Dear Jerxy: Invisible Braille

I've had an idea I've played with, but it seems to be missing something at the end.  I'd love your thoughts or those from your readers.

I call it "Invisible Braille" and it uses a stack and preferably a marked deck (like you, I prefer DMC Elites).  It comes after doing a trick, preferably a divination of some sort.  I'd ask if they know how I do that and I explain using marked cards.  But, I tell them, the markings are not what they think.  I have them choose a card and I hand it to them (me handing it is important).  I then reveal the card to them.  I ask them to feel around near the corner and ask if they feel that.  They usually get confused and I explain I can tell the card just by feeling.

To prove it is not the back of the card, I then have them cut cards and hold the packet cut to their chest w/o looking.  I peek at the card below (using the markings) and know what card they have.  Without either of us looking I have them pull it off their chest enough for me to touch the face corner and reveal their card.  Then I have them feel for the markings again.  I may proceed to do it once or twice more, depending on the audience.—DP 

I see two issues here.

First, the trick doesn’t really build (probably what you’re saying when you say it’s “missing something at the end.”)

Second, it verges too much on believability, in my opinion. If you look at most playing cards (including the DMCs) there is a finish on them that looks like tiny bumps. If you told me there was someone who could “read” those tiny bumps, I’d think, “Nah…, that can’t be true. Well shit… maybe?” I prefer to push them over into “definitely not true,” and then still do it.

If I was going to do this trick, here’s how I’d do it. I’d start it the way you do where I perform a trick and then “expose” the invisible braille markings. Then I’d give a couple of examples of how I can read the cards with my fingertips. Essentially the same as you’ve written it up.

“It’s funny… let me show you something,” I’d say as I get on my phone. I’d tell them these decks have made their way into some gambling circles and it’s become a huge issue because people are using them to cheat. “My friend, Allan, is super paranoid about cheating and doesn’t have the sensitivity to know if the cards are marked in this way. So this is how he made us play cards the last time we got together.” And I’d turn my phone to them and show them a picture of me and a few friends around a table, playing cards. All of us with big smiles on our faces and oven mitts on our hands.

Then I’d explain that I took that as a challenge to try and increase my sensitivity to the subtle braille markings. And I’d have them shuffle the deck while I got some oven mitts from the kitchen. I’d return wearing the mitts and have them hand me the cards under the table. I’d feel the first card, name it, but get it slightly wrong. The second time I tried it, I’d name three cards I thought it might be, and I’d eventually make a guess at which of those three I thought it was. (“Hmmm… it’s either the 4, 5, or 6 of Diamonds. I think the 6?” I’d get it right, but not with much confidence.

The way I could do it with a shuffled deck is that these two cards would be in one of the oven mitts. And I’d just remove the cards when I put my hands under the table and then place them on top of the deck when they handed me the deck.

A month later I’d say, “Oh, I’ve been wanting to show you my progress with this.” I’d give them the deck to shuffle and I’d put on the oven mitts. Take the deck from them under the table, then start naming cards and pulling them out one at a time. Eventually whizzing through, naming a card every second or so.

The method is that I just stuff their shuffled deck into one of the oven mitts under the table and remove my stacked deck from the other mitt.

Then, if you wanted to take it further you could say, “It takes a few hundred hours to get to that proficiency. But many people can pick up on the basics really quickly.” Then spend a couple of minutes having them feel the difference between red and black cards. “You probably won’t feel it physically. But your subconscious will learn the subtle differences.”

After a while, I’d hand them 20 cards or so and see if they can deal them into reds and blacks. Of course, using a partial deck handling of Out of This World, I could reveal that they did.

Now, this is probably not a trick I’d do in reality. But I wanted to dive into it as an example of some of the subjects I’ve written about in the past (Reps, breaking up a trick over time, establishing a process before launching into a spectator as magician plot, etc.)

I’ve made a post in the past that I think magic is the manipulation of belief. It’s not about being convinced something happened when it didn’t. It’s not about being fooled. It’s about a state of mind where you’re wavering between what is real, what feels real, and what could be real. That’s what the progression I’ve laid out here is trying to capitalize on.

They see a trick. You “explain” the trick in a way that is maybe plausible. You demonstrate this technique so it’s feeling more possible. You show the picture, which seems to lend credence to the idea that maybe it is real. But then you demonstrate it in a way that couldn’t possibly be real. But if you’re faking it… why didn’t you just get the cards dead-on right? Then a month later you demonstrate it in a way that must be fake. But then you follow it up with a demonstration where they themselves accomplish a rudimentary version of what they had just decided was fake. This is how you manipulate and “sculpt” with a person’s sense of belief.

If you say, “I can read these cards with my fingertips,” that’s a fine premise, but not overly memorable.

Seeing that picture of a group of guys playing cards with oven mitts on, watching you fumble around with the deck with mitts on yourself, having the trick reintroduced a month later, and finally achieving the color separation themselves—those elements are what’s going to make the trick stick with people.