A point that I read multiple times in magic books and message boards in the past was about how the “perfect” card trick would be: They think of a card, and you name it. And the person who was writing the book or message board post would explain how good or bad a certain trick was based on how close it got to this “perfect” card trick.
That logic used to make sense to me, but I no longer believe it.
If you could really just name a card someone was thinking of, it would be interesting for about 80 seconds. After that point, what would your friends possibly think?
You have a very dumb and useless supernatural ability.
You have the ability to genuinely “read” what card people are thinking of, perhaps by picking up on subtle cues they’re giving. It’s not supernatural. But it’s also not that interesting after a few times. “Oh, I guess he can do that.” They’ll think.
There’s still some sort of trick to it.
Those are pretty much the three options they have. I’m sure there is some hypothetical situation where the absolutely most direct effect is the best. But as far as doing something entertaining or artistic for people, that’s almost never the case.
And because you don’t have true superpowers, the most direct effect is going to have some sort of explanation. And by going too direct, you can often lead people right to a solution.
Here’s an example of when being too direct doesn’t work..
It starts with a creepy thing a friend of mine was doing.
When he would be out somewhere at a coffee shop or bar or party (he’s in college), and he saw an attractive woman, he would sneakily take her picture.
Then he would use a site like facecheck.id to find that woman’s social media based on the picture he just took.
So now he had her name and some details about her.
He would then go and talk to her and mention he was trying to do this thing where he could determine people’s names just by looking in their eyes. Could he try it with her?
He’d stare in their eyes for a moment and say, “Diana,” or whatever.
They would be shocked for a second, but then say that he must have overheard it or asked someone or recognized her from somewhere or seen her online or something. It was too direct, so they came up with a direct solution.
So he tried to do something subtler, since he had her social media he could see what sort of food she liked or if she rooted for a particular team or something. Revealing this information worked better, but there was still a sense that he must have found out the information somewhere. And because this information was publicly available on her social media, it’s not a huge leap to think maybe somehow he found her page.
So still not great reactions.
I told him to use it as part of a two-phase one-ahead trick.
Introduce himself. Tell them about this thing he’s learning where he’s trying to pick up on people’s names, blah, blah, blah. Ask if they’re willing to let him try.
Say that he wants to start off with something easier, a number. “Can you think of like a 4-digit number for me? Like a pin code. It can be an actual one you’ve used in the past, but I’ll want you to share it with me in a moment, so feel free to just make one up.”
[One of the things I like about magic is just lying and spinning justifications depending on the trick. “Numbers are easier to pick up on. They’re more straightforward. They’re not clouded by emotional resonance, like letters and words,” may be true in one trick. “Numbers are more difficult to pick up on, because they don’t have the emotional resonance of letters and words,” might be my logic in another situation.]
He has her think of the number, and he takes her wrist and holds her hand over the table as he counts off the numbers, moving her hand into a different position for each number.
Then he writes something down and folds it up. “What was the number. 1566? Ahh… okay… I was close. But that’s good, that gives me an understanding of how your thoughts feel.”
Now he has her think of her name (or her pet’s name, or something else he creepily figured out). He repeats the wrist holding and moving the hand around while he recites the alphabet this time. Writes something down and folds that paper up too, placing it with the other piece.
“Okay, so what is your name?”
Diana
“Oh good. I wasn’t totally confident because I didn’t get the number just right….”
He grabs the pieces of paper up and unfolds the number one.
“I had 1568, not 1566."
Unfolds the other one.
“But I did get your name right. That was great. Thank you for helping. You’ve got a vibrant energy. Let me get your number and let’s fuck each other’s brains out sometime.”
That last line is not a direct transcription, but more my interpretation of how he’s hoping things will generally go.
But again, this is an example of indirectness creating a stronger trick. I think if he found a solid premise for this, it would be even better. But even just adding some process creates a stronger moment of magic than the direct version. The indirect version involves asking for more information, and writing something down, and not showing what you’re writing, and things we try to remove from our tricks. But it’s stronger. It gives the spectator more to get tangled up in, so they can’t just say, “I guess he overheard someone say my name.”
Yes, the “real” magician would point at the person and tell them their name. But you’re not a real magician. And using the “real magician” as a model in a world where they don’t exist is not actually beneficial in creating the strongest and most entertaining magic.
