The Jerx Year Three

Discuss general aspects of Genii.
User avatar
Richard Kaufman
Posts: 24948
Joined: July 18th, 2001, 12:00 pm
Favorite Magician: Theodore DeLand
Location: Washington DC
Contact:

Re: The Jerx Year Three

Postby Richard Kaufman » January 26th, 2019, 11:15 am

I have friends, and a spouse, and a child, and a parent, with whom I agree to disagree on certain things. That's how adults get a long.
Subscribe today to Genii Magazine

Leo Garet
Posts: 304
Joined: March 14th, 2015, 9:14 am
Favorite Magician: Nobody In Particular

Re: The Jerx Year Three

Postby Leo Garet » January 26th, 2019, 1:03 pm

Richard Kaufman wrote:I have friends, and a spouse, and a child, and a parent, with whom I agree to disagree on certain things. That's how adults get a long.

On the button.

The Burnaby Kid
Posts: 38
Joined: February 6th, 2018, 3:29 am

Re: The Jerx Year Three

Postby The Burnaby Kid » January 26th, 2019, 5:25 pm

Setting aside specifics of style, to those who happen to think Andy just kinda doesn't know what he's talking about, I've got you covered.

The Jerx, at one point, had a few things to say about Tommy Wonder's idea of misdirection. I'll copy and paste my humble reply below, and y'all can check out two more at the end if you're so inclined...

-----------------

"The Jerx Totally Misses Tommy Wonder’s Point On Misdirection"

Yup, the emperor definitely doesn’t have any clothes.

Here’s a long essay about how Tommy Wonder’s ideas of misdirection are bad.

Sigh…

Ok, let’s break this down. First, we’re not going to join in on this game of semantical manipulation surrounding the word “misdirection”. There’s very little point. Tommy Wonder wants to call it “direction” because he doesn’t like the idea of people looking away from something, but rather towards something. In The Secret Art of Magic Eric Evans wants to redefine “misdirection” so that it encapsulates everything that brings the spectator away from the method and towards the effect. The Jerx wants to redefine “misdirection” so that it’s all about directing their suspicion, rather than their attention. And we’ve got further confusion with terms like “time misdirection” to get away with something like the Cross Cut force, and perhaps even something like “psychological misdirection” where a mentalist shuffles the cards sloppily in order to make people think he couldn’t possibly use sleight-of-hand because he’s so inept at it.

Let’s assume terms like “time misdirection” and “psychological misdirection” are harmless because it’s pretty obvious that what they’re talking about is outside the bounds of regular “misdirection”, and so they can be left aside for this discussion. The problem with Evans’s idea is that it basically takes an industry term and tries to redefine it to talk about a broader strategical approach to deception. When I read Evans’s book, the broader strategy didn’t bother me at all, and my only concern was that it felt a bit cute to try to appropriate an existing word with an understood meaning for something else. Still, it was easy enough to accept it as a guy just playing with ideas.

That overrated hack who writes the Jerx blog is trying to do the same thing, and his efforts could be seen as similarly cute if he didn’t feel obliged to jump up and down on Tommy Wonder’s work in order to help support his point.

When you get right down to it, I mean really, we all know what misdirection is about. It’s about making sure that they’re not looking at a place where we’re doing something sneaky that we can’t otherwise cover. That’s it. There are good ways and bad ways of going about that.

The problem with trying to broaden “misdirection” as being something more than this, the way that Evans and Andy are, is that all of a sudden you’re basically talking about deception and suspicion management on a grand scale, a topic so ridiculously broad, where there are going to be many different subsets of techniques one can use, including the manipulation of what the audience is looking at. I get it, “misdirection” is a neat word, but it’s silly to look at it as being mired in the slums of “look here but not there” and in desperate need of ascension to a higher plane. That whole “look here but not there” situation is fascinating and deep and totally worthy of having its own damned word.

So, with that, we’re not going to spend too much time on what Andy’s propagandizing with regards to this: “Don’t think about misdirection as being about the direction of someone’s focus or interest. Instead, think about it as the direction of someone’s suspicion.” Magicians who aim high already know that the direction of suspicions is the name of the game, and that misdirection of attention is one of the tools we can use to win that game. There are other tools available (such as cover, patter, presentation, conditioning actions, motivated actions, feints, memory manipulation, camouflage, outs, etc.) and yet nobody’s clamoring for “cover” to be called anything other than “cover”, and so on. All this semantical diddling is answering a question that nobody posed. It’s like Hollywood putting out their Justice League movies — unnecessary nonsense that nobody really asked for.

Now, the question that magicians have long been posing is how to handle basic misdirection well. Tommy Wonder offers up some good answers, and if it’s too difficult to see how they are good answers, then a study of his routines that employ his ideas is in order. Let’s get to something that the Jerx seems to be having trouble with. He offers a hypothesis where something is written down on a card, you pull out a crystal and claim that it can be used to read minds, the crystal is held away from the card and while they’re looking at the crystal, you get a peek of the card.

This is not the sort of thing Tommy Wonder is advocating, at all. First, peeks are a bold method. You wouldn’t want to use the crystal for misdirecting the peek that directly. Rather, you’d want to use the crystal for something like misdirecting a shuttle pass of the card for a dummy, which you set off to the side, and then secretly getting the peek after. Why is this an important distinction? Because the card is still an obvious point of interest, and having it out of play means that they can relax and focus on the crystal when the performer brings their attention to it. Obviously this means that everything else in the effect has to stand up to scrutiny as well, and the cleaner the switch-out, the better.

Second, this is a mentalism routine. That might seem like an unimportant point, but a magician’s relationship to his props is different than a mentalist’s. In magic, there’s heat of the props, because that’s where magic’s going to happen. In mentalism, the props need to be psychologically invisible to give credence to the mind-reading (or whatever) to come.

This opens up new opportunities. For instance, Michael Ammar’s Cups and Balls. He produces a ball at his fingertips, and then another. For the third ball, attention is brought to his hands again, and this allows him to accomplish an open load of that final ball. His hand is an obvious point of natural interest because it’s where he was able to produce two balls already. The place where it ends up is not a point of interest because nobody sees it coming. Does the audience feel cheated by this? I can’t imagine so, unless it were rubbed in their face. Open loads tend to be powerful because they’re so bold and such an intuitive solution that most people wouldn’t think a magician would stoop so low, especially in Ammar’s case where he’s preceded that effect with two others that don’t even exist in that same playground. (It’s worth mentioning that Michael Ammar credits Wonder specifically on that sequence, and the entire thing relies on attention manipulation.)

One could argue that open loads are cheating in a way. I can understand that. You can’t compare the appearance of Michael Ammar’s third ball with something like the appearance of a signed card inside a sealed envelope inside a wallet, as the latter is undoubtedly stronger if the core technique is solid. That said, the sort of surprises you get from an open load are welcome in a magic show, and you don’t see stand-up comics dropping tags out of their initial jokes just because their closing punchline is where the “real laughs” are.

Another example might include something like Tommy Wonder’s Tamed Cards. There’s a great initial display of the Four of Clubs cards, so that when the Jack of Diamonds cards start to appear, each successive revelation is a new point of interest. If the magician doesn’t put attention on each of the Jack of Diamonds cards as they appear, then the audience misses the magic. And assuming the method’s solid, if there’s strong attention on each revelation, you now have a sort of one-ahead thing going on where each appearance can be used as misdirection away from a get-ready in the other hand.

This is another instance that shows the foolishness of the Jerx’s example. Tommy Wonder loved to talk about misdirection, but he wasn’t constantly advocating heavy misdirection such as what’s seen in the crystal-and-card-peek example. Yeah, he had some bold stuff like in his own Cups and Balls routine, but we’re also talking about making sure the audience misses you performing a thumb count, or flopping a faced deck, or repositioning a coin from a thumb palm to a finger palm, or whatnot. These minor tells can have a negative impact on the cleanliness of one’s magic, and it makes sense to find ways to misdirect away from them.

Approaching magic from this standpoint also allow you to set things up so that you can have essentially burnable magic. For instance, you misdirect during a shuttle-pass where you switch one coin for another that’s on a pull, setting you up for a vanish that’s far cleaner and more startling than most conventional methods.

Later, Andy writes… “If your attention is shifted away and then something changes: the magician knows the word you wrote down, the ball has disappeared, the card is in the magician’s pocket. Well… that’s all the explanation you need.” This presumes that Tommy Wonder is advocating having the entirety of the method be at the moment the audience isn’t looking. Again, you’re missing the point if you divorce the ideas completely from the context of the magic that he puts together and offers as examples of those ideas, especially when it’s a situation of misdirection being used in conjunction with other principles.

In the Tamed Cards, he points to his watch in order to avoid a possible discrepant moment in the count. How is that moment ever going to explain the effect of cards changing to a regular audience? Early in Deja Reverse, he produces cards from the spectator’s ear in order to face the deck. How is that moment ever going to explain how the first spectator’s card keeps turning face up later on? In the Ambitious Card, he leaves a few cards on the table as misdirection for something secret he does while squaring the deck. How is that moment ever going to explain how their card ended up in the ringbox? I’m all for giving spectators the benefit of the doubt for not being as stupid as most magicians think they are, but there’s a difference between saying spectators are smart, and giving them credit for being able to see through that level of deep deception.

Part of this misunderstanding caused by Andy’s mission to make a point seems to stem from the fact that while he was busy cherry-picking one chapter in Wonder’s book, he missed another chapter on the Three Pillars, which talks at some length about the larger issues of manipulating an audience’s psychology. The Three Pillars are manipulation, mechanics, and psychology, and it should be plainly obvious that what we’ve always called “misdirection” is essentially a subcomponent of manipulation. Wonder was never arguing that it should be the entire basis for a strategy in the way that Andy seems to think that he is. On the contrary, he made the case that often the strongest magic uses all three.

Both volumes of the Books of Wonder are great, Andy. You should try reading them all the way through sometime.

----------------------------

The Jerx comes up with a double-lift...

https://theburnabykid.com/nwmb/2018/08/ ... igs-snout/

The Jerx tries to "force" a bunch of nonsense on us...

https://theburnabykid.com/nwmb/2018/02/ ... esearcher/
JACK, the Jolly Almanac of Card Knavery, a free beginner's resource for card magic.

The Burnaby Kid
Posts: 38
Joined: February 6th, 2018, 3:29 am

Re: The Jerx Year Three

Postby The Burnaby Kid » January 27th, 2019, 10:32 am

And THAT is how you kill a conversation!
JACK, the Jolly Almanac of Card Knavery, a free beginner's resource for card magic.

Jonathan Townsend
Posts: 8108
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Westchester, NY
Contact:

Re: The Jerx Year Three

Postby Jonathan Townsend » January 27th, 2019, 11:12 am

So you're saying Tommy Wonder's Tamed Card is a better example of how to bring magic into the moment. And there are better ways to fill the gaps of a discussion than r-rated digressions. Especially those referencing mysogeny or abuse.
Also misdirection deserves a seperate discussion. Something more than what to do so they don't notice what you are doing.
Andy accepts feedback through the Jerx site. Let's see what he says.
Mundus vult decipi -per Caleb Carr's story Killing Time

The Burnaby Kid
Posts: 38
Joined: February 6th, 2018, 3:29 am

Re: The Jerx Year Three

Postby The Burnaby Kid » January 27th, 2019, 12:51 pm

Not exactly. The instance of misdirection in the beginning of Tamed Cards is a better example of what Tommy Wonder is talking about when he's talking about misdirection.

Regarding the r-rated stuff... Some people like a sharp mustard. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. Personally, though, I think we should spend less time on the mustard and more on the hot dog. The Jerx doesn't care if people don't like his language. He's said as much on the blog, and at this point it's a draw more than a repellent, so criticizing him on that basis serves no purpose. Better still to point out the shaky foundations of the arguments themselves. Then no amount of mustard can hide the fact that the long brown thing in the bun isn't a hot dog, if you know what I'm saying.
JACK, the Jolly Almanac of Card Knavery, a free beginner's resource for card magic.

Steve Mills
Posts: 332
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Saint Charles, IL

Re: The Jerx Year Three

Postby Steve Mills » January 27th, 2019, 4:09 pm

The Burnaby Kid wrote:And THAT is how you kill a conversation!


Seemingly!
Hell is empty, all the devils are here.Shakespeare

Ted M
Posts: 999
Joined: January 24th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Favorite Magician: Dani DaOrtiz
Location: Madison, WI

Re: The Jerx Year Three

Postby Ted M » January 27th, 2019, 4:52 pm

This is a test of the emergency spelling assistance system:

M-I-S-O-G-Y-N-Y: Misogyny.

Thank you.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled argument.

Joe Lyons
Posts: 197
Joined: November 13th, 2017, 8:27 am
Favorite Magician: Wonder
Location: Texas

Re: The Jerx Year Three

Postby Joe Lyons » January 27th, 2019, 7:20 pm

Ted M wrote:This is a test of the emergency spelling assistance system:
M-I-S-O-G-Y-N-Y: Misogyny.
Thank you.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled argument.


Thanks Ted.
It was bothering me but I didn’t want to be labeled a malorthographobe.

The Burnaby Kid
Posts: 38
Joined: February 6th, 2018, 3:29 am

Re: The Jerx Year Three

Postby The Burnaby Kid » January 27th, 2019, 9:16 pm

Joe Lyons wrote:
Ted M wrote:This is a test of the emergency spelling assistance system:
M-I-S-O-G-Y-N-Y: Misogyny.
Thank you.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled argument.


Thanks Ted.
It was bothering me but I didn’t want to be labeled a malorthographobe.


Gesundheit.
JACK, the Jolly Almanac of Card Knavery, a free beginner's resource for card magic.

magicfish
Posts: 196
Joined: April 12th, 2008, 8:19 pm

Re: The Jerx Year Three

Postby magicfish » January 27th, 2019, 9:36 pm

Andrew wrote:
"Regarding the r-rated stuff"
- my kids watch R-rated stuff, this stuff is beyond x-rated.
"Some people like a sharp mustard."
- Equating the use of verbal, physical abuse and objectification of women to present magic, as an acquired taste , like a sharp mustard, is in equally poor taste.
"I think we should spend less time on the mustard"
- As do all too many men. Even in 2019. How very sad.
"The Jerx doesn't care if people don't like his language. He's said as much on the blog, "
- I couldn't care less whether he cares or not. Neither does my wife nor my daughters.
"...at this point it is more of a draw..."
- what truly sad commentary on our fraternity as a whole.
"criticizing him on that basis serves no purpose."
- it serves a greater purpose than any magic effect
ever could.

P.s. I thoroughly enjoyed your previous post about misdirection.

Jonathan Townsend
Posts: 8108
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Westchester, NY
Contact:

Re: The Jerx Year Three

Postby Jonathan Townsend » January 27th, 2019, 11:00 pm

It's okay to talk to the author if you disagree with a notion or argument or reference. The larger topic is how we treat each other. Must it be the flower or the fertilizer? If it reads as disrespectful call it out as abusive. Maybe we can call that the "A" word till folks get comfortable looking at "or else what" transactions. Outside of magic we can talk about things which make us look unpleasant to others. Such goes by various names these days including institutional violence, expected accommodations, and traditions .
...and the very age and body of the time his form and pressure. Now this overdone or come tardy off, though it make the unskillful laugh, cannot but make the judicious grieve, the censure of the which one must in your allowance o'erweigh a whole theatre of others.
That's censure not censor. When the content is not coming from authority and its words not demanded upon pain of punishment it's more productive to put (your) time and attention, money and recommendations where (your) values are respected. Free speech and free association, please.

Now back to fussing over an overhand version of the Elmsley Count versus a handling Bob Farmer's Spiritu Count. Old habits etc.
Last edited by Jonathan Townsend on January 27th, 2019, 11:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Mundus vult decipi -per Caleb Carr's story Killing Time

The Burnaby Kid
Posts: 38
Joined: February 6th, 2018, 3:29 am

Re: The Jerx Year Three

Postby The Burnaby Kid » January 27th, 2019, 11:14 pm

magicfish wrote:"Some people like a sharp mustard."
- Equating the use of verbal, physical abuse and objectification of women to present magic, as an acquired taste , like a sharp mustard, is in equally poor taste.


Ah, man? Now you're going to make me lose sleep tonight. Fiddlesticks.

It's possible to enjoy Silence of the Lambs while still being against kidnapping, murder, and cannibalism. In case my point's not clear, you're conflating his jokes with reality.

Look, if you really feel that jokes in poor taste are so awful... why not go after Eric Mead, Penn and Teller, The Amazing Jonathan, and Jay Marshall? These magicians were all on the Aristocrats, they all have way more influence than Andy, more people have seen the film itself than have read Andy's blog, and the material in that film makes Andy's blog seem like Sunday School material.

If nothing else, attacking the arguments Andy makes on its merits has a better chance of putting him in his place, because he looks upon people who dislike his x-rated stuff as being prudes he's happy to not cater to in the first place.

(And thanks for the reminder of the difference between r-rated and x-rated. I was never all that interested in the metrics of censorship, so the difference slipped my mind.)
JACK, the Jolly Almanac of Card Knavery, a free beginner's resource for card magic.

magicfish
Posts: 196
Joined: April 12th, 2008, 8:19 pm

Re: The Jerx Year Three

Postby magicfish » January 27th, 2019, 11:27 pm

The Burnaby Kid wrote:
magicfish wrote:"Some people like a sharp mustard."
- Equating the use of verbal, physical abuse and objectification of women to present magic, as an acquired taste , like a sharp mustard, is in equally poor taste.


Ah, man? Now you're going to make me lose sleep tonight. Fiddlesticks.

It's possible to enjoy Silence of the Lambs while still being against kidnapping, murder, and cannibalism. In case my point's not clear, you're conflating his jokes with reality.

Look, if you really feel that jokes in poor taste are so awful... why not go after Eric Mead, Penn and Teller, The Amazing Jonathan, and Jay Marshall? These magicians were all on the Aristocrats, they all have way more influence than Andy, more people have seen the film itself than have read Andy's blog, and the material in that film makes Andy's blog seem like Sunday School material.

If nothing else, attacking the arguments Andy makes on its merits has a better chance of putting him in his place, because he looks upon people who dislike his x-rated stuff as being prudes he's happy to not cater to in the first place.

(And thanks for the reminder of the difference between r-rated and x-rated. I was never all that interested in the metrics of censorship, so the difference slipped my mind.)

Jokes? No. Certain things arent funny. See Michael Richards' last stand up routine.
Anyway all that aside,
If you can do one thing for me, just please, for the love of Odin please, don't ever mention Jay Marshall in the same breath as an anonymous gutter-snipe who profits from the misappropriation of one of the greatest publications in the history of our art by Theo Annemann and fills it with filth.
Lefty would not have approved.

The Burnaby Kid
Posts: 38
Joined: February 6th, 2018, 3:29 am

Re: The Jerx Year Three

Postby The Burnaby Kid » January 27th, 2019, 11:31 pm

magicfish wrote:If you can do one thing for me, just please, for the love of Odin please, don't ever mention Jay Marshall in the same breath as an anonymous gutter-snipe who profits from the misappropriation of one of the greatest publications in the history of our art by Theo Annemann and fills it with filth.


Ouch. That's a pretty harsh review of Tangled Web and its author.
JACK, the Jolly Almanac of Card Knavery, a free beginner's resource for card magic.

magicfish
Posts: 196
Joined: April 12th, 2008, 8:19 pm

Re: The Jerx Year Three

Postby magicfish » January 27th, 2019, 11:35 pm

The Burnaby Kid wrote:
magicfish wrote:If you can do one thing for me, just please, for the love of Odin please, don't ever mention Jay Marshall in the same breath as an anonymous gutter-snipe who profits from the misappropriation of one of the greatest publications in the history of our art by Theo Annemann and fills it with filth.


Ouch. That's a pretty harsh review of Tangled Web and its author.

I have everything by Annemann. I don't think he has one called Tangled Web.
Meh, gotta work on my comedy.
Sigh. Maybe I should start cussin' , boy that'll really draw them in! Ya that's it, I haven't read the books of wonder, I'll steal from annemann, I'll denounce the pros whilst remaining anonymous and I'll appeal to the least intelligent among them with smut.
Yes that's it. I can hear them tittering now as they write their checks to my mom's p.o. box.

magicfish
Posts: 196
Joined: April 12th, 2008, 8:19 pm

Re: The Jerx Year Three

Postby magicfish » January 27th, 2019, 11:55 pm

I'll make it so nouveau even Swiss and Ben will be scared to give me a poor review.
Off to Chuck E Cheese for more scientific data on the Kennedy Center fellas, Its on me tonight!
Last edited by magicfish on January 28th, 2019, 12:09 am, edited 1 time in total.

magicfish
Posts: 196
Joined: April 12th, 2008, 8:19 pm

Re: The Jerx Year Three

Postby magicfish » January 28th, 2019, 12:01 am

Nah bro, you guys go ahead, Imastick around and smash the Charlie Miller Pinata for the Bloggers to ponder and comment on. They'll think I know the real work. Ahem, C-ck B-lls...We're Streaking!

How's my shock value? Have I won at least Townsend yet. ?
The others are low hanging fruit.
Love you Jonathon.
I feel I must now invoke a blessing from the Rev. Mark Lewis. If his name has not since become unmentionable here. In which case I renounce him.
G'night fellas.

User avatar
Brad Jeffers
Posts: 953
Joined: April 11th, 2008, 5:52 pm
Location: Savannah, GA

Re: The Jerx Year Three

Postby Brad Jeffers » January 28th, 2019, 4:46 pm

magicfish wrote: whilst remaining anonymous
I'm kind of surprised that no one has outed Andy's identity.
Maybe no one knows who he is.

Maybe no one cares.

Perhaps in 100 years there will be a book entitled "The Man Who Was Andy", and a 200 page thread on the Genii Forum simply entitled - ANDY.

But then again, in 100 years there will probably be no Genii Forum ...

Or books.

Bill Mullins
Posts: 5127
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL

Re: The Jerx Year Three

Postby Bill Mullins » January 28th, 2019, 5:08 pm

magicfish wrote:Jokes? No. Certain things arent funny.

You say that as if there was a bright objective line, and things on one side of it are funny, and things on the other side aren't. Comedy doesn't work that way. De gustibus non est disputandum.

I was at MagiFest last weekend. There was a certain amount of controversy over some pedophilia jokes by Harrison Greenbaum. Some folks thought they were offensive, some thought they were funny. Here's the thing - they both were right. It's a floor wax and a dessert topping!

David Kaplan
Posts: 46
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Boston

Re: The Jerx Year Three

Postby David Kaplan » January 28th, 2019, 5:52 pm

Brad Jeffers wrote:I'm kind of surprised that no one has outed Andy's identity.

I think I've figured it out... magicfish is Andy. Just stirring up trouble, and sitting back laughing. :lol:

Leo Garet
Posts: 304
Joined: March 14th, 2015, 9:14 am
Favorite Magician: Nobody In Particular

Re: The Jerx Year Three

Postby Leo Garet » January 29th, 2019, 1:12 pm

Or maybe Andy is Erdnase….

Andy, Andrew, Andrews, the clues begin.

Jonathan Townsend
Posts: 8108
Joined: January 17th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Westchester, NY
Contact:

Re: The Jerx Year Three

Postby Jonathan Townsend » February 1st, 2019, 8:46 am

So, what do you think of his latest book?
Mundus vult decipi -per Caleb Carr's story Killing Time

Jack Shalom
Posts: 759
Joined: February 7th, 2008, 12:00 pm
Location: Brooklyn NY

Re: The Jerx Year Three

Postby Jack Shalom » February 1st, 2019, 10:43 am

The book is the best magic book I've read.

He was totally wrong about Tommy Wonder.

Both things can be true.


Return to “General”