MAGIC LIVE TALK

METHOD VS EFFECT – CAGEMATCH

I call this talk “Method vs Effect: Cagematch” because that’s the battle that is
always being waged when I’m working out a routine. It’s easy to fall into the trap
of thinking they’re the same thing, when they are very separate things, and the
relationship between the two – or lack of any relationship at all – is, for me, the
most interesting thing in magic.
Let me start by saying something we all already know: The method is there to
serve the effect. It’s just a tool. It might be a sleight, it might be a gimmick, but it’s
a means to an end. The effect is our goal.
Now that’s I’ve said that – who the hell are we kidding? We love methods. We are
method addicts! We will travel to other countries just to learn a new method. And
maybe because magic is so secret-centric the balance is off. We invest a great
deal of our time thinking about methods and less time thinking about effect. I’ll
get back to method in a minute, I just want to say one thing about it: That
burning desire for the best method – what does that not do? Well, it does not
make us smart. Because everyone wants the best method. You have never heard a
person say, “For this, I want the third best method. I want it to start off strong,
then get a little shitty in the middle, then end up okay.” So it’s good to want the
best method, but it doesn’t make us special.
So, effect. I think it’s very useful to look at the effect in two ways: “EFFECT” and
“effect.” When you walk into a room and a great magician is performing, there’s
cheering, applause, laughter, surprise, they are reacting. They are reacting to an
“EFFECT.” But if you were to boil down what occurred to its most basic
components, the result might be: “The magician correctly named my card.” That’s
the “effect.” But I’d reduce it even further: “The performer told me what was
printed on a piece of cardboard.” Doesn’t sound that exciting, does it? It doesn’t
sound like something you’d put on your advertising materials.
Of course, that’s not the plot of every card effect, but it’s a nice chunk of ‘em. And
mentalism! A big hunk of mentalism, too. That’s a sobering thought, isn’t it?
So how does this “effect” become an “EFFECT?” Because there’s a gulf. Well
that’s what we do. We create the “EFFECT.” We have to create it, because it’s not
1
real. No one does real magic. We are presenting a work of fiction, and fiction is
written. So magic is written. I don’t mean like sitting down and writing a script. I
mean we determine what the effect is. And it’s helpful to clearly see the “effect”
to appreciate the distance we need to travel to create an “EFFECT.”
“He read my mind… She knows this amazing gambling move… He’s a master
pickpocket… She has a lucky charm that actually made me lucky… He can tell
whenever I lie…” Whatever it is, these things become the identity of a magic
performance for the audience. Not all magic requires a premise. If you perform a
bare-hand Matrix and coins are jumping around, what’s occurring is self-evident.
But it’s fair to say that almost all magic benefits from a premise. Even
manipulation acts often have a theatrical premise to engage the audience for a
longer period of time, or an intellectual premise, a magical a set of “rules” that
the audience grows to understand as they experience the routine. Magic without
any conceit at all, it might be wonderful, but it needs to be concise because it
simply will stop holding our interest.
We often hear: “What would a person with real magical powers do?” That person
would amaze us, then bore us. Imagine him at a party. Look at the sky. It’s blue,
right? Now it’s green! And the grass is blue! Look at your cat – now it’s a dog! And
your dog’s a cat!” “Wow. That’s not at all disturbing. Honey, at our next party can
we maybe not invite the green sky dog/cat guy?”
We want needs, desires, challenges, discoveries, hurdles, efforts, surprises,
successes, setbacks… these are the elements of storytelling, these are the tools of
engagement.
And that list I just said? Method gives us none of that. Zero. Yes, we want the best
method. The best method for this particular effect, in this arena, for this
audience. But it’s just a component.

It’s true that finding that method can be tricky, because sometimes the best
methods do not seem like the best methods. The classic method for Card to
Wallet can be summed up as: Put the Card in Your Wallet. What? That doesn’t
sound very magical! The card is supposed to transport!

Or the first time you read the instructions for vanishing a coin from your hand:

2
Don’t Put the Coin in Your Hand. So helpful! The dichotomy between method and
effect is something very difficult to reconcile.
I was very fortunate. When I was about 12 years old a neighbor who was an
amateur magician loaned me a small stack of magic books. Sach’s Sleight of Hand,
a couple of volumes of Tarbell, out of sequence, and Al Baker’s Ways & Means.
That’s a great book for a young person because you grow into it. When I first read
it, about half the book had stuff where I went, “Yeah, I could make this out of my
dad’s shirt cardboard,” and the other half I honestly thought was the humor
section of the book. “To create the sensation of mind-reading, simply memorize
this entire magazine…” That’s not a method! That’s the opposite of a method! But
30 years later I was performing that trick in the Parlour of The Magic Castle. I said
I grew into it. I didn’t say I grew quickly.
So while we absolutely need a good method, we also need to know that our
investment in method will produce progressively dwindling dividends. And for
more than one reason:
Reason 1) A better method does not necessarily create a better effect.

This is a card revelation done via peeking the selection: “Was it the Three of
Clubs?”

This is a card revelation done with an $1,500 electronic deck and wireless
transmission system that sends the identity of the selected card directly
into the performer’s cerebral cortex: “Was it the Three of Clubs?”

A better method that accomplishes nothing. You could argue: “Well, the
expensive version eliminates the peek!” But a well-peeked card is a card
that has never been peeked. Just as a well-forced card is a free selection.
And a well-palmed card is an empty hand.

Reason 2) Once something is invisible, it does not become more invisible.

Methods can make the execution of an effect smoother, or easier, or more

direct, or less expensive, or more practical. But once something reaches a

3
 place where it is not perceived by the audience, it can’t be even more not
perceived.

When I walk into my office, I’m 100% certain that there is no gorilla in the
room. There aren’t special days when I walk in and go “Wow, there’s totally
no gorilla in this room!” There’s just no gorilla.

Reason 3) Adding conditions adds to impact until it doesn’t.

Very often we’ll change a method to add to the “challenge conditions” of

an effect. But there’s a tipping point where things don’t get better. Card to
Pocket became Card to Wallet that’s inside the pocket. Which became Card
to Zippered Compartment inside the wallet…in the pocket. Which became
Card to Sealed Envelope, in a Zippered Compartment, Inside a Wallet, that’s
in My Pocket. It does not keep getting better indefinitely. “Return your card
to the deck. [SNAP] Now let’s raise this sunken vessel, inside of which is a
rusted safe, we use dynamite to open the safe… and find a wallet… encased
by rubber bands… and sealing wax… that was applied by a notary public…
who signed this affidavit… ” Is that better? “I do Nest of Boxes with 10,000
boxes. It’s very effective. The tension when you get down to the last
thousand boxes… you can feel it.”

Reason 4) The audience’s experience is not method.

I was a producer on the series The Carbonaro Effect. We made over 100
episodes, maybe 750 tricks. We had some very nice methods in the mix, but
the audience was not tuning in to see 750 methods, they were enjoying
effects. The attention we put on method is off-balance because we’re
adjusting elements of a performance that the audience does not perceive.
If we want to make substantive improvements, doesn’t it stand to reason
that we adjust elements the audience is aware of? Things that, for them,
are the performance?
Investment in method comes with built-in limits. But when we invest in effect,
there are no limits. A good example of this is one of the great effects of our time,

4
the core effect from Derek DelGaudio’s In & Of Itself, a show that played both
coasts and became an excellent film. Most of you are probably familiar with the
effect but I’ll briefly describe it.

It starts before the audience enters the theatre. In the lobby area, hanging on
pegs on the wall, are hundreds, maybe even a thousand descriptives: “I am a
leader.” “I am a lover.” “I am a clown.” You’re instructed to remove one that best
describes yourself. That’s a very personal moment. A self-appraisal. You are asked
to define yourself, which is not something you do every day. And that selection
has a deep meaning.
You go into the theatre, Derek performs his show, and then he reminds you that
you made a selection an hour ago. He asks those who want to participate to
stand, then he goes to each person, looks them in the eye, and tells them their
descriptive.
Which is amazing, a great trick – how could he know that? But something else is
happening at the same time. The audience members, who made a personal,
private, intimate choice about who they are, realize that their opinion of
themselves is about to be revealed to everyone in the room. It’s an exceptionally
vulnerable moment for every single person, but Derek handles each one with
gentleness and sensitivity, and tears often start to flow because people feel so
open and exposed. There’s a sense of commonality, of being part of something
larger, the great gumbo of life in which every one of us plays a part in creating
humanity.
That is the “EFFECT.” And what’s the “effect?” He tells you what’s printed on a
piece of cardboard.
***
That concludes the trying-to-make-a-point section of my talk. I’d like to end with a
trick. One that pertains to what we’ve been talking about as it was a bit of a
puzzle figuring out how best to bring the audience to the effect and vice-versa.
Could we have some mysterious music please?