Mailbag #27
/
Is there any salvaging this trick? —EC
The link in the email went to a re-release of a trick called Bolted. Where you bring out (supposedly) a souvenir card in a case like this…
And then the spectator’s signed card switches places with the card in the case. So the premise is Signed Card to Impossible(ly Stupid) Location.
What exactly would be the purpose of a protective case for a card that puts two bolts through the middle of it? On what planet does that make sense? Is that the premise of the trick? That you’ve transported your spectator to a planet of morons?
It would be like buying a vinyl protective cover for your 1957 Chevy which you have to staple onto the car.
It makes no logical sense. However, if, at the end, they could unbolt the frame and remove the card (which is what any human would want to do) then I could probably still come up with a reason for the frame. But the spectator can’t do that. So no, the trick isn’t salvageable in my opinion.
Okay, okay… if I had to perform this trick, I’d have a card selected and signed. Then I’d say, “I’m going to make your card vanish and reappear, but because of where it’s going, I have to do this first…,” And I’d carefully tear out a couple of holes in the card (in the areas where the bolts would be). Then have the card vanish and reappear in the frame.
In that way, at least, you’d be creating some intrigue about the purpose of your actions. “Why is he tearing the holes?” “What does he mean, ‘Because of where it’s going’?” Then, when the frame is revealed, it’s not just a card to impossible location, it also give them an “answer” to the minor mystery.
In fact, here’s what I’d probably do. I’d do card to wallet. Then I’d say something like, “I’ve been performing this trick for a long time. The unfortunate part is—you saw my hands were empty when they went in my pocket, and you saw how fairly I removed the card from the wallet—and yet despite that you will still go home tonight and the logical part of your mind will think, ‘He must have just snuck the card into the wallet at some point when I wasn’t paying close enough attention.’ The idea that the card really vanished from the deck and really appeared in the wallet is just too unbelievable.”
As I say this I’d be tearing the holes out.
“So to prove it to you, I’m going to vanish it and make it reappear again. But this time, somewhere where I couldn’t possibly just ‘sneak’ it quickly. Now, because of where it’s going to go, I have to do this first.”
And take it from there.
In this way, you’d sort of be justifying the oddness of the frame. The idea being that you had to resort to making this thing to prove to people the card was actually vanishing and reappearing somewhere else.
The one thing you absolutely can’t do is suggest it’s a frame for something you want to protect. That’s beyond insane.
I think tearing the holes adds a little smoke to the proceedings. It goes further to suggest a card that’s not just sandwiched between two things, but enclosed and linked into the frame.
But still, the fact that the person can’t undo the apparatus to remove their card makes the thing a no-go for me. When it comes to magic props, I want something normal looking that is examinable. But I can still work with something strange as long as it’s examinable, or something unexaminable so long as it looks like a normal object. What I can’t use (and really no magician should bother with) is something strange and unexaminable.
Re: Tuesday’s post, Stumble. Pause. Answer.
I'd add something else to what's been said.
The answer itself shouldn't be too long, since you haven't really thought it through that much, and all through the answer you should be giving the impression that you're not sure that it *is* the answer. And then just continue on, to put that whole thing into a parentheses, as if it's just an aside, of lesser importance to the task at hand.
So I would amend your example answer to something more like:
"Hmm...Uh... I don't know really. I've always done it that way. (implying: I'm just as clueless as you) Uh...I guess maybe I don't want you to think I'm playing the odds? Maybe I just want to get to the pure mindreading experience? I'm not sure. Anyway, concentrate on your card..." —JS
I know where you’re coming from—and in some circumstances that is the way to go—but I was getting at something somewhat different in that post.
What you’re suggesting here is a very natural way to reply to a question. But it doesn’t really gain you anything with the spectator. Instead of Stumble-Pause-Answer, it’s essentially Stumble-Pause-Guess.
If I’m doing a trick where the conceit is that I don’t really know what’s going on (which is something I do a lot), then Stumble-Pause-Guess is a fine way to reply to a question. It’s very consistent.
But, what I’m looking to do with the Stumble-Pause-Answer technique is capitalize on the inconsistency of a stumble, followed soon after with a somewhat cogent/logical answer.
In what situations in real life would you not answer immediately and then come back moments later with a clear response? I think that has the hallmarks of saying something that’s true, but it’s just something you hadn’t given much thought to in a while.
Like, let’s say you asked someone, “How did your daughter get into horseback riding?”
They might say, “Oh… I don’t know. She’s just been doing it for… a long time now… [Pause] Oh, actually, it was her former babysitter who used to ride years ago, and that sort of lit the spark. She adored that babysitter and wanted to be just like her. And when she turned 8 she had her birthday party at the stables, and since then it’s just been her passion.”
That’s a very clean, clear-cut, detailed answer, but it doesn’t seem out of place after an initial stumble and pause. You can sense that it just took the person a moment to put the pieces together in their head. There’s a flow to that sort of answer that I like, and that I think comes across as natural. If someone gives you a response that sounds simultaneously unplanned and logical, that’s going to feel legitimate.
That’s what I’m aiming for. And to be clear, with my style of performance, I’m trying for a feeling not to actually convince anyone of anything. And that will depend on my ability to deliver a clear answer in a manner which doesn’t sound scripted. You want (or at least I want) social magic to have the flow of a real conversation, so they’re continually getting caught up in it and have to remind themselves that we’re talking about something that can’t possibly be real.
To simplify the advice in the previous post: For the amateur performer, in situations where you do give an answer to questions about process/procedure, it’s often best to stumble into the answer.
That will suggest that whatever they’re questioning—which is probably 100% required for the trick to work and is the only thing that’s going to allow you to pull off this miracle—is actually something you haven’t really given much thought to.
Joshua Jay sent me the following image. No, I had nothing to do with it, and I don’t know who did. Although I do appreciate that I’ve apparently created a whole cottage industry of people doing their own freelance Josh/Andi erotic fan-fiction.
