Mailbag #84

/

If you just met someone and you were going to show them three tricks over the course of the time you were spending together, would you perform your strongest trick first? Save it for the end? Put the weakest trick first or in the middle? What would be your plan of attack? —TT

Okay, assuming this is someone I’m meeting once and will never see again, then I would start with the weakest effect and build to the strongest. There’s no reason, in a social performing circumstance, not to build, build, build in intensity.

Traditional structure would be to start with your second strongest and end with your strongest. That maybe makes sense for your restaurant gig or something else where people are watching your “show.” But in a casual performing circumstance you don’t want a noticeable dip from one trick to the next.

If I was meeting someone for the first time and I knew I’d be seeing them again, then I wouldn’t really waste any particularly great tricks on them. There’s no need to. A good trick will get the reaction of a great trick from someone who hasn’t seen much magic.

Instead, if I was going to show someone three tricks over the course of an interaction (which would be pretty rare) I would probably do three good tricks.

I might start with a good card trick - People are familiar with card tricks. But you’d want something that takes it up a notch from what they’ve seen their Uncle Ted do.

Then a good visual trick - Something with coins, rubber bands, rings, or something like that.

Then a good mentalism trick - This takes things in a more personal direction and has the potential for some more interesting presentational elements.

The temptation is to do your strongest material whenever possible. As a social performer, that’s a notion you need to put out to pasture. Or you’ll just be doing weaker and weaker material for people over time. It’s terrible structure for long-term performing. So start good, not amazing. I’d really recommend one or two tricks for someone you’ll see again soon. Leave them wanting more and set yourself up nicely for the next time you see them.

Tell me if you think I’m crazy or not. Remember the whole debacle with Craig Petty and Michael Weber? I think it might have been fake. STAY WITH ME.

It seems like with many of Craig Petty’s recent releases there has been some sort of controversy:

Quantum Deck - Whether it was examinable or was the advertising deceptive
EDCeipt - Whether it was original
Lucky Lotto - Was the advertising deceptive

These tricks come out and generate a lot of conversation with people bashing or defending Craig. But all the while the thread stays at the top of the Magic Cafe’s Latest and Greatest section for weeks. Some people go overboard attacking Craig and then he gets to post a video on youtube where he gets to play the victim.

It’s a pattern. If you look at the thread for EDCeipt you’ll see there are not many posts from people who are performing it and enjoying it. If it was just a thread with those people it would be a couple of pages long. But because of all the hubbub it became dozens of pages long. I’m sure that sold a lot more than a thread that was short and disappeared soon after.

Lucky Lotto is such a mediocre trick that it doesn't even elicit a reaction in the demo video. He has to ask them to applaud. But because of the controversy, it has many more posts than a number of good tricks. Nobody would be talking about it if it weren't for the controversy.

I bet an average trick that people are debating about will sell more than an average trick that is simply forgotten. That is why I believe the EDCeipt thing was fabricated. I believe the Weber incident was planned and then spiraled out of control. —TS

You wrote: “Tell me if you think I’m crazy or not.”

You’re fucking crazy.

I don’t believe Weber and Petty planned anything.

And, more generally, I don’t believe Craig releases effects and adds controversy to them in order to get people talking about them. If he did do that, he might be a goddam genius, though.

I don’t disagree with your thesis that if a product has 2 pages of positive comments amidst 40 other pages of debate, then it probably sells better than one with just 2 pages of positive comments. But again, I don’t think he’s doing that on purpose. If he is, he’s my new favorite magician.

You’ve been writing about your journey through magic for almost 8 years now. I’m hoping the answer is “no” but do you have an end date for the site in mind?—NF

Not really. I take it about a year or so at a time. I’m not running out of stuff to write about. But the time involved is always a factor. Working on the site, newsletter, books, etc., is a big investment of time. Not just writing, but creating, and trying out different ideas. The supporters of the site make it worthwhile, but it also means turning down work that is more lucrative and easier. At some point I may have to shift my priorities some, but not in the immediate future.