Until February...

/

This is the last post of January, regular posting resumes on Monday, February 5th. The next newsletter will be sent to supporters on February 4th. (If you missed the announcement last month, the newsletter now comes out on the Sunday before posting starts for the month. So, the first Sunday of the month. Except on months when the first day of the month is a Monday. Then it comes out on the last day of the previous month. Eh… don’t worry about it.)

“I was wondering what your thoughts are on the PTSD controversy on the cafe. I can kind of see it both ways. Advertisers need to protect the secret, but there’s still something that feels shady about how this was advertised.” —OW

PTSD is a trick where the spectator names a card and it’s the one card in an envelope that’s been in view the whole time.

It’s a fine trick. The method isn’t revolutionary, but it’s solid. I wouldn’t do it only because—for my style of performing—I’d want to be able to toss the card and the envelope on the table. It would not match my style to put the card and envelope away.

“But, Andy, there shouldn’t be any heat on the envelope or the card if you do your job as a magician.”

Look, here’s the deal, we can’t debate this all our lives. I know—based on talking to real people, not magicians—that anything the “magician” introduces into an effect has some inherent level of suspicion. That level will vary based on the participant. And it will vary based on your skill as a presenter/performer. But the only way to eliminate it completely is to structure a routine so they feel they have full access to any object that feels central to the effect.

But anyway, the issue people are having with this is the way it’s been advertised. You can read through the Cafe thread to get the gist of it. I’ll be honest, I’m not really keeping up with it. (I don’t keep up with much on the Cafe these days.)

The issues people have are the way the trailer was edited (to cut out some parts of the presentation) and some of the claims made in the trailer (“no boring, drawn-out equivoque process”).

Geraint from Ellusionist responded on the Cafe thread by saying that magic companies are allowed some leeway in advertising because they’re “selling the effect, not the method.”

Yes, this is true. When an ad says, “The bill floats freely in mid-air," we understand that’s the effect.

But you can’t say, “We’re selling the effect not the method!” When you are, in fact, selling the method. “No boring, drawn out equivoque process,” is a comment on the method. Not the effect. And the only way that condition can be true is if there is no equivoque at all. Because “boring” and “drawn out” are subjective. If I’m someone who doesn’t like equivoque, then anything other than them directly naming a card might feel “drawn out” or “boring” to me.

As far as not showing the full performance goes, I’m sympathetic to the need to not show everything to hide the method somewhat. But I’m less sympathetic when the demo has been cut and scripted to suggest you’re seeing a full performance (as the extended performance in this video) In that case, what you’re trying to do is fool the person buying your product. This seems… morally ambiguous at best. I understand that trying to fool the buyer about what they’re getting has—somehow—become standard practice in the magic industry. But… you know that’s weird, right?

I don’t expect to be told everything in a magic ad. But I do think you can create a strong ad that isn’t trying to deceive the person spending money with you. I don’t think anyone is “evil” for marketing in this way. But I will say that I’ve never seen a really great trick that needed deceptive advertising. So the moment I get a whiff of it, I just assume the trick isn’t that good.

By the way, I did offer a solution once for any companies who want to not fully disclose an aspect of the performance of their trick. An independent, 3rd-party who has spent more time researching spectator response and understanding of tricks than anyone in the history of the world, who would be willing to say, “Yes, you’re not seeing the full performance of this trick, but what has been cut out is—in my educated opinion—not consequential to the spectator’s experience and memory of the effect.” No one has ever taken me up on it.

Regarding my How I Read A Magic Book post, Pete M. writes in and confirms:

“Reading your site is like reading a book the way you suggest. I get one good idea and put the book down. Think about it for a day or two. I’ve noticed that when I reread one of your books, I’ll often find an idea that I liked but then forgot about. This rarely happens with ideas I read on your site. This is almost a controlled experiment.”

I feel like the blog is the best delivery system for these types of ideas. But the books end up getting the best ideas (the tricks that get the best response and the techniques with the strongest impact). In my ideal world, the reward for supporters would be a physical paper book where a new chapter “unlocks” every day or two. Someone work on this technology.

Here’s a trick idea if you knit. Or, even better, maybe you have a spouse who knits. Here’s a trick you could have them help you out with and sort of meld your interests together. The idea comes from supporter Sean M who writes:

This one pattern designer makes "Doodle decks" where each card is printed with a different knittable motif. The idea is that you can use cards to mix and match different components, row by row, into a big winter scarf with snowflakes, reindeer, christmas trees etc without having a big overall knitting pattern to track. Maximizes customization, minimizes management.

There's decks for every season (I can't figure out why you'd want to knit a summer themed scarf out of wool but they planned for that, you can knit little seagulls or crabs) as well as half-decks for cities for some reason (Seattle?)

As a knitter I'm not actually super interested in their intended use but I'm slowly collecting all the seasons whenever my local store stocks them, because I think it might be a good way of modifying [a trick from an early book of mine where you’ve recut the movie Jaws to match the random order of the scenes the spectator creates]. Pull out a bunch of the weirdest/most specific ones from multiple decks with a friend (could maybe have a  selection method here where you rule most or all the generic "snowflake-inspired/grass inspired/leaf inspired" ones and plan to use the weird/specific ones like skull and crossbones, bumblebee, the crab motif, the stuff that would already attract their attention.)

Have a bunch of unrelated components arranged "at random", and at the very end I realize I'm just finishing up the exact same pattern on my needles. Or you could open a package from someone who knits and reveal a completed scarf.

It would be a pretty big investment of time and energy to pull this off, but I think this has fantastic potential for a trick. Especially as a way to bond with a partner who knits.

Imagine introducing this deck to someone and you tell them you’re going to let them help you design a Christmas sweater “at random.”

And amidst their choices which include snowmen, Christmas trees, and snowflakes you reveal a Bigfoot card.

“Oh, shoot. That must have got mixed in from a different deck.”

Then, perhaps using Calen Morelli’s Dresscode, you could step behind a doorway for a second and you come back and you’re wearing the sweater they just designed. So it’s kind of a prediction/quick change/magical sweater appearance trick? I don’t know. But it would be super strong and fun, I think.

Or it would be perfect for an Ugly Christmas Sweater party. You show up without a sweater and everyone “randomly” designs one for you and you use Dresscode to make it appear, or find it in a gift under the tree, or whatever.

(This should go without saying for this blog’s audience, but any procedure that forces multiple cards would work well for this. Cutting the Aces, Shuffle-Bored, Shuffling Lesson, etc.)

Alright, kids, see you in February.