In Folk Illusions: Children, Folklore, and Sciences of Perception, K. Brandon Barker and Claiborne Rice present a detailed structural and morphological analysis of folk illusions. Specifically, they make a compelling case for the inclusion and creation of folk illusions as its own genre of vernacular cultural practices. Combining more than 8 years of multi-site research to observe performances and collect remembrances from children (of different age groups), college students, and even adults, Barker and Rice argue that folk illusions “present an excellent opportunity for the situated, socially, contextualized study of perception” (p. 4). The authors define folk illusions “as traditionalized verbal and/or kinesthetic actions performed in order to effect an intended perceptual illusion for one or more participants” (p. 4). But, as folk illusions depend on how the body engages and perceives the illusions, the authors argue that their research and approaches must be likewise interdisciplinary. In this regard, the book's aim is threefold: to make a case for considering folk illusions as its own genre, to provide a morphological analysis of folk illusions, and to explore issues of embodiment and the “kind of knowledge that accompanies embodied consciousness” (p. 7). While illusions and perception have been widely studied in psychology—mainly to explore how our brains and bodies process and transform information—as well as in other fields, the authors wish to “unveil the folk's dynamic awareness of perceptual illusions” (p. 11).The book contains seven chapters—each with small vignettes sharing the authors’ personal encounters with folk illusions, either as unwitting participants or agents (initiators of the illusion). Moreover, the authors throughout provide detailed descriptions and morphological structures of all folk illusions discussed. Chapter 1 provides the foundation, defining folk illusions and offering a brief introduction to the literature on perception, and how their work relates to the broader literature on children's folklore. They also list the characteristics of most folk illusions. Chapter 2 focuses on four forms of folk illusions—specifically, Floating Arms, Twisted Hands, the Chills, and Light as a Feather. By analyzing these four forms in depth, the authors provide a detailed morphological structure of folk illusions as a folk genre. Chapter 3 utilizes John McDowell's theories of transmission-as-activation to explore how folk illusions can help understand processes of cultural transmission. The two folk illusions discussed in this chapter, Ping Pong and What Did I Say?, explore issues of body awareness and how folk illusions “provide access to the inner workings of embodied perception” (p. 71). Chapter 4 continues the authors’ investigation into transmission and embodiment, or how we learn through the body. Here, they combine contemporary theories of perception with the framework established on transmission from the previous chapter, and present three more folk illusions: Crossed Fingers, Where Am I Touching You?, and Who's Touching You? The authors conclude that these illusions “unveil traditionalized ideas about bodies, perception, causal relationships, and about the social environments in which they intersect” (p. 102). Chapter 5 focuses on weight illusions, such as Not-So-Heavy Object, Sandman, and Buckets of Water, while exploring the relationship between folk illusions and perception. In this chapter specifically, they delve on how “subjective experience and perception rise to the surface of social behavior, [and] to the level of performance” (p. 105). Chapter 6 makes a strong case to include mirror summoning—such as Bloody Mary, Mary Whales, and others—as a folk illusion; by doing so, folk illusions reveal “patterns of embodiment relevant to both perception and belief” (p. 159). In chapter 7, the authors conclude their analysis by stating that while folk illusions may be performed by people of any age group, children are the most common performers and participants. Barker and Rice explore how folk illusions help children develop different physical abilities and body awareness, and how the body is “an object of mystery and fun” (p. 192). In true morphological approach, at the end of the book, Barker and Rice provide a catalog of folk illusions that documents all the folk illusions they compiled. The catalog contains ten categories—each including multiple folk illusions, their structure, and their accompanying variants.As detailed as their analysis is, the authors recognize the limitations of their study, namely, that their research is not cross-cultural and that it does not take into consideration issues of race, ethnicity, class, and different body and/or mental development. While this recognition of the gap in their research is important, it does not address the exclusion in their analysis of a huge population. For example, how do children with different cognitive development processes (such as children on the autism spectrum) or children with different physical abilities engage with folk illusions? Based on personal experience, I know that children on the autism spectrum do play with folk illusions. As scholars, we are not able to cover all aspects of a topic or research interest, but I would encourage the authors, and scholars in general, to move away from imagining and constructing the “folk” as a cisgender, white, heterosexual, able-bodied experience. For example, the discussion on active perception in chapter 4 comes from an able-bodied and typical cognitive development approach, which, as per Phyllis May-Machunda's critique, is part of folklore's disciplinary legacy of focusing on “extraordinary performances of behavioral norms” (“Complexifying Identity through Disability: Critical Folkloristic Perspectives on Being a Parent and Experiencing Illness and Disability through My Child,” in Theorizing Folklore from the Margins: Critical and Ethical Approaches, ed. Solimar Otero and Mintzi Auanda Martínez-Rivera, Indiana University Press, 2021:314). We shouldn't discontinue research among cisgender, white, heterosexual, able-bodied communities, but should rather stop assuming that their experience is the norm, normal, or universal. In this regard, this analysis would have benefitted from complexifying and clarifying perceptions of the “folk.”Throughout the book, Barker and Rice make a compelling argument not only for the inclusion of folk illusions as its own genre, but also for interdisciplinary research to explore issues of perception and belief. As its own genre, folk illusions may help us understand how “cultural ideas of perception become embodied within particular performances (and performers)” (p. 158). In many ways, Folk Illusions is a great contribution to traditional approaches in folklore studies. I must confess that, as I read the book, I stopped multiple times to try to perform the illusions.