• Author / Uploaded
• Victor Middelkoop

Citation preview

Mentalism Reveals Volume 3 Extended Journeys of Exploration and Discovery

Mark Elsdon

Published in the United Kingdom

Limited First Edition, 2018

Copyright © 2018 by Mark Elsdon. All Rights Reserved. Do not scan it, do not upload it. Thank you. 2

Many thanks to: Steven Brownley Paul Ingram Stuart Nolan Ben Hart Iain Moran Colin McLeod Michael Murray Quentin Reynolds Ben Earl Paul Brook For friendship, inspiration and laughs. Special thanks to: Gordon Bruce For regular reminders of what is actually possible.

And as always, the biggest hugs go to: Deborah and Sam Elsdon The reasons everything is worth it. Love you always.

3

4

Mentalism Reveals Volume 3 Table of Contents Introduction

Page 7

Chapter 1 – Mentalism Concealed

Page 9

Chapter 2 – Mentalism Revealed

Page 17

Chapter 3 – Selecting Material

Page 27

Chapter 3 – Stories

Page 31

Chapter 4 – Revelation Overwhelm

Page 35

Chapter 5 – Ideomotor Responses

Page 40

Chapter 6 – ESP Phone Home

Page 44

5

Chapter 7 – Sgriob

Page 52

Chapter 8 – Free Thinking And The Need To Create

Page 59

Chapter 9 – Quinnfluence

Page 64

Chapter 10 – Effect? Affect?

Page 75

Chapter 11 – Paraprosdokian

Page 85

Chapter 12 – Answer Man

Page 90

Chapter 13 – Some Books

Page 94

Chapter 14 – Cellular Telepathy

Page 100

Chapter 15 – Corporate Promotional Revelations

Page 105

Chapter 16 – The Coin Game

Page 114

Chapter 17 – The Hedgehog and The Fox

Page 121

Chapter 18 – Antique Road Show

Page 130

Chapter 19 – The Emperor’s New Tattoos?

Page 136

Chapter 20 – Decibel Vision

Page 140

Chapter 21 – Interview

Page 151 6

Introduction First of all a very sincere “Thank You!” for buying this third volume of Mentalism Reveals. I genuinely hope that you will enjoy this next stage of our travels together. As you are only too well aware, it has taken far longer than anyone could have anticipated to get into your hands, so a second sincere “thank you!” for your incredible patience too. I have kept everything self-contained so that the theories, essays, approaches and effects taught within are not dependent upon reference to the previous books in the series. There has been a massive shift in how I now view magic and mentalism and their orbits around one another, and that is fully discussed in the opening two chapters. No doubt some will see it as controversial, and for sure I intended it to be provocative. I also think that it makes complete sense. 7

I know that you are going to get a real thrill out of some of the material you are about to read, and I am certain that some of the ideas have the power to forever change the way you perform mentalism. I am also very happy that several of the routines offered are amongst my all-time favourite creations and I genuinely hope that they will find a place in your repertoire. And a huge thanks to my generous contributors: Ken Dyne Stuart Nolan Richard P Slater Atlas Brookings Michael Weber Bill Abbott Paul Brook Roddy McGhie and Tom Bennett Jeff McBride Thank you gentleman, both for your stellar contributions to this book and to the field of mentalism generally. Mark Elsdon Llandudno, 2018

8

Mentalism concealed A Defining Moment “We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!” – Douglas Adams So, what is mentalism? What is a mentalist? Ned Rutledge presciently devised the line “I take my five known senses to create the illusion of a sixth” and it is his approach that many have taken: a mentalist is someone who takes his known senses to create the illusion of reading minds or being a psychic.

9

Of course, that isn’t anywhere near enough of a definition for many mentalists and so begins an endless discussion of what constitutes mentalism, magic or mental-magic, whether a ‘real’ mentalist would ever use playing cards, and eventually some efforts to find the origins of mentalism in the world of 19th century spiritualism rather than 20th century conjuring. Much will be made of the fact that there cannot be any serious discussion without having first agreed on definitions of each of the terms involved, and then there will be attempts by all concerned to try and convince the others that their perspective, experience and knowledge means that their definition is the correct one. More recently, prompted almost entirely by the massive UK success of Derren Brown and then fuelled by the popularity of the US TV series The Mentalist, many who perform mentalism as entertainment have moved away from Rutledge’s definition. Instead they have adopted an alternative psychology-based definition of mentalism focused on (supposedly) highly developed observational talents and finely honed skills in cold reading, hypnosis, and picking pockets, as well as uncanny intuitive observations and an (apparently) immense insight into the human psyche and the behaviour of individuals. It’s all bullshit of course. There IS no definition. Whilst both approaches are very different, they are both nothing more than entertaining lies, or ‘presentations’ as we prefer to call them. We are all just swindlers*. We just tell the story differently.

Delusions of Grandeur When I first got involved in the magic scene, mentalism was simply another branch of the ‘art’ (let’s not open that can of worms! Not right now, anyway) much like manipulation, illusion, close-up, kids, gospel or cabaret. And that is how it had been viewed for a long, long time. But in the last few decades, and especially since the rise and popularity of 10

internet forums, mentalism now has delusions of grandeur. Sure, it started in the 1970s or perhaps slightly earlier with a handful of creators charging a premium for their work. Maybe the material they were releasing was brilliant work, decades ahead of its time, or maybe they realised that to make a profit in such a niche market they needed to make things ‘limited edition’ in order to increase their appeal in order to maximise sales (and yes, I am well aware that many creators, myself included, still use this tactic). Having read much of the output from that era, it is clear is that most of the time it was most certainly the latter. One thing is for certain: mentalism is no longer a niche thing. And it very much seems that the only people who ever want to keep ‘mentalism’ separate from ‘magic’ are some of the mentalists; those who want to differentiate themselves from magicians, for reasons of financial and/or perceived intellectual gain. Many of them seem able to devote hours on-line every day discussing their reasons, without ever mentioning their motivations. It’s amazing that they still manage to fit in all those corporate gigs. As someone called RCP once wrote on one of the magic forums: “You’ve got to love a bunch of magicians, on a magician’s board, arguing about a term created by magicians to separate one group of magicians from the rest of the magicians as they ply their tricks.” Indeed. In fact, beyond the opinions of the armchair mentalist brigade, in the realms of real world performance it’s worse than you might realise: the entire experience of performing or watching a mentalism show is entirely subjective and to all intents and purposes is indistinguishable from what most people would call ‘magic’. There is no functional definition of mentalism that is not also encompassed by the definition of magic. There is a reason that laymen talk about something wonderful being a ‘magical experience’. And of course a magical experience can refer to watching an incredible mentalism performance as readily as a magic 11

show. Or watching Cirque du Soleil or one’s favourite live band. Or a sunset for that matter.

The End of Mentalism? So whilst it is undoubtedly functionally useful within the industry to know what we mean by mentalism (definition: ‘tricks involving the mind’. That good enough for ya?) I think that the word ‘mentalism’ is best kept as a technical term that we don’t use in public. It causes confusion rather than bringing clarity, both in terms of describing what we do and in our attempts to market ourselves. This eventually leads to terms such as ‘Psychological Illusionist’ and other unintelligible descriptions. It’s far better to say that you are a magician and then feel free to mix magic and mentalism in any combination you choose in order to completely astonish and amaze people. My personal performance goal these days is to create a powerful sense of wonder in people and I’m happy to use whatever material and presentations I see fit in the moment to achieve that goal. When I write TV magic shows, everyone from the channel down, including the production company, producers and very often the director all use the words ‘magic’, ‘illusion’ and ‘trick’ interchangeably, even though to us in the industry an ‘illusion’ is something very different. I think we should let the term ‘mentalism’ similarly submerge itself back into ‘magic’. Within our industry we will still know amongst ourselves what we mean when we refer to magic, mentalism or (and I love this term) the dreaded mental-magic. But for the public we will focus on creating incredible and magical experiences, unburdened by the baggage of confusing, alternative terms. Now I realise that my proposal to remove the word mentalism from public consumption or consciousness is somewhat of a bold proposition! 12

And the fundamental reason for that has more to do with the problem with magic, than with mentalism. Whilst almost all laymen love to have a ‘magical experience’ the chances of them having that whilst watching a magic show are undoubtedly very low.

The Problem (With Magic) In the magic industry there is very much an element of ‘we’re all in this together’ and ‘so-and-so’s success is good for all magic and magicians’ (and I include mentalism in this, but then I always do) which prevents criticism, honest reviews and the acknowledgement that 90% of magicians (and mentalists) are terrible. If one does dare to be honest or critical, one will be accused of jealousy or one’s own lack of success cited as a reason that the opinion is wrong. But feel free to ask any laymen what they generally think of magicians. We all know how that conversation goes. In the UK, as of this writing (2015), there are a handful of magicians who are household names: Dynamo, Derren Brown, Penn and Teller and amongst the older generation perhaps Paul Daniels and David Copperfield too. (Others might dream that they are part of this list, but they are not.) The average laymen might also remember some bloke from a wedding or party they were at last year. Unlike the huge number of musicians, actors and writers that someone might be a fan of, love, watch, listen to or know about, the number of magicians that a laymen has or indeed will ever see (or even hear of) is tiny. Really, really miniscule. This means that on one level, we have almost a blank slate to work with in terms of sharing wonder and making people fell astonished. There is however a major problem to contend with and it is directly related to something mentioned earlier. This problem is that almost all laymen, even if they are a huge Derren or Penn and Teller fan, will have at some point or other seen one of the many, many performers who constitute the dreadful 90% I mentioned earlier. And here is the issue: when they 13

see a bad film or hear an awful song, they don’t dismiss all film or music, rather they recognise that they simply don’t like that particular film or actor, song or band. Although the percentage of bad music out there, either in terms of the fact you don’t personally like it or that it really is just crap is very likely also at the 90% level, the fact that music is hugely more popular than magic means that even the most casual of listener still has dozens if not hundreds of singers and bands that they are fans of and will spend money on buying their records (downloads, natch) or concert tickets. By contrast, they simply never get chance to see enough magic, good and bad, to realise that there is the same ratio of good to bad as with everything else and then decide that these are the magicians they like. There are of course many, many reasons why magic is less popular than music or film, despite the fact that ultimately it can be the most beautiful, resonant and life-affirming thing in the hands of an expert. Those reasons are an essay for another chapter.

The Solution (For Magic AND Mentalism) For now I am far more concerned with how to rectify this state of affairs, this ignorance of the general public about the variety, excellence and astonishing entertainment that the incredible 10% of magicians can offer. And the solution is simple: be brilliant. Let’s convert those poor ignorant bastards, one astonished, wonderstruck person at a time if we need to! If we challenge ourselves to always be brilliant, then we will find converts everywhere. Who doesn’t want to feel amazed at witnessing – or better yet, being involved in – something impossible? Giving someone a magical experience is so powerful and an incredible gift to give them. And this is where we should consider how and why we can weave mentalism successfully into our magical performances. In fact, not “can weave” but “must weave”! As I wrote above, my personal performance 14

goal these days is to create an overwhelming sense of wonder in people and I’m happy to use whatever material and presentations I see fit in the moment to achieve that goal. So finally we coming to the critical question: why would I possibly want to restrict myself to only a small proportion of the tools, tricks and techniques available to me, according to some industry-proscribed definition of what I should or shouldn’t perform? Why would I? Why would you? To keep other mentalists happy? To keep your performance ‘pure’? In order to stick to some out-dated definition of what ‘mentalism’ is? A definition that what assigned by others, based on arbitrary opinion! Or, perhaps because it seems more real? Ah, now we’re getting somewhere. Maybe you want your audience to believe, for the duration of your show at least, that what you are doing may just be real. We assume that that cannot happen with magic for any audiences over a certain age (usually between 6 and 10 years old, depending on the child) because adults know that magic isn’t real. In fact, in Volume 1 of this series didn’t I quote Alain Nu: “Magic focuses heavily on what is impossible, whereas mentalism, in contrast, focuses heavily on what is possible. So, just a slight shift in perspective changes the experience.” Indeed I did. But through my continued studies of magic both through theoretical, philosophical and artistic exploration and, equally as importantly, as a practical, wonder-led performance I have come to realise that Alain’s viewpoint does not need to inform my performance as a whole as I once thought. Rather, it can be applied (or rejected) on a trick-by-trick level. Further, I have spent the last few years exploring the boundaries of how far we can push a presentation in order to make a magic trick seem like what we would usually define as mentalism. And I have discovered that there is no boundary. You know why? Because when I am performing, for my audience, I say what goes. I define it in any way I decide, and 15

inform that decision with whatever I want them to believe. As you read this chapter right now, I know that you are almost certainly convinced that I am wrong. So in the next chapter let me share with you some of the discoveries that make me hope that I am right.

* I no longer believe that “we are all just swindlers”. See Revelation #2 in the following chapter.

16

Mentalism revealed The Three Revelations So what exactly have I ‘discovered’? I long ago realised that for me, performing magic is like a patchwork coat. Very often when some of the old patches (theories and beliefs) wear out, I realise that I can replace them with exactly the same ones and the coat will still be beautiful. But other times, I realise that as I grow older some things don’t suit me as much anymore and so as some patches wear out I need to replace them with new ones. It’s still my coat, and most of it is exactly the same as it has always been, but over a period of time much has changed too. The main thing is it still fits perfectly for who I am right now. Oh, and it has no holes in it. 17

I have always enjoyed studying the theoretical aspects of magic and indeed, performance theory in general. Over the last 25 years I have studied Wonder, Tamariz, Ascanio, Riese, Schneider, Kurtz, Neale, Burger, Hass, Ortiz, Carney, Swiss, Close, Teller, Stone, Brown and many others. All have been tailors of my coat, a few to a major degree, many less so, but most have still placed a patch here or there. If you would like to read some enlightening essays on magic theory then I highly recommend an eBook that Andi and Josh at Vanishing Inc. offer for free here: https://www.vanishingincmagic.co.uk/magic-downloads/ebooks/magicin-mind/ There are a couple of quotes from that eBook that perfectly elucidate a major part of my approach to performing: Charles Reynolds (on page 31): “The true magical experience should be more about wonder than about wondering (a distinction pointed out to me by sociologist Marcello Truzzi).” Jamy Ian Swiss along similar lines (on page 64): “I am disinterested in wonder that stems from the experience of not knowing. For me, wonder stems from awareness and knowledge and insight. That is a genuine, adult sense of wonder. For a magician, no matter how one defines the experience of magic, one uses magic as a tool: an instrument, a voice, a channel, a means of communication. If there is nothing to communicate beyond its most menial definition—-”I can fool you”—-it quickly grows tiresome. Who, after all, craves such an experience?” But to fully immerse you in my performance philosophies, I’m going to discuss three completely separate yet entirely complementary sources: 1. Michael Weber on stories 2. Benjamin Earl on real magic 18

3. Andy from the jerx.com (oh how I’m tempted to use his real name here!) on performance styles and defining an approach.

Weber & Stories In the Our Magic film (Paul Wilson and the Art of Magic) Weber says this: “Magic, maybe at its highest and best is just another form of storytelling and a fundamental truth, I believe, of storytelling, is that whoever tells the best story wins.” Over the last decade I have come to agree with that completely. At its best, every magic performance is an interactive story. The next chapter will discuss my thoughts and experience of this in much more detail. Once one understands that the performance of every trick is a story, it is truly liberating. And please be clear: it is not the trick that is the story, it is the performance of that trick. Feel free to jump ahead to the ‘Stories’ chapter and come back when you’ve read that.

Earl & Reality The next revelation was in Ben Earl’s work. I highly recommend that you read his This Is Not A Box booklet, available here: https://www.benjaminearl.com/product-page/this-is-not-a-box In that booklet he explores the use of honesty and truth within the performance of magic effects. It is revolutionary. In part, he says: “What do you say when someone seriously asks you how you made something appear or disappear? How you read someone’s mind? If magic is real? Is it just a trick? How you do what you do? Are you stuck for something to say? Do you hide behind false explanations that you think sound more impressive or respectable? Perhaps there are new ways of thinking about these questions that you haven’t considered; a 19

paradigm shift which allows you to recalibrate and reimagine what you are doing by embracing reality and honesty. If asked, most magicians would probably say that magic doesn’t exist; therefore most of what they are doing might feel like they are faking having powers to create something that isn’t real. Well, I am saying that magic does exist; it exists within the mind of the observer and you make it happen through a variety of real skills. Magic doesn’t exist by suspending the laws of physics; it exists as a dimension of experience under the guidance of a skilled practitioner. This is what makes magic so incredible: humans have developed a performance art which uses rational principles and real skills to create the experience of something magical, something impossible. A magician is someone who can exploit the fundamental principles of the way human beings relate to and understand the world, for artistic purposes; by using human creativity, ingenuity and skill it’s possible to deceive the most powerful ‘thinking machine’ ever created, causing it to question reality! This is profound because it is real!” Think about that for a moment. Let it sink in. What a paradigm shift, not only in how we portray our performance, but also in our genuine personal opinion of it. If you’d like to read a larger portion of this particular essay whilst waiting for the full booklet to arrive in the post, Ben has kindly made it available on his blog: https://www.benjaminearl.com/the-shift/real-magic

The Jerx and Performance Style If you’re unaware of the Jerx, then prepare to have a very busy (and mind-blowing) month! You can start at the beginning of his blog here: 20

http://www.thejerx.com/ But for the purposes of our discussion, I’m focusing on several of the ideas defined and explained here: http://www.thejerx.com/blog/2017/5/5/the-jerx-glossary One of the main tenets of Andy’s approach to magic is that because he is solely an amateur (in the truest sense of the word) performer, then he is unconcerned with the needs and requirements of a professional performer on almost every level. A quick dig around on the blog and you will see that any constraints of time (either to set-up or perform a trick), practicality, repeatability, decorum, style, script, theme or content are gone. Every option is available. He is focused on audience-centric magic; performing magic in a way that shifts the focus of the effect off you and your skills and onto the spectator and their experience. Of particular interest are his Performance Styles: 1. Distracted Artist - A Performance Style where magic happens on the offbeat, as if it is happening unintentionally. 2. Engagement Ceremony - A Performance Style for process heavy tricks that focuses on the process itself. Instead of trying to hide the process, you highlight it by giving it a name and a history and a supposed purpose. 3. Peek Backstage - A Performance Style where you present an effect as "an effect you're working on" and one which you're actively looking for your spectator's input. 4. Romantic Adventure - A Performance Style based on the concept of immersive magic. It's a performance style you must build up to with people. They must have faith that if they surrender themselves to the experience they're going to have a good time, they're going to see something they've never seen before, and you'll look out for them and not do anything that's going to put them in a dangerous or awkward situation. 21

I have been using the ‘Peek Backstage’ approach for many years, and I know that whilst myself and others have already been using some of the things Andy writes about for a long time, now having them classified, catalogued and expanded upon in such an organised and scholarly way serves to give us a language to discuss them more easily as well as an appreciation of our entertaining and pioneering guide who is leading the way. I am a huge fan and supporter of the site and Andy’s work and as well as reading, or rather studying his blog, I encourage you to also have a look at subscribing to the site and in doing so get his next book. By the very nature of his stated goals, one of the things Andy has never done is spend any time looking at how his theories, techniques and material can be performed by someone who is a professional magician. The first three of his Performance Styles listed above are perfect for the adventurous professional performer. And as you will see as you explore the blog in depth, there is also a massive amount of killer, innovative and incredibly memorable tricks just waiting to be performed. The combination of Andy’s aesthetics, material and techniques, the realization that all performance is really a form of storytelling and Ben’s insight that we don’t need to lie about what we say we are doing because we really are doing something magical have all combined to convince me that any notions that magic and mentalism are separate things are not only foolish, they are entirely irrelevant. All that anyone who sees you or I perform cares about is that we engage them in an experience that is wonder-full and leaves them with a sense of mystery. A magic trick shared through the story of performance, acknowledging that of course a part of it involved deception whilst keeping completely focused on how their involvement is both real and provides tangible proof that something totally impossible has just happened. That is better than just “doing a few tricks”, no? And certainly better than wasting any further time on definitions that are essentially meaningless anyway. 22

So there you have them, my ‘discoveries’. Not mine at all, but simply insights born of my on-going studies. Whether you agree with my conclusions or not, I urge you to spend time studying the subjects and authors discussed in this chapter. You won’t regret it.

23

Food for thought one Deep Blue was the chess program that beat Garry Kasparov (the World Chess Champion at the time) in 1997. In 2008, the program Stockfish was completed and became one of the programs that could demolish Deep Blue. The highest ranked human player in the world is the current champion, Magnus Carlson with an ELO rating of 2882. Stockfish is ranked around 3400, which no human has ever reached. Pretty scary stuff. Then on 5 December 2017 Google stepped into the ring with their AI program, Alpha Zero. 24

Alpha Zero didn't spend any time studying prior chess theory or knowledge. It taught itself chess in 4 hours before going up against Stockfish. The two programs played 100 games against each other. Alpha Zero slaughtered Stockfish. 28 Wins and 72 draws. Alpha Zero literally lost zero times against the almighty Stockfish. Whether you're into Chess or not, this is insane and Google is breaking barriers. I watched a few of the games and Alpha Zero plays like a god. Sacrifices a piece without even thinking twice, plays gambits and attacks by removing all possible options for its opponent. It was like an anaconda crushing its prey and not letting it breathe. Stockfish against Alpha Zero looked like me playing against Stockfish. What an amazing time to be alive. What an amazing time to try to convince people that we can perform the knight’s tour, create a magic square or solve a Rubik’s cube. Isn’t it…? What an amazing time to read minds. Isn’t it?

25

Introduction to Chapter 3. Both of them. In 2008 and 2009 when I was writing some of the material that would later appear in the first Mentalism Reveals book I wrote a chapter on ‘Selecting Material’. Ten years on, it is fascinating to me to see how my views and opinions have transformed as my studies of magic, mentalism, art and performance have progressed. The following chapter is printed as it stood in 2008. For various reasons it never appeared in MR1 and I always thought I’d get back to it for a subsequent volume. About half of it still accurately reflects what I think right now in 2018, and in reading the rest of this book, particularly the new Chapter 3, you will easily figure out which parts. Nevertheless, since at one point ten years ago it was all accurate for me there is a strong possibility that it will be of value to you now. You and I are almost certainly of different ages and at different point in our performing lives, outlooks and artistic sensibilities. And so the original Chapter 3 might be exactly the approach you should be taking now. One of the main differences between then and now is that I am no longer interested in performing a standard ‘show’, i.e. a one-hour stage mentalism show or a two-hour strolling mentalism set. But I realise that one of those two options is exactly what many mentalists are most interested in and so I think that looking at my initial filtration system for finding new material will be very useful. The new Chapter 3 which discusses stories and how they now form the basis of my filtration system in selecting material follows immediately after. And please bear in mind that the old Chapter 3 purposely remains unfinished.

26

Selecting Material One of the toughest things to do when developing an act or show is to decide on material. And by material, yes, I’m talking about tricks. I know it isn’t fashionable or cool to call what we do ‘tricks’, but that is what they are. They are not ‘effects’ – the effect is just one part of a trick, with the other parts being method and (hopefully) presentation. Neither are they ‘routines’ – a routine is simply a series of tricks arranged in a thematically congruent order. If you perform mentalism, what you perform are not ‘experiments’ or ‘tests’; both of those are merely presentational constructs. No, they are tricks, whether we like it or not. In explaining how I decide which tricks to add to my repertoire, I will offer lots of questions which effectively form my filtration system. The 27

judgements I make are personal ones and may or may not work for you, but nevertheless I am confident that you will find that the criteria I use are universal and by asking yourself these questions it will help you to select or rejects tricks for all the right reasons. Two matters need to be addressed before we get to the filtration system itself. Firstly, what is the goal of all this? Well, for me the goal is to develop a trick (piece of material, if you like) that has a strong, fooling effect, accomplished by a convincing method and accompanied by a memorable and engaging presentation. Each of these requirements will be addressed in the questions to follow. Secondly, where do I look for these tricks? For me the search always begins in my library. Books (and reading them!) are vital to the successful development of material. (Please bear in mind that the aim of this article is to discuss how to select and develop tricks that already exist, not how to create new material from scratch. That, as they say, is a story for another day.) I read lots of magic and mentalism books, old and new. I also subscribe to magazines, buy quite a lot of the new tricks that get released and watch lots of DVDs. Why? Well, I am always interested in working on new material. You may have heard or read the following advice: “A professional performs the same tricks for different audiences, whilst an amateur performs different tricks for the same audience.” This is basically a way of trying to claim that a professional who changes his act is doing something both unnecessary and wrong. I couldn’t disagree more! Whilst there is obviously value to having a strong ‘core’ of material to build on, I am constantly working on finding and developing new material for the following reasons: I get quite a few repeat bookings and my customers don’t want to see me perform the same tricks over and over again. Unlike music, where fans love to hear the same songs again and again and familiarity breeds 28

affection, almost all good magic and mentalism contains some element of surprise and this is never served well by repetition. I get tired of performing the same material repeatedly and so adding new material helps keep my performances fresh. I am always searching for the Grail. As a creative person, I am always hoping that the next trick I work on will be better than the last. Satisfying my creative desires this way means I don’t have to take up DIY ;) I don’t believe that by always being on the lookout for great new material that I am falling into the trap that Eugene Burger calls ‘the tyranny of the new’, where every new purchase is part of the neverending quest for that one killer trick that is easy to perform, is accomplished by a brilliant, invisible and self-working method and which will make whoever performs it into a star! Rather I hope to seek out items which I can build upon, develop and finesse until they are at home in my show. Until they become mine.

The Questions The question that provides context to all others: How can I make this entertaining? The test that must be passed: What am I going to say? Theme/approach, not script. How am I going to make the trick meaningful? Story? Situationally motivated? Demonstration? Pros and cons. What emotional hook will I use to engage the audience? What is a hook? How do I use it? Do I have a great opening line? 29

Why do many of the ‘classics’ of magic and mentalism suck? Descriptive presentations. Commentary ‘patter’. Non-engaging, emphasising that they are just tricks. How? Where do I get these from?! Read, explore, analyse, visualise, compare. How do I stop the tricks just being puzzles? Puzzling vs. fooling. Problems? Dr Bill Nagler’s study. Conspiratorial, Triumphant, Distancing and Non-magic. Ultimately fooling. Alex Elmsley: Is something interesting happening? ME: Is something wonderful happening? Patter? Presentational monologue? Script? Ad-libs? Memorizing lines? Using other people’s material (with permission!)

Conclusion Remember, there are no universally right or wrong answers. But the questions still need to be asked. And you need to decide how YOU will answer them. Remember – no right or wrong. The only barometer of whether your answers work is this: does your audience experience wonder?

30

Stories “It's like everyone tells a story about themselves inside their own head. Always. All the time. That story makes you what you are. We build ourselves out of that story.” - Patrick Rothfuss

Background Over the last decade or so I have come to fully understand and appreciate the incredible power of stories and the impact they can have on the people who hear them. Previously, I had always liked the idea of telling a story with a magic- or mentalism-based ending and had thoroughly enjoyed reading the work of Gene Poinc, Punx, Christian Chelman, Brother Shadow and many others. The problem was that a lot of the pieces I read were firmly rooted in the world of bizarre magic, which from the vantage point of the savvy, cynical, digital 21st Century 31

makes them seem rather melodramatic at best and totally ridiculous at worst. Fortunately, sometime in the mid-1990s I met Jim Critchlow. His approach to telling stories, and incorporating those stories in to some kind of magic or mentalism effect felt more real and natural than anything I had previously encountered.

Clarity At around the same time I was starting to become very interested in ways to create a ‘performance’ rather than just doing a trick. Ultimately this has led me to a very specific way of performing magic and mentalism where all my material feels very real and grounded because it is all genuinely based on experiences I’ve had, people I know or subjects I’m passionately interested in. There is nothing in my repertoire that I perform simply because it’s a great trick or it gets a great reaction. Of course, both of those things are important, but they are further down the list for me than the question of why I would want to show someone this. Whatever this might be at any given moment. There is so much great magic released at this point in time (amongst the inevitable deluge of dross) that having a killer repertoire is easy. The hard part is what do you say about it? What is the story? So having enjoyed watching Jim perform and having had the pleasure of learning and using some of his creations I always kept an eye out for whatever he was working on next. In 2006-7 he was working on a story/trick that he later released as Til Death Do Us Part. It is fabulous, so of course I asked him to teach it to me and I started performing it, a lot! Jim’s trick is a more obvious example of what one might think of when hearing the phrase ‘storytelling magic’ in as much as there is a real story of events that you must tell for the trick to make any sense. That was 32

when I got really turned on to the power of a great story, and I started developing more material along those lines. It wasn’t long before I realised that in reality every magic performance is an interactive story. Or at least it should be. Once one understands that the performance of every trick is a story, it is truly liberating. So whilst I still have certain effects and routines in my repertoire that involving telling an actual story (my Shrigley trick comes to mind, and I still use Jim’s trick regularly) I am far more interested in how I can make any given trick into an interactive story during its performance.

The New Filters And so these five factors are what now what form the basis of my decision-making process about the material I choose to perform: 1. Does this material (trick/routine) feel authentic because it is genuinely based on experiences I’ve had, people I know or a subject I’m passionately interested in? 2. Is there a strong, interactive presentation that I can weave into it that will allow me to make the performance into a story? 3. How can I shift the focus of the effect off me and my skills and onto the participant and their experience? 4. How can I ensure that the performance engenders a sense of wonder and leaves the participant (and audience) with a feeling of mystery? 5. How can I make my performance into an affecting and memorable experience for the participant and/or audience? And remember, we aren’t talking about a story-story, about starcrossed lovers or a missing person and the like. We are talking about 33

the performance itself being the story. Sometimes this involves a longer, more involved script, and a multi-faceted effect. Other times the script for a trick might be not much more than a single opening line, replete with a hook that immediately engages the participant.

Opening Lines It was Eugene Burger who first turned me on to the power of a great opening line when he asked me over dinner one evening in Chicago: “Would you like to see the world’s fastest card trick? It is rarely performed.” Who could say no to that! And so began a never-ending quest to find great opening lines. “Have you ever wondered how a magician invents a trick?” is an old favourite of mine. I have a notebook full of them. Many are my own lines and plenty more belong to other people. In Scripting Magic Vol. 2 (Vanishing Inc.) Peter McCabe has whole chapter of them (‘First Lines, p181) One of my favourite secret resources is a book: Eveleyn McFarlane & James Saywell – How Far Will You Go? (Villard Books) It is subtitled, ‘Questions To Test Your Limits’ and it contains 500 thought-provoking questions. With a slight reframing, almost all of them could make for a great opening line. But remember, the presentation needs to weave into the effect and build a story that you can perform. So a question like, “Do you know what single word I hate the most?” is not going to work very well as an introduction to a poker demonstration. Or maybe it is! Prove me wrong…

34

Revelation overwhelm Ken dyne Let me tell you a story. Back in 2004, I was 20 years old and booked to perform after dinner at a teacher’s conference in a tiny little place called Berwick, near the Scottish border. My writer friend, Alex and I made the two hour drive to Berwick full of excitement, ready to try out a new routine I’d been working on for my show. 35

During the show, I asked one of the 80 or so educators to join me on stage and take a seat. Upon doing so I placed her in to a light trance, only to have her describe in detail an imaginary person she could see standing before her in her mind’s eye. I began by asking for the sex of the person she imagined, “it’s a woman,” replied the lady. “I woman, great,” I replied, “can you describe her? How is her hair?” “Black, jet black and straight. Well, in a bob”. This level of detail was fantastic. So I asked for a description of her complexion. “Pale, very pale.” Moving on from appearance to something a little deeper I enquired about how this woman with a black bob was feeling. “She is afraid. She’s terrified. Screaming!” The lady looked distressed so I asked her to gently open her eyes and re-orientate herself with the room we were in. “You described a lady with jet-black hair in a bob. Your words, not mine. She was terrified you said?” She agrees. “This is quite strange.” I said as I pulled the black cloth off a large gothicframed photograph of a woman matching this exact description, screaming in horror. The reaction was… SILENCE. 36

Then a mutter. Then people nodded. Now a couple applauded. WHAT HAPPENED? I’m sure you can imagine how deflated I was at such a reaction, and so the whole trip home, Alex and I dissected what happened - whilst eating the grubbiest sweet and sour chicken. An important lesson I learned that night, apart from the fact you don’t need to be smart to be in charge of the education of our future generations, is about how carefully we must structure revelations. Specifically, in relation to this effect, not to overload too much information on to the audience at once. To understand why the response was so far from what we expected, let’s take a theoretical look at the internal monologues of the teachers in that room. “The lady is imagining a woman with dark hair cut in to a bob. The woman is afraid. That’s creepy.”
The cloth is removed. “Wow there’s a photo there. I didn’t expect that.” “Wow it’s a picture of a woman with dark hair.” “Erm, what else did he say…erm a bob, yes a bob. Oh and she looks terrified.” “Hang on, did she say a pale complexion? Yes. She’s as white as a sheet too.” “Was that everything? Did I miss something?” 37

“Woman, dark hair, bob, pale, terrified?” “I think that’s right.” “Oh, I should applaud.” “Hang on. No-one else is applauding. Did they see something I didn’t?” “I can’t applaud in case I look stupid.” “Well okay, maybe just one, light clap. That’ll be okay.” By the time they’ve gone through this process, the drama and the energy have been zapped out of the whole routine. I see this happening in many of the routines I’ve read in books, routines which have obviously never been performed. The moment of revelation is the most important part of a routine. It is because you have a revelation to make that you even bother writing an opening and closing line. Without the payoff, there is no routine. I am obsessed with the Revelation. After all, nothing else matters to an audience. They don’t see the sneaky, clever (and often simple) method. All they see is how you reveal it. Not one for leaving you with just what not to do, here is a solution. In a couple of my routines over the years I have had multiple pieces of information revealed. What we have to do is remember that the audience may only focus on one thing at a time. So whisking a cloth off a photo with so many details that the audience has to not only match up but also remember, is going to fail. 38

We need to find a way of getting the audience to focus on just one element of the revelation at a time. One simple way I’ve done this is with the use of a scroll. The photo of the person can be rolled up and a nice ribbon tied around it. Now when you come to reveal it, you call back to the colour of the hair: “You said black hair.” At which time you un-roll the scroll a little bit to show the hair is black. “Cut in to a bob.” Unroll more to show the bottom of her hair cut in to a bob. Then pause. “You also said she was pale.” Then I’d go on to reveal perhaps a pendant around her neck, then a particular design on her shirt. This means that at every moment, you are in charge of the pace and focus of the revelation. In closing, you simply must think about your revelations. But more than that, be aware of overloading your audience with too much information at once. Instead, break it down, reveal it slowly to begin and pick up the pace. Think of it like a magic square. Only less boring.

39

Ideomotor responses Stuart nolan Or: Ideomotor Responses, Uncommon Coding, and Phenomenological Bumps I am the Magician in Residence at Pervasive Media Studio and Bristol University where I work with cognitive scientists and computer engineers. My current research is focused on new ways of exploring and using Ideomotor Responses in performance, interface and game design, and in cognitive science research. I have developed new technologies for exploring Ideomotor Responses including IdeoBird, a mindreading robot bird, and OuijaBird, a device for measuring a person’s Ideomotor 40

Quotient (ImQ). Ideomotor Responses have long been a source of sensory fascination, wonder, and enchantment. The physical experience of automaticity was a key element in divinatory practices, ecstatic experience, divine and spirit communication, dowsing, and the practice of communing with elemental forces. Victorian mind-readers popularised the theatrical use of the Ideomotor Response referring to it as Muscle Reading, Contact Mind Reading, Cumberlandism, and Hellstromism. They used the technique to locate hidden objects in a theatre or a whole city (sometimes locating an envelope containing their fee for the evening), to drive while blindfolded, and to determine what object a person was merely thinking of. It was a feature of performances with pendulums, Ouija boards, dowsing rods, and table tipping. Surrealism brought the deliberate use of Ideomotor Responses into writing and art practice and made automaticity central to its philosophy. With the popularity of concepts of the subconscious and unconscious mind the communication sought through these practice was now focused on internal rather than external forces. Common Coding Theory is a contemporary cognitive psychology theory describing how perceptual representations (e.g. of things we can see and hear) and motor representations (e.g. of hand actions) are linked. The theory claims that there is a shared representation (a common code) for both perception and action. More importantly, seeing an event or imagining an event activates the action associated with that event, and performing an action activates the associated perceptual event. Common Coding Theory suggests that that the same neurological and motor processes will deal with Doing Something, Thinking About Doing That Thing, and Watching Someone Else Do That Thing. You will consequently get the same physical response in each of these instances. This is seen quite clearly in sport and pornography. 41

Let's talk about sport. When a tennis player sits still and just imagines taking a serve they trigger small muscle movement and we find that they can become better at serving through clear visualisation. This is not just because they are activating Mirror Neurons in the brain but also because they are activating the Ideomotor System and physically learning the serve. It is an all-body act. It is an example of Embodied Cognition. When a tennis player watches a video of himself or herself taking a serve they will also engage these muscle responses and become more practiced. If we watch an action, Common Coding kicks in and our whole body reacts as though it is directly experiencing that action. This reaction is a key part of how we learn. The cognitive scientist and philosopher Alva Noe says that consciousness that is, “More like a dance than digestion." He suggests that our whole body is necessary for consciousness. We find that the things we see and the objects that we hold become part of that enactive process. Once you accept that the tip of your tennis racquet is a part of your consciousness then things get big, and messy, and weird, and magical-seeming pretty quick. It is the magical feelings around the Ideomotor Response that my research explores. I have developed a new theory for how we experience certain kinds of magic effect by applying Common Coding Theory to what happens when we watch something that becomes impossible. When we watch a visual magic effect certain neurological and motor actions associated with the event are triggered - our bodies, on some level, are resonating with the actions of the magician. This happens until the moment that something impossible is done. At that moment our bodies cannot resonate any longer, Common Coding can find no common ground, what we feel is Uncommon both because there is no Common Coding and because it feels deeply strange. We often feel a 42

physical reaction to this moment. Audiences gasp, jump, back away, and feel the ground shift beneath them. I call this moment when Common Coding becomes Uncommon a Phenomenological Bump. I feel this Uncommon Coding Theory goes some way to explaining why we get such a visceral reaction to certain kinds of visual magic effects.

43

ESP phone home Stuart nolan This is the opener I often use for a show or workshop that is both long, by which I mean greater than 30mins, and intimate. I’ll also use it as part of a short intimate show followed by one or two other routines. ESP Phone Home acts an icebreaker that introduces the theme of Ideomotor Responses and also gets the audience to understand that it will be them rather than me doing the “magic”. I begin by shaking hands with someone in the audience. I then fistbump the next person along. I high-five the next person. I do a thumbs44

up to another person. I blow a kiss to someone else. Then I do the “phone me” gesture to another person. What I’m doing here is making friends in a gentle and slightly daft way. I’m also picking out people who appear warm, with good open expressions, and who seem willing to join in without being overly eager. I will use them later. “Have you noticed how many ways we can say hello only using our hands? And that’s just the polite greetings.” This line aims to be gently funny. It’s a way of saying hello to the audience by talking about how we say hello. This kind of meta-chat is something I do a lot. “What most distinguishes us from other animals? Many people would say our big brains but why did we evolve such big brains in the first place?” “The answer that many scientists now give is that we developed big clever brains to operate these things…” I hold up and wiggle my hands. “Our hands are amazing, flexible, complex tools. There is nothing like them in the rest of the animal kingdom for the range of grips and actions we can do with them.” “But they aren’t just tools for doing, they are tools for communication. Communication not just through gesture but through touch.” “In an experiment in the US volunteers were asked to either lie or to tell the truth to a second volunteer. The second volunteer would then try to guess if they had been lied to or not. In some experiments the volunteers were encouraged to shake hands when they met and when they parted. When the volunteers had shaken hands with each other the lie was 45

detected 38% more often. Our sensory perception is so incredible, who needs Extra Sensory Perception?” “We can sense a lot of information through a simple touch. And some people are very good at sending information in this way. I’m going to need to find a few people who have this talent so I’m going to quickly test you all.” “Please hold your right hand face-up, flat but relaxed, in front of you like you’re feeding a carrot to a horse. Remember to hold your palm flat or the horse will bite your fingers.” I like the theatrical image I get with everyone holding their hands out like they’re feeding me carrots. I’ve tried other approaches but find that if they have their hands face down it looks a little like they are all giving me Nazi salutes. Not the image I’m going for. Also, I think that mentioning fingers being bitten off by a horse is a strong, visceral way of making the audience focus on their fingers. It seems to work because some people flinch when I say it. I may use those people later as I now know they have good physical imaginations. “Now, I want you to put all of your focus onto one of your fingers. Pick one and stick with that one. Imagine that chosen finger is full of energy. Imagine that you can feel the energy making your finger hot. You can hear the energy crackling. You can see the finger glowing. You can smell the smoke from the crackling finger.” Here I’m trying to engage their imaginations in as many sensory modes as possible - smell, sound, feel, and vision. I want them to really try to imagine these things because that will bring their attention to the finger and make it stiffen. “Remember ET when he phoned home? His glowing finger growing longer. Just like that. Imagine this as clearly as you can and I’m going to test your imaginations. Try to send me the information. Try to let me 46

know which finger you are thinking of without consciously telling me. Just send the information to me through your finger.” I then walk along testing people’s fingers. I touch each of their fingers in turn. With some people it will be obvious which finger they’re thinking of as it will be much stiffer. You are looking for a difference in feeling. Some people will laugh because their thought-of-finger will visually tremble. Have fun and don’t rush this bit. Just touch the finger you think is correct and say, “This one?” And nod. They will generally reply with a nod or a shake of the head. The rest of the audience won’t really know if you are getting them right or wrong because, if you have instructed them correctly, they will be focusing on their own finger. This is a great way to practice sensing Ideomotor Responses in other people because it doesn’t matter too much if you are correct in your guessing. Remember, this isn’t a demonstration of your skill; you are testing their ability. The key is to be confident and to act confidently. You are genuinely looking for people who are good at activating their Ideomotor Response but you are also looking for good volunteers as well. When you get it right you should praise them. “Very strong!” “Great sender!” “Wow. Clear as a bell.” If you genuinely don’t have a clue which finger they are thinking of here is a tactic to use. People generally choose the second finger and ring finger more than the index finger and pinkie. Eliminate the index finger and pinkie saying, “It’s not this one or this one is it?” If you are right then you are now down to two fingers. Take a guess. If you are wrong claim a near miss by saying, “Nearly! Interesting, you’re a tricky one.” So everything is structured so that people can’t fail. They are either “good senders” or “interesting and tricky”. Either way, what you say is delivered as a compliment.

47

Now just pick the volunteers you want and carry on with the show. I tend to go into my Seven Keys to Baldpate routine next. I’m sure you can see how you can use people who are “good at sending information by touch” in a variety of entertaining ways. I hope you don’t ignore this routine because there it has no big magicstyle effect. What the audience should experience is a strange feeling of focus. A taster that helps them to understand the rest of the show. It is about slowly taking them to a mental place where they will feel as well as see what is happening to the participants on the stage in later routines. I will often refer back to this in the later routines to help the audience physically imagine what the onstage participant is experiencing.

48

Food for thought two Richard Slater muses: If I could read minds… 1. I would be a busy boy indeed. 2. I would find my first love and find out once and for all whether she loved me, then convince her through the power of suggestion, that knowing me was a bad idea, thus not starting the whole dance macabre in the first place. 3. I would close my eyes and attempt to figure out my mind.

49

4. I’m certain I would experience psychosis, or some other displacement of stability. 5. I wouldn’t. 6. I would find the queen of England and see if she really eats babies. 7. I would find the head of N.A.S.A and deduce whether we have not been to the Moon since 1972. 8. I would find the head of N.A.S.A and deduce whether we went to the moon at all. 9. I would seek out anybody with the Midas touch and **** their mind. 10. I would learn how to control who I looked into. 11. I would avoid large groups of people. 12. I would become a solitary recluse. 13. I would look at my cat and discover the secrets of his indifference. 14. I would get drunk. 15. I would wish for sleep. 16. I might chat up a random beautiful woman and discover the flavours of her heart. 17. I might cry and scream into the wind. 18. I would become a confidence trickster. 19. I might try my hand at sales. 50

20. I might be interested in the economy. 21. I would learn how to switch off the ability and forget I ever looked into the dirty mind of another human being. 22. I might become more perverted.

51

Sgriob Or, more accurately: Sgriob / 901165

Effect The performer proposes a demonstration of the power of linguistic influence. He introduces a list of 25 handy words that don’t exist in English. The words are useful, interesting and amusing. A participant chooses one and the performer shows that he had no choice whatsoever.

The 25 Words 1 Age-otori (Japanese): To look worse after a haircut. 52

2 Arigata-meiwaku (Japanese): An act someone does for you that you didn’t want to have them do and tried to avoid having them do, but they went ahead anyway, determined to do you a favour, and then things went wrong and caused you a lot of trouble, yet in the end social conventions required you to express gratitude. 3 Backpfeifengesicht (German): A face badly in need of a fist. 4 Bakku-shan (Japanese): A beautiful girl… as long as she’s being viewed from behind. 5 Desenrascanço (Portuguese): “to disentangle” yourself out of a bad situation. 6 Duende (Spanish): a climactic show of spirit in a performance or work of art, which might be fulfilled in flamenco dancing, or bull-fighting, etc. 7 Forelsket (Norwegian): The euphoria you experience when you are first falling in love. 8 Gigil (pronounced Gheegle; Filipino): The urge to pinch or squeeze something that is unbearably cute. 9 Guanxi (Mandarin): in traditional Chinese society, you would build up good guanxi by giving gifts to people, taking them to dinner, or doing them a favour, but you can also use up your gianxi by asking for a favour to be repaid. 10 Ilunga (Tshiluba, Congo): A person who is ready to forgive any abuse for the first time, to tolerate it a second time, but never a third time. 11 L’esprit de l’escalier (French): usually translated as “staircase wit,” is the act of thinking of a clever comeback when it is too late to deliver it. 12 Litost (Czech): a state of torment created by the sudden sight of one’s own misery. 53

13 Mamihlapinatapai (Yaghan): A look between two people that suggests an unspoken, shared desire. 14 Manja (Malay): “to pamper”, it describes gooey, childlike and coquettish behavior by women designed to elicit sympathy or pampering by men. “His girlfriend is a damn manja. Hearing her speak can cause diabetes.” 15 Meraki (pronounced may-rah-kee; Greek): Doing something with soul, creativity, or love. It’s when you put something of yourself into what you’re doing. 16 Nunchi (Korean): the subtle art of listening and gauging another’s mood. In Western culture, nunchi could be described as the concept of emotional intelligence. Knowing what to say or do, or what not to say or do, in a given situation. A socially clumsy person can be described as ‘nunchi eoptta’, meaning “absent of nunchi”. 17 Pena ajena (Mexican Spanish): The embarrassment you feel watching someone else’s humiliation. 18 Pochemuchka (Russian): a person who asks a lot of questions. 19 Schadenfreude (German): the pleasure derived from someone else’s pain. 20 Sgriob (Gaelic): The itchiness that overcomes the upper lip just before taking a sip of whisky. 21 Taarradhin (Arabic): implies a happy solution for everyone, or “I win. You win.” It’s a way of reconciling without anyone losing face. Arabic has no word for “compromise,” in the sense of reaching an arrangement via struggle and disagreement. 22 Tatemae and Honne (Japanese): What you pretend to believe and what you actually believe, respectively. 54

23 Tingo (Pascuense language of Easter Island): to borrow objects one by one from a neighbor’s house until there is nothing left. 24 Waldeinsamkeit (German): The feeling of being alone in the woods. 25 Yoko meshi (Japanese): literally ‘a meal eaten sideways,’ referring to the peculiar stress induced by speaking a foreign language.

Preparation So that you don’t have to remember the words or carry a list, I have put them online on the website of a project that I am involved with: http://sobadsogood.com/2012/04/29/25-words-that-simply-dont-existin-english/ You need to buy ‘Cryptext 2.0 Pro’ by Haim Goldberg. It is a brilliant mentalism tool/reveal and is perfect for this effect. You can buy it here: http://haimgoldenberg.com/cryptext2.html You then need to use Cryptext to learn how to write the word Sgriob so that when you show it the other way up it looks like the numbers 901165 Finally you need to buy and install an app called Cipher from Ellusionist. It has a wonderful version of the TOXIC calculator force built in. You can get Cipher here: https://www.ellusionist.com/cipher.html Once you have the app installed, set it up to force the number 901165. One of the things that makes Cipher so superior to the standard TOXIC force is that the participant can clear out the calculator and hit equals 55

several times (if you so choose) before arriving at the force total. It also does some other very cool things, but they aren’t used in this effect. This allows you to perform a really powerful piece of mentalism that I am very proud of, as everything just fits together beautifully in a way that so rarely happens methodologically. I looked for a way to make this work so cleanly for a long time before finding Sgriob / 901165. Finally, you need to carry a Sharpie or other marker pen.

Performance This is a very easy and direct effect to perform. Introduce the effect by talking about various projects that you have written for over the last few years and then mentioning that one of your favourites is a simple, fun thing that you did for a website that you are involved with (you can tell them that it is you rather than me, as there is no name attributed to that article on the site) and then invite someone to look it up online. Then take a bunch of business cards, beermats, napkins or torn pieces of paper and get someone else, or several people to write out the 25 words. As the words are being written and collected, keep them writing side-up wand manoeuvre the card or paper that says Sgriob on to it fourth from the bottom of the pile. Start them writing the words from the bottom of the webpage and scrolling upwards, so that Sgriob is the sixth word they write. Getting it to fourth from the bottom of the pile is easily done since no one has any idea what’s about to happen and everything is very casual at this point. Then keep the bottom four papers in place as you freely mix the top few as soon as you have about 12 papers, and then mixing the top 20 papers once you have a full pile. Since they are seeing a bunch of different words coming to the top of the pile it looks very clean and as if the whole packet is being thoroughly shuffled. Place them on the table, still writing side up. You won’t touch them 56

again, although there is no need to say so. Better if later they misremember that after they wrote them you didn’t touch them at all. Have whoever opened up the website on their phone or tablet close it down. Tell them that one of the words is your favourite and that you will write it down and see if one of the participants can use their intuition to discover which one. Ask if any of the participants has an interest in numerology, if they do so much the better! Without letting anyone see, write Sgriob in bold letters on the back of a business card and place it writing side down in front of you. Pass your phone to the participant. Open the (Cipher) calculator on your phone and have someone type in a three digit number, followed by the X (multiplication) symbol, then a two digit number, the X symbol again, then another three digit number, then the ÷ (division) symbol, a final two digit number and then the equals (=) key. They will of course end up with 901165. Ask them to mentally add the 9 + 1 + 1 + 6 + 5. Make sure that they get 22. Ask if they want to stick with 22, or use the principles of numerology and add the two 2s to get 4. Whichever they decide is fine. If the stick with 22 you have them pick up the face-up pile, keep it face-up and count down to the 22nd paper/word. If they go for the 4, simply have them pick the pile up and turn it over before they count and count to the 4th paper. Either way, they end up with the force word. The great thing is that in the moment either way seems like the only natural way of doing it. If you are concerned (and you needn’t be) about the pile being turned writing side down, make a casual comment about not wanting to see any of the words yet. Once they have the word, tell them that they are about to see a tiny thing before a huge thing. Turn over the business card to show that you have the exact same word – somehow they randomly ended up on your word, despite the words being written in a random order then shuffled up and then them choosing random numbers on the calculator and then choosing (or not) some old school numerology at the end. 57

Explain that was the tiny thing, this is the huge thing. Have them read out the number that is still showing on the calculator display. Repeat what they say, but read it slightly different, saying, “So, nine hundred and one thousand, and one hundred and sixty five. A little under a million. With all the random calculations that you did, about the same odds as this happening…” Reach down and turn the Sgriob business card upside down so that they can see the number.

Final Notes This reveal is exactly the opposite to how Cryptext is usually done: the number is written or shown and then it is turned to reveal a word or name. Great if you are working at a special client’s birthday or for a big company, but not so practical for everyday use. I really like the Cryptext reveal so spent quite a while developing this effect so that I could use it a bit more regularly. After some field testing the effect turned out far stronger than I could have hoped. And finally here is the word/number printed larger so that you can see it a bit easier:

Sgriob 58

Free thinking and the need to create Richard p slater The creative process can be likened to a constantly running channel or frequency that we can tap into. It is always there and the amount of potential influence is dependent upon the person’s creative discipline. For me it is unpredictable and does not follow any given regularity. For others who find the need to create, it may follow a more direct schedule. I guess it all depends on management.

59

I have found that when I put my mind to it, writing flows at a direct pace for limited periods until it seems to run out of momentum and I either start to edit my work, or I lose focus altogether and I have to continue the work at an unspecified time and place. This sort of ‘loose’ technique has been my mainstay for several years now and I have managed to produce quite a large body of work with this kind of approach. Focus is the key and although as writers and creators we have a plethora of tools to aid our quest in creativity, there is more to distract us today than in ages past. Computers and the technology of communication, (especially mobile phones) enable the writer to create, edit, research and distribute their work in a speed that was unimagined 30 years ago. It’s never been easier for a creator to share and market their work. But with the same technology at our fingertips, it can quite easily take us away into a world of information and entertainment not necessarily concerned with your original intentions. The distracting power of the internet has caught every one of us in its illusive web. So focus is vital, lest we become pray to the flotsam and jetsam of modern society contained within the spidery beast that is modern culture. I remember years ago when the only access I had to publishing my work and general information available to help writers, was with the local library and its writers resource centre. This took the form of a small trolley made up of several trays which contained various pamphlets and magazines that the would-be writer could peruse at their leisure. I would wait in one of the aisles of the library for the allotted time of this precious information to be delivered. I distinctly remember the squeak of one of the wheels as this middle aged guy boringly pushed out the anticipated trolley. Needless to say, most of the information was not relevant to me, but I did manage to acquire some useful snippets of content, that I could put to use. The resource centre happened once a week in the early evening and I visited it regularly for around a few months but no new material appeared, so I gave up the chase. I find it amusing today, to compare the struggle I had with outside help for my writing back in the 1990s, to 60

what is available for me today, sat in my own house. It’s overwhelming to say the least. As writers, creators and content producers we are spoilt. As many teenagers are only too aware, life can be very chaotic and uncontrollable and my teenage years were no exception. But from out of this maelstrom of events and emotions, there appeared a genuine need to express and release my tumultuous inner worlds. My very first conscious efforts into writing acted as a release of pressure and exorcised my thoughts. It swiftly became a regular occurrence for me to sit down in silence and push out all the chaos onto the paper in front of me. As a consequence my early work reflects this and as I look back to my work of the period, it’s interesting to compare that with who I am now and how I write and create today. It’s almost unrecognisable, as if it was made by a different person. Today I do not rely on any strong external stimuli to get my creative juices flowing, I just write. It’s as if the writing is already there and it’s just a case of me tapping in and releasing it. Finding that early poetic flavour greatly influenced my outlook on the world. As my style developed, it began to change the way I viewed and experienced life around me. As if making a conscious decision to write, changed reality into a limitless source of material that I had some control over. A conscious decision does change reality; we are the creators of our own reality. As artists we should recognise this important factor. We are magicians. So for those early days of wild poetry, I created a life that fed my idea of how a poet should live. Inevitably I was uncontrollable and penniless for the act. I’ve realised through the years that I do not need to act the part, but to just focus my intention and the rest will follow. Many times I have had described to me that writing, like most creative pursuits, is just a hobby and that I should get a proper job. Well, this statement obviously comes from people who do not take creating seriously, or do not make attempts at being creative at all. For me, 61

writing is not a hobby if you take it seriously; no, no, no, writing is a realisation. So how can we stand out in the ever growing crowd of people who call themselves a creator (ME: or writer, mentalist or entertainer)? For me, there are too many writers who either repeat themselves or resemble other writers in style, structure and content. Like any artist who wishes to make some money with their work, compromises have to be made to sell to a greater audience. How much of their personal individual flair and integrity gets compromised is above and beyond all, down to the writer. Although I am an avid reader, I am careful that I do not absorb their style and repeat their ideas. I seem to write from a no man’s land of free thought, where there exists only my voice and I’m lucky in that respect. Sometimes music has helped with my writing, but generally I tend to sit still and sit silently. This bountiful void where I create my works from has always existed. Even before I decided to commit my thoughts to writing, I had a place where I could go to, to imagine. As a child in primary school I regularly had a yearly report where the words ‘day dreamer’ were commonly used. This continued throughout all my adult education. I can still sit happily alone and quiet and venture into the unknown. I may appear solemn or depressed to others, but I’m quite happy to appear aloof as I know that I am a free thinker. To be a free thinker is to disconnect yourself from the more common paths of thought. Those which are accepted and comfortably placed within society’s population of beliefs. This is no easy task and requires you to ignore the clatter of modern culture and its distractions. Unfortunately, belief is such an integral part of our reality. If we could discard our faiths, we may free ourselves from our self-imposed prisons. After all, a belief is something which is accepted, but not necessarily understood. When you can confidently call yourself somebody who can individuate from the core belief structures of our world, you tap into a unique 62

source that’s within all of us. For me, this is paramount for artists. Individual contributions drive art and the ability to tap into the genius of our race evolves us as a species. A society of unique and individual members is much more preferable than a cult of clones speaking the same language and producing the same results. After all, an orchestra is composed of very different instrumental sections that work together in harmony.

63

Quinnfluence Atlas brookings This routine all began about six years ago when I was playing around with The Grey Elephants in Denmark plot. Having seen that routine presented somewhere or other, I began to experiment with the principles at work. I later found Joshua Quinn's work and his thinking helped spur my thinking forward. At any rate, I liked the plot, but I thought it would be better if people could end up thinking of different scenarios and I could tell them what they were. I became fixated on the idea of being able to use three participants and have a routine that led them in such a way that one of three things happened:  All three ended up thinking the same thing (in which case, I could 64

not ask for a more compelling argument for the idea that I influenced their thoughts).  Two of the three ended up thinking of the same thing (in which case, I could point to mind control for the synchronous pair, yet consider the third participant, praise them as a truly unique thinker and non-conformist, and then read their mind and reveal their thoughts).  All three participants thought of a different thing, in which case, I could reveal three individual and unique thoughts after pointing out that each person had their own totally random starting point. This was my ideal scenario. I experimented with this idea over the years, and came up with several interesting takes on the 'Grey Elephants' plot. It was during this experimentation that I first recognized that the process of channelling a person's thoughts was also useful for finding common denominators and taking advantage of them - though that knowledge did not initially assist me in finding the path to the effect that I outlined above. For instance, I could consistently make someone think of an orange, or the colour red, but I could not create a vast array of options while simultaneously knowing which was chosen. In addition, the presentation (as you will subsequently see) often lacked an element of free will that was essential to making the performance convincing. Over time, I realized that the only way that I could accomplish the feat described above was to know where every individual was during every step of the process. I found that, while this was difficult, by employing a binary decision tree, I could maintain the illusion of free will, whilst providing a very limited number of options for my participant to work with. It was as though I ran a restaurant and offered them a menu, which, while seemingly vast, contained pages and pages of the same dishes. This presentation is one that I am very fond of. It is simple, easy, and 65

enjoyable. I usually begin by pattering about predictability, and point to previous aspects of my performance having demonstrated an ability to take advantage of predictable thought patterns and idiosyncrasies in human behaviour. I'd then suggest that in an attempt to ensure that there was nothing predictable about what followed, I'd ask my participants to think of a random number. It could be long or short, it was up to them (I'd also sometimes ask them to remember the number they chose and reveal it through pocket writing later as another reveal). The point was that they were free to choose any number they liked. This introduction also allowed me some freedom in presentation, as I alluded to predictability - this allowed a seamless transition to a subsequent 'mind control' explanation if I found it necessary. I'd then ask them to take their number and add each digit together repeatedly until they had a single digit number. For instance, 561 would equate to 5+6+1 which is 12. The number 12 would equate to 1+2, which is 3. Once they had arrived at a single digit number, I'd ask them to further alter the outcome by spelling the number in their mind. As they did this, I'd ask them to count the number of letters in their word and remember that number. I'd point out that there was no way any of this could have been predictable. They could not deny that their outcome was not down to any idiosyncrasy of human behaviour, and that the number they now held in their mind was completely and randomly selected. I then asked them to assign an alphanumeric value to their new, totally randomly generated number. I have found that when undertaking this step, it is best to say something like: 66

"For instance, 1 would equal the letter A, 2 would equal B, 3 would equal C, 4 would equal D and so on." By doing this, you convey the idea that your participants could be thinking of a vast number of letters, but in actuality, you have told each of them what letter to think of, thus ensuring that none of them lose their way on this step. The fact of the matter is that they will always arrive at C, D, or E as, when it comes to counting the number of letters in their final single digit number: Zero = 4 letters One = 3 letters Two = 3 letters Three = 5 letters Four = 4 letters Five = 4 letters Six = 3 letters Seven = 5 letters Eight = 5 letters Nine = 4 letters As you are working only with single digits, anything above nine is impossible. You will therefore be certain that your participant starts with a 3, 4, or 5 - which equates to a C, D, or E. As far as I know, this was a force that is unique to me and I've never seen it elsewhere in print. You then are able to guide them down a branching question tree to determine what they are thinking of. Not only can you determine what each of your participants is thinking, but this process allows you to follow the decision tree back to the beginning, and even reveal their 67

number through (should you so choose) pocket writing. Let's take this bit by bit. We know that our participants are now thinking of a letter. It will either be a C, D, or E. From here, we ask the first question from the table below.

Quinnfluence Think of... ... An Animal (1st Letter) ... a fruit (2nd Letter) ... a planet (3rd letter) ... a very basic colour (last letter) ... a single digit No Colour – Mars number Eight No number Yellow Orange Mercury Pluto Lemon Apple Elephant Cat E C

No Planet - Insect Ant Orange

Dog D

The above table looks complex, doesn't it? Well, I think it does too! So, to make it much easier, let's consider a few examples. We'll imagine that I ended up thinking of the letter D. The performer begins by asking me to think of an animal that begins with that letter. I think of a Dog. (I know that I could think of a duck, or a deer, or a dove, etc. but I don't because people aren't wired to think that way and the performer doesn't give me time. He says "I'm going to snap my fingers and when I do, I want you to think of an animal that starts with your 68

chosen letter - Ready? >SNAP!< See? I told you I didn't have time!) So, now I am thinking of a dog. Well, this fascinating performer then asks me to spell the chosen animal out in my mind. I do. D-O-G. He then says to think of the second letter in the animal's name and to think of a fruit that starts with that letter. Again, he says "Ready? Now!" and snaps his fingers. That's okay, because this is easy - I thought of an orange very quickly! He then tells me to spell my fruit out in my mind, so I do: O-R-A-N-G-E, no problems there. Then he asks me to think of the third letter in my fruit. This takes me a second to do, and the performer pauses almost as though he knows that it takes me an extra moment or two to work this out. I am now thinking of the letter A, and he asks me to think of a planet that starts with this letter. But I can't! He notices that I am at a loss here, and then he looks at me and says "Or if you can't think of a planet, just think of an insect that starts with that letter." It takes me a moment, but I think of 'Ant'. I wait while he finishes working with my friends, and then, one by one, he reveals what each of was thinking of - even me! You can see from both the example and the table above that each participant will begin the process entirely able to think of an animal and a fruit, before there is a split in the decision tree that allows you to identify what each participant was thinking of. In addition, the letter used for each leg of the tree is easy to remember. It begins with the first letter to find an animal, a second letter to find a fruit, a third letter to find a planet. 1-2-3, first question, second question, third question. From there forward, the last letter in each option is used. Let's look at another example: 69

Imagine that I had thought of the letter E. I will think of an elephant at the first question, a lemon (or lime) at the second question, and either Mercury or Mars at the third question. If I chose Mars, I will not be able to think of a basic colour with my last letter and I will have reached the end of the decision tree. If I had thought of Mercury, I could think of the colour 'Yellow", but not a single digit number. What is nice about this approach, is that once it has been presented, there are demonstrably alternative choices that a person could have made, but was unable to think of. For instance, the letter C could have led to 'Cow' or 'Cougar' rather than Cat. This can be pointed out to the participant. The letter A could have resulted in the selection of an 'Apricot' or an 'Avocado', but almost never will. There was a choice of planets with the letter M, and E might have yielded 'Eel', 'Elk', 'Emu', or 'Eagle'. What is delightful about this is that once you've reached the end of the decision tree with all of your participants, you can happily tell them their other choices, watching them in their bewilderment as you proffer their alternative routes to them: "Now remember, you could have chosen an Eagle here or even an Eel, but you didn't!" This fact reinforces the idea that mind control was employed, should you need to present that way. For the sake of being thorough, let's examine the final possible outcome - the choice of the letter C. C would lead to cat, from there to apple and from there on to Pluto. At this point, the last letter leads you to orange, and from there to the number eight. It is noted, but it bears emphasizing, that the number chosen should be a single digit number, and when asking for a colour, you should specify that it be a basic colour. 70

Now, if you've taken my advice and tried this with three people, you'll have one of the following three scenarios (I know, I mentioned them earlier, but they'll make more sense to you now):  All three participants ended up thinking the same thing (in which case, you have now definitively proved how easy it is to influence a person's thoughts).  Two of the three ended up thinking of the same thing (in which case, you can argue mind control for the synchronous pair, yet consider the third participant, praise them as a truly unique thinker and non-conformist, and then read their mind and reveal their thoughts).  All three participants thought of a different thing, in which case, everything was a totally random and fair selection and you can now reveal three individual and unique thoughts after pointing out how fair this all was. Again, as I mentioned earlier, this was my ideal scenario. What you choose to reveal and how much of the decision tree you reveal to each person is up to you. You may decide to indicate the first participant and tell them that they are thinking of the number eight, point to the next participant and tell them they were thinking of the planet Mars, and ask the last participant to give you a high five if they were thinking of an ant. Or you could decide to reveal each item they thought of all the way from the beginning. It is up to you to decide which approach you like best and which gets the best reaction for you in your situations. If you should choose to repeat this presentation, you'll note that the effect can be repeated with different participants by using a different force selection when arriving at the last letter. For instance, instead of asking for an insect, you could ask for a part of a house (Attic), or you might ask for a pizza topping (Anchovies - full credit here to Joshua Quinn for that idea), or an instrument (Accordion). Or, rather than ask for a single digit number, you may ask for a gemstone (Emerald - again, thanks to Joshua Quinn). As you will see, there are numerous ways to 71

present the final thought so that the outcome appears different upon repetition of the effect. Should you choose to repeat the effect, alter the outcome and reveal the final word only each time you perform, rather than the entire decision tree employed. I mentioned earlier that another nice touch is to casually ask one participant what their original number was. It is the simplest thing to pocket write that number and reveal it after a time delay at a moment of your choosing. For the sake of being complete, I've included the question list for this decision tree. Again, you will note that for each of the different points of origin (C, D, and E), the questions begin the same but split at certain points, allowing you to determine (through their hesitation) what questions to ask your participant to allow you to determine which letter they chose and what they are thinking. C Think of an animal that starts with your letter: Cat Focus on the second letter in the name of the animal you have chosen and think of a fruit that starts with that letter: Apple Focus on the third letter of the fruit you chose, and think of a planet that starts with that letter: Pluto Think of the last letter in the planet you chose and think of a BASIC colour that starts with that letter: 72

Orange Think of the last letter of the colour you chose, and think of a single digit number that starts with that letter: Eight D Think of an animal that starts with your letter: Dog Focus on the second letter in the name of the animal you have chosen and think of a fruit that starts with that letter: Orange Focus on the third letter of the fruit you chose, and think of a planet that starts with that letter: No Answer Or, if you can't think of one, can you think of an insect that starts with that letter? Ant E Think of an animal that starts with your letter: Elephant Focus on the second letter in the name of the animal you have chosen and think of a fruit that starts with that letter: 73

Lemon or Lime (the choice is immaterial) Focus on the third letter of the fruit you chose, and think of a planet that starts with that letter: Mars or Mercury Think of the last letter in the planet you chose and think of a BASIC colour that starts with that letter: Yellow or no answer (in which case, skip the next question as they are thinking of Mars). Think of the last letter of the colour you chose, and think of a single digit number that starts with that letter: No answer (in this case, they are thinking of the colour yellow and Mercury). It is worth mentioning that while I enjoy performing this with three people, you don't have to – you can use one person, two people, or three people. I'd recommend that you not exceed three participants though as it is harder to sell the premise as outlined earlier.

74

Effect? Affect? effect noun ETYMOLOGY: 14c as noun: French, from Latin effectus. 1. Something that is produced by an agency or cause; result; consequence. 2. A mental impression produced, as by a painting or speech. 3. An illusory phenomenon. Jon Racherbaumer used the above definitions to compare and contrast “effect” and “affect”. Word specialist, Theodore M. Bernstein, points out that “affect” means to influence, whereas “effect” means to bring about or accomplish. He wrote: “Think of the first letter of each word—the ‘a’ in ‘affect’ and the 75

‘e’ in ‘effect.’ Then think of the ‘a’ as standing for ‘alters’ (which is not a synonym for ‘affect’ but is close to the meaning) and the ‘e’ as standing for ‘execute’.” Here is a summary of Jon’s thoughts: EFFECT: A dramaturgical action procedure or sequence of events that produce an illogical, unnatural, impossible, and unexpected result. What happens is subjectively perceived in an impressionistic way because it is subject to the psychological and physiological dynamics of the brain. AFFECT: When used as a verb it refers to any technique used that evokes and influences the audience’s emotions. When used as a noun. It refers to the audience’s response itself and to the performer’s emotional response to what has apparently happened and to the audience’s emotional responses to the same phenomena. EFFECT is primarily objective. AFFECT is primarily subjective. EFFECT is about what happens. AFFECT is about what happens to the audience. EFFECT concerns what the performer does. AFFECT is about what the audience does. EFFECT and AFFECT are mutually affecting forces and states. These distinctions are a good a good start to understand a couple of dual dynamics that act and interact during magic presentations. 76

Students and creators should keep them in mind to maintain a coexpressive balance between EFFECT and AFFECT.

By Definition There are, in general, two types of magic: passive and active. The former is covered by the dictionary definition of magic as an adjective: "Possessing distinctive qualities that produce unaccountable or baffling effects". Active magic is defined as a noun: "The art that purports to control or forecast natural events, effects, or forces by invoking the supernatural". In other words, the control of mind over matter, or - more rarely - mind over mind. When you set out to create a mentalism effect, it is this form of magic you will have to define. This is best achieved by breaking the definition of magic into five key elements: Source, Technique, Range, Effect, and Cost.

Source What could allow certain people to manipulate reality at their will? Think about that for a little while as a thought experiment, free of the constraints of performance. The source of magic can be either internal or external. If internal, then magic is a function of either the body or the mind. It can flow within the very veins of the performer, or suffuse his brain. Alternatively, it may be a simple facility of the mind, like reading or doing mental arithmetic, without any tangible existence. External sources may apparently be Nature (Mother Earth), a God, a magical artefact and the like. In this case, one must draw on that source before using magic. This can be done through a specific action, such as a 77

prayer, or through a conduit, either an object or a person; depending on the nature of the source. For our purposes, internal magic is the only real option.

Technique Once in command of this power, how does the mentalist/magician release it to do his will? From mysterious chants to magic wands, through acts of intense focus and concentration, to apparent thoughtless causality. The four basic components of any technique are thought, speech, gesture and material, of which any combination can be used. Thought is what separates passive and active magic: the conscious, intentional use of the art. The performer/user may be required to simply fix in his mind that which he intends to do, or call engage in some more complex process. Thought is always a key part of active magic, if only in the form of concentration. The speech component can appear as a single word, an incantation, a song, etc. It can be said in the performer’s own language, or in an arcane language. Most of us have rejected saying anything other than standard conversation. Is this the only acceptable choice? Or have we thoughtlessly rejected a whole world of potential meaning and affect? Gestures are usually a wave of the hand, a snap of the fingers, ‘casting a shadow’ on something or a touch of the performer’s temple. Why? Why not an intricate dance. Or 24 hand-claps? Or the performer having to lie down on the floor? Or a staccato rapping of a fist on a solid surface? The material component is similarly bland. Stationery. Mind-bending, life-affirming, reality-altering effects caused to happen using pads, pens, envelopes and business cards. Is this the best we can do? 78

Aside from these four basic components, there may be a significance to time and locale. Contemporary mentalism performance has almost entirely eliminated either of these elements.

Range Can you, without a thought, read the minds of a whole city halfway around the world? Not likely. Deciding on range restrictions helps making the magic more acceptable. What about one person in a remote location? Must the person be within touching distance? Or do you need to look in their eyes? Why would your mind be restricted in this way?

Effect What can magic do? Basically, everything! Magic should be a raw, flexible power, and the options are limitless. Or should be. Sadly, no one has told the magicians. What can mentalism do? Well, as discussed previously, mentalism is simply magic involving the mind. So again, everything. Context, framing and presentation will provide a way to perform almost any magic effect in a way that affects the audience as if it is not a trick. A simple example: my long-time walkaround mentalism opener was Arthur Setterington’s ‘Rubber Band Penetration’ (popularized by Michael Ammar as ‘Crazy Man’s Handcuffs’). It’s hard to think of a more ‘eye candy’ trick. My presentation makes it not a trick. I begin by asking a participant, “Have you ever been hypnotised?” Whatever they reply, I continue, “Don’t worry, I am not about to hypnotise you! But since the very first moment I started speaking, my words, tone, pace and body language have been programming you to 79

be in a highly suggestible state. And now that you are in this state, I am about to show you an optical illusion which you will believe is totally real. In fact, you will swear that you actually see something completely impossible happen! Even though I am telling you upfront that what I am about to show you is definitely not real – indeed it’s physically impossible – in your heightened state you will 100% see it…” I then perform my personal handling of the Setterington routine. But instead of it being a trick where they want (or need) to try and work out how it is done, they instead revel in that fact that they are somehow seeing something that simply cannot be physically possible. They get excited! My role is that of someone sharing an incredible, impossible visual experience, something that I am only able to facilitate for them due to the inconceivable power of their brain. At the conclusion this leads easily to a conversation about the nature of reality, belief and how we see the world around us. I need to sit down for a minute though whilst we chat, as making this illusion happen for them takes it out of me a bit. Why? Read on…

Cost Perhaps one of the most important yet almost entirely overlooked elements of magic is the cost of using it. It's one of nature's basic rules: for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction; for every power, there is an equal weakness. The price of a magic performance could be paid in many forms, from tiredness and temporarily helplessness to on-going illness. The cost may be one-time or cumulative, or both. It could drain the performer’s stamina, mental ability or health; it can cause him headaches or nausea. It could prematurely age him. The price paid for the use of magic usually correlates with the magnitude of the desired magical effects. The grander the magic, the more it would cost. This allows for powerful magic to exist without 80

disrupting balance. It may be a bad idea for a performer to vanish the Eiffel Tower with a snap of his fingers, but much more acceptable if he'd sacrificed for it, say, a year of his life. But we never consider this. The laws of thermodynamics are as nothing to a group of gods. Albeit ones who do card tricks or can tell someone (eventually) their star-sign. So to perform any piece of mentalism there are three questions that must be defined and answered before the performance can possibly hope to have maximum impact: 1. What is the effect? Or: what do I want them to see. 2. What is the affect I want this piece to have on the participant and/or audience? Or, what do I want them to feel. 3. In performing this piece, how does it affect me? Or, what does it cost me to accomplish this.

81

Food for thought three Roald Dahl’s 10 quotes: “If a person has ugly thoughts, it begins to show on the face. And when that person has ugly thoughts every day, every week, every year, the face gets uglier and uglier until it gets so ugly you can hardly bear to look at it. “A person who has good thoughts cannot ever be ugly. You can have a wonky nose and a crooked mouth and a double chin and stick-out teeth, but if you have good thoughts they will shine out of your face like sunbeams and you will always look lovely.” - The Twits 82

“Never do anything by halves if you want to get away with it. Be outrageous. Go the whole hog. Make sure everything you do it so completely crazy it’s unbelievable.” - Matilda “A little nonsense, now and then, is relished by the wisest men.” - Charlie and the Chocolate Factory “I understand what you’re saying, and your comments are valuable, but I’m gonna ignore your advice.” - Fantastic Mr Fox “Most of the really exciting things we do in our lives scare us to death. They wouldn’t be exciting if they didn’t.” - Danny, The Champion of the World If I were a headmaster I would get rid of the history teacher and get a chocolate teacher instead. - Roald Dahl “The secret of life is to become very very good at somethin’ that’s very very ‘ard to do.” - The Hitch-hiker “Those who don’t believe in magic will never find it.” - The Minpins “The matter with human beans is that they is absolutely refusing to believe in anything unless they is actually seeing it right in front of their own schnozzles.” - The BFG

83

“A person is a fool to become a writer. His only compensation is absolute freedom. He has no master except his own soul, and that, I am sure, is why he does it.” - Roald Dahl

84

Paraprosdokian A paraprosdokian (from Greek "παρα-", meaning "beyond" and "προςδοκία", meaning "expectation") is a figure of speech in which the latter part of a sentence or phrase is surprising or unexpected in a way that causes the reader or listener to reframe or reinterpret the first part. It is frequently used for humorous or dramatic effect, sometimes producing an anti-climax. For this reason, it is extremely popular among comedians and satirists.

Examples in Comedy* "She got her good looks from her father, he's a plastic surgeon." — Groucho Marx "I've had a perfectly wonderful evening, but this wasn't it." — Groucho Marx 85

"One morning I shot an elephant in my pajamas. How he got in my pajamas I'll never know." — Groucho Marx "Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read." — Groucho Marx "I want to die like my father, quietly, in his sleep—not screaming and terrified like his passengers." — Bob Monkhouse "I used to do drugs. I still do, but I used to, too." — Mitch Hedberg "I haven't slept for ten days, because that would be too long." — Mitch Hedberg "I like going to the park and watching the children run and jump around, because you see, they don't know I'm using blanks." — Emo Philips "When I was 10 I beat up the school bully. His arms were in casts. That's what gave me the courage." — Emo Philips "If I could say a few words, I would be a better public speaker." — Homer Simpson "If all the girls at Vassar were laid end to end, I wouldn't be surprised." — Dorothy Parker "I don't mean to sound bitter, cold, or cruel, but I am, so that's how it comes out." — Bill Hicks "It's too bad that whole families have to be torn apart by something as simple as wild dogs." — Jack Handey And my favourite: “When I first said I wanted to be a comedian, everybody laughed. They're not laughing now.” — Bob Monkhouse 86

Examples in Magic:

Why? There are no examples of the principle being used in magic because we have been told that magic and mentalism performances need a linear structure. They don’t. One of the things that hold magic and mentalism back is that they rely too much on tradition, accepted wisdom and conventional thinking. Hence the homogeneous performers and performances that comprise most of the industry. Since magic is a performance art, obviously an actual performance is the thing that counts most. Not theory, not the creation of material, not even originality really. Artistically, we are still in the Dark Ages. One might argue that we have our Elvis, our Simon and Garfunkel, and maybe even our Beatles. We certainly have plenty easy-listening singers. But where is our punk rock? Our Sex Pistols, our Ramones, our Green Day? Our rap, our Dre, our Eminem, our Akala? Our rave, our Prodigy? Our Radiohead, our Bjork, our Massive Attack, our Mogwai? Our Prince? What about our Magritte, Warhol, Duchamp, Kapoor, Bosch, Dali, Gormley, Haring, Banksy?

87

Who is not just rocking the boat, but purposely scuttling it till everyone nearly drowns? Or actually drowns. Just to make a statement. Where is our dada, our fluxus, our cubism (actually, I think we have that one pretty much covered!) I know occasionally some magician or mentalist will do something a little bit more ‘artistic’ and then be lauded as some ground-breaking genius. But really, outside of our little bubble-world, that performer’s efforts amount to not much more than an interesting end-of-term second year art school project. “Well done. Keep it at it. Try and push on next term and make that breakthrough.” But rather than trying to be artistically brilliant and break new ground, almost everyone is content to follow the herd and just try to get on some reality TV show or other. The alternative – a truly innovative show, performance or trick – is much harder. And ultimately leads us back to the eternal creative conundrum: how do you come up with great new ideas. In previous books and lectures I have recommend Roger Von Oech’s Creative Whack pack and its related app, as well as a couple of his books. I’m very excited now though to tell you about a fantastic new tool/resource: the deck of brilliance. It was created by Juggi Ramakrishnan and Todd McCracken, and it’s a deck of digital cards where each card provides a different avenue of idea generation and exploration. You can find it here: http://deckofbrilliance.com/ I have been using it for over a year now, and I am shocked at how inspirational I have found it. The other great thing about it is that hardly anyone seems to know about it! It’s like a secret weapon. Each of the deck’s 52 main principles then has a set of diverse and illuminating 88

corollaries, all illustrated with a number of inspiring videos. I think it is easily the best ideas generator I have ever used. I genuinely hope you find it of benefit. *If you want to learn how to write some paraprosdokians of your own, I have another great book recommendation for you: Deborah Frances-White & Marsha Shandur – Off the Mic: The World's Best Stand-Up Comedians Get Serious About Comedy (Bloomsbury Methuen Drama) What is it to be a stand-up comedian? To be funny, solo? You have no character-role, no double-act partner, and nowhere to look but out into the darkness, with just a microphone, an audience and your imagination. This is a job without an annual appraisal; a job where you are publicly appraised every ten seconds. The results are harsh and obvious: if the audience isn’t laughing, you 'died; if they can’t stop, you 'killed. If you have any interest whatsoever in being funny, or funnier, then this book should be top of your list.

89

answer man Michael weber At some point most mentalists fall in love with the dream of Q & A. But is this who we are? Is this something our character could do? Here is, perhaps, a new way to think about it: Focus on the relationship between yourself and the "A" - The Answer (the audience will provide the Q's.) In real life (not the world of mentalism) all of us are qualified to answer some questions, and not as qualified to answer others. So take a moment and ask yourself, “What questions are you able to 90

answer?” There are the simple questions such as: What time is it? Where is the restroom? There are also more esoteric topics about which each of us has some specialized knowledge and personal experience as well. Do you know about Movies? Do you know about Computers? Do you know about Politics? Do you know about Business Valuation? Do you know about Cooking? Do you know a lot of Jokes? Do your friends come to you for life advice? Do people trust your romantic advice? Spend a little time figuring out what you really have the "A's" for. For example, consider my friend Randy, who is an expert in the field of Business Valuation (sounds like it might be dry for a show topic, but stay with me for a moment...) I know that Randy can talk with great authority about what he REALLY does for a living. He can share answers in the field he truly knows about. 91

Now let’s build a Q & A structure around this – Randy could begin by speaking a bit about his experience in the field - and that while his success is based largely on study, hard work and skill, others in the field tell him he has a special "gift" for knowing and seeing things in a way other professionals do not. Tonight he is going to share a small example of his "gift". “Please understand that it is neither ethical nor wise to give specific financial advice based on "intuition" alone, so tonight’s answers are just for fun. All of you are invited to ask a question in writing. A question about money, wealth, finance or business, but each of you will do so anonymously. I will try to capture a few of your thoughts and tell you what my "inner voice" tells me. Keep in mind that many of you may have similar questions, so I caution you not to assume that any answer that sounds like it could yours is actually intended for you. And the way I look at it, tonight is not really about the answers at all. Tonight is about discovering how fascinating our questions can be." Imagine the effect for the audience Randy could easily do a "Hurling the Headlines" type presentation by delivering well-crafted answers to people's Top 10 money questions. Just read a newspaper or look at the covers of financial magazines and you know what everyone is thinking, wondering and worrying about in almost any field. I’d wager that Randy could come up with three big but simple things (obvious ideas that everyone knows but no one follows) which anyone and everyone could do to make their financial life a little better (pay a bit more on your mortgage every month to pay down the principal more 92

quickly, get rid of your credit card debt, put a little more money in savings for the next three months, quit putting off writing or updating your will, etc.) ideas that could help anyone and hurt no one. Now add responses to two specific "peeked" questions to the mix and use them in place of two of the most closely related prepared answers. You can hit two folks dead-on and almost everyone else in the room will believe that some of the "insight" you are sharing is intended specifically for them. This is a character-driven approach which will only work when a person tailors it to himself and his actual abilities and knowledge. If Randy puts this together and performs it two dozen times, it is his, and no one will be able to take it or get close to having it fit them at all.

93

Some books The writer Umberto Eco belongs to that small class of scholars who are encyclopaedic, insightful, and non-dull. He is the owner of a large personal library (containing thirty thousand books), and separates visitors into two categories: those who react with “Wow! Signore professore dottore Eco, what a library you have! How many of these books have you read?” and the others — a very small minority — who get the point that a private library is not an ego-boosting appendage but a research tool. Read books are far less valuable than unread ones. The library should contain as much of what you do not know as your financial means, mortgage rates, and the currently tight real-estate market allows you to put there. You will accumulate more knowledge and more books as you grow older, and the growing number of unread books on the shelves will look at you menacingly. Indeed, the more you know, the larger the rows of unread books. Let us call this collection of unread books an antilibrary. And don’t expect the proportion of unread 94

books to fall, either. The more you read, the more the perimeter of your knowledge increases, and the more you’ll realise you don’t know. (Incidentally, Eco’s deadpan response to his visitors’ question is, “No, these are the ones I have to read by the end of the month. I keep the others in my office.”)

Recommendations So here is a list of a dozen books that I own. Some are in my library, and some are in my antilibrary. And I really think they ought to be in yours too. I am certain that reading each of them will feed the soul or intellect of anyone who aspires to “be brilliant”. I’ve included a small portion of the ad copy for each book so that you can get a flavour of their contents, as well as commenting on why I think it should be in one of your libraries.

Graham Jones – Trade of the Tricks (University of California Press) From risqué cabaret performances to engrossing after-hours shop talk, Trade of the Tricks offers an unprecedented look inside the secretive subculture of modern magicians. Entering the flourishing Paris magic scene as an apprentice, anthropologist Graham M. Jones gives a firsthand account of how magicians learn to perform their astonishing deceptions. A world away from the ‘experts’ of online forums, this book discusses some of the true secrets still hidden in the world of magic.

Christoph Niemann - Abstract City Hardcover (Abrams) In July 2008, illustrator and designer Christopher Niemann began Abstract City, a visual blog for the New York Times. His posts were inspired by the desire to recreate for his readers simple and relatable observations and stories from his own life. And in the process he casually reminds us how tragically un-creative almost all magicians and mentalist are (ME included). 95

Jonah Lehrer – Imagine: How Creativity Works (Houghton Mifflin Harcourt) Shattering the myth of muses, higher powers, even creative “types,” Jonah Lehrer demonstrates that creativity is not a single gift possessed by the lucky few. It’s a variety of distinct thought processes that we can all learn to use more effectively. If you aspire to be more creative and want to learn about the science behind your imagination (without needing a psychology degree) this is the book. Plus it’s full of great stories that could be the perfect lead-in for a killer presentation.

Michael Mangan – Performing Dark Arts: A Cultural History of Conjuring (Intellect Books) From David Blaine s death-defying feats of will to Harry Potter s boarding-school victories against evil forces, the darker side of magic and its performance clearly strikes a cultural nerve. The conjuror s act of bringing the impossible into being and summoning both the grotesque and marvellous with a sudden gesture challenges spectators assumptions of reality and fantasy. This book explores the paradox of the conjuror and the broader cultural implications of magic’s assault on human perception. How can magic and mentalism be so wonderful (to us, the practitioners) when to the larger population it is often derided and dismissed as diversion mainly suitable for children? This book examines how we have lost cultural context and what to do about it.

Beau Lotto – Deviate: The Creative Power of Transforming Your Perception (W&N) World-renowned neuroscientist Beau Lotto reveals the truths of human perception and devises a cognitive toolkit for how to succeed in a world of uncertainty. Perception is the foundation of human experience, but few of us understand how our own perception works. By revealing the startling truths about the brain and perception, Beau Lotto shows that the next big innovation is not a new technology: it is a new way of seeing. I honestly believe that one’s performance simply cannot achieve its full potential unless one has studied this book. It is 96

indispensable for anyone who truly wants to create wonder or amazement.

Adam Alter – Irresistible: The Rise of Addictive Technology (Penguin Books) Welcome to the age of behavioural addiction--an age in which half of the American population is addicted to at least one behaviour. We obsess over our emails, Instagram likes, and Facebook feeds; we binge on TV episodes and YouTube videos; we work longer hours each year; and we spend an average of three hours each day using our smartphones. Half of us would rather suffer a broken bone than a broken phone, and Millennial kids spend so much time in front of screens that they struggle to interact with real, live humans. Want to get off Facebook groups and the Café and spend the time becoming a better performer? Want to grab people’s attention so compellingly during your performance so they forget they even own a phone?! It’s all in here.

Nate Staniforth - Here Is Real Magic (Bloomsbury USA) The book follows Staniforth's evolution from an obsessed young magician to a broken wanderer and back again. It tells the story of his rediscovery of astonishment--and the importance of wonder in everyday life--during his trip to the slums of India, where he infiltrated a three-thousand-year-old clan of street magicians. Here Is Real Magic is a call to all of us--to welcome awe back into our lives, to marvel in the everyday, and to seek magic all around us. If you despair about magic and magicians you need this book. It will restore your hope that wonder is indeed worth pursuing.

Jonathan Allen & Sally O'Reilly – Magic Show (Hayward Publishing) Magic Show demonstrates how visual artists adopt the perceptionshifting tactics of the theatrical magician to explore questions of creative agency, the power of suggestion, and the fragility of belief. 97

Artists, like magicians, manipulate and mystify not simply for entertainment, but to redress fundamental relationships within the social, political or cultural realm. Looking for some artistic inspiration outside of the world of magic and mentalism? This is a great place to start your journey towards more expressive horizons.

Derek Thompson – Hit Makers: How Things Become Popular (Penguin) What makes a hit a hit? Thompson puts pop culture under the lens of science to answer the question that every business, every producer, every person looking to promote themselves and their work has asked. Drawing on ancient history and modern headlines - from vampire lore and Brahms's Lullaby to Instagram - Thompson explores the economics and psychology of why certain things become extraordinarily popular. With incisive analysis and captivating storytelling, he reveals that, though blockbuster films, Internet memes and number-one songs seem to have come out of nowhere, hits actually have a story and operate by certain rules. People gravitate towards familiar surprises: products that are bold and innovative, yet instantly comprehensible. Whether you want to be the Next Best Thing, or truly understand what to do with your marketing, this is a field guide to 21st Century success. A must read (or at least a must-own).

Richard Restak & Scott Kim The Playful Brain: The Surprising Science of How Puzzles Improve Your Mind by Richard Restak (Riverhead Books) A leading neurosurgeon and a noted puzzle designer team up to reveal the fascinating science behind how puzzles improve your brain function and creativity. It also contains a repertoire’s worth of presentational concepts.

Steven Johnson - Wonderland: How Play Made the Modern World (Riverhead Books) This lushly illustrated history of popular entertainment takes a longzoom approach, contending that the pursuit of novelty and wonder is a 98

powerful driver of world-shaping technological change. Steven Johnson argues that, throughout history, the cutting edge of innovation lies wherever people are working the hardest to keep themselves and others amused. Johnson's storytelling is just as delightful as the inventions he describes, full of surprising stops along the journey from simple concepts to complex modern systems. He introduces us to the colourful innovators of leisure: the explorers, proprietors, showmen, and artists who changed the trajectory of history with their luxurious wares, exotic meals, taverns, gambling tables, and magic shows. Ultimately this is part of what we do as mentalists – get people to play our imagination games. As well as informing one’s work with confirmation of its place in the essential role of playing, this is another book full of concepts, stories and moments that are ripe for weaving into compelling presentations.

Robert Shore – Beg, Steal and Borrow: Artists Against Originality (Laurence King Publishing) "Art is theft," Picasso once proclaimed. The wily old Spaniard was being provocative – he often equated theft to what could more benignly be called influence. But increasingly much of the best and, even, most original art involves an act or two of unequivocal, overt theft – an act of simple copy and paste. This book looks at modern-day art theft from all angles: art-historical (tracing the lineage from Duchamp to Richard Prince), legal, cultural (drawing links to literary mash-ups and musical sampling), educational (Kenneth Goldsmith's famous 'Uncreativity' classes) and, of course, in terms of current art practice. As timely as it is provocative, this book is a revelation and the parallels between art and magic could not be more obvious. When does inspiration become copying and when does copying become original?

99

Cellular telepathy Bill abbott Although Cellular Telepathy is ideal for smaller corporate audiences and house parties, a few months ago I performed this for 800 college students with video support. When performed correctly Cellular Telepathy is the routine your audience will talk about days, weeks, months and years afterwards. Here is my favourite way to perform Cellular Telepathy.

100

Effect & Presentation “Albert Einstein said, "The most beautiful experience we can have is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion that stands at the cradle of true art and true science." I would like to leave you with a beautiful experience. One final mystery. Before I took the stage this evening I approached a gentleman and asked him to go into the restroom with a deck of playing cards. Believe me; stranger things have been going on here than meets the eye! I asked him to shuffle the cards and remove one without looking at it and to stick it back into the deck upside down. He then put the deck back in the box and sealed it inside an envelope. Could the gentleman with the envelope please stand up? Thank you Steve, please hold the envelope up so we can all see. Thanks please take your seat and hold it safe a little while longer, we'll get back to you in a moment.” Addressing the audience: “Now if you have a cell phone with you, please take it out and call someone who might be available. Please call them now. If you reach someone please stand up where you are. We will use the first four or five people standing for this mystery. Once you’ve reached someone please stand and most importantly keep them on the phone!” (As people begin to stand you point to 5 different participants standing in various parts of the room.) “Okay those I've selected please remain standing, everyone else thank you and please take your seats. We'll start here, what are your name and the name of the person that’s on the phone with you? Your name is Karen and Jeff is on the phone. Okay ask Jeff to imagine an invisible deck of cards in his mind. Does he see that? Yes? Good! Now ask Jeff to turn the cards over tell us the colour of the back of those cards. Red? Great. You can say goodbye to Jeff and let him know you'll call him back to tell him what happened!” “Let's move over here, what is your name and the name of who's on the phone with you? You're Lauren and Eric is on the phone. Ask Eric to imagine that in his left hand he is holding a black ball and in his right 101

hand he is holding a red ball. Tell him to throw one ball away and keep one. Ask him which one he kept. The red ball? Perfect. Let Eric know you'll let him what happened later!” “What is your name and who's on the phone with you? Michael, and Rachelle is on the phone with you. Okay ask Rachelle to imagine she has a candy heart in her right hand and a candy diamond in her left hand. She is to eat one of them and leave one of them. Ask her which one she left. The heart? Thank you. Say goodbye to Rachelle, you can call her afterwards.” “Okay, two people left. I hope you have the free weekend air time packages on your phones! What is your name and who's on the phone with you? You're Terry and Kim is on the phone. Ask Kim to hold out a free hand high in the air or low to the ground, her choice. And what did she do? Low to the ground? Thank you and thank her. You can say goodbye to Kim.” Last but certainly not least, what is your name and the name of who is on the phone with you? Your name is Marion and Giancarlo is on with you. Okay tell Giancarlo that he is holding a poker hand of the ace, two, three, four and five of hearts. Ask him to drop four of the cards and to keep a hold of just one in his hand. What was he left with? The Three of Hearts. Thank you. Let Giancarlo know that you'll call him back.” “Steve?! You still with us? Please step forward with the envelope and verify everything I'm saying. You have been holding that sealed envelope from the beginning of the show, correct? It has been sealed and has not been open at any time during the show, correct? And you do not know which card is resting upside down in this deck of cards, correct?” (Take the sealed envelope containing the deck from Steve.) “Thank you Steve! Let's give Steve a big hand while he takes his seat.” (As you tear open the sealed envelope and remove the deck you deliver the next two lines.) “Jeff imagined an invisible deck of cards with red backs. The 102

deck sealed in this envelope... has red backs. Eric imagined throwing away a black ball and keeping the red ball. And Rachelle decided to eat the diamond and keep the heart. Karen choose to hold her hand low rather than high and finally Giancarlo imagined the low hearts as a poker hand and let all but one fall to the floor. That card was the Three of Hearts.” (Spread the cards up at chest level revealing one reversed card.) “And here we have a mystery.” (Remove the reversed Three of Hearts and turn it over dramatically.) “A beautiful mystery.”

The Method Cellular Telepathy uses Joe Berg's Ultra-Mental Deck (or Invisible Deck as it's commonly referred to) a #6 coin envelope and a Stanley Jaks ploy to create the "beautiful mystery". This is based on a Stanley Jaks ploy as detailed in his routine, One Is Face Up (More Miracles in Mentalism by Robert Nelson, 1959). The Ultra-Mental Deck was created by Joe Berg in 1934 and was based upon Sam Drelinger's Auto-Mazo Deck.

Preparation & Pre-Show Work Place the Invisible Deck into the #6 envelope and seal it closed. Approach a spectator before the show who is sitting near the front of the stage or performing area. It's important that you are clear in your instruction and dialogue with this spectator, detailed here: "Hi my name is Bill Abbott (insert your own name) and I will be doing a show in a few minutes. Now I had gentleman take this deck of cards into the restroom, shuffle it up, remove one without looking at it and turned it upside down sticking it back into the deck. He placed it back in the box and sealed it in this envelope here (display sealed envelope). Now since you’re close to the front of the stage I wondered if you could hold it for me until I say, 'Could the gentleman with the envelope please 103

stand up?' At that point you stand and I'll get the envelope from you. All I ask is that you don't open it, don't let anyone else touch it and to just verify all that when you hand it to me. Is that okay?" Give him the envelope and the preparation is complete. You are ready to perform. When you explain to the audience about the gentleman who took the deck, reversed a card, etc. and then ask the gentleman with the envelope to please stand, they will automatically assume it is one and the same person. Only the guy with the envelope knows that he is not this same person, but what he does know is that another gentleman took the deck into the restroom, reversed a card and sealed it into the envelope he is now holding. So everything will sound above-board to both the audience at large and the participant holding the deck.

In Performance Everything plays out as in the Effect & Presentation section. Feel free to come up with your own selection procedures. I use what I feel is interesting and involves the participant mentally (i.e. throw away the red or black ball, eat the heart or the diamond, reach high up or low down, let four of the five cards drop to the ground and hold onto one). You must make it clear to your audience that each decision made affects the next decision. Take my word for it; this routine is a killer that you will be rewarded with if you try it out.

104

Corporate Promotional Revelations Paul Brook This is an invaluable outline of considerations when using mentalism to promote a company at exhibitions, conferences and trade shows. At first it can seem that the world of corporate entertainment removes a lot of the art from mentalism as it often requires swifter communication and solid, fast pay-offs. However, there is definitely a skill-set involved in using mentalism in these arenas and, dare I say it, even a level of artistry. Not necessarily the artistic freedom of letting 105

loose a character creation on the world, but certainly enough creativity to keep most interested. What’s the motivation for demonstrating mentalism for companies at trade shows, exhibitions and conferences? It is two-fold. Firstly, and most obviously, the amount that a performer can charge for their time at a corporate event is many times that of a regular performance; allowing the performer to get very wealthy or work less frequently and pursue personal life goals. Secondly, and less obvious, you can genuinely help companies to connect with people who need their services, helping both parties in the process. Getting work in this field is correlated to how much value you can bring to the table. Not many companies need a mentalist. Lots of companies need the skill-set that a mentalist or performer can provide. Engaging audiences, stopping people from walking past the booth and giving people a moment of amazement linked to company information are all things that a moderately competent mentalist should be able to provide. Make sure to sell your end result, not the method of getting there. Perfect this message and talk to companies about how you can maximise their presence and impact at their next trade show, conference or exhibition. Also take a look at what ways you can incorporate the company logo, slogan, core messages, products and services into your performances. There are many, many ways to do this and they will be as varied as your imagination, but here are some thoughts to get you started. A lot of mentalism uses business cards and you may be stopping people who are walking past the booth and performing a drawing duplication using these business cards. In this instance have the company create business cards with one blank side, with the company logo and information on the reverse. If the company seems too busy to add another job to their list, then confirm with the company that you are okay to take on the role of the business card creation. Have the 106

business cards printed yourself and invoice the company for the cost plus a comfortable amount for your time; a great upsell opportunity. A regular thing to see at events such as this are giveaways, these are items that are given away in order to entice people into booths. Naturally, these items are branded so that the delegate collecting the item will remember the company at a later date, building brand recall. Marker pens and ballpoint pens are a classic example of a giveaway. When you are forcing any kind of information during your performance you can have that information included on the pen giveaway. You perform your force and then reveal that the pen has a prediction on it, or even get the person to write down their forced selection using this pen. Companies are usually very happy to have branded pens created that include your force word as it turns a very cheap and affordable giveaway into a more powerful item. It is commonly known that I don’t ever use playing cards in my mentalism performances (remember, this is Paul writing, not ME), but for those that do you can have decks of cards made where the backs show the company logo. You can perform the mentalism card effect then give the deck away as a souvenir. From my experience with other performers who do this, their fee can be doubled if they upsell organising the printing of the decks of cards as thousands will be needed. Larger and more valuable items are also given away depending on the scale of the company and their budget. Often fewer higher-priced giveaways are handed-out and are, therefore, utilised during presentations to small groups where one or two people get the giveaway. Drink containers are a popular high-end giveaway where the logo is added to flasks, reusable water bottles and travel mugs. If a force is utilised in your performance the revelation can be printed on the drink container. At the start of the presentation you explain that one of the people will win the drink container and leave it on view. Now you have 107

a very nice visual prediction that has been seen the entire time; allowing for potential ‘subliminal influence’ false explanations. By far one of the most common items to see at trade shows are the tshirt giveaways. As mentioned previously you can force a word or image and this can be printed on a t-shirt for a reveal. When I have done this in the past I like to have the company information on the front of the tshirt with my word or image revelation on the back. When a person joins me on the platform, I have the person place the t-shirt on before starting the mentalism effect. I then explain some of the company points while pointing to the information on the front of the t-shirt. Following this I perform the mentalism and for the reveal I simply have the person turn around, which is pretty powerful. You will find that it becomes easier to build a crowd as people will come back to see if the person always chooses what is printed on the reverse of the shirt. This is great as it demonstrates that you can pull crowds easily. Don’t worry that you will be using the exact same image all day long, these sorts of events have a lot of attendees and there is a lot to do. As long as you are bringing in the crowds the clients won’t care if the image is always the same. It doesn’t even matter if they think you are just cheating in some way; remember it is the end result that they are buying, not the process. The final reveal I want to share with you is something I have never shared with anyone other than my clients and a few extremely close friends. Guard the secret and it will still have power for you. It utilises another common giveaway, the USB stick, which is usually branded on the outside and has a file or two of business product information stored on it. When a company wants to have a USB giveaway I have them also place three photos on the USB stick. Each one is a prediction for a three phase force effect. Everyone who sits down for the presentation will get a USB stick and will watch me perform a small mentalism piece where three people join me and make a choice from three Svengali pads, where each chooses a word from a different pad. When it comes time to reveal I click to the next slide of the PowerPoint presentation that shows the file index of the USB drive they are holding. Then each slide 108

clicks to each file and opens the image of me holding a pad with the prediction on it. There is a photo for each person’s selection and each one is correct due to it being a force. The three people are asked to keep facing forward and the slide is shown before each person names their selection. Companies really like this concept as, again, it turns a relatively cheap item into something special that the delegate will take home and investigate further. When selecting effects look for an effect that combines different ways of forcing, this allows you to promote the company name, slogan or core message. I will share some ideas with you, but there are so many potential effects that can be adapted to this environment. A clear force bag that has three sections can be your entire show. Have one section filled with pieces of paper containing random half-names of companies. A number of these pieces of paper can be removed and shown to be different and not able to create any coherent brand name. In another section of the force bag are pieces of paper with just the first part of the company name you are performing for. The final section has the last part of the company name you are performing for. After two people try to create a company name out of the first section and cannot, you exclaim that, “Trying to find the right company for your needs can be a random search, but think about [insert company core message] and make a final selection.” Naturally, when both people reveal their papers it makes the company name. Using multiple Svengali pads can also produce a powerful effect. Have the company distil their message into three single words that they wish to convey at the trade show. Each pad forces one of these words, even though it can be shown to apparently contain completely different words. When you want to convey that making the right choice is about gutfeelings and going with what you know (often the message of an established company), there is an easy way to present this at trade shows. Write down the core message the company wants to deliver and 109

split it into three equal sections and print them onto a sheet of paper each. For example, if the message is a sentence then have a few words of the sentence on each piece of paper. On three other sheets write some random words. Fold these sheets and place them into an envelope each. Make sure you mark the envelopes that contain the actual sentence so that you know which envelope contains which part of the sentence. The indifferent envelopes do not require marking. You mix up the envelopes, explaining that they are each numbered one to six and then ask an audience member to trust their instinct and choose a number. Whatever number is named, you secretly write (using a nail writer or swami) that number on the back of the envelope containing the first part of the sentence, handing it to the person to hold as they arrive on the platform. The next person names a remaining number; you secretly write it on the envelope containing the middle part of the sentence and hand it to the person to hold. The final person names a number and it is also secretly written on the back of the envelope with the final part of the sentence. Now look at the envelopes that you are holding and say the numbers that were not chosen as if they are written there. Open these envelopes and show that the internal sheets have words that don’t make sense in any order. The three people holding envelopes open then and reveal the papers all contain words that form a coherent sentence and the exact one the company is promoting. Impressive for the audience as if the wrong envelopes were chosen the sentence wouldn’t form, equally if the correct envelopes were chosen in the wrong order it would also result in a fail. Hopefully by this point you have a good idea of the types of effect that work best when promoting a company and various ways to make a strong impact for your clients. I have a few more pieces of advice that will be helpful for those who want to enter this marketplace. Try to avoid making the mistake of renaming items you are using to be the points that your client wants you to deliver. Phrases such as, “This pen represents how we make a mark on the world and this pad of paper represent you all…” are not great. Objects are what they are and don’t try to change what they are as this can appear somewhat 110

condescending, asking the delegates to play make-believe with you. Instead, it is far better to raise the company points at relevant moments that you create. If something happens swiftly then you can say, “…that’s almost as quick as we deliver our service to our customers…” When someone is apparently making a random choice form a larger selection, “…it can feel random looking for a new solution, but sometimes the solution can reach out and find you...” If you are performing some form of direct mind reading then before you reveal you may say, “…here at [Company Name] we anticipate your needs so well that we can almost seem to read your mind when it comes to your requirements…” As you can see there are ways to link what you are doing and saying together in an adult and professional way that doesn’t have the person, or people, you are performing for have to engage in make-believe. A lot of the trade shows and conferences have professional delegates who won’t have time for this sort of fantasy scripting and will certainly give you short shrift. My biggest tip is to be personable and engaging, it will help to build as much rapport as possible and people buy from people they like. At the trade shows that I return to each year I have people who actively seek out the company I work for just to say “hello”. It is so much easier to connect these people with a sales representative and get them happily involved with your client, providing they need the product of course. There is a huge amount of work out there in this arena. Enough that we could all work the tradeshow, conference and exhibition market and not affect each other. Even if you prefer to be more artistic in your mentalism and less corporate, doing a few trade shows each year can give you enough money so that for the rest of the year you can follow your dreams and work on your personal mentalism projects. I wish you the best success in the world. You can do this. When I started in this arena I didn’t have any of these tips and I still managed to make a career performing in it. You now have all of these tips and can hit the ground running! 111

Food for thought four The Associated Press report from 1979 on Hunter S. Thompson’s comfortingly reliable daily schedule: 3pm: Rise. 3.05pm: Chivas Regal with Dunhill cigarette, whilst reading the papers. 3.45pm: cocaine. 3.50pm: Chivas Regal, Dunhill. 4.05pm: first cup of coffee, Dunhill. 4.15pm: cocaine. 4.16pm: orange juice, Dunhill. 4.30pm: cocaine. 4.54pm: cocaine. 112

5.05pm: cocaine. 5.11pm: coffee, Dunhills. 5.30pm: more ice in Chivas Regal. 5.45pm: cocaine. 6pm: grass, “to take the edge off”. 7.05pm: Woody Creek Tavern for lunch: Heineken, two margaritas, two cheeseburgers, two orders of fries, a plate of tomatoes, coleslaw, a taco salad, a double order of onion rings, carrot cake, ice cream, bean fritter, Dunhills, another Heineken, cocaine and, for the ride home, a snow cone (a glass of shredded ice over which is poured three or four jiggers of Chivas). 9pm: cocaine. 10pm: drops acid. 11pm: Chartreuse, cocaine, grass. Midnight-6am: Thompson begins writing, whilst imbibing a combination of Chartreuse, cocaine, grass, Chivas, coffee, Heineken, clove cigarettes, grapefruit, Dunhills, orange juice and gin. 6am: Hot tub — champagne, fettuccine alfredo. 8am. Halcion sleeping tablet. 8.20am: Sleep. And he was still writing for six hours a day!

113

THE Coin game Roddy & tom When it says ‘the coin game’ above, it really means that this is THE coin game. It is a fabulous, powerful effect from Roddy McGhie and Tom Bennett which is a perfect example of an apparently prop-less piece of mentalism.

Full Effect You ask someone to hold out their hands palm up and play an imagination game with you. Ask them to imagine that they are holding any two coins (Let's say they choose a 5p and a £1 coin). You ask them to toss both coins in the air and catch them. 114

They then decide which way up they landed. Heads or tails. You ask them to hand you one coin and you close your hand around the imaginary coin. You continue as follows: "You had a completely free choice of which two coins you were holding and in which hand. 64 possible combinations. You then tossed the coins and decided how they landed. We now have 256 possible combinations. You then decided which coin to give me bringing us to a 512-to-1 chance of you choosing this coin. And, of course, this was all done in your imagination. But sometime imaginary things can become real…" You ask them to repeat which coin they have decided is in your hand and how it lies. (Let's say £1 coin, heads up) You open your hand to show a £1 coin heads up.

Method The key to this effect is finding out which coin they are holding in their left hand and which way up it lies. Conveniently your participant unknowingly tells you this information as the presentation unfolds. How can you ensure they hand you their left hand coin? By employing a subtlety discovered by Tom. 115

You stand face to face with someone who has their hands extended, apparently holding two imaginary coins. Then you extend your right hand palm up in front of their left while you ask them to give you one of their coins. They will always hand you the coin that is more physically convenient for them. That is, rather than crossing their body with their right arm to hand you the right hand coin they will always hand you the left hand coin. Also, I think there is an element of your participant not wishing to cross into your personal space with their right arm. So it also seems to be physiologically convenient to hand you the left hand coin. I have performed this countless times and found this to be the case every time. However, at the end I’ll explain Roddy’s way to handle this extremely rare occurrence. Once your participant tells you which coins they are holding and in which hand your task is to secretly secure the matching coin in your right hand. To achieve this quickly and conveniently uses a simple gimmick.

The Gimmick The gimmick described here is made for UK coins, but as soon as you read the description, it will be obvious how it can be adapted for other currencies. It is very easy to make. You will need 1 x plastic card (any credit/store card without raised characters). 4 x rubber bands. All 8 UK coins. Craft knife / scissors. Cut the card as shown in Fig. 1. I cut notches in to the card at both ends to hold the bands in place then round the corners. Attach the bands then arrange the coins as shown in Fig. 2. I arrange all my coins head side up. 116

The coins run in numerical order from left to right and top to bottom in numerical order (1p, 2p, 5p, 10p) as shown in Fig. 3.

With the penny at the top left, flip the card over from left to right and arrange the remaining 4 coins as shown in Fig. 4. The coins again run in 117

numerical order from left to right but the 20p and 50p coins are switched to allow them to fit on the card comfortably.

Place the gimmick in your right hand trouser pocket with the penny at the top left and against your leg. See Fig. 5.

You may wish to arrange the coins differently but we have found this to be by far easiest way to access the correct coin without any fumbling. As you begin the performance casually place your hand in your pocket and retrieve the gimmick, holding it casually in your hand. Once the 118

participant tells you which coin they are holding in their left hand you remove that coin from the gimmick and bring your hand out of your pocket with the coin finger palmed. You then gesture with both hands palm up for them to toss their coins in the air and catch them, illustrating your words with actions, your coin being concealed from view behind your slightly curled fingers which are holding it in finger palm (in what is commonly known as Ramsay subtlety). You ask them to look and decide which way the coins landed. Again, you match words with actions and look directly at the coin you have finger palmed. Once they tell you the orientation of their coins you decide how you will close my hand (in a few moments, after they hand you their imaginary coin) so that the correct side of the coin will be showing when you open your hand. If they call heads and you are looking at the tail of the finger palmed coin then you will simply close your hand and allow the coin to fall into your closed palm heads side up. If they call tails then you will allow the coin to slide off your fingers on to your palm as you close your hand. As per the presentation, you extend your right hand in front of their palm-up left hand and ask them to give you a coin. Again, your coin is still concealed behind your curled fingers at this point. Only after they hand you their imaginary coin do you finally close your hand. You then recap what has happened explaining the odds of them choosing that particular coin etc. Finally, open your hand to reveal that the imaginary has become reality.

Final Notes When we were first discussing this effect, Roddy mentioned that of course he realises that the odds are rather dubious here but your 119

participant will buy into it if you deliver it with enough authority and it helps lend weight to the impossibility of the final reveal. I’ve performed it that way many times and I agree. Here’s Roddy on what he did the one time he had a participant hand him their right hand coin: “Hand me one”. They hand me the imaginary right hand coin. “Meaning you are holding what?” As they named the coin I clipped my coin in my fingers and held my hand over theirs. As I delivered the line about something imaginary becoming real I dropped the coin in their hand and lifted mine to reveal it. It could be argued that this is in fact a stronger presentation as the coin they imagine they are holding somehow materialises in their hand. This looks particularly good for the participant but I prefer the original presentation.

120

The Hedgehog and The Fox In the late 1930s a young Oxford student called Isaiah Berlin found an intriguing fragment of verse by the 7th-century BC Greek poet Archilochus: “The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing.” Initially it facilitated an entertaining game of shorthand whereby Berlin and his close friends could identify everyone else - as hedgehogs or foxes. However, Berlin continued to ruminate on this intriguing concept and ultimately it resulted in a revelatory essay on Tolstoy, dictated over the course of two days, and originally entitled ‘Lev Tolstoy’s Historical 121

Scepticism’. As well as researching Tolstoy’s War and Peace, Berlin extrapolated the concept, saying that people could be divided into two categories: the hedgehog who views the world through a single defining idea; the fox, who draws upon wide experiences and for whom the world cannot be boiled down to a single idea. The strength of the hedgehog is in his focus and central vision. The power of the fox is in his flexibility and openness to experience. The hedgehog never wavers, never doubts. The fox is more cautious, more pragmatic, and more inclined to see complexity and nuance. The grouping of people into the exclusive classifications of hedgehogs and foxes is not simply an amusing way of describing people, but also a pragmatic analysis of life. Berlin’s famous essay, of course, is not about wildlife. It is simply about life. Fast forward to 2012 and the book Thinking Fast & Slow by Daniel Kahneman. Kahneman uses the fox and the hedgehog concept to define differing ways to think and predict coming events. He explains the research of Dr. Phillip Tetlock who studied the outcomes of expert predictions for over 20 years. Tetlock analyzed the predictions of over 100 experts and generally found that the more “confident” the experts were about their predictions, the less accurate they were compared to random guessing. Because these overconfident experts were singlemindedly sure of their expertise, Tetlock calls them ‘hedgehogs’. In contrast, forecasters who were less confident had greater success in predictions and Tetlock called them ‘foxes’. Tetlock’s research shows that when a person sees himself or herself as an expert and is overly confident, even though they might look and sound good, they actually proved to be less reliable in terms of predicting what will happen in the future. Those who were more comfortable questioning and synthesizing multiple choices without confidence had the advantage. Kahneman goes on to explain foxes and hedgehogs even further. About hedgehogs he says, “They account for particular events within a 122

coherent framework, bristle with impatience toward those who don’t see things their way, and are confident in their forecasts. They are also especially reluctant to admit error.” And, as a backhanded compliment he continues with, “they are opinionated and clear, which is exactly what television producers love to see on programs. Two hedgehogs on different sides of an issue, each attacking the idiotic ideas of the adversary, make for a good show.” What the fox sees that the hedgehog doesn’t (and doesn’t care that he doesn’t!) is that the world is much more integrated and complex than he can imagine.

Predictions. Really? Time spent meditating on these concepts can be invaluable in shaping our performance aesthetics. Firstly there is opportunity to make practical application of Tetlock and Kahneman’s viewpoint: that to be believable predictions should be fluid, organic and flexible. Exactly the opposite of almost every prediction trick you have ever seen. Both theatrically and conceptually, there is a massive problem with predictions. We are magic-blind to it and are so used to tricks which predict things (words, playing cards, numbers, whatever) that we never stop to think of the larger consequence of supposedly being able to predict the future. If, over dinner one evening, a friend of yours casually mentioned that they had recently developed an ability to predict the future, you would surely consider that they were joking. If they persisted you would either be incredulous and demand proof (of increasing magnitude) or think they were high on drugs. Imagine how much more so you would doubt a stranger who made such a claim! You would assume, absent demonstration of a huge lottery win or their work for the government in making the world a safer and happier place, that they are mad. 123

But there are two environments where ‘predicting’ things is an acceptable claim: betting (and investment) and psychology.

Gambling In the world of betting (and I include investing in stocks and shares in the same category) you can forget about luck – it’s all about hard work and dedication. In this form of ‘prediction’, people gamble money on the outcome of any event, usually a sport of some kind. Successful gamblers are very few and far between, and their results are based on knowledge and judgement. Dylan Evans is a pioneer researcher who became interested in risk intelligence when he was teaching in a medical school. His students were very smart, but there was one area where they seemed to do very badly – estimating the chance that a patient had a given disease. They would consistently overestimate the probabilities; for example, they might say someone had a 40% chance of having pneumonia, when there was only a 20% chance. To help his students get better at thinking about probabilities and uncertainty, he turned to an unusual source: professional gamblers. He spent the next few years interviewing some of the most successful gamblers in the world. These are people who earn at least a million dollars a year from gambling. He noticed that they have several things in common, characteristics that distinguish them from unsuccessful gamblers, and indeed from the rest of the population at large. Some of these characteristics seem to be fairly hardwired. These people seem to be born this way, and you can’t necessarily get there by practice. Other characteristics, however, are habits that can be acquired by hard work. So there is hope even for those of us who aren’t natural born gamblers. We can at least learn from those who are. And this learning can affect the bottom line. 124

Here are the traits of successful gamblers: 1. They are comfortable with numbers. 2. They tend to be “street smart”. 3. They have balls. 4. They are able to put aside emotion. 5. They get less of a kick out of winning, but more pain from losing. 6. They get a different type of kick out of winning (more cognitive). 7. They have a talent for discipline and hard work. 8. They keep records. 9. They are self-aware. Incorporating these traits into a performance is one possible route to successfully performing prediction tricks. (And given the background, using playing cards, etc. would seem to be a bit of a given.) This approach is fertile for crafting intriguing, believable presentations that go far beyond whether the performer can predict the turn of a card or the outcome of a football match. Fortunately, Evans has written a book about what he calls Risk Intelligence: Dylan Evans - Risk Intelligence: How to Live with Uncertainty (Simon & Schuster Export, 17 April 2012). It has my highest recommendation and will forever re-frame both your views of predicting the future and how such a claim can possibly be made in a performance environment. It is also choc-full of great presentational angles and ideas that the mentalism community seem blissfully unaware of. So let’s keep this one on the down low.

125

Psychology Psychology is the scientific study of the mind and behaviour. While you might think you understand what psychology is, many people are not sure about what psychology does. What purpose does psychology serve? What are its goals? Let's take a closer look at the major goals of psychology, what psychologists strive to accomplish, and how psychology is used to solve real-world problems. 1) To Describe One of the first goals of psychology is simply to describe behaviour. Through describing the behaviour of humans and other animals, we are better able to understand it and gain a better perspective on what is considered normal and abnormal. Psychology researchers utilize a range of research methods to help describe behaviour including naturalistic observation, case studies, correlational studies, surveys, and self-report inventories. 2) To Explain As you might imagine, psychologists are also interested in explaining behaviour in addition to merely describing it. Why do people do the things they do? What factors contribute to development, personality, social behaviour, and mental health problems? Throughout psychology's history, many theories have emerged to help explain various aspects of human behaviour. A few examples of such approaches including classical conditioning and attachment theories. Some theories focus on just a small aspect of human behaviour (known as mini-theories) while others serve as all-encompassing theories designed to explain all of human psychology (known as grand theories). 126

3) To Predict Not surprisingly, another primary goal of psychology is to make predictions about how we think and act. Once we understand more about what happens and why it happens, we can use that information to make predictions about when, why, and how it might happen again in the future. Successfully predicting behaviour is also one of the best ways to know if we understand the underlying causes of our actions. Prediction can also allow psychologists to make guesses about human behaviour without necessarily understanding the mechanisms underlying the phenomena. For example, if researchers notice that scores on a particular aptitude test can be used to predict high school dropout rates, that information can then be used to estimate how many students in a particular group might drop out of school each year. 4) To Change Finally, and perhaps most importantly, psychology strives to change, influence, or control behaviour to make constructive and lasting changes in people's lives. In our previous example, researchers might take what they know about the link between scores on an aptitude test and dropout rates and use the information to develop programs designed to help students stay in school. From treating mental illness to enhancing human well-being, changing human behaviour is a huge focus of psychology. Psychologists and other social scientists ask many of the same types of questions. The big difference is that psychologists utilize the scientific method to test rigorously and systematically understand both human and animal behaviour.

127

Mentalism Applications Of course, following on from the huge success of Derren, mentalism based on ‘Mind Control’, an unspecified form of psychological understanding and manipulation, became far more popular amongst mentalists than the previous performance model of ‘psychic’. Mixed with a purported Holmesian-level of observation and analysis, feigned lie-detection ability and several other almost-science bits of pseudopsychological nonsense, the mentalist-as-psychology-god quickly became the default setting for many performers. Nevertheless, when performed well, the idea that psychology offers a basis from which an expert can ‘predict’ the actions of not only large groups but sometimes individuals too is indeed very seductive. Some performers have adopted the whole ‘influence’ approach, so that they are not claiming the ability to predict anything, but rather that have an advanced psychological skillset that makes them capable of influencing people and their apparently free decisions. In this instance the predictions are framed as the proof of this claimed ability. The major problem at this point in time is how any mentalist can go anywhere near the whole ‘psychological’ approach to performing without immediately reminding the audience of Derren.

Conclusion As you will have gathered, I believe that when it comes to ‘predictions’ more than just the language we use needs to change. Simply reframing them as a ‘guaranteed outcome’ or saying “This might be important later”, as we place an envelope on the table is not enough. And as I’m sure you realise from having witnessed the endless copycats, relying on the ‘psychology will allow me to influence your actions’ trope is so hackneyed at this point that not even its main practitioner is still using it. 128

Which leaves us with the brilliant Mr Evans and his wonderful ‘Risk Intelligence’ concept. Thankfully it is powerful and diverse enough that it can comfortably replace the concept of making predictions for the foreseeable future. For readers of this book anyway.

Coda Apparently Isaiah Berlin himself was a fox, intrigued by many ideas, unendingly curious, open-minded and one who pleaded constantly for tolerance. He understood that the world could never really be reduced to only two ways of looking at things but considered the discussion of the fox and hedgehog as worthy. Berlin wrote: “Scholars have differed about the correct interpretation of these dark words, which may mean no more than that the fox, for all his cunning, is defeated by the hedgehog’s one defence. But, taken figuratively, the words…. mark one of the deepest differences which divide writers and thinkers, and, it may be, human beings in general.” He also wrote: “"I never meant it very seriously. I meant it as a kind of enjoyable intellectual game, but it was taken seriously. Every classification throws light on something." So which are you?

129

Antique road show Jeff mcbride … An Antique Road Show presentation is a compelling hook; currently there are a ton of TV shows are featuring people who find ‘treasure or trash’ in their attic and basements.

Effect The mentalist hands out a sealed envelope which reads: "And the Winner is?" 130

(This will be opened at the end of our ‘reality show’.) The performer holds up a China plate, a decorative one, the kind collectors hoard and stow away in barns and attics. It could even be a ‘Star Wars series memorabilia- plate. The kitschy-er the better. He says, "I saw this ‘Collector’s Edition’ at a flea market and thought maybe I could make some money on one of those antique road show type reality shows...so I bought it as sort of an investment." "Did I pay over $50.00 for this or under $50.00?" "Who thinks high...over $50?” A woman raises her hand. “What is your guess?” She says," $45.00". The plate is set on the table. The mentalist continues. "Who thinks low, under $50?" A man raises his hand. "What is your guess?” The man says,"$20.00." The envelope is opened and a sheet of paper is read. "NEITHER THE MAN NOR THE WOMAN WILL GUESS THE EXACT PRICE. BUT THE WOMAN WILL BE THE WINNER! 131

SHE WILL BE CLOSEST AND SHE WILL ONLY BE OFF BY $2.00." The plate is picked up and on the back of the plate in china marker is the price $43.00! Yes just $2.00 off from the Woman's guess. Yes the woman is the winner! Perhaps she wins the plate as a nice yet kitsch gift!

Method The prediction in the envelope is always the same. Use your listo lead writer to prewrite the ‘$’ sign and the ‘.00’ so the back of the plate looks like this: $_ _.00 In performance you will fill in the blanks with a number higher than $50.00. Instruct your Man and Woman to give their estimates in dollars (no change). Just make sure you ask the woman first. As soon as she says her number, use your listo lead nail writer to scribe a number $2.00 higher than the number she mentions. This way the prediction in the envelope is always CORRECT. The interesting feature here is that now the effect is over as far as method is concerned. The man must give a number that is more than $2.00 away from the woman's "above 50.00 number".

Jeff’s Final Comments I have never seen a ‘listo lead’ style maker ever used on what it is often really used for - marking China! The gaff is our thumb writer with a 132

China marker ‘listo lead’, sometimes called grease marker. The China marker goes on fast and bold, and can be seen from stage. It is also not “too perfect" mentalism. I fell in love with this routine when I read ‘Con-Test’ by Max Maven in Bascom Jones Magick. My contribution is separating the plate (where the dirty work is done) from the prediction envelope or card. The real genius is Max!

133

Food for thought five Three Problems: 1. The Bat and Ball Problem A bat and a ball together cost $1.10. The bat costs $1 more than the ball. How much does the ball cost? 2. The Widget-Making Machine Problem If it takes 5 machines 5 minutes to make 5 widgets, how long would it take 100 machines to make 100 widgets? 134

3. The Size-Double Lily Pad Patch Problem There is a patch of lily pads in a lake. Every day, the patch doubles in size. If it takes 48 days for the patch to cover the entire lake, how long would it take for the patch to cover half the lake?

Don’t Give Up So Easily! 1. The ball costs 5 cents. You probably guessed 10 cents, didn't you? No judgment. A ball that costs 5 cents plus a bat that costs $1.05 will set you back $1.10. And $1.05 is exactly $1 more expensive than 5 cents. A Princeton study found that people who answered 10 cents were significantly less patient than those who got it correct. 2. It would take 100 machines 5 minutes to make 100 widgets. Your gut might tell you the answer is 100 minutes. From the question, we know that it takes 5 minutes for 1 machine to make 1 widget. Thus, it would take 5 minutes for 100 machines to make 100 widgets. 3. The lily pads would cover half the lake in 47 days. You might have guessed 24 days. It seems intuitive to halve the number of days because you're halving the size of the lily pad patch. But if the area of the lake covered in lily pads doubles every day, it would only take one day for it to go from being half covered to fully covered. Take one day away from 48 days and you're left with 47.

135

The emperor’s new tattoos? There has been a much misunderstood development in mentalism over the past decade or so, particularly here in the UK. And that has been the rise in popularity of so-called prop-less mentalism. As with so many mentalism trends in the UK, it all began with Derren and his championing of there being no ‘visible compromise’ in his work. When Derren first spoke about the concept on his International Magic Lecture DVD, he was not arguing that the mentalist should always perform with no props whatsoever. On the contrary, his point was that because what the mentalist does is not real there is always a compromise somewhere, and if that compromise (which hides the trickery) is invisible to the audience (even if they play back the effect 136

many times on video), then the effect will be more convincing as mindreading. Of course, he also thinks, as do most mentalists, that props should be kept to a minimum. Anytime you see a booktest and it involves playing cards, or coloured balls that need to sit in an ornate wooden box, or a wallet with a notepad in it, audience suspicion is surely not far behind. The only possible reason to have such extraneous objects – props – is obviously to facilitate a performance, and specifically because the method demands it. But then of course, in pursuit of prop-less material we encounter the other end of the problem – long-winded, unwieldy process. As Bob Cassidy commented: “Too much prop-less stuff reminds me of playing ‘twenty questions.’ The best method is always the most direct and sure fire. The trick is simply in finding a way to incorporate a logical disconnect.” Most of the time it is better to create or learn material that is processless rather than prop-less. Obviously from a theatrical point of view, we might indeed want some form of process, or maybe faux-cess as Andy Nyman coined the style of Derren’s presentations. But what we never want is method-driven process. As with all magic and mentalism, the best course of action is to read and study everything, or at least as much as possible, and then pick the best available techniques, whatever they happen to be. Peek wallet, billet switch, hybrid verbal/psych force, impression pad, branching anagram, palming, Equivoque and so on. If a prop-less or prop-lite version of a trick is the best version for your skillset and performance requirements, then that is the way to go. Usually, that won’t be the case though. In the hands of an accomplished performer a peek wallet can be as psychologically invisible as if hadn’t been used at all. Find the best tools in every area of mentalism and learn to use them. Be an expert in as many areas as possible. 137

Almost without exception, the best mentalists I have ever seen perform, either for the public or their peers, are those who have some significant sleight-of-hand chops. Due to their work ethic in practicing physical skills, they bring that same passion to bear when learning and rehearsing mental skills, rather than falling into the very obvious and stupid trap of thinking that methods relying solely on mental dexterity will somehow be easier to learn and perform than those based on physical dexterity. My pet peeve when it comes to the ‘grail’ of prop-less mentalism is what is far and away its most popular creation: the star-sign divination. Of the five or six thousand variant methods than have been devised and published over the last few years, they all share one common trait – they accomplish a pointless effect (and that’s when they work at all!) You are telling someone the least interesting thing possible about themselves: which one of twelve groups they fall into based on an arbitrary system of classification devised millennia ago and which purports to explain aspects of a person's personality and predict significant events in their lives based on the positions of celestial objects. I would say that you couldn’t make that shit up, but someone did! Astrology, the zodiac and what someone’s star-sign is are all nonsense of the highest order. Often that ‘effect’ is used as a lead in to revealing someone’s birthday. Now I can understand that pre-internet and in particular pre-social media, revealing someone’s birthday might have seemed like a minor miracle. At this point, not so much. All that said, I must tell you that some of my absolute favourite material that I have seen in the last year is from the godfather of prop-less mentalism, Peter Turner. As Peter well knows, I was dubious about his material when I first met him (although that didn’t stop me thinking that he was a sweetheart of a guy) but his thinking and performances have now fulfilled his early promise and then some! His expertise and experience performing this prop-less style of material has become more 138

and more process-less as time has gone on, finally culminating in the creation of some truly incredible feats of direct mindreading. Whilst many Volumes of Peter’s Masterclass series are indispensible, start with Volume 12. Do yourself a favour and go and spend the $20 and buy it right now: https://www.lybrary.com/mentalism-masterclass-12-prop-lessmentalism-p-921914.html It is the best $20 you’ll spend on mentalism this year. Last summer Peter fooled me with four incredible effects in a row. Twice! They were wonder-full. And they are all in there. Masterclass 12 contains some fabulous prop-less and process-lite material that should be in the repertoire of anyone who seeks to create magical experiences for people. The truth of the matter of course is that whilst Peter is indeed very well known as the poster boy for prop-less material he happily performs plenty of stuff that would be considered as more standard mentalism material. Like all great performers he knows that it’s not the tools we use that matter, but what we build with them. And if you’re wondering what Peter’s take on a more ‘established’ mentalism effect might look like, you must check out his book Midas Touch which contains his work on PK Touches. It’s terrific. Suffice it to say I’ve turned into quite the fan boy. I’ve got a hipster beard and everything. Maybe some tats next? You never know. (You do.)

139

Decibel vision Effect The performer opens the phonebook on his phone to a contact labelled simply as ‘The Psychic’. This contact stays open and everyone can clearly see what the number is. Remember: the Psychic’s name and number are known to everyone before anything else happens. From a borrowed, shuffled deck a participant freely chooses a card. He then adds a bunch of other cards - three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten… as many as he likes. Let’s say for now that he adds seven more for a total of eight. Using either the performer’s phone, or their own phone, either the participant or a random spectator calls the psychic and tells them the eight cards, in any order. The psychic immediately reveals the selection! 140

Conditions No apps. No clandestine phone calls, connections, messaging services or anything else that requires a web connection. Zero contact between the performer and the Psychic. It doesn’t need to be the performer’s phone – anyone can call the psychic on their phone if you (or they) prefer. The performer plays NO part in selecting a card, which extra cards are used (or how many!) or the order they are read out. The performer plays no part in dialling the number, or talking to the psychic at any time. Genuinely, the performer is never in contact with the psychic, before, during or after the performance. There are multiple presentation options: present it as above, with your ‘Psychic’ friend taking the credit. Or as an experiment in thought transference, telepathy, coincidence or any other premise that takes your fancy. Best of all, it is super easy for both you and your ‘Psychic friend’ to learn. Zero memory work, you’ll both be capable of performing it two minutes after you read it. And don’t fret; I am simply explaining the system using playing cards because it is much easier to learn that way. The fact is that I never really perform DV with playing cards any more, but almost always as a design duplication. As you will see, this is one of the most beautiful pieces of prop-less mentalism that you will ever learn. Please read through these conditions again before you turn the page and read what the method is. And remember: the performer is never in contact with the psychic, before, during or after the performance!

141

Method Obviously this is a code, but a very special one as the performer is able to communicate with the Psychic (hereafter generally referred to as the assistant) without the need to speak to him. Basics: The basic secret is this: your assistant has two phone numbers listed in your Contacts (Phonebook) – his home number and his mobile number. The order and number of times each number is called before the participant speaks to the assistant cues him as to what the selected card is. For the sake of explanation we will assume that Ace is low rather than high, and also use the standard CHaSeD suit order (Clubs, Hearts, Spades and Diamonds) where necessary. To understand the principle in its simplest form, let’s assume that the participant has chosen the 4C and has decided on three additional cards and they are the JS, 2C and 9H. When your assistant hears them it is his (or her) job to sort them in to ascending order: 2C, 4C, 9H, JS. And you will cue him that the selection is the second card using the following Master System: A: Home phone rings first then home phone rings again: First card. B: Home phone rings first then mobile phone rings: Second card. C: Mobile phone rings first then home phone rings: Third card. D: Mobile phone rings first then mobile phone rings again: Fourth card. So in our example, the assistant’s home phone would ring, then his mobile. This variance is easily covered in performance, in this instance the participant would be directed to call the home number first but of course would get no answer, so the performer would comment, “The Psychic must be out. Try his mobile instead…” This cues that 142

irrespective of the order the participant reads the cards out, once the assistant writes down the cards and then sorts them into ascending order the second one in the list is the selection. Let’s try another example: the QH is selected and the other cards are the 9H, AS and 5D. So in sorted order they are: AS, 5D, 9H, QH. So the selection is fourth. Following the Master System above, you know that it is option D and the participant needs to call the assistant’s mobile number twice. So after the Psychic doesn’t respond to the first call to his mobile, the performer comments, “Hmm, that’s odd. He should be answering. I know he’s out of the house today, maybe he didn’t hear it. Try him again…” The fact that you have two numbers stored for the Psychic raises no alarms, as everyone has many contacts for who they have two numbers stored. In fact like me, you probably have a ton of Contacts with three numbers: Home, Work and Mobile. And if you need the participant to call one number then the other, as above a simple line covers it. And remember that the participant can call the cards out in any order; it is only once they are written down into ascending order by the participant that the cued position is relevant. And although it’s much easier if the participant uses your phone, if they want to use theirs to call the Psychic that’s fine too (he can just block their number after the trick is over). One final thing for the basic system: what if two cards are the same suit? Then the CHaSeD order takes precedence. E.g. the selection is the 8H and the other three cards are the 8D, 3C and 2S. When sorted into ascending order they are 2S, 3C, 8H and 8D, the Eights being sorted according to CHaSed. So using the Master System you know that is option C, so instruct the participant to call the Psychic’s mobile number, then getting no answer, try his home number (“I’m sure he said he was going about, but maybe plans changed…”) 143

Expanding The System: So that is the system with four cards. What about more? Let’s say there are eight cards in total, one selection and seven extras. 10D is the selection and the other cards are KS, 2C, 5H, JH, 2H, AS and 8S. Sorting them into ascending order: AS, 2C, 2H, 5H, 8S, 10D, JH and KS. In this instance, rather than thinking that the selection is sixth, you mentally split the cards into two groups of 4, and think of the selection as second in group 2. Group 2 is coded to your assistant by the fact that a woman calls him rather than a man. So after the assistant writes down the eight cards, he crosses out the first four (since he is talking to a woman and not a man) and then follows the Master System. In this example his home phone would have rung first, followed by his mobile, so he would know that it is the second card in group 2: 10D. If there were only seven cards in total (the selection plus six randoms) the above principle still works perfectly. Likewise with six cards or five (if the voice is a woman’s then it must be the fifth card – home/home). ESP Cards: Likewise ESP cards can be coded as if they were five playing cards. Assign them the standard values: Circle – one, Cross – two, Wavy Lines – three, Square – four and Star – five. A participant selects one and if he picks any of the first four he calls the Psychic and you proceed as per the Master System. If he picks the Star then a woman phones the Psychic. Even More Playing Cards: If you want to expand it to up to twelve cards you can easily do so by adding an extra question from the Psychic. If he hears a man’s voice he asks, “Are you the person who selected the card?” If he says “Yes”, the selection is in the first group of four. If he says “No” it is in the third 144

group of four (cards nine through twelve). If he hears a woman’s voice the card is in the second group of four as usual. From experience, I think going above twelve cards gets boring, but your mileage may vary. So if you want to expand it further simple add a different extra question. You can double from eight cards straight up to sixteen by skipping the question “Are you the person who selected the card?” and instead asking “Can you see all the cards, or just the ones you are reading out?” To cue the first group of eight the performer ensures the whole deck is still in play and to cue the second group of eight cards the performer instructs the participant to place the unused cards away in the box once the selection and the fifteen random cards have been decided on. As I say, I think this is too many, but it shows how easily the system can be expanded. Star Signs: Star signs can also be easily coded. Again, we would use the Master System for the initial group of four and then expand it. There are multiple options. As above you could cue which group of four by having the participant himself call, or a woman call to consult the Psychic about the participant’s star sign, or having a second man call the Psychic. If the assistant hears a man’s voice he asks him, “Is this your own star sign or someone else’s?” If the caller says it’s his own, the assistant knows it’s in group one. If someone else’s it’s in group three. A woman caller would mean it’s in group two. All that is needed in advance would be for you and your assistant to agree an order for the star signs. Use this: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Aries (March 21-April 19) Taurus (April 20-May 20) Gemini (May 21-June 20) Cancer (June 21-July 22) Leo (July 23-August 22) Virgo (August 23-September 22) 145

7. Libra (September 23-October 22) 8. Scorpio (October 23-November 21) 9. Sagittarius (November 22-December 21) 10. Capricorn (December 22-January 19) 11. Aquarius (January 20 to February 18) 12. Pisces (February 19 to March 20) An alternative would be to just use one person to decide on his star sign and ask him to make the call. Since most people won’t know all 12 star signs easily (especially to read them out) there are three options once you know his star sign and where it is on the list (and specifically which group of three it’s in): 1. You (the performer) write them down (the star sign is in group one: Aries, Taurus, Gemini or Cancer). 2. You call them out and the participant writes them down (the star sign is in group two: Leo, Virgo, Libra or Scorpio). 3. The participant is reading them out from a newspaper or website (the star sign is in group three: Sagittarius, Capricorn, Aquarius or Pisces). So for example, the participant is Virgo. This is the second option in group two. So we need option B from the Master List on Page 3: your assistant’s home phone rings first then his mobile phone rings. He knows whichever group it’s in, it’s the second option. In order to find out which group he asks, “Did you write these star signs down?” With the emphasis as shown. If the caller responds “Yes”, (as he would in our example) the assistant knows it is group two, position two: Virgo. If the caller says “No, your friend (or uses your name) wrote them down”, he knows it is group one. Likewise, if the caller says “No, I’m reading them out of the newspaper”, he knows it is group three. I include this for those of you who are obsessed with star sign revelations. You already know my feeling on the subject.

146

Random Picture/Design Dupe: Similarly, twelve pictures can be cued. This is one of my favourite uses for DV. Have a participant decide on something simple to draw and 99% of the time it will be one of these (particularly if you tell him to “draw a simple picture that a kid might draw, not just a shape, but something easy to recognise…”): 1. stick figure 2. house 3. flower 4. tree 5. cat 6. dog 7. fish 8. car 9. boat 10. plane 11. smiley face / sun 12. rocket This time we would use the Master System for the initial group of four and then expand it. As above you could cue which group of four by having the participant himself call, or a woman call to consult the Psychic about the participant’s picture, or having a second man call the Psychic. If the assistant hears a man’s voice he asks him, “Is this your own picture or someone else’s?” If the caller says it’s his own, the assistant knows it’s in group one. If someone else’s it’s in group three. A woman caller would mean it’s in group two. The Psychic can simply reveal the correct picture verbally on the phone there and then. If performing for just one person, you could have the picture placed on the table drawing side up or down, or folded in his pocket in order to cue the group. As you can see, there are a LOT of options. All you need to do is set-up with your assistant which effect you are doing: cards, ESP, star signs or 147

pictures. You could send them a text message 10 minutes before then delete it. Or you might only ever use one. Text your assistant the word ‘Psychic’ and he knows that within the next 30 minutes you’ll be doing this. He either replies with ‘OK’ and I know I’m good to go, or ‘Out’ which means he’s not at home to play, and I perform something else. I really hope that you try this out! I can promise you that it is a serious fooler and should be in your permanent casual repertoire.

Ultimate DV Whilst I have used almost all of the versions at some point or other, I pretty much only ever use a version of the drawing duplication now, but where nothing is drawn. It is one of my absolute favourite things to perform and I have kept it well away from magicians and mentalists for a long time. Basically, whatever environment I’m in, someone thinks of any object, calls my friend The Psychic and they tell the caller exactly what the item is. I’m sure you’re ahead of me with this, but here’s how: I have a mental list of the 12 most common objects in any given environment. In performance I initially say, “I ‘m going to ask you to decide on any object here in the bar, in fact so that there is a connection for my friend to pick up on, let’s make it something that you can hold in your hand Let’s use the example of a bar. Here are the 16 most common objects someone might pick up in a bar: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Phone Wallet Keys Coin Bank Note Glass Bottle Coaster 148

9. Crisps 10. Nuts 11. Stirrer 12. Ice 13. Slice of fruit 14. Napkin 15. Menu 16. Liquid (yes I know this last one is unusual, but from experience I know people pick it sometimes just to be awkward/clever. They literally just pour a bit of their beer into their cupped hand.) If you are in a bar and someone is asked to pick up something that they can hold in their hand, it is almost certain they will choose one of these items. For the worried: if they pick up something else, e.g. a flower, you have two options. Either simply do a different trick. Or have them place the object on the table. Then ask them to pick up something else and place it on the table next to the first object. Then a third object and so on until they have a row of about 10. Then have a second person decide on one of the objects and go from there. Remember that this is a casual performance piece. Keep it relaxed. No pressure. Once they have one of the listed objects in hand you now need to cue to the Psychic which group of four to use the Master List on. So assuming it is a man who has chosen the object, either a man calls who is person holding the object, a man calls who isn’t holding the object, a woman calls using the first man’s phone or a woman calls using her own phone. The Psychic simply needs to ask one of two questions: if speaking to a man he asks “Are you holding the object?” and if speaking to a woman he ask “Are you calling me on your own phone?” The answers to both questions can be met by the Psychic with either the comment “Hmmm, I thought so…” or Hmmm, I thought not…” As usual he is simply looking up his list which he has stored on his phone. And of course, he has similar lists for a restaurant, someone’s home, an office, and several outdoors locations. 149

Background and Credits As Docc Hilford so eloquently put it in his booklet Cellular Mitosis (which I highly recommend): “Reading a person’s mind shouldn’t be limited by distance. The parties participating should be able to be separated, even by thousands of miles. And lo, the phone test was invented. Everyone from John Hilliard North to Al Baker to Orville Meyer has been in on the development of these effects, but the actual inventor is still up to debate.” Of course the most well-known phone effect is ‘The Wizard’. There have been dozens of versions, but my favourite is probably the one by E.M. Lipka published in November 1917 issue of Sphinx. 52 different caller names are used! Now that is commitment. The basic version of ‘Decibel Vision’ is based on Karl Fulves’ ‘Fone Trix’ from The Pallbearer’s Review.

150