One of the lovely benefits of (occasionally) writing in this blog is the email it generates. Not a lot of email, mind you. But what there is of it is usually very interesting, when it’s not amusing. Sometimes it’s both. Recently I received two emails basically asking the same thing: why did I (or anyone) get into magic, and how can they get into magic, too. (Well, that and, “Do you know the real name of the man called The Professor?” To which I always reply, “Russell Johnson, why do you want to know?”)

Magic is a wonderful thing. Those who actually perform magic for others know this instantly. (Others suspect it as truth, and that’s what generates some of the email I get.) There’s something about creating that instant of astonishment/disbelief/rip-in-the-fabric of the space-time-continuum. You get the picture, I’m sure.

I mentioned a few days ago that David Regal was offering a stellar deal on his two-volume set, “Constant Fooling.” And, since I hadn’t added those to the library here at Casa Escamoteurettes, I decided to take advantage of it. The books arrived Saturday and I only had a moment to leaf through them, but this quote stood out immediately:

“I have the bug. For me, magic — a salute to the subversion of order in the universe — is one of the few things in the world that makes sense.

“Everyone needs to temporarily remove themselves from concerns, and lose themselves in activities and rituals designed to do just that. That’s why there are storytellers, plays, films, books, spectator sports, religions, and fortunes in fortune cookies. That’s why there are performances of magic. Magic tells people there are possibilities, and one would be hard-pressed to find a more compelling message than that. The need to put reality on hold is so basic, some of the largest corporations on the planet exist simply to distract and amuse.”

Despite what anyone might tell you, doing a magic trick perfectly isn’t terribly difficult. This is not rocket science. Look at much of what makes up the long and distinguished line of Tenyo tricks (hello, Angelo) and that, alone, proves my point. If that’s not enough, a good Ultra Mental routine certainly will. This is why I harp on the difference between magic trick and magic effect; the trick is what you do; the effect is why you do it.

Performing magic, on the other hand, is a beast of an entirely different stripe. It’s one thing to technically (perfectly) perform a magic trick, and quite another to stop time in its tracks and bend reality back onto itself. The difference between a perfectly executed magic trick and actually doing magic is the difference between an audience member saying, “Hmmm, that’s…interesting.” and an audience member staring at you for a second or two before blurting out, “No. F*****g. Way.” (I’ve long believed that the level and amount of profanity uttered after I perform a trick may not be the best, but it is the most accurate barometer of how well it played.)

To put it another way, one thing happens in the hands, the other between the ears. (Since all wonder occurs between the ears, maybe you can better understand my deep, abiding passion for mentalism.) It takes a lot of practice to “get it right” — and that practice includes doing it lots or lots of times, observing the reactions, and adjusting the routining to get the best reaction. That takes quite an investment.

Why do magicians do magic?

On the surface, it’s a simple question. In reality — an interesting word to use, given the subject matter — the answer is as varied as the people who perform. Many people are convinced down to the marrow of their bones that magic is the Great Equalizer; geeks who couldn’t get a chick to give them the time of day turn to magic to get the chicks. Except that here on planet earth that, apparently, only works for Jay Sankey.

Many of the people with whom I’ve had this conversation explain that they learned their first trick and eagerly, if nervously, performed it for someone they knew. Then came the experience of their audience’s reaction to the trick. As a result, they became hooked on magic like nobody’s business. It’s a story that’s repeated over and over. It’s seeing a person’s reaction that’s the real magic. Crack needs a glass pipe, a dealer, and an unending supply of money; magic just needs and audience of one. (In the spirit of full disclosure I must admit that magic needs an unending supply of money, too. You have been warned.)

In my world, I perform for the reaction. (Well, I perform for the money, too.) For me — and I suspect it’s the same for lots of close-up performers — doing magic is like a little boy running up to his parent with a gift he just can’t wait to see opened. You spend what may seem to others as an inordinate amount of time wrapping it just so, but seeing it opened… That’s as close to the feeling as I can explain. When you learn to perform magic as opposed to doing tricks, it’s like giving someone a gift. And it’s the expression once the package is fully opened that you live for.

Experience it once and it’s like Hotel California; you can check out any time you like, but you can never leave. Magicians — many magicians I know personally — go through waves where they have to put the wand down, even if for a little while, for whatever the reason. Not everyone performs magic 100% of the time. Most performers have other things going on called “a life” that includes family and work and other hobbies. Eventually, though, magic calls again. And you answer. And it’s like you’ve never been gone. That’s magic.

Jeff Jarvis makes a point I think might be relevant to some people in our bizarre little corner of the word. In today’s post Outboxed, Jarvis points out that Robert Greenwald is asking for contributors for his next movie, “Wal-Mart: The high Cost of Low Price”

Greenwald says about his project:

“WAL-MART: The High Cost of Low Price takes the viewer on a deeply personal journey into the everyday lives of families struggling to fight goliath. From a small business owner in the Midwest to a preacher in California, from workers in Florida to a poet in Mexico, dozens of film crews on three continents bring the intensely personal stories of an assault on families and American values.”

I think you get the picture.

Walmart is positioned by some as a behemoth, wholly unstoppable as it leaves carnage in its wake. But last month’s Business 2.0 magazine article, “How to Beat Wal-Mart,” shows exactly that. And in each case, the “how to” is serving the market.

In his post, Jeff Jarvis notes:

“By the way, I hate shopping in Walmart — the place scares me viscerally — but I don’t think it’s evil just because it’s big. I also have — stupidly, perhaps — avoided buying Walmart stock because I believe that in the history of retail — see department store chains of the past and see most any consumer electronics chain — there has always been a tipping point when a chain gets too big. Will that day come for Walmart? I think it will tip of its own weight. That’s just a guess but that’s why I don’t think Walmart (or Clear Channel or Microsoft) is an evil empire that needs to be toppled. The market takes care of that. “

That’s the great thing about a free market society; the market takes care of itself. If the market prefers one product or service over another, it’s not necessarily that the market is stupid or ill informed. It very well could be they are perfectly informed and have made up their mind what it is they prefer.

A product or service does not self-sustain; it requires voluntary support from human beings who make judgements about the value of that product or service. The interesting thing about people, though, is you generally cannot bend them against their will. Attempting to do so often has the complete opposite effect you may be trying for.

The market takes care of itself.

Now, whether you agree with the market is another thing entirely.

I wanted to make mention of a new blog in the Escamoteurettes blogroll: Great Scott! It’s Magic! — Scott Guinn’s blog.

Like many folks in magic, I got to know Scott back in his Magic Cafe days. That led to us discussing and my subsequently purchasing from him the exclusive rights to seven of his books:

“Great Scott! It’s Card Magic!”,
“Great Scott! It’s Coin Magic!”,
“Great Scott! It’s More Magic!”,
“You’ll Be Pleasantly Surprised!”,
“Magishing My Way”,
“Profiles in Coinage”, and
“Great Scott! It’s Show Business!”

— as well as his DVD, “Great Scott! It’s Magic!“.

The books are in various stages of being re-typeset and/or printed (I’ll post a note when they are available), but the DVD is still available for just $29 shipped USPS Priority Mail (to US addresses, overseas a little more.) Details here.

Obviously I enjoy reading Scott’s stuff (“I liked it so much, I bought the company.“), so I am happy to point you to his new blog. He’s working on some new projects; you can get the details there.

Down in Lou´siana where the black trees grow
Live a voodoo lady named Marie Laveau.
She got a black cat tooth and a mojo bone,
And anyone wouldn´t leave her alone.
She go GREEEEEEEEEEEE…
Another man done gone.

She live in a swamp in a hollow log
With a one-eyed snake and a three-legged dog.
She got a bent bony body and stringy hair,
And if she ever seen you messin´ round there,
She go GREEEEEEEEEEEE…
Another man done gone.

Shel Silverstein sure knew how to write ’em. Those are the beginning lyrics to the Shel Silverstein and Baxter Taylor penned hit for Bobby Bare, “Marie Laveau.”

Growing up in the New Orleans area, we kids were made well aware of Marie Laveau. As soon as we were able, we made pilgrimages to the gravesite to gawk at living proof she actually existed. (As if any kid would ever doubt the veracity of his parents…) Notice the “x” marks on the tomb; they are put there for good luck. (Things are a-changing, though, and not everyone is happy about that.)

Since I know one of the three of you regular readers is deeply interested in bizarre magick, I thought I’d mention New Orleans’ Times Picayune newspaper ran a story on Marie written by TP staff writer Lynne Jensen.

Sometimes truth is stranger than fiction.

Now that I have your attention, this is from Boing Boing this morning:

James Randi’s letter from Doug Henning is stolen and on eBay
Joseph sez, “Here’s a letter I (and others on the JREF mailing list) got from James Randi concerning a letter Doug Henning wrote to him which Randi states was stolen and is currently for sale on eBay:”

Item #6535581498 now being offered for sale on eBay is a letter written and sent to me by Doug Henning in 1983. At that time, I lived in Rumson, New Jersey. Until I saw it on eBay a few days ago, I thought it was still in my Henning file, but it apparently was stolen from me sometime after 1995, when I last referred to it.
If any of you have heard scuttlebutt about this item, I’d like to hear from you. I cannot discover who offered it for sale, but I assure you I treasured it highly.

James Randi.

 

The eBay auction is here. Anyone with information on this should contact Randi.

Update 6/1/2005 2:30 p.m.:
When contacted with a copy of the Randi mailing list note, the seller responded (in the Ask the Seller section of the auction):

“Yes, thank you, Mr. Randi’s public posting about the letter has made its way to many hundreds (or thousands) of his followers. As we stated to Mr. Randi early on, we would not bow to extortion or pressures or threats as we are not even the owner of this letter, we are a bonded, licensed Trading Assistant selling it under written contract for the ex-wife of Mr. Randi’s foster son and former assistant. Our understanding is that the letter came to be in this person’s possession much longer ago than Mr. Randi states, the client says she believes it came to her ex-husband in the 1980s. Regardless, Mr. Randi’s claim that the letter was stolen is contradicted by our client’s written statement and contract. His attempts to extort the item from us using public embarassment were completely inappropriate and not appreciated. Mr. Randi was informed that a proper police report would start the ball rolling towards resolution but that report just arrived yesterday May 31st.”

Update 6/2/2005 8:00 a.m.:
Well, the seller ended the eBay auction, using the “The seller ended this listing early because the item is no longer available for sale.” option.

This is the message the seller left:

“To the many individuals who either bid on this item or contacted us–this letter was the property of the ex-spouse to Mr. Randi’s foster son and former assistant. The ex-spouse believed the item was lawfully hers and brought it to us for listing. Mr. Randi asked us to give it back and we informed him to provide a police report first and we would give that document to our client. Instead of handling this professionally, he implied to the public that the item was stolen when in fact it appears the letter was acquired by his foster son when they were together. It appears that Mr. Randi felt the letter valuable after the death of Mr. Henning and he now takes the position that the letter was stolen but he did not file a police report until this Tuesday, some 10 or 5 years after his alleged “theft” (depending upon whether you believe his email or his police report.) Mr. Randi chose to air this laundry out in the public instead of doing the right thing and simply allowing the matter to take its course which would have been resolved amicably between the parties. We never end any listing until all facts are verified and the police report was not given to us until after he sent out a bunch of emails and even spammed our bidders in violation of eBay policy. We asked Mr. Randi to handle the matter through proper channels and he did it is “own” ostentatious way. The client, after hearing of Mr. Randi’s issue with the sale of this letter had agreed to return it to Mr. Randi, even though his claims were a stretch and any possibility of a legal claim were far past any statute of limitations. We feel sorry for both parties because the client had a valuable item she believes was hers to sell and Mr. Randi wanted something person back, but his actions and the way in which he hurt our reputation in the public to try and pressure us to simply return the item was reprehensible. We have a high reputation for honesty and fair dealing and Mr. Randi made it seem as though we simply were fencing this “hot” property. The matter was much more complex than that and we deserved better treatment from Mr. Randi.”

Update 6/3/2005 10:30 p.m.:
…and they lived happily ever after.

(Thanks Dustin.)

Have I mentioned I am a fan of David Regal? Maybe not. I’m a fan of David Regal. Or, more specifically, his way of thinking. My library at Casa Escamoteurettes includes his books “Star Quality” and “Close-Up and Personal” as well as his two sets of DVDs put out by Louis Falanga and L&L Publishing, “The Magic of David Regal“ and “Premise, Power & Participation“.

On my list of things to do has been getting the two-volume set of books, “Constant Fooling“ — which set of books Michael Close praised in his MAGIC Magazine review.

To continue the theme of luck, it’s lucky for me, I managed to get my order in just under the wire: both books, as well as a pack of his Disposable Decks, including flat rate USPS Priority Shipping for just $70. If you live in the USA, you can get in on the deal, too, so long as you place your order by June 5, 2005.

Check out David’s post on the Genii discussion board for details.

Tell David you heard about it here and he’ll sign your books. (Actually, he’ll sign the books if you don’t tell him you heard it here.)

ADDED 6/1/2005: Steve Bryant reminds that he reviewed these books in his excellent Little Egypt Magic in 2002. Please take a moment to read why Richard Kaufman thinks you’d be off your rocker to miss this deal.

From Wired early this morning:

Psychologists and salesmen call it the “chameleon effect”: People are perceived as more honest and likeable if they subtly mimic the body language of the person they’re speaking with.

NLP practitioners know that as mirroring. I know I’ve found the technique useful in and out of mystery entertainment, and I think it’s worth studying.

Seneca stated:

“Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity.”

Thomas Jefferson observed:

“I’m a great believer in luck and I find the harder I work, the more I have of it.”

And from Ralph Waldo Emerson:

“Shallow men believe in luck. Strong men believe in cause and effect.”

Got a moment? Read this and consider how many of these ten points you can use:
Are you feeling lucky? Here are 10 Ways to create your own luck. (And while you’re at it, take some time to read the rest of Lisa’s blog.)

Finally, Mark Cuban offers this nugget for you to consider: You only have to be right once!

“We should guard their graves with sacred vigilance. … Let pleasant paths invite the coming and going of reverent visitors and fond mourners. Let no neglect, no ravages of time, testify to the present or to the coming generations that we have forgotten as a people the cost of a free and undivided republic.” — Gen. John Logan

Contrary to popular belief, Memorial Day in the United States of America does not celebrate a three day holiday weekend that offers fantastic savings on all your furniture needs (free interest for four years.)

From the Department of Veterans Affairs web site:

Three years after the Civil War ended, on May 5, 1868, the head of an organization of Union veterans — the Grand Army of the Republic (GAR) — established Decoration Day as a time for the nation to decorate the graves of the war dead with flowers. Gen. John A. Logan declared that Decoration Day should be observed on May 30. It is believed that date was chosen because flowers would be in bloom all over the country.

The first large observance was held that year at Arlington National Cemetery, across the Potomac River from Washington, D.C.

The History Channel’s web site covering Memorial Day provides Major General Logan’s declaration:

Memorial Day was originally known as Decoration Day because it was a time set aside to honor the nation’s Civil War dead by decorating their graves. It was first widely observed on May 30, 1868, to commemorate the sacrifices of Civil War soldiers, by proclamation of General John A. Logan of the Grand Army of the Republic, an organization of former sailors and soldiers. On May 5, 1868, Logan declared in General Order No. 11 that:

“The 30th of May, 1868, is designated for the purpose of strewing with flowers, or otherwise decorating the graves of comrades who died in defense of their country during the late rebellion, and whose bodies now lie in almost every city, village, and hamlet churchyard in the land. In this observance no form of ceremony is prescribed, but posts and comrades will in their own way arrange such fitting services and testimonials of respect as circumstances may permit.”

That first ceremony at Arlington National Cemetery set the tone for local observances that began sweeping the nation .

I’m not sure what it says about our nation that Memorial Day has become, evidently, the day to shop for new furniture (it is the biggest furniture sales day of the year), barbeque, enjoy an additional day off from work — not that any of those things are inherently bad. They’re not. But I find obscene the act of supplanting a holiday’s original meaning with behavior that doesn’t even acknowledge why the holiday exists to begin with.

Especially at this time in our nation’s history, it’s imporant to make the distinction between the honorable voluntary — and at times involuntary — service performed, and sacrifices made by those men and women who have died in the service of our country, and our own individual opinions of war.

Today is not about us; it’s about them.

Like a nation, the military service is made up of individual people — people who have mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters, husbands and wives, sons and daughters, friends. They all had hopes and dreams, much of which went unfulfilled when their lives came to an end. Memorial Day is as much an observance of the honorable service performed by these people as it is what futures they gave up to perform that service on our behalf.

That some people in this country do not wish that service performed on their behalf does in no way diminish the fact it was performed, in good faith, nonetheless.

There has never been a “small war” to those who fought it, and there has never been an insignificant sacrifice by those who’ve made it.

Finally, here copied are the words to a song that many consider cover the roots of Memorial Day. Please read it and consider the larger meaning.

“Kneel Where Our Loves Are Sleeping”
Words by G.W.R.
Music by Mrs. L. Nella Sweet

Kneel where our loves are sleeping, Dear ones days gone by,
Here we bow in holy reverence, Our bosoms heave the heartfelt sigh.
They fell like brave men, true as steel, And pour’d their blood like rain,
We feel we owe them all we have, And can but weep and kneel again.

Kneel where our loves are sleeping, They lost but still were good and true,
Our fathers, brothers fell still fighting, We weep, ‘tis all that we can do.

Here we find our noble dead, Their spirits soar’d to him above,
Rest they now about his throne, For God is mercy, God is love.
Then let us pray that we may live, As pure and good as they have been,
That dying we may ask of him, To open the gate and let us in.

Kneel where our loves are sleeping, They lost but still were good and true,
Our fathers, brothers fell still fighting, We weep, ‘tis all that we can do.”

I have many loves in my life. At the top of the earthly list, there are the three females with whom I live. There’s getting up at 3:15 each morning — when anything and anyone with any kind of sensibilities at all is still snoozing — and having my first cup of coffee waiting on me to pour (thanks to the miracle of Cuisinart and real Kona coffee beans) to take with me outside the back door to survey the world. I love finding elegant solutions to hard problems. There are friends to tell all of this to.

And then there are movie quotes. I loves me some movie quotes.

Col. Jessep: You want answers?
Kaffee: I think I’m entitled.
Col. Jessep: You want answers?
Kaffee: I want the truth.
Col. Jessep: You can’t handle the truth.

Do you want answers, or do you want the truth? Sometimes we want the answers when we really need to hear the truth. As human beings with precious egos in danger of bruising, sometimes our itching ears want to hear what we want to hear; we can’t (or would rather not) handle the truth.

We perform and we want (need) feedback. Sometimes we ask friends or associates, feigning the earnest desire and expectation of stark honesty but actually wanting a Hershey’s Kiss. And don’t think for a second most people aren’t well aware of that mental confliction two seconds after the question rolls off your tongue. They are aware, as evidenced by the deer-in-the-headlights look staring back at you.

Want to know how most people feel when you ask them, “How was my performance?” Just remember how you felt the last time someone asked you, “Does my ass look big in this?” It’s pretty much the same thing.

And then there’s the determination of who is qualified to say what. If what you want to know is whether or not your performance was entertaining, as a general rule you hardly need to ask. “I was entertained” is generally conveyed in big, bold, underlined body language. If you have to ask…well…you already know the answer, don’t you? Still, “normal” people are in a better position to answer that question than our brethren. It’s a rare, rare magician who can put on the shades and judge a performance by spectator standards.

On the other hand, if what you want to know is if your invisible pass was really invisible, you’ll need to ask a fellow performer. Why you’d want to know is beyond me, but he’s who you’d ask.

What most people really want (need) to know is, “What part of that sucked?” or “What should I change to make it better?” It’s been widely reported that, for years, this is essentially what David Copperfield asked backstage. It’s a good question to ask because it erases doubt as to what you want to hear; “put it right between the eyes.”

And sometimes that’s exactly what you get and then you realize it’s not what you’d rather hear. And this points to another interesting confliction performers sometimes experience.

If you spend every spare moment of three or four weeks learning to be nearly adequate performing a knuckle-busting move — you know, the kind of stuff The MAN, Martin A. Nash, can do while napping — it doesn’t exactly do your heart good to get less than a stand-on-your-head-and-sing reaction from an audience. “All of that work and no one noticed.” — which is probably the way it really should be anyway.

Want to completely strip away any remaining shred of dignity? Do a spongeball routine for normal people and compare their reaction to your Fizbin Drop or whatever. (Nothing — and I mean nothing — emphasizes the difference between us and them than the reaction to a good spongeball routine.)

Eugene Burger has stated his love/hate relationship with spongeballs. As long as Burger performs for normal people, they’re going to love seeing a good spongeball routine. Why? It’s probably our punishment for the 21-Card trick. But that’s just a guess. (Actually, Eugene has discussed this in a number of his essays. You have read everything Burger has written, haven’t you?)

There’s a list of tricks that, as a general rule, are silver bullets when it comes to making close-up audiences delighted. Spongeballs — and their first-cousins, sponge bunnies — are on that list. A great trick using an Ultra Mental deck is also on that list (and for most people, that would be a word-for-word channeling of the Don Alan “Invisible Deck” routine.) One of the many terrific versions of Paul Curry’s “Out of this World” is on that list. A great routine using the Scotch and Soda set makes the list, too.

Those tricks all have something in common: they are not technically demanding and, done well, the audience reaction is so far out of proportion to the work required to perform them does make more than just a few ExTrEmE CaRd SlEiGhT GuYz despondent. Spongeballs, in particular, are hard to do badly. Not bad for something used to clean the inside of heat exchangers, wouldn’t you agree?

This is not to say I have anything against showy flourishes. Not at all. Learning to do some of that stuff takes an awful lot of time and, when you invest that time and learn to do it well, it fosters a sense of accomplishment. Most people find a lot of satisfaction in a sense of accomplishment. Just don’t confuse it with magic. Juggling is not magic.

So, do you want answers or do you want the truth?

Find someone and ask them if they’d feel comfortable being stark-nekkid-honest with you about your performances. This lets them know up front a.) you don’t want anything candy coated, and 2.) you acknowledge this is not a comfortable thing to do. If you get a non-hesitant “yes” listen to the answer to, “Did that suck?” It’ll likely be right on the money.

What else can you do? Get Ken Weber’s book, “Maximum Entertainment“ and read it. Then read it a few more times. Believe me, you’ll have the ghost of Ken hanging over your shoulder asking you questions you didn’t even think about.

And remember for whom you are performing: yourself, or a wider audience — because it does make a difference.