magician

The first trick I generally show to someone is a good trick. Not an average trick, but also not a great trick. A solid 7.

The first trick you perform for someone will, generally, get a better reaction than you might normally receive for that trick, because that spectator has no expectations. If anything, they probably have low expectations based on the magic they’ve seen in real life. So there’s no need to do a really strong trick at first. In fact, a really strong trick can be so overwhelming to some people that it can be off-putting. So that’s something you’ll want to build up to.

So, again, I start with a good trick.

What kind of reaction does it get? A good reaction… a great reaction… an incredible reaction? These are all legitimate and suggest someone who will be open to more performances in the future.

But what if I get a bad reaction? And by “bad” reaction, I don’t mean they’re booing or something. I mean that they just shrug it off.

What trick do I use to win this person back?

Nothing. I don’t try to win them back. You can’t.

I used to think I needed to do a better trick for them, and that would make them like what I was doing more. And so I spent a lot of time and energy trying to “win them over” with a really good trick.

What I didn’t understand then, but know now, is that these people didn’t dislike the trick. If it’s a good trick (good enough that you can be certain they don’t know how it’s done) and it gets a bad reaction, that’s because they don’t like the sensation of mystery or not-knowing. A stronger trick isn’t going to win them over, it’s going to push them further away because it’s more of what they don’t like.

If you get a legitimately bad reaction, it’s because they don’t like magic or they don’t like you (or both). Either way, more of those things are not what they’re looking for.

So let them go.

If they end up being in your social circle for an extended period of time, and they see or hear about you performing for others who are enjoying what you’re showing them, then they will come to you and ask about seeing or trick or something you’re working on or whatever.

They may hint at it indirectly, or they may say something like, “Why don’t you ever show me a trick?” This is VERY common if they’re feeling left-out of something fun going on between you and others.

When this happens, I simply say, “Oh, I just didn’t think it was your thing. I’d be happy to show you something sometime.”

That’s the way to phrase it. Not, “Well, you didn’t appreciate that one trick I showed you enough!” It’s just, “I didn’t think it was your thing.”

Next time you show them something, there will be a dramatic difference in their response. (I’ve never had it play out any other way.)

Usually, people’s initial negative reaction is caused by them thinking you were seeking approval or validation. Or that you wanted to make yourself look smart or cleverer than them. Once they sense that’s not what it’s about for you, the hesitation normally drops away.

The secret, as it is so often in life when you’re trying to appeal to someone in some way, is to make them chase you.

Don’t waste your time and energy trying to get people into what you’re doing if they’re not inclined to be. Cultivate an audience of people who enjoy participating in this stuff with you. Perhaps counterintuitively, this is actually the best way to draw in those who are initially unwilling to engage.

Dad Magic

Last Friday I suggested you watch this video as homework for this week.

It’s a collection of Dad Jokes.

That sort of thing.

I came to something of a realization last year. I shared it with a couple of people and they found it to be kind of sad. But I think it’s a way of thinking about things that explains a lot and can better help you reach your goals in magic.

I was thinking about the concept of Dad Jokes. And I was thinking, “What would be the equivalent sort of thing in magic be? What are Dad Tricks?”

And I don’t mean tricks that are funny or have a lame joke as part of the presentation.

I was trying to complete this analogy:

Dad Jokes are to Humor as ________ is to Magic.

What fills that blank?

My first thought was maybe something like packet tricks. Those have a sort of “dad magic” feel to me. Or maybe, like… an Okito box routine? Rubber band magic?

The more I thought of what might be Dad Magic (and what certainly wasn’t Dad Magic) the more I came to a realization…

In general, what we think of as “Magic,” IS dad magic.

Packet tricks are dad magic. Coin tricks are. The cups and balls. All four-ace tricks. The linking rings. Every trick Harry Lorayne ever did. A matrix done with dice instead of coins. Bill in Lemon. Those little pre-printed cards you keep in your wallet that you use to read someone’s mind.

It’s all dad magic.

What I mean is, I was looking for this subset of tricks that lined up “spiritually” with dad jokes. But most magic tricks are already the equivalent of a dad joke.

Dad Jokes are unoriginal, impersonal, pre-scripted, disconnected moments of humor.

They may make you laugh, but the humor of a dad joke never really moves you or gives you a sense of connection with the person who told it.

You may laugh at a bunch of dad jokes and find them genuinely funny, but a week later you’ll probably forget most of them.

If someone knows a bunch of good dad jokes, you don’t think: “This guy is so funny.” You just think they’re someone who memorized a bunch of jokes. You could do that too, if you were so inclined.

Similarly…

Most tricks are unoriginal, impersonal, pre-scripted, disconnected moments of magic.

They may fool you, but the “magic” of most tricks rarely moves you or gives you a sense of connection with the person who performed it.

You may enjoy a bunch of tricks and genuinely have no idea how they’re done, but a week later you’ll probably forget the details.

If someone knows a bunch of good tricks, you don’t think: “This guy is so amazing.” You just think they’re someone who learned a bunch of tricks. You could do that too, if you were so inclined.

This idea that “all tricks are dad magic” has explained some things for me.

First, maybe the reason magic has, so often, been perceived as a “lesser” art form is because—as it’s typically performed—it is a lesser art form. Truly funny people are adored in our society. Stand-up comedians are idolized by many. But if people “performed” comedy by standing on stage and reading random, generic jokes written by other people, then comedy would probably be similarly marginalized in the world of entertainment.

Second, it sort of explains why we can have such different expectations regarding the sorts of tricks we will perform.

I remember last year, when EDCeipt came out, there were some complaints about the quality of the gimmicked receipts. With some people saying they didn’t look or feel like real receipts. The stores didn’t make sense and the prices were bizarre. And the response to these complaints were, “Nobody cares.” “Nobody ever notices.” “No one questions the receipts.”

And I remember thinking, “How could that be?” How could no one take even the slightest level of interest in these items that are being used TO READ THEIR MIND! How can they be so nonchalant about it? And I assumed anyone saying the audience didn’t care was lying about that, or deluding themselves.

But now I think they’re probably being accurate to their experience and the expectations they bring to their performances. If you’re performing magic in a traditional style—in a Dad Magic style—then of course people won’t care as much if the receipts are real or not. And of course they’ll be less likely to ask to examine the deck after you make it change color. For the same reasons, they wouldn’t question you about the veracity of the set-up to a Dad Joke. They’re there to be fooled and entertained. Not to fact-check everything.

Whereas, in a more immersive style of performance, something that feels out of place or wrong in any way is going to undermine the whole experience. And there you do have to be more concerned about things like verisimilitude and examinability.

Third, it sort of explains why even a strong trick that fools people badly can often have such a seemingly short impact on people. If you saw something truly impossible, that seems like something that should mess with your mind for at least 15 minutes, if not days, or a lifetime.

But I had so many times over the years when I would perform something that would totally kill someone, yet they would put it out of their mind relatively quickly. And I realized it’s because it came in the form of a Dad Trick. Some isolated moment of impossibility, disconnected to anything real or meaningful to the other person.

It was only when I started employing some of the techniques I’ve written about on this site that I started getting the longer-lasting reactions regularly.

And by those techniques, I mean any of the ideas I’ve implemented that are designed to make a trick NOT feel like a perfect, neatly constructed Dad Joke of a moment. But instead something that feels messier, more spontaneous, less understood, and more unpredictable.

This undoubtedly feels like a value judgment. Like I’m saying, “Ah… YOU with your meaningless ‘dad-magic’ are performing such trivial effects. Whereas, I am committed to performing life-changing miracles!” But that’s not what I’m suggesting at all. I perform a lot of stuff that falls squarely into the straight, Dad-Magic, traditional style of a trick. There’s just too much fun stuff to perform that could be described in that way. And a lot of it is very fooling. I’m not saying Dad Magic is bad magic. I’m just saying that most magic IS Dad Magic.

This is sort of the anti-Paul Harris theory, that magic effects are inherently important and powerful and “bring us back to a child’s state of mind.” The more you buy into that, the less-satisfied you’re likely to be with the impact of your magic. Whereas, if we recognize the inherent weakness—the inherent dad-magic-ness—of tricks as they’re traditionally performed, that will allow us to be content showing people these pleasant diversions. Or it will inspire us to find ways of creating more genuinely impressive, and long-lasting moments of mystery using our tools of deception.

Touch Triptych

Last Tuesday, I promised I’d show you what I consider to be a successful example of stringing multiple tricks together.

I don’t like to call this a “routine” because magicians have devalued that word to the point of meaninglessness. Just like they’ve done with “impromptu” and “EDC” or “experience.” (“I don’t want to just do tricks… I want to give people an experience!” they say. Great! Me too! I think. Then I watch them perform, and it’s just fucking tricks.)

Also, “routine” just suggests tricks that follow one after the other, rather than tricks that tell a single story.

Last Tuesday, I wrote:

Think in terms of story rather than “routine.”

You have a story you want to tell, and these tricks when put together are going to tell that story.

This set of three tricks is an example of such a story.

Last month, as part of the Christmas Spectacular, I released a new feature in the Jerx App that allows you to perform a PK Touches routine for one person. You can read all about that and how it works in this post. (That post will only be up a couple more weeks before it gets sucked into the instructions for the Jerx App.)

How do I make this one trick a story? A routine? Dare I say… an experience??

This is a trick about someone feeling you touch them when you’re not. Let’s build that out.

Let’s say my friend Olivia is visiting me. I’m telling her about a… skill or technique… that I learned when I was 19.

This skill is about touch, and experiencing touch… and well… I don’t want to say too much at this point.

I walk her through three moments.

First, I touch a pencil to her fingertip and she is able to feel my heartbeat through the pencil.

“Okay… good, good. For some people, even that doesn’t work. So that’s a good first step.”

The next phase is to try to get Olivia to feel my energy when I’m not touching her. (Not with my hand. Not with a pencil. Not with anything.)

She holds out her hand, and I rub my hands together and draw them down her arm to her fingertips. After a few false starts, she feels a definite ripple of energy down her armas my fingers pass. Great!

Finally, I have her stand facing away from me. She feels certain touches on her hand, but when I show her the video recording of what we just did, she realizes she was never touched. I only touched my own hand.

She keeps the video as a reminder of this experience.

You see how these moments all work together as a progression? First she “feels me,” but through another object. Then she “feels me” when I’m not touching her at all, but the feeling is only a general sensation. And finally she feels specific touches in a specific way when I’m not touching her. It’s a perfect build.

Method:

Part 1: Heartbeat (Juan Colas)
Part 2: A Loop
Part 3: PK Photo on the Jerx App.

Now, the truth is, I don’t do this one trick after another in a period of 10 minutes. I generally pace it out over a period of time. With part 1 happening at one interaction and the other parts happening at later interactions. I also like to include other little touch-based “experiments” in the mix. These are not tricks. Just other tests that help us get on the same vibration.

So the initial story of this “routine” is about the progression of us being able to feel each other without touching.

On top of that, I lay another story about why I ever learned this skill. In that story, I talk about my girlfriend during my sophomore year in college. How we met in October, fell for each other, and started dating at the end of November. And then we had just a few weeks to spend together before she was off for a semester abroad in Spain.

This is all 100% true.

We knew we could talk once a week on the phone and write letters… but we were definitely going to miss each other physically. Again all true.

Where my story veers from the truth is when I say that I started researching ways for us to “transmit” our touch over distance. So I could caress her cheek. Or hold her hand. Or… you know… do other stuff to her even though there were 4000 miles between us.

Now, this is absolutely a hyper-flirtatious premise for a trick. And so it’s not necessarily something you can bring out for everyone. The unspoken (or perhaps spoken) ramification of going through this process with someone is that, seemingly, with maybe some more practice, you two could be getting each other off remotely if you were so inclined.

Obviously, you don’t need to imply that aspect of it. Feeling touched without being touched is already an intimate enough experience without taking it to that level.

As a general structure, this manner of tying tricks together works very well. Take a very strong trick and then take a couple of other tricks that are different methodologically, but feel like early predecessors to the finale trick. Doing these tricks over the course of an evening, or the course of a few interactions, is going to have a very natural flow to it. And it will firmly implant the premise of that final trick with the spectator for much longer than if you were to just perform that trick in isolation.

Mailbag #106

Your recent post about "Psychcrypt Imp" and attached video got me thinking to try something out.

I briefly explained to my unsuspecting but willing participant  that, as a graduate in psychology, I always look for interesting new applications.  I came across a bootleg old video showing how the Soviets communicated with US-based spies during the Cold War.  Aside from codes in correspondence and embedded in newspaper ads, they used 8mm home movies to embed photo-cryptic message instructions. 

I showed them about 30 seconds worth of your 50's video, and asked them if they saw, or thought that they say a number in the video which was to be their next mission as a spy.   Between 1-25.  (If not, I mention that it could be subliminal and to try to guess a number).  "17" they say.   I am shocked, and show a (DFB Bard-generated) list of potential Soviet-era missions on my iPhone and ask them to look at #17.    

"Expose a CIA safehouse" is the order.  

I then show the spectator a sealed envelope encrusted with the Soviet flag.  Inside is the typed instructions:  "привет [Greetings], Comrade, your next mission is to identify and expose a CIA safehouse in Mother Russia. Удачи {Good luck] Comrade!"

"Amazing, I say.  You could have been a Soviet spy in a prior life during the Cold War".  

Naturally, all 3 of my guests wanted to look at the video again.   One was a denier but the other one saw #17 too! —A

That’s a good backstory for the video. Thanks for sharing the idea.

If you wanted to take it further, you could add a Kurotsuke type element to the effect. Stay with me.

Imagine you had three stones or crystals. One of which “emits a certain frequency that unconsciously descrambles coded messages.” You drop the three stones in a bag and secretly learn who removes which stone via whatever method you have.

(The easiest method for this is an impromptu Kurotsuke type effect I’ve done for a while. It works well for three items. It’s not strong enough to be done on its own, but it would work well in this context. You drop the two non-target stones in first. Then apparently drop the target stone, but actually keep it in your hand holding the lip of the bag. Shake up the stones. As you finish up the mixing, allow the two loose stones to gather in one corner of the bag, then drop the target stone so it rests on the opposite corner. Hold the bag from the bottom to allow for a selection of stones, and just sort of hold the target stone in place with your pinky. You’re not trying to keep it from being selected, you just want to make sure you feel it when it’s removed. If you tell people to go in and grab the first stone they feel, you should have no issue knowing when they take it out.)

The stones are placed in their pockets unseen. Everyone watches the video. Names the number they “see” (or feel). And you use DFB to show that the person with the decoder stone received the correct target message.

Now you can have them swap the stone with someone else openly (you’ve already proved it works “double-blind”) and let someone else experience it.

---

You've talked before in Monday Mailbag #64 about doing Industrial Revelation, and strengthening it by eliminating the surprise or having them film it for evidence. Industrial Revelation is now available for sale again at Vanishing Inc., and I was wondering if you thought it might have any potential as a Mr. Yento trick?

The instructions could say that one person must stick a folded bill they provide through while the other films the entire thing, etc etc.

Do you think it's examinable enough for this? Do you think it's interesting enough?

I'm of two minds, I think it might not be interesting enough, but I also think the excitement of the presentation might amplify the intrigue of the trick considerably. —CF

Is it examinable enough?

I can’t say, because I don’t own one. The Magic Cafe thread on this has varying levels of how happy people are with the gimmick, which makes it sound like you can get a good one. So if you don’t, take it up with Vanishing Inc.

Is it interesting enough?

In my experience, these types of penetrations tend to not get as good a response as I would hope. Likely because it’s an effect that happens in retrospect. They’re not seeing the penetration. They’re seeing an object that shouldn’t be able to be there given what they saw previously. It’s not a bad trick, it just has that limitation.

I think doing it as a “third-party” effect, where someone has mailed something to you, is a good idea. I would ditch the card box. Don’t make it a “card” effect. I would have the block in a sealed small envelope with a circle on the outside with instructions telling you to push something through the middle of the circle. Or maybe wrap it in wrapping paper with a ribbon tied around it and a needle threaded on one end of the ribbon. The instructions tell you to undo the ribbon and push the needle through the middle of the present and drag the ribbon through.

After you push the needle through, you can close the gimmick and set it down as you continue to read the instructions. At this point, the present is still wrapped. So it’s still in the condition that it originally arrived in. Then the spectator would be the one to unwrap it.

As I said above, the problem with these tricks is that people need to go backwards to appreciate them. And depending on your handling, it can be easy for them to think you snuck the block in to the card case or matchbox somehow because they didn’t know what to look for. Having the penetrated item perfectly sealed via an envelope or wrapping paper eliminates the “the block wasn’t really in there earlier” explanation.

The only issue is that you wouldn’t want pieces of the envelope/wrapping paper to get caught in the workings. So you’d want to use something made of thick paper and unlikely to fray. Or maybe you put the gimmick in a card-sized box, and then wrap the box or put it in an envelope. It could even be a small padded envelope it was supposedly mailed to you in. In other words, you apparently never even open the package they sent you until the reveal. You say you got this thing in the mail from this strange puzzle company (or whatever). The first thing the instructions they emailed to you said is that you’re supposed to push a nail through the circle drawn on the outside of the envelope. And go from there.

Dustings #101

Happy New Year Andy!

I assume this has already reached your radar - but in case it has not. 

Ellusionist has put out a new trick with Kevin Li and Hanson Chien: 

Now, these are some great creators and the trick seems decent enough - a morphing/changing [pen cap impression].

But I can't help but think one of the stamp options is unnecessary... seen around 0:58, 0:59, and 1:05. 

Here's a spoiler:

Anyway, probably hilarious when performing for some drunk college kids, but IDK, seems unnecessary. —SV

Hmm…

My thinking is this… I sometimes do magic tricks that are dumb and sophomoric, and those can be fun and get a good reaction (for what they are).

The thing is, I would never waste a good trick for this kind of reaction. Because the “I’m profoundly amazed by this” reaction, isn’t really compatible with the, “this is so stupid and funny” reaction. They’re different parts of the brain, or something.

So including this reveal in the package makes me think that they think it’s not a very strong trick. Otherwise, why would you use it for this corny reveal?

Of course, the other thing to keep in mind is that this is coming from Ellusionist. Ellusionist releases a lot of good material, but they also have a history of pandering to the world’s dumbest magicians. So it might be the case where they think, “Yes, this is a great trick. But let’s add the dick reveal to it, too, in order to appeal to our clientele of fucking imbeciles.”

So yeah, I wouldn’t judge the trick necessarily based on this one hokey reveal. (But it’s also hard to judge it based on the trailer, as it doesn’t really show what the trick looks like, which is never a great sign.)

---

If you haven’t built out your repertoire of tricks yet, the beginning of the year is a great time to start. Work towards finding and learning one trick per week for your repertoire and you will have a full 52 trick repertoire by the end of the year. That’s massive when compared to most magicians I know who only really keep a handful of tricks in their brain ready to be unleashed.

It might help to have some categories in your mind so that the tricks flesh out your repertoire in a way that you want them to. (Maybe limit your self to half card tricks, and you have to have at least half non-card tricks. Or make sure at least 50% of the ones you learn this year are impromptu. Or whatever your goals are.)

---

Watch this video as homework for next Wednesday’s post.