Monday Mailbag #61
/A couple further Quantum Deck emails:
I think it's very impressive but there's no presentation at all. For a layman, the invisible deck would be better because the cards are "normal" and the premise is straightforward. [After watching the demo] I now know what laymen feel like when they are both baffled and bored. — BB
This email originally came in when the trick was first released and the demo showed Craig Petty doing the same trick a few times. That trick is that there’s a blank deck with one printed card in it. The spectator names “any” number, and the printed card is found at that number.
Now, I think since the time this email came into me, it’s better understood that the Quantum Deck is intended to be a tool, rather than just one effect. And in that sense I think it can be a useful tool. I’ve ordered one. I haven’t quite hit on how I’m going to use it just yet, but I’ll come up with something.
But, to the point of the email, yes, I wouldn’t call the trick that is performed in the demo a good trick. It’s not a bad trick either. It’s just an average trick. This is easily proven. Just describe the trick to someone. “I have a deck of cards that is blank on both sides. In the deck there is one printed card. You name a number. I count down to that number. And the printed card is found at that number.”
I promise you—as someone who has described more tricks to laypeople than anyone else in the history of the universe—their response will be something like, “Oh, okay. That’s neat.” Their response will not be, “Oh, my goodness. [Clutching their heart.] How incredibly magical! A printed card, you say? No… for real? Such a wondrous marvel I have never even dared to dream!”
I wasn’t being facetious. I do believe I’ve described more tricks to people than anyone ever. It’s part of my process. And a regular tool I use when testing ideas. And I’ve done it 1000s of times. I find that tricks that grab people with just their description tend to be the types of tricks that have lasting reactions. Now, to be fair, no mere description of a trick will get the fantasy response I described above. But you can certainly tell a trick that would really connect with people from one that would merely fool them by how they respond to a description.
I don’t think Craig was demonstrating what he thought was the best trick with this particular gimmicked deck. I think he was just demonstrating a simple, unadorned trick you can do with it, to give people the general idea.
Here’s a trick I’m thinking of doing with this deck… it’s not something you could do in every circumstance, but I’m fortunate not to have to cater my repertoire to tricks I have to do in every circumstance. I will doctor up the deck so it’s covered in colorful scribbles and simple drawings. I will give the deck to my friend and have her hold it between her hands while I text her something. When I’m done I’ll have her name a number. I’ll slowly count down to her number and end up on one particular card. Maybe it’s got a bunch of shabby hearts drawn on it, or a janky cat, or just some abstract lines. I’ll turn the card over and it’s got her 3-year-old’s name written on the back in his childish scrawl. When she looks at what I texted her, it’s a video of him earlier in the day drawing this particular picture for mommy.
I’m not sure quite how everything would unfold within the trick. I think I wouldn’t want them to know that one of the pictures was done by their kid until the climax. So it wouldn’t be like, “Name the number where you think you’ll find your child’s drawing.” It would be more like, asking them to hone in on a number they feel drawn to for some reason. Then the surprise at the end is that they were drawn to that number because it was an image done by their child. And, of course, they’d have the video and the card as the rare examples of meaningful souvenirs in magic.
So now it’s not about finding a random playing card, it’s about somehow tuning into the one drawing done by their child from a full deck of random kid’s drawings. I will have to devote one Quantum Deck to this premise. But it’s something I can do for anyone with young kids as I’m just replacing their kid’s artwork each time. (I’m not sure if refills of this deck are available, but they should be. $40 is a fair price for the full package, but to get additional decks for different premises, there should be some significant discount.)
Now, the truth is, most people who get this will probably be using it to count down to the one printed card in a blank deck of cards. It’s a perfectly okay trick. But I don’t see that as the type of trick that will really grab people.
I believe the reason this trick is getting people talking about it so much online is because Craig and Murphy’s did a good job of hyping it up. For many days they told us there was something big and exciting coming, and when the trick came out, people treated it like it was something that was worthy of being talked about. Even if the effect itself wasn’t wildly different from dozens of other tricks in magic. Personally, I have no problem with this kind of marketing.
And it should be a lesson to you, because this sort of thing works on spectators too. I’ve written about this all over the place on this site and in books. If you can build up your trick before someone sees it, that can turn a good trick into a great trick in their mind. If you text someone a few days in advance and tell them about something really strange you’re working on that you’re excited to show them, that’s going to generate a stronger reaction than just apologetically rushing through a trick without any buildup, the way most magicians do. (It won’t turn a bad trick into a good trick, however. So make sure you’re saving this technique for something good. If you hype a bad trick, your audience will be confused or annoyed.)
Do you agree with Justin Miller’s assessment that the Quantum Deck will replace the Invisible Deck? —AM
No.
I mean, first, keep in mind that Justin Miller thought this look would replace having a beard.
Second, I can’t say for certain, but my instinct is that for a spectator, being able to know the identity of a playing card is stronger than knowing the location of a random card. A card’s location in a deck is a seemingly much more easily mutable characteristic than the identity of a card that is turned face-down and sandwiched somewhere in the middle of the deck.
But, going back to the last question, either of these gimmicked decks could be used to do something really strong, or just to do something that is just “alright.” So it’s not a matter so much of one being better than the other. It’s just a matter of how you choose to use the deck.
You mentioned you have been out of the loop the past few weeks.
Well - here is a suggestion.
This seems like the sort of trick you would like. I don't own a copy but it seems to be getting good reviews on Facebook from Steve Faulkner (a youtube magic reviewer). —JM
I think the look of the card appearing in the bottle is great. I think the logic of a card appearing in a bottle is not so great. I don’t quite get the point of making something a card trick that doesn’t need to be a card trick.
I would be very interested in a version where just a normal rolled “note” appears in the bottle. Then, either by a force, an index, or some sort of secret writing, you would have an effect where you could make a note appear in the bottle and then unroll it to reveal a message that was apparently directly related to a choice the spectator made or something they said.
If/when he makes that version, I’ll be interested.