Alexander Marsh - Hybrid Mentalism

Hybrid Mentalism By Alexander Marsh

1

Copyright © 2008 Alex McAleer / Alexander Marsh. All rights reserved. No part of this book, in part or in whole, may be reproduced, transmitted, or utilized, in any form or by any means electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system without permission by the author. Play fair.

2

4

Intro. Hello and welcome… … to Hybrid Mentalism, my first offering to the mentalism community. I would be lying if I said I wasn’t a little nervous about how it will be received by my peers. I have attempted to give you a mixed bag of ideas and effects so hopefully you will find something in here that is to your taste. As this is my first publication, I feel I should use this space to introduce myself. Hello…my name is not Alexander Marsh, it is Alex McAleer. ‘Marsh’ is the pseudonym I have adopted for publications such as this. This being the age of Google, I really don’t wish for potential customers to Google my real name (which is also the name I perform under) and find a bunch of “magic books” filled with the secrets of our craft. For those of you that are interested, Alexander is of course my full first name and Marsh is my mother’s maiden name. So why Hybrid Mentalism? How is it of mixed origin? Well, there is several reasons behind the title, the main one being that I personally think of mentalism (and in particular my mentalism) as a hybrid. A hybrid of traditional conjuring techniques, applied psychology, showmanship and the tricks and techniques of mediums and spiritualists from days gone by. This is also exactly what I tell my audiences it is, just not in quite so many words. In my opinion, it is the amalgamation of all these things and more that create strong mentalism.

6

You will also notice that the effects contained within this book are hybrids in their own right. Almost all of the effects are fusions of psychological gambits, classical methodology and modern twists. So with the introductions out of the way, I sincerely hope you enjoy my hybrid mentalism and I hope to be seeing you again some time soon. Alexander Marsh 2008

7

Swami Thing A thing with a Swami Effect: At some sort of gathering at which he has been hired to entertain, the performer approaches a group of perfectly ordinary spectators (they can be examined). He introduces himself to the gang with his business card in hand and asks if they wouldn’t mind experiencing some of his mental wizardry. He offers a taste of things to come by briefly explaining that what he does is all about reading and anticipating people’s thoughts. He chooses a volunteer and asks; “Do me a favour and think of a low number – a single digit number. Got one? Don’t say it, just think it.” They do so and the performer looks at them for a moment and confidently names the number 7. The participant confirms that this was indeed the number they had been thinking of and is of course impressed and ready for more miracles of the mind.

Method: This effect, although not at all groundbreaking, is born out of a need for a quick opener in a close-up environment and the idea of ‘The 30 Second Rule’. This is a well known rule of thumb stating that within the first thirty seconds of meeting someone - and this include the first time your audience meets you - they will form firm impressions about you and their opinion of you based upon your appearance, tone, attitude and a million other cues. 8

So, what’s the exciting method for this then? Oh… it’s a psychological force. One that can fail… How disappointing! Isn’t there even an out!? Well, yes there is an out and it comes in the form of your trusty Swami or Nail Writer. The clue was in the title but please don’t stop reading yet, there is more to it than that. The framing for the effect is such that if you hit directly with the psychological force, then you have a minor miracle but if it doesn’t hit, and the force has not worked you have an amusing and logical out that does not feel like an out. Instead it feels like a cheeky and amusing presentational hook, as if you where playing games with the participant. In the above example, if the participant had not thought of the number 7, the conclusion of the presentation would have been this: “Not 7. Oh! Are you sure? What where you thinking of? 4! Not 7? You’re sure about that? You’re not confused?! Well I can tell you that you are confused. You actually ARE thinking of the number 7… you just don’t know it… look.” The performer hands the business card he has been holding the entire time to the participant, it reads; “You ARE really thinking of the number 7 but will get confused and say that you’re thinking of the number 4.”

9

Obviously everything but the number 4 was pre-written and a space was left so that you can nail-write in the information as you are talking about them being “confused”. Now, if you think about it, the reason and motivation for the business card being in your hand is justified by the context of the situation. You are introducing your self to the group, so with your card in hand, making you look official and ever the professional, it seems natural. If the force hits and they are thinking of the number 7, then you simply smile, put the card away as you move on to your next effect. By the way, I feel this next effect should be one that gives your audience more of an idea of ‘how you do it’, your pseudo-methods of mind reading. However, if the force misses then the fact you have had the card on view all along makes your prediction much stronger. It’s as if you knew all along what number they would name but you where just being cute and interesting by naming the wrong number. This effect doesn’t just have to use the classic number between 1 and 10 force, which incidentally I personally find works much better if presented in this off hand manner with the wording used earlier in the text; “Do me a favour and think of a low number – a single digit number.” This effect can work equally as well with letters, colours or multiple digit numbers. For colours I would verbally state BLUE and have on the back of the card a list of colours each with a little tick box next to it and with my swami I would put a tick in the appropriate box if BLUE was wrong. This effect also acts as a great out for experimenting with different and unusual psychological forces such as ermMm, hmMMMmm, let Mmme think… letters! For me this effect makes an excellent opener for close-up performances as it offers a taster of what you can do, no matter what 10

the outcome. This allows you to both generate interest and inspire your spectators in to wanting to see more, or alternatively allow you to judge if the group does want you to perform for them and if not just leave them to their own entertainment.

Credits: “Psychological Subtleties” by Banachek, your one stop shop for all things psychologically forceful and/or interesting. Also massive credit to the inventor of the Swami Gimmick…. Mr. Swami Boon I believe his name was although he did sometimes write under the alias of Neil Writer.

11

Looch’s Swami Thing A Simple & Direct thing with a Swami The king of simple and direct mentalism gave me permission to include his own ‘swami thing’ in this book. Looch also based this quick, opening effect on the notion of the 30 second rule and introducing yourself and your mentalism in a close-up environment. This variant however works wonderfully with couples. So here, in his own words, is Looch’s Swami Thing. Enjoy. I walk up to a small group of people, usually a couple and introduce myself along the lines of: “Hi, my name is Looch, I’m one of the entertainers here today. Are you both having a good time?” “A hypothetical question for you, if someone who you had never met before approaches you with his business card and tells you that on the reverse side is a 2 digit number printed, and that between you, you will be able to intuit the number printed. What would you say?” I then bring forth my business card from my pocket and hold it with the reverse side facing me: “Sarah…What is the first number that pops into your mind now” “Err… a 3” says Sarah. 12

“And Paul…What number comes to your mind?” “A 9” replies Paul. “So here’s the important part…Is it a 3 & a 9 or a 9 & a 3?” Both spectators look at each other and decide. Once an answer has been given I continue… “I’m certainly glad you intuited it that way round and not the other way…Look” I then show the card to the couple after it has been swami'ed. Lovely, thanks Looch.

13

The Ambitious Peek The Swami Peek Thing About: I have long been obsessed with using my business cards for peeking because not only is it an easy (if a little underhanded) way to get your card in your audience’s hands but at the same time show them an effect. I am particularly keen to use a stack of business cards due to the fact they lend themselves to all those card slights I have learnt but rarely use (…because I’m a mentalist!). Despite the fact that I have never performed as a more traditional conjuring magician, I can pull off a rather lovely Ambitious Card routine. All those delightful ways to either control a card to the top or create the illusion of putting the card in the middle of the pack, have always been thought-of by me as simply screaming out to be used as a method for setting up a peek. What follows is a routine that combines some of the moves of an Ambitious Card routine, a simple peek and, to add another layer of deception, the trusty swami gimmick. I like to call it “The Swami Peek Thing”1

Effect & Method: A spectator is asked for their name and the performer writes it along the top of a business card. The participant is then asked to think of the first person they kissed and requested to take the business card and 1

I’m good at naming effects aren’t I!?

14

write the name of their first kiss in the lower space on the card, just below their own name. Please, at every point in this routine and for the rest of your life, resist the temptation to spread your business cards like a pack of cards, as if to say “Pick a (business) card, any (business) card”, you may think its ridicules but I have seen it done! Now, why do I write the participant’s name on the top of the card? On a technical level it will facilitate the peek that will happen in a few moments by forcing them to write the first kiss’ name at the bottom of the portrait (as apposed to landscape) card. See the image below for clarification.

Notice that I have written their name in CAPITALS, this allows me to encourage the participant to write their first kiss’ name in the same way by saying something along the lines of:

15

“Please write your first kiss’ name at the bottom of the card, nice and clearly just like I wrote your name.” The other reason I write their name on the card is… I’m rubbish at remembering names. In the heat of performance, with all the other stuff to think about, my participant’s name just pops right out of my head. So this extra step of me having to write their name (possibly even asking “How’re you spelling that?”) will force me to remember it a little better. If all else fails, I always have the option of taking a surreptitious glance at the name as I give them the card to keep at the end of the routine. You are probably way ahead of me here but you are now going to take back the card and apparently place it into the middle of the packet but in reality, you retain it on top. The peek I like to use, which is the one I will describe in a moment, requires that the card be on top of the packet and not second from the top, as is sometimes the case with Ambitious Card moves. You have a number of options regarding exactly how to retain the ‘name card’ (that being the card with the names on it, obviously) on top. You probably already have your favourite methods, so I will leave it for you to decide exactly how you do this. Truth be told, I don’t have just one way of doing this. It all depends on the situation I am in and what I think I can get away with. I may perform a (sort of) top change like this: stack in a left hand dealer’s grip, little finger holding a break under the top card. The ‘name card’ is placed on the palm of my right hand. I briefly put this ‘name card’ on top of the stack under the guise of showing that my right hand hasn’t taken an ink impression nor has anything ‘funny’ about it. I then second deal the card from the stack apparently showing 16

the opaque nature of the card. This is then placed in the middle of the pack. Another option is to palm off an indifferent card under misdirection of the participant writing the name. I then take back the stack with the ‘name card’ on top but as I do so, load the palmed card on top of the packet. I then deal off this card and place this in the centre, leaving the real ‘name card’ on top. As you can see, you have the option to jazz it up a bit. My advice would be not to use the fanciest, flourish-filled move in favour of a simpler and more direct method. You simply need to create the illusion that the card is now somewhere in the middle of the stack, you are not demonstrating the dexterity of your fingers. You should now be in a situation where the ‘name card’ is still on top of the stack but the participant believes it to be buried within the stack. I now ask for the pen back from the participant and double turnover the top two cards as one. The casual manner with which this is done and the image of a blank card should act as a silent convincer that the ‘name card’ really is safely buried in the stack. I ask the participant to concentrate on the name of her first kiss and go through my pseudo-methodical procedures of thought transference (commonly known as B.S.). I seem to struggle a little at first, only getting vague impressions and encourage them to: “Really cast your mind back and think about where you were, maybe how old you might have been when you kissed this person.” The casual nature of the above line is important as you don’t want to draw too much attention to the fact that you are asking them to think about the age they were when they kissed this person.

17

I take a pause and begin to write something on the blank card that is facing me. This, remember, is the top card of the double, the lower card of which is the ‘name card.’ Initially I write so the participant and gathered spectators can see the first few letters but then tilt the whole thing up claiming that I don’t want anyone to see what I’m writing just yet. As I tilt the stack up and away from prying eyes, I bring it closer to my body and gently but rapidly up-jog the top blank card just enough to reveal the name written on the card below it. The larger motion of bringing the entire stack up to my eye level hides the smaller motion of up-jogging the card.

As I write, my writing hand hides the exposed portion of the ‘name card’ so all I have to do is move my hand, which happens naturally as I write, to get my peek. I have all the time it takes me to write the message on the top card to get my peek. I can then square the top card (i.e. slide it back down square with the rest of the packet) as soon as I have read the name. 18

The message I write can be seen in the diagram below.

The [BLANK] space is left for the little bit of swami work that will be done in a moment and of course [NAME] is replaced with the name you just peeked. One of the advantages with this peek for me is that being dyslexic2 all I have to do is copy the name as I see it on the ‘name card’. Once I have finished writing the message, I flip over the two cards as one; this puts the name card back on top with the card I have just written on, second from top.

2

Yes, I am indeed dyslexic. So despite having done my best to remove any spelling or grammatical errors from this book – some may still exist. So if you do spot any typos you have my full permission to feel big and clever.

19

I will then casually second deal the card leaving the name card on top of the stack in my left hand. The entire stack then goes out of sight and out of mind into my pocket, leaving the card that I have just written on still in play. I secure my swami gimmick as I put the writing utensil used back in my pocket. “I’m not sure I’ve got this one. The name was giving me trouble but I have committed myself in writing. So I can’t change a thing. Out of interest, what age do you think you where when you kissed this person?” The wording used here (“what age do you think you where when you kissed this person”) is important as most people will struggle a little to recall the exact age they were. As soon as they have announced the age I ‘swami it’ in the blank space on the card. There will be some heat on the card at this moment, which is the reason behind the slightly nonchalant way of asking what age they were. Much like earlier when I asked them to: “Really cast your mind back and think about where you were, maybe how old you might have been when you kissed this person.” You don’t want too many people thinking that this information is important to the effect; it’s the name you were going for so that’s what they will assume is on the card. The fact you got the age as well, which will be revealed at the end, will hit them hard. I then hand them the card as I say something along the lines of: “[Repeat Age]… OK. Maybe I did better at this than I thought. I wasn’t too sure about the name, it was a bit vague but I’m committed to what’s on that card. So for the first time, the name of your first kiss…was” 20

By the time I have finished this sentence I want the card to be in their hands but I don’t want them to have read it yet. I also want to be physically as far away form the card as I can so keeping them engaged by talking to them like this tends to stop them from reading it. This also gives me time to take a step or two back before they announce the name. As soon as they say the name, I smile. As if surprised that I ‘got this one’. “Really?! Well… read out load what I wrote a moment ago on that card.” I take another step back, ditch my swami gimmick and revel in the reaction. I feel it’s very important that you put a clear distance between yourself and the card when the participant announces the name. The two methods at play here hopefully cancel each other out, or at the very least muddy the waters. You were nowhere near the card when the name was revealed but also have revealed something that was never written down by the participant. It’s a fun routine that may seem long in print but takes no time at all in performance. The psychology of pretending to struggle with the name combined with the two separate methods at play, I think, work well together.

Notes: One of my preferred handlings for controlling the ‘name card’ in an ‘ambitious way’ is as follows:

21

As the participant is writing on the card, split the stack of business cards in to 2 equal-ish packets, one in each hand. The left hand packet is held in a dealer’s grip and the right hand pile is held from above in a biddle grip. You’re right hand is also holding a thumb break on the bottom card of the right hand packet. Request that the name card be put writing side down on the left hand pack. When this is done, move the right hand pack as if you are going to place it on top, as if you are going to ‘sandwich’ the card between the two packets. However, as the two packets meet for just a moment, you load/drop the bottom card of the right hand packet (the one being held in a thumb break) on top of the ‘name card’. Then, as if changing your mind, separate the packets again (although it should seem as if they were never really together) and thumb off the now top card of the left hand packet, pushing it deep in to the right hand’s stack. Give this right hand packet to the participant ‘for safe keeping’ as it apparently has their card in it, but in reality the card is on top of the left hand packet, allowing you to peek it in the manner described earlier. This apparently fair ‘splitting’ of the cards gives you a perceived physical distance from the ‘name card’ throughout the effect.

How to make sure you get your peek. You may be wondering, or perhaps you have been following along with cards in hand and thought: what do you do if when you up-jog the blank card to reveal the name card below it, all you see is the participants name, upside down!? Well rather than gently cry, leave the building and wonder why you even bother… do this instead: 22

Your business cards are naturally marked. They are marked in the same way a deck with a one way back design is marked. Let’s assume your cards are printed in the normal manner: printed from left to right when viewed in landscape (as apposed to portrait), just like the one in the diagram below.

This means you can tell the orientation of the card simply by looking at it. For ease of explanation lets call the left side Section A, and the right side Section B. This means that when this card is rotated 90 degrees, counter clockwise, the card will now be in ‘portrait’ with Section A at the bottom and Section B at the top.

23

All you have to do is notice which way the card is orientated in the deck and hold the entire stack portrait fashion with Section A at the bottom and Section B at the top (Again, see the diagram above for clarification). Then, just flip over the card(s) in such a way that Section A stays at the bottom with Section B at the top. Of course you also need to make sure that the participant writes the name in Section A. This is easily done by making sure that you write their name in Section B. I hope that all makes sense, just have a bit of a play around and a bit of a think and you’ll get it.

24

Rub-A-Dub DD A Design Duplication Effect: In short, the participant draws anything on the back of your business card. They keep this drawing safe by sandwiching it between their hand and the table (or between their palms). You then proceed to take them through a mental process that implies mind reading and begin to draw something on another business card. Your drawing is placed face down on the table to prevent you from changing it and so that no one can see what you have drawn just yet. You take the participant’s drawing, look at it and display it to the rest of the group. You then ask them to take a look at what you drew and it is seen to be an almost perfect match.

Method: Continuing the theme of using card sleights with business cards for mind reading, here’s a simple but effective idea using a variation of the ‘Rub-A-Dub-Dub Vanish’. More precisely we will use a ‘Rub-A-Dub-Dub Change’ but without anything being seen to have changed, so in that sense it becomes a ‘Rub-A-Dub-Dub Switch’

25

The set-up and peek for this effect are the same as in the previous one, The Ambitious Peek, so with a stack of business cards held in portrait, flip over the top card and write the name of your participant so it fills the top half of the card, leaving space for the participant’s drawing in the lower half.

Give them the entire stack with the card they are to draw on (which also bares their name) face-up and on top. Now, you will either need to have a blank, dummy card in your pocket ready to be palmed and used for the switch in a moment, or you can do the following. When flipping over the top card of the stack to write the participant’s name on, flip over 2 cards as one i.e. a double turnover. Write the participant’s name on the face card of the double (leaving space at the bottom for them to draw) and explain that in a moment you will give them the cards and that they are to draw something, anything in the 26

space at the bottom. Once they have done that, they are to flip over the card so no one can see what has been drawn. As you explain that they are to flip over the card, demonstrate by flipping over the top card in your hands but of course you will actually be flipping over the double. Doing all this leaves a blank card on top with the participant’s card underneath it. This blank card will become your dummy card, so as you hand the participant the stack, palm off this top card getting you ready for the switch that is to come. All this business may not be necessary as I tend to turn away as the participant draws allowing me to obtain the dummy card from my pocket. Once the participant has finished, turn back to face them. Take the stack from them in your left hand (presuming the dummy card is palmed in your right hand) and openly side-jog the top card to the right using your left thumb. Turn your head away as you lift the stack (still with its top card sidejogged) up to your participant’s eye level. Tell them to take one last look at it and to really lock the image in their mind. Bring the stack back down, keeping the card side-jogged, and perform the ‘Rub-A-Dub-Dub Switch’ . This is done in much the same way that the ‘Rub-A-Dub-Dub Vanish’ is performed, except minus the rub-a-dub-dubbing and rather than the right hand containing nothing, it ditches the palmed dummy card.

27

This whole move is justified under the guise of explaining (and demonstrating) that you want the participant to keep their hand on top of their card. I knew I was onto something with this ‘Rub-A-Dub-Dub Switch’ when I was first rehearsing the move. My girlfriend walked into the room and asked if I was practicing a new trick, to which I replied “Yeah. Watch” and proceeded to perform the switch for her, without explaining what I was doing. She looked at me blankly for a moment and said, “Is that it? That’s not a trick. You’re just dealing a card onto the table.” I just grinned. The sequence should flow something like this: The participant has finished their drawing and flipped over the card. You then take the stack from them, side-jog the top card and bringing it up to their eye level ask them to: “Take one last look at your drawing and really burn the image in to your mind.” This hand then comes back down as you say: “Now, I want you to keep your drawing safe under your hand, like this.” In that brief moment you have apparently dealt their drawing on to the table and demonstrated how you want them to keep their hand on top of it.

28

In reality you have pulled their drawing card back on top of the stack (in the same manner as the Rub-A-Dub-Dub Vanish) and placed your right hand down onto the table. The card they now see and presume has their drawing on it is actually the dummy card previously palmed in the right hand. This is ‘ditched’ as the right hand flattens-out against the table top. Notice that I say: “I want you just to keep your drawing safe under your hand, like this.” This little bit of verbiage will help the participant convince them-self and not really question the idea that the card under your hand is the same one they just drew on. If you are feeling a little bit bold and confident, you can replace the table with the participant’s hand. Just ask them to hold their hand out, palm up and perform the switch on to that hand, telling them to “Keep your other hand on top, like this.” Of course their card is still on top of the stack in your hand so you are now in a position to perform the same peek as used in the previous effect, The Ambitious Peek. However, the handling for this effect is a little different: As in The Ambitious Peek, perform a double turnover and flash the blank (apparently) top card as you ask the participant to concentrate on their drawing. Go through some imaginary process of thought reading and claim that you have ‘got it’. Tilt the stack up and at the same time up-jog the very top card, thus revealing the participants drawing. All you have to do is copy what you see. 29

With this routine being a drawing duplication, I feel it’s perfectly justified that if instead of up-jogging the top card, you swivel it up in to a landscape position. This will still expose the lower half of the card below it, allowing you to get your peek. Once you’ve finished (literally) duplicating the drawing, turn the two cards over as one again and second deal your drawing on to the table. This leaves the participants drawing on top of the stack. Ask them to remove their hand from the dummy (but don’t call it that!) and take it from them, placing it on top of the stack you hold in your hand. As you say something along the lines of: “Let’s take a look at what you drew...” Perform a double lift to display the participant’s drawing and make some sort of comment about what they have drawn. Then ask them to have a look at what you drew by turning over the card you left on the table. You can then use the misdirection of them looking at your drawing to clean up i.e. disguise the fact that you have just turned two cards over as one by any means you so desire. So there you go, that’s “Rub-A-Dub DD”. It seems rather longwinded in explanation but in performance it’s very simple and direct. Give it a go.

Credits: Whoever invented palming, double lifts and the rub-a-dub-dub vanish. 30

WANT The Affecting Effect Effect: The performer places a few objects on to a table, namely a set of keys, a mobile phone, a watch and a wallet. He then invites a spectator to take part in a little experiment of ‘want’. He goes on to explain that in a moment he is going to ask her to choose one of the objects but asks her not to just nonchalantly choose one but choose the one she wants the most. The performer seems to induce the feeling of ‘want’ in the spectator and at the very peek of this ‘wanting’, she makes her choice. The performer has correctly predicted which object will be most desired by the participant.

About ‘WANT’: I will get it right out of the way now, that the mechanics of this effect are not the important aspect: this is more of an affect than an effect. It’s the presentational hook used that I want you to take note of. Any of your favorite (or least favorite) methods for forcing or predicting a choice of objects will do, but for the sake of completeness, in a moment I will describe the method that I prefer. As mentalists we often perform effects in which the ‘plot’ is that a participant (who having become part of the effect is no longer just a spectator) makes a simple choice of objects and we have predicted which object it would be. It’s an excellent introductory effect as it alludes to our ability to control and predict a person’s behavior but can suffer from being quite 31

forgettable for everyone involved. I also find it odd that normally the focus of such a routine is on the choosing of an object and not the process the participant is going through and what they are experiencing. Most of you will be familiar with the idea that we should give a process to our mind reading, which is something Derren Brown wrote about brilliantly in his book “Pure Effect”. Let’s say, just as an example, that to read a person’s mind you have to take them through a process of vivid mental imagery e.g. imagining the word on a blackboard, and one by one ‘looking’ at each letter. You then begin to study this person and make statements about the word written on this imaginary blackboard based on your observations. This gives a mental process that you and the participant must go through for you to be able to read his or her mind. The spectators viewing this charade will have not only something to latch on to but also have a feeling and a sense of how you do it. I feel this idea of creating a process should be applied to other effects beyond mind reading. In WANT this idea is applied to the plot of influencing the participants mind.

Method: We will come to the method of creating a feeling of ‘want’ and desire in a moment, but first I will describe my preferred method for predicting which object is chosen. Personally I prefer to use multiple outs and a double envelope but any multiple out method is fine. The double envelope I use contains two predictions on each side. One is folded in half and the other folded in to fourths, making it easy for me to quickly feel which one to take out. I also ‘mark’ the envelope with a big, bold question mark, so that I 32

know which side is which, and there for which side to open. I keep this envelope in my wallet so it is ready for any occasion. The reason I chose to use outs and a gimmicked envelope is due to the fact that I only ever use this effect as an opener and feel no need for the envelope to be examined as I can quickly move on to the next routine. I also have complete control over which objects are used. The objects I use are everyday items i.e. a set of keys, a mobile phone, a watch and a wallet. I like these objects as they seem ‘impromptu’ but if you think about it, they are items that almost everybody (including me) have on them at any one time. I ask the group if they have something like a set of keys, a wallet or a watch that we can use in a little experiment and to encourage them to look I take my own wallet and keys out of my pockets. It may just so happen that everyone is keen to help and you can gather these four items without having to provide your own. However some people may be reluctant to use their personal possessions, so I always make sure that I have my own phone, keys, wallet and watch available. This also comes in handy as I can use some of these items, such as my wallet and watch for other effects later in the performance. Regardless of how the objects are gathered, have them arranged on the table by the participant you intend to use for this effect. Display the envelope that is either in your hand or take it out of your wallet on the table. I don’t mention that it is a prediction; I just make a brief joke about the mysterious question mark drawn on it and tell them that we will come back to it later.

33

Explain that in a moment you will ask them to: “Choose one, and only one, of the objects on the table but I don’t want you to just casually choose one, I want you to choose the one you want most.” Now, here is where the ‘process’ comes in. I want it to be felt and seen that I am affecting this person. I want it to be seen that I have to work to get people to do my bidding and that the participant is under some sort of ‘psychological spell’. To achieve this I use a mixture of embedded commands, anchoring and a little showmanship. As ever, the words in bold are said with eye contact and slightly more emphasis. “Forget for a moment about these objects. I want you to think about something that you really want, something that you desire. I’m sure you like me have seen something that you just know that you have to have? Something that you see and immediately know that it has to be yours, and you won’t stop thinking about it until you have it? You know what I mean? This could be an object, or a person. Do you have something in mind?” Pause for a moment to let them find something and recall the emotion of ‘want’. “You know that feeling inside you get when it just penetrates you and says [place your hand on their shoulder with a slight squeeze and eye contact] Look at me. And you really want it. You know? Describe to me how that feels…” I then allow the participant to describe the feeling they have. As the feeling of ‘wanting’ something is a highly subjective thing you will have to build upon whatever they say. They are unlikely to give you a detailed or succinct answer so you will probably have to help guide them through this process. If they say something like, “I just have a 34

feeling” ask them where they have a feeling and to describe it. There are no wrong answers. They may say they feel it in their tummy. Ask them to, “Feel it there now. Feel it spread. Where does it spread? Maybe up in to the chest and the shoulders, yeah? What does it make you feel like doing?” Essentially what you are doing is ‘stacking’ all the emotions and feelings that they are experiencing, and then anchoring it to the notion of wanting something. Keeping your hand on their shoulder and giving a slight squeeze when they seem to be really experiencing the feeling that they describe will act as a physical anchor. With this squeeze of the shoulder at the peek of their emotional arch, I will tell them to “Look at me.” This subtlety will further aide the anchor to be used later on. Eye contact is also a powerful tool here as they will tend to attribute you with a powerful gaze that penetrated them, which adds to the effect that you some how got inside their mind. Through out this process of anchoring the experience of ‘want’, I will give them lots of affirmation by telling them “That’s good… Excellent” After each, “Look at me.” I will tell them to look briefly at the objects and then tell them look at me again and squeeze their shoulder i.e. fire off the anchor. The whole thing takes less than a minute but can be a powerful experience for the participant and this will be seen by the spectators at large. Once I think they really have the ‘state’ and the process has been seen and felt by the audience, I will tell the participant to look at the objects one more time and fire off the anchor as I say:

35

“Look at me. And answer honestly, which of those four objects do you feel you want most?” Which ever one they name, I tell them to pick it up. This not only keeps their hands busy, allowing me (and forcing me) to open up the prediction envelope but also acts as some kind of closure to the whole process, as they finally get to pick up and touch the object they wanted most. I will ask if there is; “Any reason why they wanted that one? Did it just feel like the one you wanted?” They will more than likely just say yes, which is nice of them. I will also state for the spectators that “I didn’t tell you to choose that one in any way did I? No. And it really is the one you wanted most.” Which not only acts to dispel any notions of stooging but also as a final convincer that this process you took them through of building up a feeling of ‘want’ was necessary for the effect to work. I pick up the envelope as I ask them these final few questions and I simply reach inside and take out the correct prediction. Again, I don’t make a big hoo-ha about the envelope, it wasn’t the point of the routine, neither was the selection of the object, that’s why they just said which one they wanted and picked it up. I unfold the prediction and ask them to read it out as written. It reads: “If all has gone to plan, and I have been as good at this as Alex thought I would be, the object I want the most is the watch. How did I do?” Obviously changing my name for yours and the object to the one selected, depending on which out is being read.

36

I quite like the prediction to be written in first person because as the participant reads it out, they are referring to them self i.e. I will choose the watch. Also, having them read out at the final line; “How did I do?”, means you can bring the whole thing to a close by replying with, “You did brilliantly, give them a round of applause!”

Credits: The basis for the anchoring script used is taken form Derren Brown’s “Pure Effect”, and can be found in the chapter “Working With the Spectator… In Mind”. Also, it has to be said that the notion of creating a process was inspired by Mr. Brown as well. I have recently been informed that this effect shares ideas with Richard Busch’s “The Destiny Response”. Although I haven’t read the book, judging by Busch’s use of Eriksonian ploys in his other works, he certainly deserves a nod of appreciation for this effect.

37

37th Deception Or… How to create a room full of mind readers. Effect: The performer invites everyone in the room to think of a childhood friend, someone they remember from school. “This can be a best friend you haven’t seen since you left school… it can be that weird kid, a teacher, someone you had a crush on… even a teacher you had a crush on.” A member of the audience is chosen at random - let’s call him Alan and they are asked to come up on stage and are handed an envelope by the performer. The performer asks Alan if he can see what is inside the envelope, to which the answer is no. The performer opens the envelope and reveals what is inside. It is another, smaller envelope and again asks Alan if he can see what is inside this one, encouraging him to hold it up to the light to really make sure. Alan confirms that the envelope is completely opaque. The performer then opens up this envelope and takes out the business card that rested inside and shows it to Alan. “Inside is a business card and on it, it asks you to write the name of the childhood friend you have in mind just here and to think of a number. Yeah. You can see that, correct?” 38

The participant confirms this to be true. The performer hands him a pen and turns away as Alan writes the name of his childhood friend on the card. As Alan does this, the performer asks him to: “Please really focus on the name and number and imagine this person back at school standing in front of a blackboard and on that blackboard, imagine the friend writing the number really, really big. So he has to stand on tip toes to reach the top of the numbers.” Once the participant has written the name, the business card is put back inside the smaller envelope, sealed and then put back inside the larger envelope which is also sealed and the whole thing is given to Alan to look after. The performer explains that his mind reading abilities are skills we all have to a certain extent, but he has just fine tuned it. He explains to the room that he would like to try an experiment with everyone to prove this. Everyone is told to relax, take a deep breath and look at Alan. Alan is asked to focus on the number he has imagined his old school friend writing on the blackboard, he is to imagine he can project it to the audience. The performer picks up a pad, explaining that he will help the room pick up on the number as it wouldn’t be that much of a surprise if he guessed the number on his own and to have a room full of mind readers is much more exciting. The performer starts to receive impressions about the number. These impressions help guide the room to work out for themselves what the number is. The performer writes a number on his pad, unseen by the audience. He very casually shows it to Alan who confirms it is correct. 39

Alan is asked to name the number he had in his mind and names the number 37. There is a gasp from a few members of the audience. The performer shows that he (unsurprisingly) guessed the number 37 correctly and asks for those in the room who also got the number 37 to raise there hands. A large number of people raise their hands. The performer congratulates Alan for being such a good ‘sender’ and the audience for doing so well, joking that they will all put him out of a job. The performer, not wishing to be outdone by his audience, reveals the name of Alan’s childhood friend in dramatic fashion.

Method: This effect is more than the sum of its parts. It will probably come as no surprise that you peek the name that the participant has written and the reason the audience think of the number 37 is no coincidence. It is of course the classic psychological force. Hopefully, you already know this force and its older brother (the 68/86 force) and hopefully you know it because you possess Banachek’s brilliant “Psychological Subtleties” and not because you saw it on that masked street magician show. Briefly; if you ask someone to think of a two digit number and ask them to make both digits odd and both digits different from each other, they will tend to think of the number 37, with 35 coming in a close second. There are a number of psychological helpers that can increase the odds of the force working properly, almost all of which are detailed in Banachek’s must-have book, mentioned above. The classic way to present this effect is as if the audience is reading your mind. However, I have always felt that adding all the restrictions 40

(2 digits, both odd and both different from each other) make the force rather transparent, leading to the possibility of the audience members (correctly) assuming that ‘maybe everyone thinks of that number’. I personally think it works much better if the force is presented as if the audience at large is reading the mind of someone else, one of their own. Then the restrictions mentioned above needed for the force to work can be presented by you as ‘impressions’ that you are receiving from the participants mind. Think of it as if you are simply saying these ‘restrictions’ incidentally out load and by proxy helping to guide the audience at large to the participant’s number. I feel that framing the force in this way makes it far more deceptive and convincing. For this to work I knew I needed to make sure that the on stage participant definitely thought of the number 37. Originally I thought of forcing two cards on the participant (a 3 and a 7) as if it where a means of selecting a random number but this idea seemed rather weak to me. I then thought about combining it with a book test, by riffle forcing the page 37 and culminating the effect by divining the first word on that page. This is a much better idea and if you want to use it that way then by all means go ahead, but seeing as I don’t use books or book tests in my show, it doesn’t suit my needs. Eventually I decided the best way to ensure that the onstage participant would think of the force number was to simply tell them to. Using ambiguous wording and the dual reality principle, we can convey the idea to the audience at large that the number has been randomly thought of by the participant but in the participants mind he will not feel stooged or ‘in on it’. You may remember from the effect’s description that the participant is shown a business card which bares written instructions. They ask him to write the name of the childhood friend he has in mind and to think of a number. 41

As you show him this card you say; “On this card it asks you to write the name of the childhood friend you have in mind just here and it asks you to think of a number. Yeah. You can see that, correct?” Due to the wording, the audience at large takes the statement at face value but in reality instructions on the card are much more specific and read as follows:

By asking the question “You can see that, correct?” you are helping to convey the idea to the audience that what they believe to be true is true, but to the participant you are simply inquiring if they can read the instructions. Please read the following wording carefully to see how the words used convey and reinforce the two separate perceptions that the participant and the audience have. 42

Let’s assume that you have just shown the participant the card he is to write on. “On this card it asks you to write the name of the childhood friend you have in mind just here and it asks you to think of a number. Yeah. You can see that, correct?” As you say “just here” use your finger to indicate the line drawn on the card which indicates exactly where he is to write the name. “So do that for me now, I will look away. Have the number clearly in your mind and the name of your old school friend and please write it nice and clearly, in case we need it as proof later on but make sure no one sees it, especially me! As you write the name I want you to imagine that person back at school, standing in front of a blackboard. And in your mind imagine this old friend writing the number on that blackboard really, really big. So big in fact that they have to stand on tip toes to reach the top of the number. Yeah? Can you imagine that for me? Excellent.” At this point you turn back around to face Alan telling him to keep the writing on the card hidden. This card is placed inside a small pay envelope which is in turn placed inside a larger envelope. It is at this moment I get my peek of the name. To do this I use Bob Cassidy’s brilliant “Two Envelope Test” also known as “The White Dwarf” which sadly I am not at liberty to describe fully but, as the saying goes, one of your favorite peeks will suffice. In brief, the “Two Envelope Test” works like this: the smaller of the two envelopes has a window cut out of it on the address side, allowing you to peek the name as you place this smaller envelope in to the 43

larger. The larger envelope is then sealed and given to the participant for safekeeping. For a more concise handling instructions please see Bob Cassidy’s “The Artful Mentalism of Bob Cassidy”. I personally prefer to present the participant with two normal, ungimmicked envelopes and switch the smaller one for the window envelope at an opportune moment.

Using the 37 force: As mentioned earlier, we want to convey the idea to the audience at large, who believe that Alan has thought of a number at random, that we are receiving ‘impressions’ as to what the number is and simply saying them out loud. However, we need to word the ‘impressions’ in such a way that the onstage participant isn’t confused and doesn’t feel stooged in any way, as he knows that he has been asked to think of a specific number. To him, it must seem as if you are confirming certain facts about the number, i.e. it is a two digit number, both digits are odd, and different from each other. What follows is the basic scripting I use to convey these two ideas. “Alan, I want you to re-imagine your old school friend standing in front of that blackboard, writing that number you have in mind, over and over. Can you do that for me? I would like you to close your eyes for a moment and just keep replaying that image in your head, almost like a mini-film clip that’s on a loop. Does that make sense? Yes? And keep saying the number silently to yourself, over and over at the same time. Perfect.” The rest is directed to the audience at large unless otherwise stated: 44

“The rest of you, I want to try something now that I hope will work with at least some of you. Each of you is going to personally try and pick up on the number that Alan has in his mind. So please just forget for a moment if you think it’s possible or anything like that, just relax and do as I say in your heads. Alan is doing his part by focusing as best he can on the number, I will help guide you along the way as well.” Pick up your pad and pen. “All of you please put both feet flat on the floor. Hands on your lap and take a deep breath in… and out… in… and out. Alan, I would like you to do the same, in time with the audience. Deep breath in and out… in… and out. So that all of you, and Alan here, are breathing in time together, aligning your physiology and therefore aligning your psychology. Keep focusing on the number Alan, seeing it on that blackboard. The rest of you please imagine an empty blackboard, in a moment you will begin to imagine a number on that board and it’s… it’s a two digit number. That’s right isn’t Alan, yes?” The following combines the ideas of Derren Brown and his brilliant effect “Reminiscence” with the notion of using the 37 force under the guise of ‘receiving impressions’. “Alan, please just think of the first digit for me, the first digit, and think about if it’s odd or even. I’ll write this down [write ‘ODD’]. Got it? Alan, tell everyone is it odd or even? Odd! Excellent, little bit of a reaction from the audience there.

45

Now let’s do the same with the second digit, odd or even. [Pause] The same again [Pause] Just think. Got it? [Leave the word ‘ODD’ written on your pad] Alan, what is it? Odd! Brilliant! There not the same number are they… both digits are different, yeah?” The following is said to the audience and yet almost to yourself - as if thinking out loud. “So everyone, we are looking for an odd number, both digits are odd, both different… so that means something like 15 or 97. But not those… that would be too easy! Got it?! Don’t think about it too much, so just let a number come to mind now. Quick as you can. Once you think you have it, imagine it on that blackboard, nice and big. I’m just going to write it down…[write ‘37’ nice and big on your pad] Now before I show the rest of you, I just want to make sure I’ve got it right. Alan, just answer yes or no, so you don’t give anything away just yet, is this correct?” You show the number to Alan and he of course confirms it to be correct. This is a nice little convincer to add on at the end. You then ask him to say the number he had in his mind and simultaneously turn around your pad to show the audience. Ask for those people who also got the number to raise their hands. This will obviously be a large percentage of the audience due to the force but to get even more hands raised, the following ploy works brilliantly. Hold the pad so everyone can see the number and ask those who were “one number off” to raise their hands. Also add, “Something like 35, just one number off…”, this will get plenty more hands raised due to the fact that 35 is the second most common choice and the ambiguous nature of the phrase “one number off”, so the extra hands will include 46

those who did get the last digit as 7 but the first as any number between 1 and 9 and vice versa. There should now be a large number of people with their hands raised. Personally I like to act a little surprised and delighted that it worked so very well. Remember at the beginning you said that this should work with only a few of them, but you were not expecting almost all of them! Tell them to give themselves and the participant a nice round of applause, you could even invite the audience to try and pick up on the name, see how they do.

Notes: You may be worried that during the performance the on stage participant might inadvertently give away the fact that the card asked him to think of a specific number. This shouldn’t really be a problem. Just remember that you are in control when on stage and keep in mind that most spectators are quite nervous when up on stage. However to avoid this unlikely event I try to restrict him or her to one word answers or ask simple yes or no questions, “…both digits are different, yeah?” and after all that ‘breathing in time with the audience’ bit and making them focus on the thought, they are unlikely to spoil the mood. Besides which, they don’t have a microphone! I use this effect almost exactly as written for shorter performances but for longer shows this becomes the first phase of my “3 Envelope Test” a.k.a. “4th Dimensional Telepathy” and the peek used is how I achieve my one ahead for that effect. Jeff Richards suggested to me that one could use a device such as John Riggs’ excellent “Brown Hornet Impression Bored” to obtain the peek. The paper the participant writes on would contain the same instructions as the business card described earlier. Thanks Jeff! 47

Also, it will probably have crossed your mind that you could use the 86/68 force instead of the 37 force, either for repeat bookings or just in general. If anything this may increase your hit rate as it will allow you to ask the audience to raise their hands if they got “…the same number as Alan, 86, but backwards.” Every time I perform this effect, I come away thinking of ways to improve the wording or the structure of it. Every performance is a lesson in how to improve it. The same can be said for any effect you or I perform, so I encourage you to do the same. Take the ideas I have given you and work on your own wording and subtleties until you find a place where it works for you. Then continue to refine it, the reactions from the audience are well worth the extra effort.

Credits: As mentioned in the text the 37 force in it’s original form can be found in Banachek’s “Psychological Subtleties” and the method I use for obtaining the name is Bob Cassidy’s brilliant “Two Envelope Test” a.k.a. “The White Dwarf” which can be found in several of his books. It’s worth noting that Jim Callahan has also published an effect using psychological forces to create the effect that the audience at large is reading the mind of an on-stage spectator. Jim’s effect appeared on his DVD “Something” and is different in method and presentation to my own.

48

In Dramatic Fashion The Sixth Sense Ploy In the previous routine I finished the effect’s description by saying that the performer reveals the thought of name “in dramatic fashion”. There have been countless suggestions, presentations and ideas throughout mentalist literature as to what that ‘dramatic fashion’ could entail, ranging from having it appear in blood on your arm, writing it backwards on a mirror in blood or even the frightfully entertaining and knock’em dead presentation of having it written on a dry erase board (in blood). What follows is one such presentational idea that I have been working with. This idea of mine first saw print in Jerome Finley’s “Thought Channel” but appears here for the first time in full. It’s a very enjoyable presentation to perform and can add that air of tension and dramatis that is all too often lacking in a mind reading performance. I loosely refer to this as “The Sixth Sense Ploy” not because I weave some ridicules story of people having a sixth sense in to the presentation3. No, I call it this because in the film “Sixth Sense”, there is a scene in which Bruce Willis, who plays a child psychologist, challenges the young boy (the one who sees dead people) to a ‘game’ of sorts. Bruce is trying to prove that he can help the boy and knows a lot about him just by observing him and his life. He tells the boy that he will say a few statements that he believes to be true about the boy, every time he says something that is correct, the boy is to take one step forward, for every statement that is wrong, the boy must take a step back. 3 because as any neurologist or informed mind reader will tell you, we as humans actually have at least 9 senses and some say many more, none of which allow us to do ‘paranormal’ things. It was actually Aristotle who classified us as having five because he wanted it to fit in with his notion of there being 5 elements, however he also described redheads as being emotionally un-housebroken!?

49

In short, for every ‘hit’ take one step forward. For every ‘miss’ take one step back. The strong image and overall tentative feeling that was created in this short scene stuck with me. That and the fact that I guessed he was a ghost in the restaurant scene! If we apply this to a mind reading performance it allows us to do a lot of things. We can insist upon absolute silence from the participant, only allowing them to think intently of the thought we are attempting to receive and not in any way verbally communicate it, giving an almost ‘test conditions’ feel to the presentation. They must also not move unless you have made a statement and then when they do move it is either toward you for a ‘hit’, or away form you for a ‘miss’. The large amount of silence combined with the tension the audience will feel as they watch and wait to see which way the participant is going to move will be deeply affecting. This tension will be greatly increased if after a couple of steps forward, one step is taken backwards, which is something that can be engineered into the performance. Using the example given in the previous effect of having the on stage participant think of an old school friend, I shall set out how such a performance might pan out using the “Sixth Sense Ploy”. Have the participant stand facing you on the other side of the stage. Explain the ‘rules’ to him i.e. for every statement that is correct, he is to take one step towards you. For every statement that is wrong, he is to take one step back. Also, here’s a nice touch which I came across in Derren Brown’s “Pure Effect”, tell him that he is not allowed to speak at any point and ask “Do you understand?” if he replies, instantly shush him by saying, “No, no. You spoke. You’re not allowed to talk, just think. Do you 50

understand?”… he should remain silent. Look him in the eyes, as if reading his mind for the answer, smile and continue. In this example, we know that the participant is thinking of an old school friend, we have peeked the name and there for can make a good assumption as to the gender of said friend. This will be the first statement. Let’s assume the name peeked was David. “Just keep focusing on this old school friend, picture them in your mind. Imagine them back at school sat in class with you. Say their name to yourself in your mind… ” “First of all, I’m getting the impression that this friend is male. If that’s true take one step forward, if not take one step back…” At this point they should of course take one step towards you. Smile and say “Good.” I will always make sure that the first two statements I make about the participants thought are things that I know to be true, in this example the sex of the person being thought of and the following: “This person’s name. It begins with a hard sound, like a D or a B. I’m going to go for a D. If there name begins with D, take one step forwards…” Again, they must take a step towards you. It is now, on my third statement that I take a gamble. If I was unsure about the sex of the school friend, it is now that I would make my 50/50 statements, or perhaps take a wild guess at the age. I have also used Banachek’s brilliant ‘Letters In A Word ploy’ at this point. However, in this example I will take an educated guess as to which class they imagine this friend in: 51

“As you imagine this friend, can you see them in class with you? Just imagine which lesson you are in… I’m seeing numbers. Are you in Math’s or something? Take a step towards me if so…” This is just a minor statistical gambit but at this point in the presentation it doesn’t matter if you miss and they take one step back, it will add tension and realism. Also notice the wording used, “I’m seeing numbers.” This is something of an ambiguous statement and could refer to other school subjects, such as History or even any of the Sciences, so if you are wrong, all is not lost in the participants mind as it could seem as if you were half right… it did involve numbers but you just made a bad judgment call and thought it was Maths rather than History (for example). The participant will tend to be more than willing to spread the word that you did get it right, you just picked the wrong subject! No matter how this third, not sure-fire statement went, my next few statements I make sure are fully accurate. I tend to make five statements in total before revealing the name. These final two statements will involve the letters in the name itself, for example stating: “Ok. We know it begins with the letter D but… it also ends with D, doesn’t it!” And end with, “5 letters long!” as they take this final step forward I pick up a pad and pen and write the name to reveal in a moment. After this is done I explain to the participant that they can now speak and I would like them to say nice and clearly the name of the old school friend they have in mind. They do so and I reveal what I wrote. This should give you a good idea of “The Sixth Sense Ploy”, below is a more general and basic breakdown. Although I’ve used five 52

statements in this write up, I do often ‘Jazz’ it up during performance. I hope you use and enjoy this presentational ploy.

Breakdown of The Sixth Sense Ploy: Explain the ‘rules’: No talking (unless told otherwise) For every hit = one step forward. For ever miss = one step back. First statement – Something you know to be true but that doesn’t give away too much. E.g. Name = gender, Word = number of letters Second statement – Again, something you know to be true but this time more specific. E.g. Name or Word = first letter Third statement – Take a gamble and say something that if it hits, you have a minor miracle, if not it simply adds tension and realism. E.g. Banachek’s ‘Letters in a Word’ ploy, take an educated guess as to the environment of the memory or what the person in the memory looks like. Fourth statement – Something specific that you know to be true. E.g. repeated letters, last letter, ends in ‘ing’. Fifth statement – Very specific, giving the impression that you now know the name/word.

53

Deck Head The Not Memorised Deck Routine Effect: The performer approaches a group of spectators and introduces himself as a magician - not of the physical world but of the mind. To demonstrate this concept the performer brings out a deck of playing cards explaining that he will use it to demonstrate how he uses the mind to produce magical results. “The first thing you should do when you sit down to play a game of cards is make sure the cards are shuffled, so go ahead shuffle them for me. Any way you want.” The spectator does so and the performer makes a humorous but in no way derogatory comment about the participant’s shuffling skills. “OK, so you are happy they are mixed? Good. The second thing you should do is make sure the cards are not marked in any way. The best way to do this is called the ‘flick book test’.” The performer then demonstrates the ‘flick book test’ by riffling through the cards and showing that if the backs where marked in any way the patterns on the back would change. “A bit like one of those flick book animations that you might have seen when you where young. You know, there would have been a slightly different image on each page and as you flicked through the image would come to life. Well if the cards where marked, the backs would all be different so you would see a change as you flick through.” 54

Both ends are checked and the cards are seen not to be marked in any way. “The last thing you should do is make sure the cards are all different” The performer begins to spread the cards face up. “So just take a look and make sure they are all different. For example, if you see more than 4 Aces you know something funny is going on! Happy? So you’re happy they are mixed, happy their not marked and happy they are all different. Good, if you’re happy I’m happy.” And with those final words the performer has given them a brief shuffle and cut. “Now, if we were to play a game of cards everything would be very fair. The cards have been thoroughly checked and mixed, so no one would have an advantage over any one else. Unless someone has the ability to very rapidly, memorise the order of the cards.” He then asks for a moment and holds the deck up to his eyes. He rapidly riffles through the cards seemingly memorising the order of the cards. “Done. Simple as that. Well not quite, you see I haven’t really memorised the deck in the way you might imagine. Actually I have just opened up my mind and allowed all that information to flood in, knowing that subconsciously I will take it all in. And that if I test it, my mind will let me know the information consciously.

55

So let’s see, if you name a number between 1 and 52, I should be able to fairly accurately tell you which card is at that number. Go ahead, name a number.” The participant names a number, let’s say it’s 21. “OK, 21… That’s a black card. It’s a 3… the 3 of Hearts… I think. Let’s find out. Now, I can’t mess up the order of these cards or this will all be a waste of time. So I’ll count them like this and you make sure I count fairly, one card at a time… 1, 2, 3… ” The performer spreads the cards one at a time from the top of the deck, counting as he goes and being careful not to disturb their order. He reaches the 21st card and moves it to the top of the ‘counted’ pack and gives the remainder to the participant. “The 21st card you said. I said it would be the 3 of Hearts, let’s have a look…” He reveals the card and it is indeed the 3 of Hearts and is clearly relived that his mind has not let him down. He places the card “back where it should be” on top of the remainder pack in the participant’s hands and places the rest of the deck he holds, back on top of that. Excited to test his skills again the performer continues: “Let’s try it again, but slightly differently this time. Another test that memory experts and card counters use is to move or completely remove one card from the deck.

56

You see because I have the sequence in my head, if one of those cards were to be removed or moved, the sequence would be broken and that card would in my mind stick out like a sore thumb. Think of it like the alphabet. The alphabet is a sequence of 26 letters, the order of which you know off by heart, almost unconsciously, so if the letter ‘C’ were suddenly removed completely or moved to later in the sequence you’d notice it wouldn’t you.” The performer dribbles the cards in his hands and asks the participant to say ‘Stop’. They do so and the card stopped at is the card taken from the deck and memorised by the participant. The performer riffles the cards in front of his eyes. He frowns and looks pensive. He tells the participant to put the card back in the deck but somewhere different so he dribbles the cards again and asks them to say ‘Stop’. The card is replaced at his point and once again the cards are riffled in front of the performer’s eyes. “OK there was a card missing…and it came from here next to the Jack of Diamonds.” The performer explains as he spreads through the now face up deck. “What was after the Jack… it was the 4… the 4 of Spades, is that right?” The participant confirms that he is correct much to the performers delight. “Now, this all very well and good me showing off like this but all I’m doing is trusting my own mind. Trusting that my subconscious mind has taken in all the information and will consciously let me know the card. This is what our subconscious does, among other things. But ‘how’ it let’s us know is different for different people; it may come as a mental flash or as an intuitive gut instinct. 57

So with that in mind I want to try something with you to show that you can do exactly what I have just done. It sounds impossible, but if you trust me and do as I ask this will work.” The performer spreads the cards and asks a spectator to remove a card but not to let him or the participant see what it is. While the card is being memorised by the other spectator and shown to the rest of the group, the performer instructs the ‘would-be card counter’ to relax and take a few deep breaths. This, he claims, will help open up her mind and allow all the information in. He riffled the cards in front of her eyes just like he did in front of his own eyes. “You may not think you saw everything but trust me, it’s all in there.” The card that had been removed is now placed back in the deck at a random point. He approaches the participant and tells her to relax. “I’m going to show you the cards again. Just relax and notice how this time one card just stands out to you. This is different for different people. Some people think it’s like time has slowed down. You will see all the cards again but one card will seem to stand out from the others, it may seem to linger for longer in your mind. Just remember it consciously.” The performer riffles the cards in front of the spectator again and asks: “Did you see the card, one that seemed to stand out form all the others? Me too, just focus on that card and remember it.”

58

The performer goes through the deck and out jogs a single card. He asks the participant what colour the card is. She replies and the spectator who had chosen the card confirms that she is correct. The same is done with the value and finally she is asked to name the card completely. She is 100% correct and is congratulated by both the performer and the spectators alike.

About Deck Head: So, this is my ‘not memorised deck routine’. So called because you don’t genuinely memorise the deck (no surprises there) but also because you actually explain this to the spectators. Instead I have chosen to spin a tale of ‘subconscious recall’, which, for those of you that don’t know, is the generally accepted explanation behind our ‘intuitive’ or ‘gut instinct’ reactions and decisions. Our subconscious (or, if you prefer, unconscious) mind is constantly taking in everything around us and can ‘remember’ everything we have ever seen, heard, felt or thought. It then makes decisions based on all this input and then sends the relevant information to our conscious mind in some way, more often than not as a ‘feeling’. I’m sure you have heard people say something like, “I’ve got a bad feeling about this” when faced with something that is similar to an event that happened previously in their life and something went wrong, whether they remember this event consciously or subconsciously. I highly recommend you do a little research on the idea of ‘subconscious recall’. I personally find it fascinating and a far more interesting plot for a routine than simply having mastered esoteric memory techniques. Also, with this routine I feel I have dealt with some of the issues I have with most memorised deck routines: firstly, it’s completely pointless in presenting an effect in which you seem to rapidly memorise the order 59

of the cards if the spectators think the deck is either not properly shuffled and therefore stacked, or is marked in some way. These suspicions are straight away blown out of the water by asking the spectator to mix the cards and making an amusing comment about their shuffling. Nothing harsh or derogatory, but something that can be used again later and will draw attention to the fact that the cards are being mixed. This is reinforced by showing them how to test for marked cards using the ‘flipbook test’ or ‘riffle test’ which is done exactly as described in the presentation above. Derren Brown is the first person I saw use this idea but I have since seen Luke Jermay use it, and use it brilliantly. The other issue I have with most memorised deck routines is that it’s all about the performer and his brain. With this routine and its final phase, I have hopefully created something special for the participant in showing them that they too can do this. This not only adds some realism to my pseudo-explanation but puts the spotlight on the participant, which is where I feel it should be.

Method: The deck is a perfectly ordinary one, but has one minor change: one card is a short card. I personally use the 3 of Clubs as it’s a rather innocuous card. I trim of a few millimetres from both the short ends of the card in the usual fashion. The only other thing I do is remove the jokers as they just get in the way. To begin the effect the short card can be anywhere in the deck. Have the deck shuffled by the participant, as in the presentation. When they 60

give the cards back and you ask if they are happy with the shuffle, give them a brief mix and a cut yourself, in the process bringing the short card to the bottom of the deck. This is done to get the short card out of the way for the first 2 phases of the routine and so it won’t disturb your riffling of the deck as you supposedly memorise the order. Then, as in the presentation, explain and demonstrate how to check for marked cards. After this you will spread the cards face up: “The last thing you should do is make sure the cards are all different” This is purely as motivation to look at the faces of the cards, and in particular the top card. As you spread through casually catch a glimpse of what the top card is and remember it. This will be the card you claim is at the number they call out. This first phase is straight out of Corinda with minor handling changes from me. It’s called “Photo-Memory” by Hans Trixer and can be found on page 308 of “13 Steps to Mentalism”. So you have got to the point where the cards have been mixed and examined. The short card is out of the way on the bottom and you have remembered the top card. You will now seemingly memorise the cards by riffling the cards in front of your eyes. I do this quite fast and riffle up whilst counting slowly to 4 in my head. After the first riffle, I pause for a beat and look up as if thinking and then riffle the cards again. Each time I riffle the cards I will slow down towards the top of the deck and put a slight upward bend in the top card. This will facilitate the double lift I will perform in a moment. 61

I explain that I haven’t really memorised the cards, but allowed my subconscious to take in the information et cetera and get the participant to name any number between 1 and 52, saying that I should know which card is at that number. Whatever number they name; name the top card: the card you remembered earlier and put the bend in. I tell them that I can’t mess up the order of the cards so have to count the cards in the following fashion. The truth is that counting them like this makes the effect possible by keeping the top card on top. Hold the deck in your left hand and use the left thumb to spread the cards, one card at a time off to the right, counting as you go. Let’s say the number called is 21. When you reach the 21st card, thumb it off on to the top card and break the deck at this point. Hand the participant the left hand, lower portion of the deck and retaining the right hand, upper portion. Reiterate the number they said and the card you said would be at that position. Perform the double lift and reveal the card. Simple as that. I like to act relieved and excited at this point, as if I’m pleased my mind didn’t fail me. A nice touch here is to take the double as one card and put it “back where it came from” on top of the participants lower part of the pack, followed by your upper pack on top. Notice how these actions and words cement the idea that the card was indeed at that position and that you really don’t want to mess up the order of the cards. What’s cool about this is that whatever card you named (the top card) is actually now in the 21st (or whatever number was called) position. 62

The next phase is nothing more than a cunningly disguised key card effect. Dribble the cards in your hands and request the participant say stop. Ask them to take the top card of the lower portion and remember it. As they do this, riffle the cards in front of your eyes but seem unsure. Almost as an afterthought tell them to put the card back but in a different position, so dribble the cards again and when they tell you to stop, break the deck at that point. Tell them to put it face down on top of the lower portion of the deck and as they do so, catch a glimpse of the bottom card of the upper half of the deck. More theatrics now as you riffle the cards in front of your eyes again. Immediately turn the pack face up and begin to spread through it. As you do this, look for your key card and remember the card next to it, this of course will be the card that was removed and then moved in the deck. “OK there was a card missing…and it came from here next to the Jack of Diamonds. What was after the Jack… it was the 4… the 4 of Spades, is that right?” This is sheer bluff but the idea behind saying it is to move away from finding the participants card (and any thoughts of key cards the audience may have) and in to the area of the effect you are presenting, that being a memory or ‘subconscious recall’ of the cards and their positions.

63

Again, a nice touch here after having your guess confirmed, is to actually find the card that had been moved and put it ‘back’ next to the Jack. Now we get to the final phase: the ‘spectator as mentalist’ moment. This is where the short card comes into play. We will be using the classic ‘Visual Riffle Force’ made popular amongst magicians by David Blain, and earlier than that, Chan Canasta. Banachek also writes about this in the first “Psychological Subtleties”. You explain, as in the presentation, what is going to happen and have a card removed and remembered by a bystander. As you are talking to the participant casually shuffle the cards as it doesn’t matter any more because the participant is going to be doing all the work. As you shuffle, bring the short card to the top of the deck. I really like to get the participant to relax, as if I am putting them in a powerful state of mind. Riffle the cards in front of the spectator’s eyes in a similar manner to how you did in front of your own eyes. Assure them that all the information is in their head. As you turn back to find the removed card and the person holding it, swing cut the deck and have the card held by the bystander put on top of the short card. Put remainder of the deck on top and explain to the participant: “I’m going to show you the cards again. Just relax and notice how this time one card just stands out to you. This is different for different people. Some people think its like time has slowed down. You will see all the cards again but one card will seem to stand out from the others, it may seem to linger for longer in your mind. Just remember it consciously.” 64

The words here are very important. Essentially you are prepping them to notice and remember the card that, thanks to the short card, will be seen for longer than the others. At the same time you are suggesting to them and the audience at large that this is due to the power of the mind and its natural functions. “Did you see the card, one that seemed to stand out from all the others? Me too, just focus on that card and remember it.” I then go through the deck and out jog the card above the short card and encourage the participant to reveal the information bit by bit, rather than blurt it out, to build the tension. I can congratulate them on doing a brilliant job, telling them that I knew they could do it and encourage the others to give them a round of applause.

Credits: As stated in the text, the first phase of the routine is “Photo-Memory” by Hans Trixer and can be found on page 308 of “13 Steps to Mentalism”. The idea of putting a slight bend or crimp in a card to facilitate a double lift is, as far as I know, a well-known card handling tip. The second phase is a key card effect. I don’t know who ‘invented’ the idea of ‘key cards’ but the concept is found in most, if not all, beginners magic books. The final phase uses the concept of a ‘visual riffle force’, an idea often used by the late, great Chan Canasta. I first came across the idea when reading Banachek’s first “Psychological Subtleties”, Chapter 8 “Subtle Cards”.

65

Finally, the presentational idea of showing the participant how to check for marked cards was brought to my attention by Derren Brown in an episode of “Trick of the Mind”.

66

Leave An Impression The Memory Man Ploy Whilst we are on the subject of being dishonest about your memory, here’s a little idea that although isn’t strictly speaking an effect, it should leave a firm impression about you and your mental abilities on whoever you perform it for. Before I explain the idea, let me tell you a quick anecdote that I feel illustrates the point I am about to make. I was performing at a private party held in a rather nice home in Cambridge. I introduced myself to the hostess, Lynn I believe her name was, and she introduced me to the first little group of guests that had arrived. I did ‘my thing’ with the four or so guests in the group, asking names and involving them all in the routines. After ten minutes or so, more guests arrived and I moved on to the next group. Over the hour I was booked, I didn’t once bump in to any of those original ‘early comers’ that I had begun the night with. They seemed to stay in the kitchen and keep themselves to themselves. It wasn’t until it came time for me to leave and I was looking for Lynn, the hostess with the mostess, to say goodbye that I did see one of those ‘early comers’. I couldn’t find Lynn but I did see a lady I recognized from that first group and for some reason, despite having heard about 30 different 67

names that evening, I could recall her name, it was Rose (quite a memorable name really). I touched her on the shoulder and said something like, “Rose, have you seen Lynn, I need to say goodbye.” Rose had a look on her face of utter surprise, with a smidgen of glee. She apologized for looking a bit dumb struck and revealed she was shocked and impressed that I had remembered her name, adding something along the lines of ‘…but of course you would, you’re the mind magician’ and proceeded to tell me that Lynn was having a wee. The point of this not-particularly interesting story is: it’s the little things that make the bigger picture more interesting. Thinking about it, of course Rose felt special that I had remembered her name, who wouldn’t, but I think it resonated a little deeper in Rose due to the fact I was ‘the mind magician’. Her initial shock that I had remembered her name came from the fact that when you meet someone at a party, usually their name goes in one ear and out the other, but because it was me, a man with para-usual skills of the mind of which she had had first hand experience, it became easily explained away. She believed in my mental powers. I was no longer a one or two trick pony, I actually had real abilities. You may think I’m reading a little to deeply in to this but her shock and enthusiasm at my recollection of her name got me thinking. It really is the little things that make the difference. Using your supposed abilities for something other than the routines you perform adds depth and realism to your character. 68

This notion has inspired a few ideas within me, one of which is detailed below.

Imagine: You are performing at some sort of event and a spectator has expressed an interest in hiring you for their next ‘do’. You of course give them one of your business cards but you also ask them to give you their phone number (it’s just good business practice). But what do you do if they don’t have a business card, or they start scrabbling around looking for a pen and paper to jot it down? Well, you tell them not to worry, they can just tell you the number and you’ll remember it. They will give you a bit of an odd look for a moment but encourage them to tell you their number. Weeks later, imagine their surprise when you phone them up to talk about that gig!

Method: Well, you could just attempt to genuinely memories their phone number as they give it to you, but unless your last name is Lorayne, you may find this tricky. And the image of a mind master, glimpsed from the corner of their eye as they turn around to continue their evening, pelting frantically from the room to their car, scrabbling around the glove box for a pen and paper to quickly write down said number, rather destroys the illusion you are aiming to create.

69

The less mentally taxing and cardio-vascular inducing method is pocket writing. Just very casually put your hands in your pockets as you are speaking to this potential customer and ask them to tell you their number - one digit at a time. With each digit simply write it down in your pocket, it’s as simple as that. In a more ‘impromptu’ setting I have managed to do the same thing using my mobile phone. Again, I just casually put my hands in my pocket, unlock my phone and dial the number by touch alone. I would then hit ‘dial’ but then immediately hang up. This would store the number in my ‘recently called’ list, and save me trying to save it into my address book with the phone still in my pocket. So next time you have a potential customer in front of you, just ask them tell you their phone number, act as if you are memorizing it by mumbling to yourself and looking pensive… then tell them you will be in touch. The proof, as they say, is in the pudding and the pudding comes when a few days later, you phone them! The reactions can be priceless. Enjoy!

70

Thief of Thoughts A Sneaky Thought Reading Effect Effect: The performer hands out four of his business cards along with four pens, to four people. He then asks them to write the name of an object, a person or a place that means something to them on their card. “I would like each of you to write down a name. This can be a name of a person or a place that has some sort of meaning to you: someone close to you that you see quite often or a place you have been to and have fond memories of being there. Or this could be an object that has some sort of meaning to you. It’s up to you what you write, just make it personal.” When they have done that, all the cards are passed face down to one person and mixed. These are then given to the performer and he places them on top of the stack of business cards he holds in his hand. The performer explains briefly what he is about to do by telling a story about ‘Clever Hans’. He explains that: “In the early 1900’s there was something of phenomenon known as ‘Clever Hans’. Clever Hans was a German horse that was claimed to have been able to perform mathematical tasks and, more interestingly, read minds!

71

One such task was for someone from a small crowd to write down a piece of information while the horse and the trainer were out of sight. The horse would be brought to the group and the card would be shown to him. Clever Hans was then led around the group until he stopped in front of one person and tapped his hoof to indicate that this was the person Hans ‘thought’ had written the information. He was surprisingly accurate at it, much to the surprise of anyone who witnessed it, including his trainer. No one at the time knew how a horse could do this sort of thing, not even the owner, but in 1907, psychologist Oskar Pfungst demonstrated that the horse was not actually performing intellectual tasks and reading minds, but was watching the reaction of his human observers. Pfungst discovered that the horse was responding directly to involuntary clues in the body language of the human trainer and the gathered crowd. You see the closer and closer the horse got to the correct person the more tense the crowd would get, until Hans found the correct person, then they would all relax and Hans would notice this and respond accordingly. Now, I’m no German horse but I would like to try something similar with the information you have written down.” The performer explains that he will turn over the first card and show it to the group but cautions them not to react or give away if it’s their thought being shown. The performer turns over and displays the first card to everyone. He gives the rest of the stack to a near by spectator but retains the first card in his hands.

72

The performer seems to study the card and the gathered participants, repeating out loud the information written on the card, even adding details that he ‘senses’. “Luke! This is clearly a name… someone close to you. Someone you have a connection with. I’d say this Luke is a young man, I also think he has been troubled by something recently… maybe this is something you have spoken about with him…” The performer is speaking to no one in particular but at the same time speaking to the person who wrote on that card. He wanders from person to person, mimicking Clever Hans being led around the group, as if by some unseen force. Finally he stops in front of one person: “Say hello from me next time you see Luke! Am I right?!” The participant confirms he is correct, much to the delight of everyone watching. The performer does the same with the next participant but a little quicker this time. Now only two cards remain. He picks up the second to last card but does not show this to anyone else. “Please both of you think about what you wrote down. It’s either a name of a place or a person or an object. Whatever it is just focus on your own thought for a moment.” The performer starts to reveal pieces of information about what each person is thinking. He describes the general image they each have in their mind, whether it is a person, place or object and finally gives the card he holds to the correct person.

73

He immediately ‘pounces’ on the last participant, revealing what this person is merely thinking of almost exactly, despite the fact that the card with his thought on is still being held by an indifferent spectator.

Method; Larry Becker’s Sneak Thief has become a modern day classic. Many different variations have been published and released to the community including several that have that all important kicker ending of duplicating the final drawing. What follows is my own personal presentation, handling and marking system for the routine. Although I still often perform this effect using drawings, this presentation is based around giving the participants a choice of what to write: a name, an object or a place. Performing it this way gives the routine a kind of ‘jazzy’ feel that makes it much more fun to perform: as anyone who performs in a close-up environment regularly will tell you, it’s the repetition that gets to you. This presentation also allows for a more progressive and intimate feel to the effect. In terms of patter and presentation, I just really like the story about Clever Hans. A quick Google search will tell you plenty about Hans, it will also tell you that some of the stuff I say about him in performance is completely made up. In particular, he was better known for doing mathematical and intellectual tasks rather than mind reading4 and the test I describe was probably never done to Hans, but it sits in nicely with this effect. However, the part about Hans reading the unconscious clues and body language of the crowd and his trainer are true. So true, in fact, that this phenomenon became known as “The Clever Hans Effect”.

4

Although, there was once a famous horse with alleged psychic abilities called Lady Wonder. Her ‘abilities’ however are often considered to be down to a mixture of luck and the ‘Clever Hans Effect’.

74

Now, let’s break down the effect in to its component parts. In a moment I will detail the marking system I use and then move on to how I like to get my peek. I’m going to resist the temptation and turmoil of writing up exactly how I like to perform the revelations but essentially I do it as written under the effect’s description. I use cold reading, logic and barefaced bluff to give a kind of ‘reading’, but a reading that is based on the information on the card and not the participant’s personality, as is usually the case. I like to wander from participant to participant, as if reading reactions like Clever Hans did. I hold the card flat on my palm, moving from person to person as if the card is somehow guiding me. I like to think of it as a mental game of ‘hot or cold’. The brief readings I do give are spoken as if to myself: maybe I am receiving impressions or perhaps I’m really just trying to coax a reaction out of the participants in order to work out who the card belongs to. I handle the first two readings in much the same way by making educated guesses about the relationship between the participant and the information written on the card. The third card and the third ‘reading’ are handled slightly differently: I take the third card from the pile without showing it to anybody. I just read it to myself and ask the last two remaining participants to focus on their own thoughts. I note the markings on this card and thus know who wrote it. Doing this also tells me that the name I will have peeked earlier is being thought of by the other person. 75

I look at the participant whose card I peeked earlier and reveal that they are thinking of the name of a person (or whatever it is) and that the other person is thinking of a place (or whatever). “Which tells me that this is yours!” I say as I give the card in my hand to the correct participant. In the event that they are both thinking of the same type of information, i.e. both thinking of a name, I handle the reveal by announcing that they are both thinking of the same thing but point out the differences. By that, I mean I explain they are both thinking of a name (for example) but “You’re thinking of a female name and you’re thinking of a man, yes!? Which tells me this is yours, correct!?” Or in the case of an object it might be: “Yours is large but yours is very small, yes!? Which tells me this is yours, correct!?” Or for a place: “Yours is in this country but yours is abroad, somewhere hot, yes!? Which tells me this is yours, correct!?” . I will then launch straight into reading the mind of the final participant, naming specific details about the person, place or object until I eventually nail it. I don’t see the cold reading used in this effect as any kind of problem because I will always have the surefire revelation of knowing who wrote what to fall back on, and due to the peek I can end on a high. Also, keep in mind that when you asked the participants to write something down, you added: 76

“This can be a name of a person or a place that has some sort of meaning to you: someone close to you that you see quite often or a place you have been to and have fond memories of being there. Or this could be an object that has some sort of significance to you. It’s up to you what you write, just make it personal.” This will give you something of a head start when it comes to thinking about the relationships and connections your participants have with the information they have chosen to write down.

The Marks As I’m sure you are aware, a covert and impromptu method to mark the cards is to simply nail nick each card in a different way as you hand them out. But if you are anything like me, and I know I am, then you love to chew your nails. Thus rendering the nail nick method, which I believe goes back to Annemann, not only tricky but also painful for our sore and bloody fingers. In Larry Becker’s original handling the method of marking was to omit numbers and letters from your telephone number and address on the business cards, however I have a problem with this as I like to leave my cards with the participants (why else would you be using them!?) and if I omit parts of my address and phone number then my potential clients are not going to be able to contact me and therefore not be able to hire me! My solution to this is illustrated in the diagram on the next page. Pay particular attention to the telephone numbers on the mock business cards in the diagram. Notice the spaces or gaps between the area codes and the rest of the number. This is how we will mark each of the cards.

77

Alexander Marsh

[Card 1]

Purveyor of Magicalness Available for weddings, parties and bar mitzvahs. 01234567899 07098765432 Alexander Marsh

[Card 2]

Purveyor of Magicalness Available for weddings, parties and bar mitzvahs. 01234 567899 07098765432 Alexander Marsh

[Card 3]

Purveyor of Magicalness Available for weddings, parties and bar mitzvahs. 01234567899 07098 765432 Alexander Marsh

[Card 4]

Purveyor of Magicalness Available for weddings, parties and bar mitzvahs. 01234 567899 07098 765432

78

Please note that the gaps (or spaces) between the numbers in the diagram have been slightly exaggerated and that the labels at the top right of each card, e.g. [Card 1] are there for your convenience and illustration only. Most telephone numbers (in the UK at least) have 11 digits in them; a 5 digit area code followed by a 6 digit number. Anyone in the same area code as you can dial the 6 digit number without the need for the area code prefixing it. If, on the other hand, they are outside your area code, then they will need to dial your area code before the 6 digit number5. Also, here in the UK, mobile (or ‘cellular’) ‘phone numbers also have 11 digits and always begin 07. Some people write the number as one string of 11 digits. However, some write the area code (5 digits) then have a space followed by the rest of the number (6 digits). This is most often done with landline numbers only and the mobile number is written as one long string. However, I have often seen mobile numbers split up in to 5 and then 6 digits, probably for sake of symmetry with the landline number and to make it a little easer to read and digest. So using this notion we can mark 4 cards separately and due to the fact that it’s such a natural thing to see it becomes ‘under the radar’. No one will notice the slight difference on each card unless you lay them out as in the diagram and challenge them to a game of ‘spot the difference’.

5

I’m sure I’ve made that sound more complicated than it is! Oh and by the way, I’m going for the world record of saying ‘area code’ as much as possible in one book. So, area code, area code, area code, area code, area code… just to make sure. 79

If one person does notice that there seems to be a gap in the mobile number but not the landline number, they will probably assume it is a printing error and nothing to worry about. So next time you get your business cards printed, make a special request to have: X amount made up like [Card 1] with no spaces. X amount made up like [Card 2] with a space in the top/landline number only. X amount made up like [Card 3] with a space in the bottom/mobile number only and… X amount made up like [Card 4] with a space in both numbers. This will work equally well with spaces in other information or perhaps even having one card with your website and/or email as .com and another with .co.uk (or .org, or .net) as long as each person can still access your website or email you with either address. The business cards I bring out at the beginning of the routine are stacked in the following manner; Card 1, Card 2, Card 3, Card 4, Card 1, Card 2, Card 3, Card 4, and so on until the whole stack is in this order repeated ad nausiem. I always make sure that when I use a business card from the stack for another effect or hand one out to a potential customer, it comes from the bottom of the stack. But whenever I perform this effect I hand out the 4 business cards needed from the top (printed side facing up) so the stacked order is retained. So all I need to remember in performance is in what order the participants got their card, e.g. from left to right. It should go without saying (but I’ll say it anyway) that you shouldn’t stare at the back of the cards during performance whilst attempting to read the marks. The markings are very easy to spot and you have plenty of opportunities to do so. 80

For example: as you take the first card from the top of the stack to perform your first reading, this is your first opportunity to spot the mark and I often find it enough. You also have ample time when showing the card around to the crowd by holding it up at head height with the back facing you and catching a glimpse of the mark whilst everyone is looking at the word written on the other side. If you see no spaces, for example, you know this card is participant number one’s. If you glimpse at next the card and see a space in the top number only, you know it is participant number two’s card, and so on.

The Peek & Handling Let’s say that you’ve handed out the four cards from the top of the stack to four people. These cards have been written on, collected and mixed. In your left hand you still hold the original stack of business cards in a dealers grip. Ask for the stack of four ‘hot’ cards to be handed to you, being overt about the fact you are not trying to look at what is written on them. Take these hot cards in your right hand and then place them directly on top of the stack in your left hand. No breaks, no nothing… not yet. Just put them on top. As motivation for doing this, ask the four participants to give you your pens back and feel free to crack a little joke here such as, “It’s not that I don’t trust you but you seem like the kind of common folk that would be petty enough to steal my pens.” Pay as little attention to the cards as you can for now, but during your speech about Clever Hans (or whatever you choose to say) obtain a break under the top two cards. This can easily be done under the distraction of collecting the pens and putting them in your pocket. 81

You may wish to bring your right hand up as cover to prevent anyone who may be on your right side from seeing the peek. Fig. 2.1 below shows an alternative peek position which is achieved by rotating the hand 180 degrees (palm up to palm down).

Fig. 2

Fig. 2.1 83

Fig. 3 Fig. 3 above shows the audiences perspective of the peek shown in Fig. 2 As soon as I have my peek I bring my hand back down again and in the same motion, lower the top two cards as one, leaving them squared on top of the stack. Essentially, this is the reverse of the moves you have just done to get in to the peek position described previously. I then immediately take the top (still face up) card from the stack and hand the rest of the stack to someone close by, or if working at a table place them down on that. I will then of course go through my presentation and return the card to whom ever wrote on it having noted my mark. The situation should now be as follows: you have just returned the first card to the correct person and somewhere close by is the stack of business cards, the top 3 of which have something written on them. 84

The very top card of this three you have just peeked. So we now need to make sure this top card is the one left at the end for your big finish. The way I achieve this is so simple it’s ridiculous. I look at the stack, wherever it may be, frown, and say: “How many of you are there left?” I look blankly at the four participants and say, as if unsure: “There were four of you weren’t there… ” I then deal off the top three cards, one at a time and on top of each other, face down into the hands of the spectator who was holding the stack. I do this in a very specific way that adds a little confusion and muddies the waters a little. I point to the person who has just been handed the first card, the card they wrote on, and say: “You’re 1, so it goes 1 [point again at first participant, without dealing a card] 2, 3 and 4.” With the numbers 2, 3, and 4, I deal one card at a time from the stack on top of the other. This puts the peeked card on the bottom of the three card pile, which means it will be the last card left for the final phase. I put away the rest of the stack under the pretext that I don’t wish to get confused again.

85

I can now ask the spectator who holds the three cards (my helper) to hand me the “Next card… from the top” and proceed to do my second reading. After this the third card is requested in the same manner and handled in the way described earlier. For the final phase (where I seem to read the mind of the last participant) the card is still in the hands of the helper, so I ask them to sandwich this card between their palms. Leaving the final card in the hands of the helper puts a nice amount of distance between me and the card making everything seem much cleaner and more impossible.

Credits: Larry Becker of course started the ball rolling with his original Sneak Thief which can be found in “Stunners Plus”. Since then, many performers have created their own variations of the routine. Some of the published ones I am aware of include: Marc Spelmann, Andy Nyman, Sean Waters and Max Maven, all of which are well worth a look as they have their own unique handlings, peeks and presentational hooks. The idea of simply dealing the cards, one on top of the other, to get the top and in this case, peeked card to the bottom is nothing new and probably the most basic way to do this. It is however the first time I have seen the idea applied to this effect. The way of counting the cards down, i.e. counting ‘1’ without actually dealing a card, is based on an old con-trick to short change a customer.

86

Love Hate Almost Real Mind Reading Effect: The performer explains that he is fascinated by people, and the relationships that people have with other people. “I’ve noticed that people’s relationships at a very base level boil down to either a love relationship, or a hate relationship. There are countless degrees of love and hate but we all have people we love (or really, really like) and we all have people we hate (or at least really dislike). And we think about and treat these people differently depending upon whether we love them or hate them. For example, who here carries around a picture in your wallet of someone you love? Yeah? It’s quite a common thing to do but no one carries around a picture of someone they hate! That would just be odd!” Catching the eye of a spectator, he continues: “Sir, now I don’t know if you have a picture of someone in your wallet that you love or if you’re strange enough to have a picture of someone you hate… but I can be certain that you can get an image in your mind of someone that you really like or possibly love and someone that you really hate. Can you do that for me?” The performer pauses for a moment. 87

“You’ve got a few names going through your mind. Here, just commit yourself to one name for each heading by writing them down. Someone you love. Someone you hate. I won’t look so let me know when you’re finished.” The participant is given a business card from the performer’s wallet. The performer writes the headings ‘love’ and ‘hate’ with a line next to each word, indicating where the participant is to write the names. “Please make sure that I can’t see the names. So keep the card writing side away from me and just pop it out of sight back in my wallet… As I’m going to try and get a sense of whom these people are from you… almost as if I know them.” The performer asks the participant to concentrate and vividly picture each person. First the person they hate and then the person they love. The participant is asked to think of either one and the performer receives a few impressions about what the participant is seeing in his mind’s eye. Several times in a row the performer correctly identifies which person is being thought of, either love or hate. Finally the participant is asked to focus on just one of the two people he has in mind. The performer then proceeds to not only divine if this person is loved or hated by the participant but also their sex, age, hair colour, the participant’s relationship with this thought-of person and perhaps some elements of their personality that makes them loved or hated. He even goes as far as revealing what the image in the participant’s mind looks like and finishes with revealing the name of this person.

88

Method: I can sum up the method(s) for this in one sentence: A hybrid of classic mentalism techniques and modern psychological observations to create the illusion of mind reading. It’s a bit of a mouthful I know but it is succinct and true. The classical method used here is a peek. In the effect’s description above I have used a peek wallet to obtain the names, as this is, more often than not, how I will perform the effect. So I will continue to use the example of a peek wallet in this description, however alternative methods will be discussed later6. The other part of this hybrid effect is something I’m sure you will be familiar with. We will be using Eye Accessing Cues commonly associated with that loved and hated acronym, NLP. They are used to create a kind of ‘mental living and dead test’ or in this case, a love and hate test. A quick Google search for ‘NLP Eye Cues’ will tell you more than need to know about such things but we will be using them in a slightly different way than some of you may be used to. As I’m sure most of you are aware, Eye Cues are not always 100% reliable 100% of the time, but within this routine they will be used in a safe way, with lots of room for maneuver. Finally, we will use some cold reading techniques to create the illusion that we are seeing what the participant is seeing in their mind. I will break up this effect’s description first by explaining the Eye Cues, how and why they are used, plus your options when it comes to ‘outs’. I will then detail the scripting and handling of the effect using a

6

See “Miser’s Peek Wallet” on page 101

89

peek wallet and finally I will briefly explain how I handle the cold reading and eventual revelation of the thought-of name.

The Eye Cues: If you ask someone to picture a person they hate or really dislike, their eyes will tend to go up and to the right – their top left. This is not always the case, but most people will certainly look up. It won’t normally be a massive jump in ‘where’ they are looking but a subtle and often brief change in the direction that they appear to be looking. When picturing a person they love they will tend to look straight ahead and their eyes will seem defocused. Other non-verbal signals include a slight movement or flinch (often around the eyes, or a pursing of the lips) when thinking about the hated person and pupil dilation and slight widening and defocusing of the eyes for the loved person. Please understand that this is a generalization and is only true of most people, so I have worked a test into the routineing of the effect. This test allows you to check your participant follows the pattern mentioned above and if not, it allows you notice which pattern they do follow i.e. where their eyes look when imagining either the love or hate picture.

The Test: After I have asked the participant to think of and write down two names, someone they love and someone they hate (this will be discussed later in The Script), I put the card back in my wallet. I don’t get my peek just yet but I will describe how and when I do later. After the card is put in my wallet I explain to the participant: 90

“Now, I need to do a little warm up with you so please in your mind think of the person that comes under the heading of hate. Really picture this person in your mind… really begin to see this person… and notice what they look like… what they are wearing… try to feel all the emotions you associate with this person as you picture them… Good. Now! [With a snap of the fingers] Clear you mind! And now imagine the person you love. Really see this person, notice what they look like, what they are wearing… make the image nice and clear in your mind. Good.” During these instructions you are asking the participant to vividly imagine each person. Notice how the words in bold encourage them to have a mental image of the person clearly in mind. It is during these instructions that you will observe the participant’s eye movements. Notice if and where their eyes move (and any other signals that appear) when they think about the hated person. And then do the same again when they think of the loved person. As mentioned before, most people will tend to follow the pattern of looking up and to the side for hate, and continue to stare forward when picturing the loved person. If they don’t then you may notice they do something else, something different for each person they imagine that you can use. Also be aware that not everyone is very visual and may struggle to create the mental images so if you don’t get any kind of reading, try also saying something like: “Start to hear this person’s voice… hear them saying their own name… hear them say the word love/hate… try to feel all the emotions 91

you associate with this person, try to feel how this person makes you feel.” This should push most people in to giving a response you can observe, and it should be different for each thought-of person. If you’re feeling confident after this little test go for the game of guessing which person is being thought of. “Now, as you really clear your mind again, I want you to just imagine either person. Either the one you love or the one you hate… and really picture them, really see what they are wearing...” Again using your words to push them into imagining this person as a vivid mental picture. Watch their eyes and observe their reaction, checking it with what you noticed during the test. Rather than just blurting out which one you think it is (either love or hate), build it up. “I’m seeing quite a dark image of a figure, kind of big, quite dominating… I’ll go with hate, yes? Excellent, and again, think of either person… picture them in you mind. That’s the same thing again, hate yeah?! Funny thing but I’m seeing the image about here... up and to the side. Is that right? Good. Ok one more time, think of either person. It’s different this time. The image is brighter… kind of comforting… maybe a little hazy around the edges, the picture is much bigger this time, more colour... I’m seeing it here, just in front of you, yeah? This is the person you love, isn’t it?”

92

You see, when people think about and imagine a hated or disliked person; the image will tend to be (as mentioned before) up and to the side. So as I mention in the last line, “I’m seeing the image about here”, I like to wave my hand up and to the side where I observed their eyes looking. The image will also tend to be quite dark and ‘close’ to them. So you can capitalize on this knowledge by alluding to a “dark figure” (it has to be a figure as it is a person being thought of) that’s “kind of big” this perhaps meaning close to their field of vision or a person who is big in size. Hated or disliked people also tend to be “quite dominating”. A loved person on the other hand will be imagined and ‘seen’ in front of them, about 5 inches away from their face. The image will tend to be bright and colourful and it will also be a big picture but in a more comforting way. The edges may even be a little hazy, kind of like those old movies that used a ‘soft focus’. Although this is educated guesswork, revealing what you are ‘seeing’ and then ending it with a statement like “This is the person you love, isn’t it?” will force them to agree, which to other people watching will seem as if they are agreeing to everything you said. I will only play this little guessing game 3 or 4 times. Any more than that and I think it starts to get silly. By the way, people will tend to stick with the first person they thought-of (when you first asked them to think of either one) 2 or 3 times in a row. So what do you do if after your initial test, you are in no way confident to play this little guessing game? Well you have several options. One option I have experimented with is to use an ingenious little device sold by Aalakazam called “Decisions”. When originally released, the gimmick used the words Yes and No, but it is now also 93

available in a blank format, meaning that you can write the words Love and Hate and use them as an out for this effect. A similar but homemade option using Post-It Notes can be found in Ken Dyne’s book “Impromptu Mystifier”. I highly recommend you pick up a copy by taking your interweb browser to: http://stores.lulu.com/kendyne Using either of these methods will allow you to practice and get used to using the Eye Cues used in this routine. My preferred method, however, is to simply forgo the guessing game. The spectators and participant have no idea that you were ever going to attempt it, so I simply make the test seem like an exercise for me to ‘tune in’ to the participant’s thoughts. I will still use the information above about what the images look like to the participant (i.e. bright and colourful for the love image), but deliver them after I have done the test. So, during the test I begin with hate and finish on love and find that I am not getting much of a reading from the participant. “Good. Well done. I noticed this time the image of the person you like or love was much brighter… kind of comforting… maybe a little hazy around the edges, the picture was much closer, with more colour. Whereas before, with the hate person, I saw a dark image of a figure, kind of big and quite dominating. Does this make sense to you?” Again, ending with the line “Does this make sense to you?” will push them towards a yes, and therefore seemingly confirming everything you’ve said.

94

It is only now that I get my peek. This is either after the test has shown I shouldn’t attempt the Love Hate ‘guessing game’ and I have done the above instead or I have gone ahead with the guessing game. The exact moment I get my peek will now be detailed in The Script.

The Script: A lot of the motivation behind my opening remarks for this effect are based on the idea of introducing the theory that we all have people we love (or really, really like) and people we hate (or have an extreme dislike for). I also use this plotline to introduce the idea of keeping a photo or reminder of someone in your wallet. “I’ve noticed that people’s relationships at a very base level boil down to either a love relationship, or hate relationship. True, there are countless degrees of love and hate but we all have people we love (or really, really like) and we all have people we hate (or at least really dislike). And we think about and treat these people differently depending upon whether we love them or hate them. For example, do you carry around a picture in your wallet of someone you love? Yeah? It’s quite a common thing to do but no one carries around a picture of someone they hate! That would just be odd!” Notice that in the above scripting, I have introduced the idea that we can all boil down our relationships with people to either love or hate, which will get the listeners thinking along these lines. I have also brought to mind the concept of keeping a reminder of a loved one (and bizarrely, a hated one) in your wallet. This is done with a mild joke but I feel it is important, as introducing the idea now means that it won’t be seen as too odd when you bring out your own wallet. 95

I always try to use a similar scripting when using my peek wallet so it seems more of a presentational ploy then a method driven necessity. I bring out my own (peek) wallet as I catch the eye of a spectator and say the following lines: “Sir, now I don’t know if you have a picture of someone in your wallet that you love or if you’re strange enough to have a picture of someone you hate… but I can be certain that you can get an image in your mind of someone that you really like or possibly love and someone that you really hate. Can you do that for me?” You will see them search around a bit inside their mind at this point. If they seem to struggle I add the following: “Now, for Love this could just be someone you really, really like and have a connection with, and for Hate this can be someone who you just dislike for some reason, maybe from your past, or some TV personality or Celeb that just really gets to you.” People will tend to struggle more when trying to think of someone they hate but have several people come to mind whom they love, so adding the line about someone from their past may conjure up images of a school bully. Failing that, people will always have a celebrity that they hate and will probably feel more comfortable in admitting it. I will give them a few seconds to think, allowing enough time for several names and faces to flash through their mind. I then capitalize on this by saying: “You’ve got a few names going through your mind. Here, just commit yourself to one name for each heading by writing them down. Someone you love and someone you hate. I won’t look so let me know when you’re finished.” 96

Again the above helps sneakily justify why they have to write down the names: it helps them settle on and commit to just two people, as they will have had several people flash up in their mind. As I say “You’ve got a few names going through your mind. Here…” I have taken one of my business cards out of the wallet and written the headings ‘love’ and ‘hate’ with a line next to each word, indicating where the participant is to write the names. See the diagram below.

I simply cover my eyes and turn my head away slightly as the participant writes. Once they tell me they have finished I tell them to: “Please make sure that I can’t see the names. So keep the card writing side away from me and just pop it out of sight back in my wallet… As I’m going to try and get a sense of whom these people are from you… almost as if I know them.” Please, once again notice how the words used subtly justify the actions. I will help them put the card back in my wallet, close it and place it ‘hot side’ down on the palm of my hand. I don’t even attempt to a get my peek yet. I leave it until all the heat is off the wallet and I have 97

already begun to read their mind with what I tell the participant is a “warm up”. It is now that I will go through The Test outlined above, and depending on how that goes either forgo the ‘guessing game’ or use one of the outs discussed. After the test and guessing game I explain that I would like the participant to again think of either person. As they do this I put the wallet away and obtain my peek. I act as if this next thing will be quite difficult for me and place my hands on the participants shoulders, so putting the wallet away is motivated by the idea that I will need to do this and free up my hands for the whole process to work. Before I used a peek wallet I still used a normal, un-gimmicked wallet, so most of the language used above still applies. See ‘The Misers Peek Wallet’ contained in this book for details. “Ok, this time I want you to think of either person again, and really focus on this one person. Forget the other one and just focus on either the person you love or the person you hate…” If I’m confident enough to read this person’s eye cues, I will tell them not to tell me which they have chosen but to just think it. If not, I ask them to verbally state which they have chosen, either love or hate, and encourage them to go back to the image they had in mind before. Due to the peek, I now know the name of the person being thought of. I could just begin to call out the letters of this person’s name, but I prefer to start to build a picture of this person which can do be done using logic and some classic cold reading techniques. From knowing the name and knowing if this person is loved or hated by the participant, and the age, sex and class of the participant, I can 98

make certain assumptions. These assumptions can be fed back to the participant whilst simultaneously trying to subtly confirm them. It would be impossible for me to detail exactly how to do this. This is where your own cold reading skills and techniques come into play. But for the sake of completeness here is an example. From knowing the name of the person being thought of, you can far more often than not know the sex of the person and also potentially get a rough idea of the person’s age. As an extreme example, let’s assume the participant is in their late 50’s, male and has written a ‘modern sounding name’ such as Peaches or Apple under the heading ‘Love’. I’m safe in assuming that they are female and probably quite young and perhaps even a child or young adult due to the fact that it sounds like an ‘in vogue’, modern name. I would also take a guess that this poor fruit based child, is the participant’s grand-child. So I would begin the reading by saying something like: “I feel this person is very close to you… you have a very strong connection with them don’t you, almost like they are a family member.” Basically I would just fish for affirmations to my assumptions. If the reaction is positive I know to continue ‘down that road’ but if not, I can fall back on the wording. “…almost like they are a family member.” This can be interpreted / re-labeled as meaning a very close friend or extended family member e.g. “You’re like a brother to me” There are many books out there which detail the ins and outs of cold reading, I personally recommend Ian Rowland’s “The Full Facts Book of Cold Reading”. However a great place to learn and watch this kind of fishing in action is by watching performers like John Edwards or 99

Colin Fry who work with a little bit of information but can seem build a large reading from it.

Credits: It was brought to my attention that Chan Canasta also came up with the idea to use Love and Hate instead of Living and Dead. To me, it was one of the first alternatives that came to my mind when thinking about how to perform Living and Dead tests without having to drag up memories of loved ones that have snuffed it. Luke Jermay also deserves a nod due to his work with the love/hate premise in various effects and routines. The notion of Eye Cues and in particular how they are used within this routine is something I admit to not discovering myself. I was researching as much as I could about Eye Cues on the internet many years ago and stumbled across a post made by someone whose name I never knew on an Internet Forum I can’t remember the name of. John Grinder and Richard Bandler, the co-founders of NLP, are the ones who introduced most people to the notion of Eye Cues. Again, if you don’t know much about this sort of thing then an internet search or Wikipedia will tell you more than I can.

100

Miser’s Peek Wallet For those with no money to put in it Before I had enough money to buy a peek wallet, I would use the following. I had a normal, everyday ‘bill-fold wallet’. This wallet (like most wallets) had two main compartments for keeping paper money and receipts much like the one in the image below.

In the image above you can see the two main compartments I am referring too at the top of the wallet. They each have a pay envelope protruding out of them. In one of the compartments I kept a normal pay envelope with one of my business cards inside it, and in the other compartment was a duplicate pay envelope.

101

This second envelope, however, had a window cut out of it in such a way that anything written on the business card described earlier can be peeked at through what is technically known as ‘a huge hole in the envelope’. This is similar to the peek used in “37th Deception”, as described earlier. The handling is very simple: I bring out my wallet and take out the ungimmicked envelope from the first compartment. I then take out the business card from inside that and have the participant write the names as I turn away. Whilst I am turned away I casually place the un-gimmicked envelope back into the first compartment and take out the gimmicked window envelope. This isn’t really a move and shouldn’t be treated as such. When the participant has finished writing I turn back around and put the card ‘back’ in to the envelope, being careful not flash the hole. As before, I don’t try and get the peek yet, I will however leave the wallet and envelope in sight and when the time is right (after the Love Hate guessing game), I will put the envelope back into the wallet and get my peek. My wallet is then put back in my pocket: out of sight and out of mind.

102

Outro. … and Thank You’s So here we are dear reader, the end of my book, my first book in fact but hopefully not my last. I would like to take this opportunity to personally thank you for spending your hard earned cash on this… Thanks! It’s an interesting process to write up your own routines and you learn quite a lot about yourself doing so. For example, I’m still no good at spelling, I say the phrase “…do the following” far too much and explaining things that are quite simple in practice is extremely difficult in text. I sincerely hope you have found something of interest and at the very least, I hope my brain children have given you some new ideas to play with. I would also like to extend my sincere thanks and gratitude to the following people: Looch – Massive thanks and big love to you my friend and fellow Spider Monkey trainer. Thanks mate for all your help. Now everyone, go buy his book and DVD. Go on! Do it, do it now! Ken Dyne – Thanks for your advice and help with crediting, without it I would literally be covered in bees! Jerome Finley – My friend, thank you for encouraging me to actually start writing this book. Most of all, thank you for your friendship… I value that the most.

103

Pazzo Daisy – For her proof reading, help with illustrations and putting up with the manor in which I write – a large Edwardian affair with gorgeous sash windows. Dad – Look Dad, your Sunshine wrote a book!

104

Coming Soon…

Head Wired

105