The Baby Who Knows

/

Effect

Your friend's unborn baby is clairvoyant.

Imagine

I'm visiting my friend Rebekka who is pregnant with her second child. 

"This is one of the oldest tests there is for psychic powers," I say. I give her a die and a little plastic canister and ask her to hold both behind her back. I tell her to roll the die around in the palm of her hand a little and then to put it in the canister and cap it. I ask her to hand the canister to me and I slide it into another plastic canister and set the whole thing on the table. 

"That die is now inside an plastic canister, which is inside another plastic canister. In the field of psychic research this is what's known as a "double blind" test." [Yes, of course I know it's not, but that's never stopped me.] "Imagine we opened the larger container and removed the smaller container, and then we opened the smaller container and looked down on the die inside there. Some number will be pointed up at us, yes?" She agrees. "Do you know what number that would be?" She says she doesn't. "Right, because you did it randomly. And if you don't know what it is, then I surely can't know what it is. And there's no way to tell by looking at the canister is there?" She picks it up and examines it and shakes her head.

"If someone in this room was psychic they could know what it is, but I'm not, and you're not." I pause for a little bit. "But maybe she is," I say, pointing to her stomach. 

"I can't wait to see where this is going," she says.

"Many people believe it's possible that unborn children are able to perceive and pick up on things that they can't after they leave the womb. But it's almost impossible to test because they don't understand language so we can't communicate with them in that way. But we're going to try and see if we can get her to tell us how many spots are pointing up on the die inside this canister. Are you ready to try?"

She says she is. 

I ask her to hold onto the canister between both hands. "I can't just ask your kid to answer the question. No one can. At least not with language. But there are those who believe you can with your thoughts. Let's try it. I want you to close your eyes. Now picture the canister you hold in your hand. I want you to see it sharp and focused in your mind. Now picture opening it up and removing the smaller canister. Still keep it a sharp image until I tell you otherwise. Now imagine popping the top off the smaller canister but don't look inside yet. So take off the cap in your imagination, keeping everything in focus. In a moment I want you to imagine looking into the canister, but when you do I want you to imagine that what you see is unclear and unfocused and kind of hazy, like a dream, okay? Okay, look in the canister and I want you to see a blank white cube. And there are black spots floating above it. They are fading in and out. Sometimes one dot, sometimes two, all the way up to six. Do you see that? Okay. In a moment I want you to take that image that you're picturing and I want you to imagine pushing it towards the back of your brain and down your spinal cord. Almost like you're swallowing that image in your mind. And when you're done I want you to open you eyes." After a second she opens her eyes. 

I ask her for the canister and hold it in my right hand between my thumb and forefinger. I shift myself closer to her and place my left hand gently on her stomach. 

"With your mind, and with visual images, you've painted a clear picture except for one aspect. Now, the idea is that your child may be able to sense that void of information in your thoughts and and answer the question even though you never explicitly asked it. If this works, she's going to tell us how many spots are on top of the die. In a moment you should feel something. I want you to keep your eyes on my hand on your stomach and make sure I'm not moving it. I'm just acting as a bridge from your body to the canister. I'm not going to move at all. You're going to feel something and it might feel like a kick, or maybe like she's waving her arm, or tickling the inside of your stomach, or just a weird sensation of some kind. This is not doing any harm to her at all. Anything she does is because she wants to, because she wants to play with her mom, and answer her mom's question, okay? Now just sit still."

After a few moments my friend's eyes go very wide. "What... was... that!" she says.

"You felt something? Okay let's just wait and see if you feel more."

After a second she starts laughing. "Yes. There it is again." Then a moment later she feels it again. "What on earth is that?" she says.

We sit for a few more moments. "Anything else?" I ask. She shakes her head no. "So how many was that? How many times did you feel it?" She says she felt it three times.

"Okay," I say, "let's take a look." I open the larger canister and dump out the smaller one, then hand it to her. "She indicated "three," yes? Take a look."

My friend opens up the small canister, the die inside shows three spots.

She looks at me. "Andy... what was that? That was so strange. Sweet but strange," she says, her eyes tearing up a little. She squints them at me and gives me an accusing look. Then she smiles, grabs her stomach with both hands and coos, "You did a magic trick, sweetheart!"

Method

I often have the desire to use a method that is not intended for one person, on one person. This is what inspired some of the one-person dual reality effects I've worked on that I've mentioned in the past.

This particular effect was spawned by the idea of doing a trick one-on-one where the method was an instant stooge. Obviously that seems impossible. And I didn't exactly accomplish it, but that was the genesis of the idea.

The method is pretty simple. Obviously the dice part is just Crazy Cube. One of the best $2.50 investments you can make in magic. But you don't need to do this particular effect with dice. You just need a way to have your spectator thinking of a number that you apparently don't know, and I think it's better if she doesn't know the number either (although you could easily argue the other way). So you could force a playing card or an Uno card on her. Just keep the number relatively low. 6 is about as high as you want to go. 

The "kicking" of the baby is, of course, not that at all. You have a remote-controlled thumper on your left wrist. The remote is in your right hand (you pull it from your pocket while her eyes are closed during the visualization part) which also holds the canister during the main part of the effect. You will activate it to vibrate your hand which the woman will feel as a sensation on her stomach. To be clear, the vibrating part of the thumper is not being pressed against her, it's just sending the vibrations into your hand and out into your spectator. The thumper I use was made by a friend of mine out of a remote-controlled vibrator. You probably have some of them lying around, you horny little sicko.

So the way this effect evolved is this.... One time, while doing an electronic version of a "which hand" effect with a coin, my hand got too close to the spectator's and she felt the vibration emanate from my hand (well, from the thumper strapped to my wrist and through my hand). "I felt that," she said. But she didn't mean it like, "Hey, I felt the vibration of the electronic gizmo on your wrist that goes off when it senses a magnet nearby." She meant it like, "Wow, I felt the energy of you doing this effect coming from your hand." It was part of the trick to her. 

I wanted to repeat this kind of moment in a more deliberate way and I began wondering if that sensation could masquerade as something else. Like could you maybe hold someone's stomach and say you could make it growl, or something like that. I had a couple other ideas that were all okay, but then I hit on the idea of the sensation being caused by a woman's child in utero and it was perfect. It's perfect because you don't say exactly how the child is causing the sensation so it doesn't have to exactly mimic any known feeling. Plus the concept of a child in a woman's stomach who is poking her or tickling her from inside to communicate -- I mean -- that's like one of the greatest images anyone has ever come up with in the history of magic.

I would also like to highlight the concept of "swallowing" a thought. The notion that you can have an idea at the front of your mind and then imagine sucking it back into your head and down your spinal cord and perhaps into your central nervous system and then down to an unborn child or out to your fingertips is one that I find people have a surprisingly easy time grasping, given what nonsense it is. And I've used it in many situations to have them send a thought from their brain, down into their hand and into mine; or into a glass of water for me to drink; or things like that.

Now go knock someone up so you can do this trick.

Update (2/13/17): I was just informed that Christopher Taylor at Taylor Imagineering has a product called Impulse that looks like it would be great for this effect or similar effects where the spectator feels some kind of unknown sensation. While I don't own it myself, I've only ever heard great things about his products so I would definitely check it out if you're interested in this sort of thing. I can think of dozens of uses for this and will definitely be picking up one in the future. I don't know if Christopher was the first person to use a thumper like this in order for the spectator to feel "something," but it's the only other example of it that I've seen, and I look forward to playing around with the idea more once I have Impulse.

Sundry Drive No. 9

/

Congratulations to Joshua Jay and his lovely new wife, Anna, on their marriage yesterday. 

A photo posted by Amanda Kloots (@ackloots) on


I think Josh is one of the smartest, most talented, and most generous people in magic. I feel fortunate to have him as a fan, friend, and supporter of the stuff I've done online for 10 years. From what I know about his wife, which primarily comes from her delightful blog which she wrote about their travels during Josh's lecture tour last year, she is a sweet, smart, and charming woman. I have no doubt that this is just the beginning of a truly enchanted life together and I wish them both the absolute best.

It's rare for me to have a 100% genuine sentiment on this site, so I'm putting this block of text here to ease you into the rest of this blog post so you don't get whiplash from the shift in tone.

Alright, you fucking dodos, let's see what bullshit you're going on about at the Magic Cafe. Ah, look what's back on the front page of Latest and Greatest. You know how there's usually a "summer song" that blows up each year and kind of defines music for that summer? Well the Summer Thread over at the Magic Cafe is definitely the one on the Ellusionist trick "Change." It's got everything: chumps who bought a trick based solely on some of the most blatantly bullshit hype in magic advertising, sketchy product spokespeople who hype up the product and then vanish after its released, claims of false advertising, suckers who know they got swindled but can't admit it so they try and defend the product, people losing their shit over $30, and what looks like complete indifference on the part of the company who released the product. That's a good snapshot of magic marketing and consumerism as of the summer of 2015.

Okay, now I'm back in the flow.

One of my friends who helps out with the running of this site was talking to a woman the other day. They were talking about bad gigs she had picked up off of Craigslist.  She mentioned that she had once worked for a magician who needed silhouette's cut out of business cards and he paid her 20 cents per card. My friend asked if she remembered the name of this magician (so he could come running back to me, of course) and she said, "Yes. Oz Pearlman."

Oz, you magnificent son of a bitch! 20 cents? You're an animal! You couldn't swing a quarter?

You know how magicians always talk about what they'd do if the airline lost their luggage and they had to perform with whatever they could find or buy in the immediate vicinity? Well, Oz would just root around in the ashtray of his rental car to see if he could scrounge up enough change to have some locals hand-craft something quick for him to use on stage. 

Getting close!

Here's your one warning. That female magician you're sending the creepy and embarrassing PMs to on the Magic Cafe might just be me. So maybe don't be such a cretin when you're dealing with a woman there (hey, or anywhere, for that matter). Unless you want this to get blown up, Ashley Madison style. Put your dick back in your pants.

So, You're New Here

/

I've been meaning to have an introductory-esque post to put in the sidebar for a while now. New people are always discovering the site and the emails I get from them tend to ask the same sorts of things. So I'm posting this in an attempt to give an overview of what I'm going for here. In a few days I will move a link to the top of the sidebar for the sake of future visibility.

So, you're new here. 

Someone linked you to this site and told you it was great or that it was terrible, or you made some errant Google search, and now you're poking around trying to get a feel for it. Well, allow me to answer some of your questions.

Where should I start?

The beginning. It's all gold. 

Who are you?

Nobody you know.

Oh, cool... so you're like a well known magician but you want to be able to speak your mind without-

No, seriously, I'm nobody you know.

Who is this site aimed at?

It's not really "aimed" at anyone. I mean, obviously people who have some interest in magic, but other than that there is no real target audience. I'm not a professional performer and I write from the perspective of someone who performs primarily in casual situations for non-paying audiences. Thus, some of what I say won't be applicable to a restaurant performer who is performing the same tricks multiple times an evening for strangers.

But, on the other hand, a lot of what I have to say is relevant to anyone interested in magic regardless of where they perform and who they perform for.

Why should I listen to you?

Fuck if I know. Take a hike, I don't care.

The purpose of this site is not to convince you to like it. The purpose of the site is merely to be here for the people who do like it.

What do you mean by "audience-centric" magic?

It's the notion that the audience's experience should be the most important thing. Most magic, especially when it's presented by amateurs, is magician-centric. It's about getting people to be impressed by your abilities. We know this is true because the "story" of these effects is almost always, "Look at my impressive ability." I'm advocating that you structure your magic to be the most entertaining it can be and, whenever possible, to remove yourself from the equation as much as you can, and shine the spotlight on the experience itself.

You might be saying, "Well, screw that, the whole reason I got into magic was to get people to like me." Okay, that's understandable. But even if getting people to like you is your whole goal, trying to impress people with your skills is a misguided way of going about it. This is true in other areas of your life as well. If you want someone you meet at a bar to like you, you can try and impress them or you can show them a good time. The latter always works, the former will backfire as often as it will be successful. 

Do you really do these grand, drawn-out presentations? Don't you ever just do a normal quick trick?

Yes, I really do the presentations I write up. And yes, I do a ton of normal tricks too. But I don't have much to say about those types of presentations so there's really no need for me write about them.

Why are most of your presentations written up as a 1-on-1 situation?

Because that's how I prefer to perform. The best and most rewarding conversations and interactions I've had in my life have been 1-on-1. Performing that way allows you to tailor the moment specifically to that one person which creates more powerful moments. It feels very personal to them. Watch a Derren Brown special where he is performing for one person and compare their reaction to the reactions of the crowd for one of his stage shows. Both reactions are incredibly strong, but when it's just for one or two people, the reaction on an individual-level is much more intense. This almost goes without saying. Obviously the more people you're performing for, the more you're performing for an average of those people. That's why I prefer to perform 1-on-1. But I don't always. And I have many ideas for -- and love seeing --  a good stage or parlor magic performance.

What is MCJ?

MCJ refers to my old blog, The Magic Circle Jerk which I wrote from 2003 - 2005. Don't bother clicking that link. I poof'd the whole thing out of existence when I was done with it. You can find some remnants of it on the Internet Archive, but there are a few missing months that aren't to be found anywhere except on my computer. 

I'd like to debate a point with you.

Don't bother. I'm probably smarter than you and have already considered your point, and have argued it to myself better than you can, and I've dismissed it. 

No, but I think I have something you haven't considered.

Alright, cool, send me an email. I'm happy to hear it.

So you don't like mentalists/mentalism?

I like mentalism a lot, but it's a very needy branch of magic and that is a turn off for me (and for audiences a lot of the time as well). I'm constantly on the lookout for ways of presenting mentalism that don't feel like I want something in return from the audience (in the form of their esteem for what I've done). This is why a lot of my routines for mental effects involve something other than "my power" being responsible. I don't have it all figured out, but I definitely get a much better response the further I steer things away from the premise being, "I have this incredible power and now I'm going to demonstrate it for you," which is what 99.9% of mentalism is.

Why don't you like people who pretend magic is real or that their powers are real?

Well, first, in the context of a performance I don't have that much of an issue with it. I just usually think it's boring when presented that way. And I think an audience can be confused, wondering if you want them to actually believe you when you say you have this special power. That's alienating to people. Most people are more than happy to play along in a moment of interactive theater. But if they see what you're doing as any form of validation seeking (which is how it often comes across when you play it "real") they will push away and find you completely corny. 

And when you're performing for friends and family or people you'll see again, what's the plan for after the show? To continually keep up the ruse? No thanks. But if you come clean then it's like, "Okay, but if you were going to make up a story to entertain us, why not make up a more interesting one than, 'I can read the thought you wrote down on that piece of paper with my mind.'" And coming up with alternative presentations (presentations other than "look at this power I have") almost universally creates more original, more engaging, and more fun performances.

But you're removing the "magic" from magic.

No. I mean, look, the magic isn't there in the first place. You're not a warlock. You're faking it. I'm just recommending you fake it in a more entertaining way. I've performed the way you do. And I've gotten great reactions to things in that style. But the reactions to what I perform, and the interactions with the people I perform for, have been far stronger since adopting the performing style I advocate for on this site.

I genuinely believe in magic. More than you, I bet. More than most people. And by that I mean like the magic of the universe and of human interaction and fate and artistic experiences and a whole bunch of other cheesy sounding shit. I met my last serious girlfriend when she was wrestling with a bunch of bags and an umbrella on a rainy autumn evening in NYC. I offered to carry the bags she was lugging around if she would let me share her umbrella while we walked. She agreed and we ended up walking 30 city blocks together to her apartment (skipping the subway station we were originally bound for) and falling for each other along the way. In the time that followed that initial meeting we would always ask the questions: What if I hadn't left my office when I did? What if she hadn't gone Christmas shopping that night? What if she had stayed in the store a few moments longer? What if it hadn't been raining? What if I had an umbrella and hadn't been compelled to ask her to share hers? It seems like a miracle our paths ever crossed. Of course, you can play this game with almost any interaction, the shitty ones included. But when you play it with a relationship that is vibrant and satisfying then it gives that relationship a "magic" feeling, even when you know it's just a way of looking at the situation. One in a million coincidences are happening constantly, but that doesn't mean you can't choose to see the magic in them when they happen. That's all real magic is; a sense of appreciation and wonder for the good things in our lives and the recognition that they could just as easily have never happened in the first place. 

To think you're giving someone a truly "magical" experience by doing fake magic and pretending it's real is moronic. It's like catfishing someone so they can experience "true love." Or recording a voice and playing it over a loudspeaker and telling someone it's the voice of god so they can have a "spiritual" experience.

The ironic thing is, the magicians who want to be seen as real -- under the pretense of giving their spectators a "magical" experience -- often end up looking ridiculous and cause their spectators to disengage. Whereas a performance that seeks to entertain first can be a really compelling and transcendent piece of work, which in turn can be a magical experience for people.

How do I support the site?

For now, don't worry about it. If there are people you know who might enjoy it, send them a link. 

What Image Do You Project?

/

Professional magicians don't often have the money to invest in an image consultant. So when it comes to their "look" they are frequently flying blind. And "blind" may be almost too apt a word as many magicians look like the got dressed in the dark, while holding a stick in one hand and a dog on a leash in the other, and with a clothing budget equivalent to what one might make selling pencils from a tin cup.

A lot of people think of me as "the most helpful guy in magic." I try to be humble, but that's pretty hard to argue with. I guess in keeping with that reputation I've decided to give back to some of my magic brethren to let them know how they are perceived by others. How did I do this? Well first I found an image of some luminaries in the magic world. I didn't use a posed photograph, I wanted to catch them in a candid moment, so I took a still from a video they appeared in on youtube. Then I took that picture and put it through Google's Reverse Image Search. What that does is it analyzes the picture and finds if there are any other versions of that picture online anywhere. Now, in these cases there wasn't because these weren't photographs originally, they were stills taken from a video. And when Google can't find a match it will provide you with "visually similar images." So now I'm just presenting these magicians with the suggested "visually similar images" so they can get a good sense of how they look to the world at large. This is all completely legitimate. I suggest you do a reverse image search on your own pictures to see what you look like to others. An image consultation like this would cost 1000s of dollars, and I'm only happy I can provide this outside perspective to some members of the fraternity as my gift to them.

So here, according to Google's Reverse Image Search, are some people who are "visually similar" to the image projected by some esteemed members of the magic community.

We'll start off simple. Here you can see how Tom Stone gives off a Conan O'Brien vibe.

Again, Google nails it. At this point I don't even know if it's Andi Gladwin who is ripping off Ariel Sharon's style or the other way around.

Who could deny that John Archer has a similar je ne sais quoi, to this heavyset woman waiting for her cruise ship?

JohnArcher.jpg

Joshua Jay will be married in a matter of days. Should something tragic happen and he ends up being taken out by a street-sweeper (for example), perhaps his lovely bride could take comfort in the "visually similar" arms of this kid who was charged with murder after tweeting "Come on a death ride with me," and then driving his car into a couple bicyclists while going 85 miles-per-hour on a busy California road. Both have a great head of hair and the same dead eyes.

How many times have you thought, "Is that Derek DelGaudio or Pakistani senior anchor person and investigative journalist for Dunya News, Kamra Khan?" 

Being "visually similar" does not mean you're at all similar behind the outer facade, as is proven here with the ultra-Conservative, bible-thumping, Trump-supporter, Rob Zabrecky and MSNBC's Rachel Maddow.

See, now to my untrained eye, I would say the look Max Maven is going for here is "sassy emo flight-attendant for Air Transylvania." But Google has pointed out that no, in fact, his look is a match for a stock image of the Greek god, Pan. I think that will please Max.

This one's a slam-dunk (see what I did there?). You can't look at Michael Weber without thinking "Larry Bird," (and vice versa). Look at those shoulders! Both have the silhouette of Herman Munster or a doorframe.

This one is complicated and goes to show you that you can't just judge these things with your eyes, you really need Google's sophisticated algorithm. "Fat Mark Elsdon" is visually similar to a skinnier, sexier Mark Elsdon look-a-like. While "Skinny Mark Elsdon" is visually similar to the mugshot of a fat guy who knowingly infected women with HIV or any number of black people.

And finally, can we stop calling John Lovick the biggest honky in magic, or #1 Cracker, or "whiter than sour cream"? As google so accurately suggests, he is pretty much the spitting image of Flo Rida.

  

 

 

I know what you came here to see
If you're a freak, then ya coming home with me
And I know what you came here to do
Now bust it open let me see you get low
                       -- either John Lovick or Flo Rida (I forget which)

Dear Jerxy: Why Magic?

/

Dear Jerxy: You seem to talk a lot of shit about magicians, so why are you into magic?

Bring-It in Boise

Dear Bring-It: I don't think your question really makes any sense. That's like asking, "Hey, you claim to enjoy sex, so why don't you like rapists?"

I like magic a lot, but I don't always love the people it draws to it. I do think it's getting better. I think it's becoming a more open and inviting arena. It's still pretty homogenous, but it's definitely a little better. When I was a teenager going to my first magic conventions, they were 100% white, 100% male, and 95% over 40. In the early 2000s I saw a Sankey lecture here in NYC. I scanned the room looking for anyone who wasn't my father's age. There were maybe four people in my age range. Three of them were total fucking spazzes: matted hair, BO, wearing sweatpants and a dress-shirt stained with Arby's Horsey Sauce. I ended up hitting it off with the one normal guy, but honestly 90% of our conversations were just, "Can you believe this group?" 

I get the sense magic lectures and conventions aren't so much like that anymore (but I haven't been to one in so long, so who knows). I think this is in part due to the internet. By making magic not such a secret society I think it has encouraged more normal people to get involved. Back in the day I always felt like magic was 1/3rd lovers of the art, 1/3rd anti-social weirdos looking to have something over other people, and 1/3rd pedophiles who were like, "I hear little boys are into this hobby."

Here's what I like about magic:

The old guys. I was just complaining about old guys, but I do love the Dai Vernon figures in magic and the way they're revered. Even when they've lost their skills they are still respected and adored, and I think that's a great thing about magic.

The young women. In all honesty it's pretty embarrassing what a dong-fest magic is. Not only is it male-dominated but it's also often demeaning and dismissive of women who try and get involved (if not just completely creepy towards them). But I guess the one good part of being so backwards is that we get to enjoy the emergence of a feminine perspective in magic in the modern day. Sure, this is shit we should have been supporting and have sorted out 100 years ago. But we didn't. So when I see someone like Ekaterina Dobrokhotova bring a distinctly feminine charm and power to her performances, it feels like maybe it's more of a sea-change in the art than just a novelty. I still think we do a horrible job of supporting women in magic, and I think women often make the mistake of emulating the dull habits of their male counterparts. But I do see many women who are just getting too good to be ignored.

The History: I love the stories of magic. I mean, not the boring history that I assume they talk about at those magic history conventions. But like how 12 morons died doing the bullet catch! And magicians as spies, or saving lives from theater fires, busting psychics, stealing tricks, all that good stuff.

That most of you stink at it. Most of you are so terrible at performing magic for real people that I come off as super talented to them. Their expectations are so low. Everyone who, for example, plays violin in front of a crowd, is generally pretty good. You've got to be great to stand out as a violin player. But with magic you just have to be competent.

That deception can be an art form.

That it encompasses everything because it is essentially nothing. Magic doesn't exist. So when you learn magic you're not really learning magic. Instead you are learning dozens of other arts and crafts that allow you to present the illusion of magic. Whenever I talk to friends with kids and we talk about hobbies for the kids, I encourage them to get into magic. Magic is a great gateway to the world around you and it helps you identify your passions. Outsiders just think of it as sleight-of-hand. But I can't even begin to list all the areas I've had to explore in order to learn and present a particular trick, or magic in general. Writing, acting, comedy, electronics, memory and mnemonics, psychology, gambling, topology, cons, filmmaking, cold reading, juggling, crafting, dance, mime, mathematics, science, history, carpentry, theater, origami, sewing, forgery, animal training, drawing, optics, physical fitness, puzzle solving, and so on and so on. I love that "doing magic" might involve rubber cementing a bunch of shit together, or memorizing the most popular female names of the 20th century, or determining the sight-lines and angles of every seat in a theater so you can build a stage to vanish an elephant on. Other hobbies don't have that range. If your kid plays piano it's not like, "Oh, well sometimes she sits at the piano and plays with her fingers, and other times she uses different colored light rays to make you think you heard the song." 

Zach King

/

Zach King is a guy who posts videos on Vine. I also think he's one of the most successful magicians of our time. You can argue that it's not magic because of the techniques involved (a mixture of video edits (mostly just straight cuts) and practical effects) but that argument is a non-starter with me. In fact, knowing that's the method often makes it more amazing to me. You can also argue that it's not magic because everyone knows it's not real. Hey... I hate to break this to you, but everyone knows you're not real too. Yes, people know he's not real. The question you have to ask yourself is: Why does he have so many more fans/followers than the people doing similar videos in a more traditional "magic" style?

Zach has said his goal is to "inspire awe and wonder in people," and he does so through the means of deception. That, for me, is pretty much the definition of magic and why I consider him one of the most successful magicians of our time.

Here's a still-shot of Zach showing one of his videos to Rachel Smith of ABC news (don't go clicking on it, dum-dum, I said it was a still-shot).

That look on her face -- the combination of complete captivation and delight -- is, for me, the greatest reaction you can get with magic. And magic is one of the only art forms that can elicit such reactions regularly. But the problem with some magic, specifically all of mentalism, is that during the performance the magician is trying to garner credit or respect for this skill that most everyone knows he doesn't really have. And that pulls the rug out from under the "captivation and delight" moments because then the whole thing becomes a transaction rather than a gift (think of how joyless a Uri Geller performance is because it's supposed to be about him, not about the experience). The moment of magic in so many effects also becomes the moment of validation seeking, --"Look at my awesome power!" -- and the two just don't mix. It would be like going down on a woman, and in the midst of her orgasm putting your dick in her hand and being like, "Okay, now do me." You understand how that might undermine the moment? Ugh... why am I using sexual metaphors with you nerds. I wish I knew some Dungeons and Dragons or Legends of Zelda bullshit so I could reach you.

I think the reason for Zach's popularity (beyond that of traditional magicians doing similar things in the same medium) is, in part, because he doesn't ask for your belief. He's not asking for anything. He's just trying to give you a compelling, magical, moment. I think magicians could learn a lot from that.

I also think there is a powerful feedback loop to be exploited here. Zach has been inspired by a lot of traditional magic effects. I think we could, in turn, be inspired to replicate some of his videos in real life.

Hallmark

/

Effect

A card is torn in pieces and one piece is held by the spectator. The other pieces vanish. The restored card is now found in a sealed envelope.

Method

Yeah, I know, it doesn't sound like much, but there's more going on here than it might first appear. 

The first thing you need to do is take a duplicate card, tear a corner off the card, then put the playing card inside a birthday (or upcoming holiday) card and mail it to you friend. The next time you speak to them tell them you sent them something in the mail but that they shouldn't open it until you two get together this coming weekend (for example).

Put the torn corner somewhere where you won't lose it before the weekend.

My Baby, She Wrote Me A Letter

I've always liked the structure of a headline prediction where you mail it days ahead and ask someone to hold onto it for you. I wanted to incorporate that into a magic trick because I think it's inherently intriguing -- at least mildly intriguing. For a couple days your spectator will see the envelope sitting on their kitchen counter and wonder what that's going to be about. Anything that extends a trick out from the few moments it takes to perform is good in my book. Using the mail makes the effect bigger and test-conditions-y, in a way. Not only that, but receiving a card or letter in the mail is a less and less common phenomenon. So just the act of getting something interesting in the mail that isn't a bill or junk mail is a small treat for most people. 

On the day of your performance, bring a deck of cards and the torn corner to your friend's place. The torn corner should be in your left pocket.

Tell your friend, "I want to do something special for you, because it's your special day." Tell her to get the birthday card you sent.

Have her shuffle the deck in preparation for the Reverse Psychology Force. Force the duplicate of the card in the envelope on her. 

"You're sure that's the one you want?" you ask. "Okay. Great. Well... there you go. Now you've got your own personal card. And actually the 7 of hearts -- if you look into the meaning of playing cards and fortune telling-- the 7 of hearts means the coming year will be an extremely happy one for you." You look at the card. "I know it's not much of a gift, but it's unique to you, because you chose it. I mean, I guess I could have gone to the mall and gotten you some store-bought bullshit, but what kind of present would that be? This [you point to the card] is at least something unique and personal. Of course society will say it's not a great gift because it's just a playing card. Some people just don't understand what's really valuable in this day and age. Okay... see you later," you say and start walking out. You stop and turn back.

"Okay, I admit, it's kind of a weak gift. I'm sorry. Things have been pretty tight down at the Chevron station."

"You don't work at a Chevron station," your friend says.

"Well, I certainly won't be if things continue the way they're going." You point to the playing card. "I'm sorry. I should have gotten you more. Wait... I know what to do." You ask your friend to tear it into 8ths and give it back to you. When she does you toss all 8 pieces in the air. "Hooray!" you say. "Whew! A shower of confetti. What an amazing experience that must have been for you. I hope you enjoyed my gift. What better experience than to stand there as 1000s of pieces of confetti fall down all around you."

"8 pieces," she says.

"What an amazing moment that must have been. Confetti... it's nature's rainstorm."

"Wouldn't a regular rainstorm be nature's rainstorm?" she asks.

"We should clean this up," you say, and pick up the pieces. "Actually," you say, "I want to try something legitimately special for your birthday."

You now go into The Jerx Torn-Corner Handling.

The Jerx Torn-Corner Handling

I will describe this in the context of this trick but you can figure out how to use it with other tricks. I came across this method a few years ago and it's the only one I've used since. It's the simplest and most convincing vanish of the pieces as far as I'm concerned. And it's fun because the spectator essentially switches in the matching corner and assists in the vanish of the pieces. 

Here's how it's done. You ask your spectator to grab the birthday card for you. As she does you take the matching piece out of your left pocket and hold it in your curled left fingers at your side. All the other pieces are in your right hand at the base of your fingers in a relatively tidy little pile. When she goes to hand you the birthday card, you are going to do a shuttle pass action and pretend to place the pieces from your right hand into your left, but actually retain them in your right. You're holding back all the pieces in a clump like they're one object. Then with your palm down right-hand, and the pieces in Ramsay Subtlety, you will take the envelope from your friend. Simultaneously you will cup your left hand and jiggle it a little like you're trying to get the pieces to settle in some way. Your fingers should be slight spread so the piece that's in your hand can be seen. This piece is masquerading as all the torn pieces, so you don't want to show too much, but just a flash of it. Close your left hand into a fist, and place the envelope on top of your left fist. You put all your attention on your left hand and tell her to concentrate on it as your right hand ditches the pieces.

Now you act as if you changed your mind about how you want to proceed. You lift the envelope off of your left hand and tell the person to reach into your left fist and remove one of the pieces. You keep your left fist fairly tightly closed. Just loose enough for her to barely reach in. You say, "If you get more than one piece, just put the others back." Of course, they can't get more than one piece. There's only one piece to get. And as they remove this one piece as a "receipt" they have just switched in your torn corner, removed the only trace of a card, and reinforced the idea that the hand is full of pieces. 

Look at this vanish from the spectator's perspective. The shuttle pass is a very natural action which is immediately reinforced when they see an empty right hand, and apparently pieces of card in your left hand. At this point suspicion should be low to non-existent. They then clean up the situation for you when they remove the piece from your hand. Only after that do the pieces vanish. In this case I would place the envelope back on top of my left fist, then with my right hand I would press down on it as I opened my left hand, so the envelope was sandwich between my palms, as if I was pushing the pieces into it. 

I would then hand them the envelope to open and find -- inside a birthday card -- their "freely" chosen card restored except for their "freely" chosen piece.