Non-Cumulative Deception

/

Here’s something to keep in mind when creating a routine. It may sound like common sense, but it’s not necessarily so. I only really “got it” through testing and discussing effects with laymen in a very mechanical way, e.g. “Why did you only rank this trick as a 6 as far as ‘impossibility’ goes? What doesn’t strike you as impossible about this?” Getting this granular with feedback is the sort of thing that is uncomfortable to do, but it’s also the most productive sort of testing there is. Often the extent of “testing” a magician will do is to perform a trick and then just trust his own judgment on how it went. This is nearly impossible. People react to stuff so differently. Some people will shriek at the climax of a trick, but immediately forget it and move on. Some people will silently and stoically take in a trick and it will affect them for weeks. Only by interviewing people and really beating down on what they liked/didn’t like, what seemed amazing or impossible or magical, etc, can you really know if you’re achieving what you’re going for.

I’m not saying you do that for every performance. But when you’re breaking in an effect, it’s necessary. And certainly if you’re creating the effect yourself.

Imagine these two situations:

Experience #1

We’re outside. “Do you have a lucky number. Like a single digit number? Eight? Mine is four. I don’t know that I’d even call it a ‘lucky’ number exactly. But it’s this number that has always followed me around. I’m one of four kids. I was born on the 4th day of the 4th month. I was 4th in my graduating class. Even, like, when rolling dice. It doesn’t always come up four, of course. But way more often then it should. It’s actually really weird. Like… look at that cloud for instance.”

I point to a cloud in the distance. I extend my hand towards it and focus on it. The cloud begins to move and shift.

Experience #2

We’re outside. “Do you have a lucky number. Like a single digit number? Okay, just think of that number. Multiply it by nine. Now add the digits of the number you’re now thinking of together. Now subtract five. Okay. Now you have a number in your head that nobody could know, yes. Take a look at that cloud.”

And the cloud changes to your number.

Which is the stronger trick?

Experience #2 should be, because there is more deception in it. In Experience #1, I choose the number. So there’s no deception there. So the cloud turning into the #4 is the same amount of impossibility in each experience. But in the second experience, how we got to the number 4 is itself somewhat deceptive. So we have the impossibility of the cloud turning into the 4. And on top of that we have whatever deception we gain from the way we got to the number 4 in the first place. It might not be super deceptive, but it is something. So we could assume that would be overall a stronger experience.

But that’s not how it works.

In a magic trick with multiple deceptive elements, the deception is not cumulative. There is some sort of weighted average going on with the deceptive elements.

So if I point to a cloud and say, “I’m going to make that into the #4,” and I do so, that’s maybe a 99 out of 100 in impossibility.

If I do the same thing, make a cloud change (a 99/100 in impossibility) into a number that “I couldn’t know” (a mathematical force that is maybe a 15/100 impossibility), the overall experience becomes something like a 85/100. It’s not a straight average, but it certainly doesn’t automatically increase the overall impossibility.

This goes back to the subject of “Easy Answers.” If the spectator has an “easy answer” to one part of the effect, it brings down the whole effect. Make sure when you’re adding deception to a trick, you’re not also adding a weakness to the trick.

This is something that often happens with “magical reveals.” If your reveal is magical and strong, then the way you get to the thing you’re revealing has to be strong as well.

Let’s say you had a deck that vanished except for one card.

The best option would be a strong force of that card, combined with the vanish of the deck.

The second best option is no force. You just say something like, “It looks like a full deck, yes? That’s just an illusion. I don’t carry a full deck with me. I just keep my lucky card with me, the 9 of Spades.” (That’s not great, but it’s better than the following option.)

The worst option is to use a bad force combined with the vanish of the deck. Because now the overall experience is sullied by the bad force.

I think magicians often think, “Well, the reveal is so strong and magical that it doesn’t really matter how we got there.” But it does.

Tomorrow we’ll look at a recent release that suffers greatly from not understanding this concept.