Editorial

Chilling with Ford by Ford Kross

When we left off last month, we were discussing costumes. Not the

mental costume that constitute a performing persona, but an actual

physical costume. I often get requests to dress as a Swami or Gypsy. I

find both these images distasteful. Gypsies in particular have a less

than savoury image. In the UK, you have a group called Tinkers. I'm

not sure if this is another name for Gypsy or another group. Frankly I also feel silly in

costume. If they are persistent, I add a costume fee. No one has ever offered to pay it.

I do think your appearance is EXTREMELY important. You should be the best-

dressed person in the room. Custom made clothing, well pressed and fitting is worth the

expense. Good comfortable shoes, polished to a high gloss if you're a man. Clean well

manicured hands. Especially if you're doing palmistry. Ron Martin recommends a small

pillow to place their hand on. A magnifier definitely. A portable light source for dark rooms.

Disposable key chain flash lights work well for me.

If you're going to be working in a very noisy area, a mini-portable amplifier will certainly save

your voice from competing with music and cocktail chatter. An earbug or headset that the

client can put on to hear you clearly is wonderful. This speaker earphone idea was kicked

around on a forum; I think Banachek supplied the direct earphone line.

You can tell a good deal about "clients" from their appearance. Quality and fit of clothing;

calluses on hands; Insignia jewellery, birth stones; Name bracelets and Charm bracelets can

all aid in your getting to know the querent. A lot has been said about reading body

language. I personally don't put much stock in body language. Possibly more readings were

done by phone psychics than any other venues. And obviously, reading body language was

not a factor in the reading.

You should also decide at this point, what exactly your abilities are. Notice I said abilities,

not powers. Superman has powers, real folk have abilities. Personally, I emphasize over and

over, "I DON'T READ MINDS". If I read minds, all I could tell you is what you already

knew. And why would you pay for that? Are you a palmist, astrologer, tephromancer or

what ever who only interprets the omens, but are you a psychic who by being sensitive is able

to pick up names, dates and places. Do you only claim to do character readings? We all

know how successful the Character Reading phone lines are. Second in success only to

the NLP reading lines. These should be the sub-text of your readings. Decide in advance,

what your character can and cannot do.

Cold reading as I've defined it is the ability to do a reading with no preparation. It is not, I

repeat, not a string of lines that apply to every one. I call these boiler plate. Strung

together as a mini- reading, they constitute a stock reading. That's where we'll pick up next

time.

Cookie Cutter Mentalists by Paul Alberstat

agicians suffer from a very bad image with the lay public. Ask most lay people

about magicians and they will tell you they do card tricks, that magicians are for

children’s birthday parties and not much more. Now ask them about booking

one for a party and they will be just as likely to tell an agency they want “a magician” for their

event, without specifying a name. As far as they are concerned, a magician is a magician and

they all do the same things. Magicians themselves defend that by explaining that they do

not do the same things, they are all unique and some even explain that they are “entertainers”

first and foremost and that they don’t “fool their audiences”, they entertain them. I say

“Poppycock!”

First let’s examine why this is. Many magicians are hobbyists and as such are only seeking

things for their own amusement and interest. Even if they do some performance for pay,

their prime interest is a love of magic and their own enjoyment. As such, they see an effect

performed on television or by a popular performer and the next day they rush to the local

magic shop to purchase and quickly learn the secret and perhaps add the trick to their

repertoire. They are the “

trick of the week

”

magician. They ride trends. They also tend to

lift specific “lines” or bits of business from others. Take for example the Invisible Deck.

Most of the lines that are used, including the basic premise of this brilliant routine was

developed by the late and great magician Don Alan. He was never asked permission for his

routine, lines or bits of business and he died hating magicians for this. When told of this

theft, most magicians shrug and say “Well the lines work and I am going to continue to use

them” despite the fact that every other magician in their area has also lifted and uses these

same lines and routines.

The magician that states that “I am an entertainer first” and thus they do not set out to “fool

the audience” is merely making excuses for their own ineptitude. A magician by definition

FOOLS their audience and if they don’t, they are NOT doing their job. Entertaining

an audience is naturally the goal BUT a magician entertains within the context of fooling an

audience. His tricks are his tools for entertaining; his routine and personality are used as

their own personal touches in entertaining the audience by fooling them with their magic.

These are also the typical magic enthusiast that likes to ride the “trend train” which is

another factor on the “they are all the same” moniker.

Since the popularity and rise of David Blaine, magicians have seen the power of mentalism

and have been drawn towards trying this form of entertainment. There is usually a trend of

the year for magicians and many have tried their hands at card magic, children’s magic, dove

magic, etc…and lately they look at mentalism and see that technically it is relatively sleight

free and as such they feel that it must be easy to head into. What they fail to realize is that it

is NOT so easy to perform well. Mentalism requires the strongest possible personality

and entertainment prowess one could possibly have in order to be entertaining, something

that most magicians will never have. They try their hand at this art without realizing that

there are many factors in making a mentalism performance successful including having a

“premise”, a “strong personality” and NO props. Thankfully they are now looking towards

Hypnotism and are now moving slowly towards this genre which in my opinion is quite funny

as both of these genre are diametrically opposite of that of magic and conjuring. They have

an entirely different mindset and are of opposite philosophies too.

Now lately with this rise of interest in mentalism, we do have some fine mediocre performers

in this genre and as they mostly come from a background in magic are now making the very

mistakes that marked magicians. They are putting mentalism in the same peril of magicians

by doing the same things. They are in fact all becoming “cookie cutter mind readers”. Ask

yourself as a performing mentalist if you use a “blindfold” in your show. Do you use spoon

bending in your show, something that many magicians now do too due to the rise of

popularity of Banachek and the easily accessible information on all of these topics. Do you

use a Question and Answer piece in your show and if so, are you using some else’s method

and routine? Do you do a type of Russian roulette routine? Do you use someone else’s

style such as Derren Brown, Kreskin or Banachek?

When you talk to many mental enthusiasts you will find they all use similar techniques and

effects including: Kollosal Killer, Smash & Stab, P.K. Touches/P.K. Time, Spoon

Bending, and the list goes on and on. They see someone perform and immediately they

want to perform THAT effect. They are acting as hobbyist magicians and all want to do

the same effects, believing or justifying in their own heads that they are unique and as such

are bringing their own touches to these routines, oblivious to the fact that they look like

everyone else and in fact are usually doing a much poorer job and truly are deluding

themselves because they usually look the same. They think they are being themselves

oblivious to the fact that they have walls up everywhere, that lack sincerity in their

performances because they lack both a true belief in the possibility of these phenomenon

actually existing and that they also have no base premise to work from. A base premise

being what defines what powers they either do or apparently do posses as well as where

they developed these so called “powers” or skills.

Equally appalling is the rise in the interest in cold reading and the belief that once they know

a stock reading and have read Kenton Knepper’s “Completely Cold” that they can set out

to do readings. This is not only stupid BUT dangerous and can and will do serious

damage to some people. These performers do not realize that there is far more to a reading

than handing someone some stock lines and taking their money. A reading places the sitter

not the performer in the spot light. The reading is about an emotional and spiritual

connection between the sitter and reader. It is about facilitating some help for troubles

sitters and hopefully giving an edge to them in upcoming events. It is NOT about

entertaining them and fooling them. When a sitter sits down with you and says that “I am

having an affair with a married man for the last two years and I want to know where this is

going” OR that “I am living with a man that seems wonderful until he hits me but he

apologizes right after and so I know he loves me” is not there to hear that they are controlled

on the outside but insecure and worrisome on the inside. One must believe in what they are

doing and require some serious training in doing readings, not merely knowing some cold

reading techniques that really do not come into effect under real world conditions. And this

does not even address the fact that when someone pays you for a Tarot Reading, a Palm

Reading, a Tea Leaf reading or any other type of reading, that is what they deserve, an

authentic reading in that manner NOT a fraud, yes a fraud because if that is what you are

supposed to be doing, if that is what those people have paid for, that is what they deserve.

If you are a magician that has an interest in performing mental magic, if you are a mental

magician, if you are a hobbyist mentalist or a serious, hard core, full time mentalist, I urge you

to take a close look at what other are doing, take a full stock of what you are doing and then

sit long and hard looking at yourself in the mirror and ask yourself “Am I a Cookie Cutter

Mentalist?” and if so, how do I go about effecting change so I can be unique and different

from everyone else. Even if you have to redesign your act from the ground up, what can you

do to be different, unique and unlike everyone else. Do yourself a favour and do it sooner

than later.

Male-Female by The Grey Man

(aka Philip Escoffey)

Dear Reader,

I have never offered any of my material to the magic fraternity in

the past. This is my way of saying a genuine thank-you to the

compilers and contributors of Centre Tear, for their selfless

devotion to our art.

The effect that I am going to describe is in no way original. I have merely been a magpie to

brains and ideas far beyond my own. What I hope to have achieved is an interesting recipe

derived from established ingredients, renowned for their excellence. My main contribution is

in the garnish.

There are clearly a number of ways that this idea can be presented, with situation (as ever)

being the main determinant of which is best. I will outline a fairly simple presentation with

additional ideas and discussion at the end.

Effect

A stack of business cards is introduced and handed to the group. As individuals look

through them, the mind reader explains to the onlookers, that there are twenty cards in all, 10

with a blue male symbol (see fig. 1a) and 10 with a reddy/pink female symbol (see fig. 1b)

♂

♀

Fig 1a

Fig 1b

Someone is asked to ensure that no one knows what order the symbols are in. As this is

happening, the performer explains what they are about to attempt.

(Assuming heterosexuality), one female spectator and one male spectator are selected.

Success relies upon a genuine effort from the two chosen spectators to temporarily ignore

their more questioning sides and focus instead, on their intuitive and instinctive abilities.

Once the symbols have been mixed around, the mind reader places them face down in a pile,

in front of the woman. He explains that he would like her to try and remember the feelings

that she experienced the last time she was really attracted to someone. She is to generate

the memories of being intensely attracted to another person. The next stage is that she

tries to re-evoke that feeling of empathy and synchronicity as it became apparent that her

feelings were being reciprocated. She must try and re-live that moment of true expression

and unquestioning intuition.

You get the picture I hope. For the effect to remain credible, it goes without saying that this

dialogue is most important. There is scope to talk about the nature of attraction, the

altered state of the aroused individual, the uninhibited instinctive nature of courtship and so

The scene set, the woman is told that she is on the hunt for males. Females are of no

interest to her and should be discarded to one side. When she believes that there is a male

symbol face down in front of her, she is to hold onto it or put it into her pocket/bag (without

looking). Each card must be considered, with the mind reader urging her to truly go beyond

guesswork. The logic or nature of her instincts is unimportant as long she is conscious of the

feelings that she is experiencing.

After a few trials (10 cards to be precise), she is asked to pass the remaining pile to the man.

A similar process and dialogue is gone through, however this time the man is looking for

females. Males are placed on the discard pile and females are to be retained

(pocket/hand/wallet).

With all twenty cards assessed, the mind reader re-iterates what has been attempted.

“Can evolved, sceptical, intelligent human beings, tap back into their more primitive survival

instincts? Finding a mate is perhaps the most fundamental instinct and maybe explains the

success that is often seen with this trial”.

(Obviously these are my words and are included to convey the importance of framing and

not because they are particularly brilliant).

Each participant retrieves their cards to reveal that the woman has been successful in

finding only male symbols and the man has only female.

Method

I imagine that the solution is fairly obvious, but for the sake of completeness, I will briefly

outline the method.

Acknowledgements must go to the inventor of the Stripper principle (sorry...not a

clue...shameful I know. Call for Mr Hallas) and Mr Paul Curry for the “Out of this World”

principle.

The cards have been gently tapered from right (fat end) to left (thin end) looking at figs. 1a

and 1b above. I find it most effective to start 1mm in at the right and cut to the corner on the

left. This is done along both horizontal edges, rather than 2mm all off one side.

Once shuffled by one spectator, the performer strips them out as they are passed onto the

next, or during some suitable chat. By glimpsing the bottom card, you know whether to go to

the male or female first. If the bottom’s male, go to male and vice versa.

All that remains to be done is casually cut/mix the cards in the discard pile (for which your

outstretched hand serves well). This is in case someone reaches to look at them. Otherwise

no attention is drawn to them. The cards need to be cut or mixed depending on what

impression you want to give. If you cut them (at the point where the male and female symbols

meet), they will be left in such a way that implies not only did the spectator find ALL the

correct symbols, but also discarded ALL the incorrect symbols. If you mix them, it will imply

that although the spectator only kept correct symbols, they also discarded some correct

ones too. Your call.

Discussion

I hope that this has triggered some thought. For me it was bourn out of an absolute love of

the “out of this world” principle. However, I was after something more immediate and

relevant. There was an incongruity about using a prop as diverse as playing cards for a

simple 50/50 distinction.

Two other elements that I also wanted to eliminate were the length of the original (along with

its requirement for a working surface) and the sneaky switch at the end.

For me, as a mind reader I feel that the two statements that follow represent equal failure on

my behalf:

1. “I know how that was done.”

2. “How was that done?”

Whether a spectator knows how an effect is done, thinks that they know or genuinely does

know, means that their mind has defaulted to “trick/solution”.

If you have sold the intuitive side well and made the spectator truly reflect on each decision,

then I can assure you that they will be left with a genuine feeling of what on earth just

happened, rather than “how was that done”. There is a world of difference

Other presentations

This is an excellent situation to try your hand at something a little ballsier with a perfect

rationale for failure (I prefer the term unexpected results). First time around, attempt the

effect using Luke Jermay’s excellent “Out of t(his) world”. This can be found in Luke’s

book “Building Blocks”.

If it doesn’t go to plan, do something that will credibly explain the success that will now

ensue. This could be anything from apparently spraying male and female pheromones on the

respective cards to further discussion on achieving a truly instinctive state. I leave it to you

Adopting this approach serves two purposes; firstly, you giving yourself a safe opportunity

for a true miracle and secondly it takes all the heat of the discard pile the second time

around. Obviously the first time around will leave a genuine discard pile of mixed up male and

female cards.

One final option would be to “pre-strip” 20 blank business cards and then have the

spectators draw the symbols on themselves (or watch as you do it). This has the appeal of

something truly improvised although, for me, only works in certain situations.

A last thought is to have the symbols revealed one at a time at the end. At least perhaps get

them to hold back any that they seemed hesitant on and then come back to them at the end;

“Ok, female, female, female, wait you seemed hesitant on the fourth one, put it to one side.

Female, female and on the eighth one you seemed a little unsure etc. etc”.

I haven’t tried this myself. It could be disastrous but it might also really add drama.

2 weeks later.....

As I have incorporated the routine into my working repertoire, one thought has occurred to

me. If you have both spectators making their decisions together, they will both be putting

symbols into the discard pile simultaneously, removing any need for final “adjustments”.

Should you prefer to stick to the original version of OOTW, then as long as you have a

method for finding the half way point (where red ends and black begins), the above

adaptation is workable. Obviously this can be achieved with a stripper deck, short card,

crimp etc. Spectator A is instructed to find just red cards and spectator B is requested to

locate just the black cards.

PK Lipstick by Luke Jermay

his is a routine that is seeing print for the very first time here. On the 26

January 2004, I filmed this effect along with four other performance pieces for

the BBC to appear in a landmark documentary series called “The History of

Magic”.

The final program is titled the worlds finest mind readers and features myself, Marc Paul,

Max Maven, Derren Brown, David Berglas and some unseen footage of some of the great

masters of the past from our rich art.

Effect

An attractive woman is asked if she has a tube of Lipstick that the performer may borrow for

a moment. She agrees and hands the performer her lipstick.

The performer places this on the table.

The spectator is then asked to hold her hand out at waist height. She is then asked to

close her eyes.

The performer is seen to “apply” a small amount of the lipstick onto his first finger.

He then reaches forward into the air and mimes two “taps”, gesturing with the other hand the

number two by extending two fingers. He then asks the spectator to open her eyes. She is

asked if she felt anything.

She replies “I felt you touch me twice.”

The audience is stunned. The performer clearly came nowhere near the spectator’s hand.

He continues:

“Now if I really had touched you, there would be evidence. I put some lipstick on my finger.

If I had touched you twice, there would be two spots of lipstick on your palm. Please turn

over your hand”

Sure enough on the spectator’s palm, staring them in the face is two proud red lipstick

marks.

Method

This is a wonderful effect to perform. I really enjoy it.

We are going to combine classic ideas within magic/mentalism to create a different outcome.

You will notice that the idea of “adding” the evidence marks in the form of the lipstick is

something I think is very new in this type of effect. For some it will be too “Magic-y” but for

me it is perfect. The lipstick is a borrowed item. Many women carry lipstick with them at all

times, allowing me a “prop less” effect, pool chalk is another alternative that is often around

in certain less formal settings that works equally as well, as does cigarette ash.

For the effect, we need to use invisible thread. I have this attached to an elastic armband

around my right arm, which hold the thread reels in place: this is an idea of Michael Close's. I

then attach the blob of wax from the reel to my suit sleeve just inside the opening of my

sleeve. I actually replace the wax with blue tack.

Let us first deal with the touches. We will attach the thread to the bottom of the lipstick

using the blue tack. This is done after it is borrowed - this is not a massively difficult thing to

do and any one whom has performed the floating bill or a haunted deck with a thread reel will

find this very easy. We will then attach this thread/lipstick to the tabletop. It will actually be

stuck to the table.

We now have the spectator hold their hand out at waist level. As long as they hold out their

hand with the lipstick at a 45-degree angle to the lipstick. When the thread is extended

coming from the sleeve, looping around the thumb, when we move our hands upward the

thread will actually touch the spectator’s hand. To make the first touch will simply mime

touching in the air, raising our hand, causing the thread to touch the spectators hand - to

apply the second touch we simply drop our hand, then raise the hand once again. We have

now applied two separate touches.

In order to attach the “proof” in form of the lipstick marks, we simply apply a liberal amount of

lipstick to our fingers before performing the effect. I apply lipstick to my first and second

fingers, from a lipstick in my pocket before the effect begins. Now we can load the mark by

simply moving their hand, much as in the old cigarette ashes on the palm effect.

Very simple, prop less and utterly perplexing. I think this is the only effect, which actually

provides “proof” of the spectator being touched.

Meeting of Minds by Randall K. Schostag

I call this Meeting of Minds because I use it often with lawyers in

situations were we are engaged in “drafting sessions” for closings

where a business is being sold. In this context, meeting of minds refers

to contacts where the parties must reach an agreement. Because I

work and live in the United States, the “story” relates to a U.S.A.

context.

While seated at a conference table with one or two persons with whom you are engaged in

business matters, you direct the conversation into TV psychic John Edwards and psychic

phenomena. You note that you have recently been reading about these things, and that you

have been astonished at how much psychic ability we each have. You offer to demonstrate

how concentration alone can permit you to accomplish things that extend our abilities

beyond those generally thought achievable.

At this point the demonstrator should present a display of skill such as that provided by

Doug Dyment’s “Mindsights”, namely a rapid magic square on the back of you business

card, using a two-digit number of the participant’s choice. This is done in this intimate

setting to redirect the discussion from the other business that has dominated the conference

table talk and shift it to your psychic prowess.

Having “proved” how focus and concentration allows one to achieve performance that

others would not think possible, you then describe how you have now been able to attain an

even higher level of ability than the first simple (?) exercise illustrates. You have learned that

through concentration and belief, two people can accomplish a strong psychic union. Again

you offer to show the participant(s) what you mean.

Effect

You remove a business card case, remove several (say five) business cards, and lay them on

the table. On the other side of the table you lay the business card wallet.

You explain that in this demonstration the participant will see how the two of you can

achieve this psychic union, and that this exercise will involve a choice from among a limited

number of items. You stress that it in order to achieve this synchronization of minds and thus

gain this power that you select things with which you are both familiar but which others may

not be familiar. You suggest that given the circumstances, you would like to use terms closely

associated with the closing on which you are both working.

You now write one word each on five different business cards. The words are considered

one at a time and you write: price, escrow, commission, and covenants. Participant agrees

that each of these words is well understood by you both but that they are less likely to be

words others, “off the street”, would use. Since the words are common to you both, you say,

and not as common to others, you think that the words should permit you both to achieve

synchronicity in your thinking and boost your collective mind power.

With each word written on separate business cards, you now turn the cards over and mix

them on the conference table. After they appear hopelessly lost, ask the participant to

choose one of the words from the five on the table. Just name one of the words to you. Say,

“That word is an interesting choice. Now let’s see what happens if we both concentrate on

the word. Let’s do an exercise whereby we both engage in selecting one of these words on

the table – sight unseen – and see what happens.” The two of you now proceed to select

one word from the many by the process of elimination. After eliminating four of the five

words, you arrive at a final card. Upon turning over the card, it is seen that the word you

have selected together is the same as the word that the participant chose on his or her own.

But there is more…

You acknowledge that this is pretty strong stuff and seemingly sometime more than a

coincidence. But there is something else just as striking. You had, in fact, suspected that

this word would play an important role today. Yesterday you had a premonition that

participant would chose that very word. Upon saying so, you pick up the business card case

that has been on the conference table the entire time, open it, and remove a slip of paper.

You explain that you had written something on the paper the prior day while you were

preparing for the meeting. You had simply had a sudden impulse about this word. Hand the

slip of paper, unopened, to the participant, and ask him or her to read it. It says,

“Participant’s name will focus on the following aspect during our discussion of the deal

tomorrow – whatever word participant has chosen.”

Method

There is nothing new in the methods to achieve the effect. The presentation

format may look strange to some of you, since the environment is one in which I work. Let’s

consider first the preparation and then each step.

Before the presentation, you must determine the five words that you want to use for the

effect. In my work, I have used the foregoing five words effectively, but if I did this in a

subsequent conference and thought that the lawyers or other parties may talk to each other,

I would change the words.

Write each of the words on a separate small paper (billet) and put into a card index in your

side suit jacket pocket. You want to know the order of these billets, of course, for future

retrieval.

For the card case, you may elect several systems, but I use Mark Striving’s Sight Unseen

case. You will conclude by using this wallet to load in the billet from the index that the

participant has selected. On the business card side of the wallet, put in several of your

business cards. Code the face of the top five cards with your “favorite system” so that you

can identify each card is unique.

While some of you may prefer something elaborate like Larry Becker’s system, I prefer a

simple nail nick. I want the participant to keep the card or cards after the demonstration.

You must previously assign and memorize each marking, whatever system you use, to each

word that you will use. When writing the words “randomly” on business cards, you must write

each word on its proper business card, coded for recognition from the face.

Everything else should be clear. After writing the words and turning the cards down, the

participant is now permitted to select any word. No matter which is chosen, you should be

able to identify it from the markings on the face. You now use a PATEO or similar force to

obtain the desired card and word.

At this point, I sit back as if all is done and try to elicit the appropriate response from the

participant. He or she should be under the impression that all is done with the

demonstration. It provides more than adequate time to obtain the correct billet from the

index and palm it. After some brief discussion about how fascinating it is to be able to

achieve this power through sympathetic thinking, describe the additional unusual fact as to

an urge you had to write down something the day before as you were preparing for the

meeting. Ask if they would like to see it, and open the Sight Unseen case and remove the

paper that you put there the prior day (?). This is the paper you obtained from the index

and has been palmed. Hand the paper to participant.

I hope that you like this. There is nothing new in this, but I have gotten some totally

astonished reactions. Admittedly, it is sometimes difficult to get the participant back to the

real reason you are meeting (a drafting session or similar activity in my case), so I try to use

this very close to the end of the meeting. To date, this kind of thing helps to build on my

relationship with key “gate keepers” and produces additional referrals and business for my

non-psychic life.

Mobile Telepathy by Doug Segal

Effect

You ask a spectator to write down the name & phone

number of a friend

who they could phone `right now' and

keep it hidden.

Next you borrow their mobile & after suitable furrowing

of brows and

the odd necessary subtlety or two (more on those later) you call and

address

their friend by name, explaining who you are, that their

friend is helping you in an ESP

experiment and could they call back

to confirm it's really them.

You can then segue into a revelation of an `invisible card' chosen at

distance as suggested

by Derren Brown in Pure Effect.

Method

The effect relies on the fact that the majority of people these days

a) Store all of their

personal numbers in their mobile & b) few

people bother to remember any numbers these

days.

Ask the punter:

`Please can you write down the name & telephone number of a

friend we could reach

on the phone right now don't show it

anyone'

`Please write their name exactly as you think

of them, so if you

friend is Ben but you call him Baz please put that so there is no

barrier in

you mind between you and them'

This rather strange sentence is so that the name they write will be

the same as the name

listed in their Mobile Phone book.

With any luck they will produce their mobile at this point to check

the number (I've tried this

5 times today and they have done

every

time though maybe that's a London thing) this is

good! It means

that you KNOW the number is in the phone already.

Obtain the name (and if you are the paranoid type the last digit of

the telephone number)

using your favourite peek technique/ device.

It works especially well with Richard

Osterlinds Perfected Centre Tear

because you can extemporise information about the

person by cold reading as

a cover for the peek which means that you have some information

should they

not pick up (see 'Problems' later).

`Please can I borrow your phone?' you ask.

Here comes the clever bit:

`Please can you unlock it for me?' This suggests to

the spec that you don't know your way

round a phone why would you? We are

supposed to be telepaths after all!

Then you need to use a special handling of the phone (n.b. I've

only worked this out for

Nokia model phones but they are nearly

ubiquitous,

you can just scroll through the names

but it's not as

impressive).

Take the phone in your right hand with your right thumb hovering

above the bottom right

key (it has a up arrow and a # on it). Go into

their phone list and using your LEFT

THUMB find the name you have

glimpsed COUNTING HOW MANY

KEYSTROKES YOU NEED TO GET THERE. If you

now press the

bottom right key with your right thumb and hold it down

it will a) display the number for you &

b) allow you to mime tapping

in the remaining number of digits in the phone number after the

ones

you counted to get the number (maybe muttering the last few digits

for verisimilitude)

without anything registering on the phone.

Releasing the button will allow you to just press

send and go through

to the thought of number.

> From here on in it's just acting.

Potential Problems:

1) What if they are not available? If for any reason they don't pick up

when you call you have

the option to leave them a message revealing the

identity of the person who's name & number

you have divined along the lines

of 'Hi Jill, I'm a magician (or however you describe yourself)

demonstrating something with your cousin Paul - give him a call when you

get this and he'll tell

you how great it is' - I've actually got a booking

off the back of this

2) What if there are two 'Pete's'? That's why the paranoid looks at

the last digit! - Me, I'd

just blag it..

3) What if the names not in the phone? Well you've got the

name,

surely you're a big enough

and nasty enough Mentalist to get yourself out of a hole with that much info!? The way I

perform, an

occasional partial miss like this is ok just make sure the next

effect is a belter

Out Of My Mind by Graham North

magine the scene: The Master Mentalist is about to bring his act to a close. For the

past three-quarters of an hour he has read minds, predicted the future and performed

the seven psychic and psychological wonders of the universe!

He takes his bow and receives – not the standing ovation that is his due – but mere polite

applause. What has happened? Why does the audience not recognise his genius?

The answer could be that the performer is suffering from a rare problem known as

cleverclogs syndrome (also known in the US as smartass syndrome). This occurs when the

performer is so good that he loses his humility. The audience begin to feel inferior in the

company of the Master and may even begin to suspect that he is tricking them, or worse still,

fooling them. Not unnaturally, this makes them uncomfortable, and whilst they give credit to

the mental showman for his undoubted skill, they don’t actually

him.

What can be done to reduce the problem? Here is an alternative scenario.

Effect

The performer invites a young lady from the audience onto the stage and seats her on a

chair or stool.

Marvo:

Fiona, have you ever had your mind read?

Fiona:

(With a touch of apprehension)

No.

Marvo:

Well, you’re not going to have it read tonight, either. Because, tonight,

Fiona,

you

are going to read

mind.

Fiona:

Ooh!

From an A4 envelope Marvo produces five sheets of thin card, each card bearing a strange

symbol. The performer explains that the symbols were designed specifically for use in

ESP experiments, similar to the one about to take place.

“I am going to think of one of these symbols,” says Marvo, “and send it telepathically to you.

Here is a drawing pad and felt tip pen. When I’m ready to transmit my thoughts to you, I

want you to stare at the white paper, and as soon as you receive a symbol in your mind, draw

it boldly on the pad. I’m now going to choose one of the symbols to send to you.”

Marvo selects one of the symbol cards and places it, without showing it to Fiona or the

audience, back in the envelope. “Are you ready? Here goes”. Miracle man strikes a pose

and the room falls silent. In a few seconds Fiona starts to draw a shape on the pad.

“Don’t show it to the audience, yet”, says Marvo, standing behind her.

“I’m now going to show everyone, except you, the symbol in my mind.” He removes the card

from the envelope and displays, above Fiona’s head, the cross symbol.

“Fiona, please show the audience the symbol that you drew.”

She turns her pad to the audience, revealing an unmistakable large, black cross.

“Fiona, you did it!” exclaims Marvo. The audience go wild.

Method

You can either choose someone in the audience with whom you have perfect mental rapport,

or – and this is my preferred method – have all five symbols in the envelope, and simply take

out whichever one the spectator draws!

Yes, I know the method sounds simple to the point of being silly, but it works. It works

because all the attention is on the spectator, not you. She is the star and the audience is

willing her to succeed.

In order to make everything run smoothly, the envelope and cards are slightly gaffed.

There are two sets of symbol cards. The first set is normal; the second set has no star

symbol. In addition, the cards in the second set are trimmed on one of the short edges by

varying amounts in order to produce an index.

The envelope is card-backed, which means that it remains rigid however many cards are

inside, and it has a cutout at the open end to allow access to the index, which can’t be seen

when the flap is closed.

I’ve drawn mini symbols on the index end of the cards as an aid to quick location. When

displaying the card to the audience, my fingers cover the index symbol. The difference in

the card’s length is not noticed.

Working

At the start, all nine symbol cards are in the envelope. Remove the set of five together and

display each symbol. When it comes to choosing one, place the star in the envelope at the

rear of the other four, completing the indexed set. Place the remaining four cards face down

on a table or chair.

You can discover the symbol that the spectator has drawn either by listening to the sound or

watching the pen, but it really isn’t necessary. You can just look! There’s no reason why

you shouldn’t see what has been drawn. As far as the audience is concerned, you’ve made

your choice of symbol and you are transmitting it to the spectator, not the other way around.

As soon as you know which symbol it is, pull the indexed card as far as you can without it

showing. Then, when you “reveal your thoughts”, you can reach into the envelope without

looking, just as if there was only one card in it. Discard the “empty envelope”, so the

audience focuses on the symbol card only.

It is, of course, important that you reveal your symbol first – it’s not a prediction, so please

don’t be tempted to play it that way. The climax is the revelation of the spectator’s symbol,

not yours, and that’s what makes this effect so audience - friendly.

Review - Cool Readings by Gene Nielsen

Reviewed by Arcane

available from Gene Nielsen, genen@silcom.com

ou know I love something that’s devious, and that just what ‘Cool Readings’ is –

devious!

When I first picked up a copy of "Dynamite Mentalism" by George Anderson, I didn’t have

a clue what to do with it. I’m sure many who have joined the ranks recently would also be in

the same position [IF they took the time to study this manuscript!].

Having now served a fair amount of my time reading anything and everything connected with

Mentalism and other arcane practices. I now know where and how it fits into the grand

scheme of things. What does this have to do with ‘Cool Readings’? One thing – I wish

Gene had released it way back then. It would have saved me so much heartache…

You see ‘Cool Readings’ is a system for Q&A. No wait a minute that under sells it….

‘Cool Readings’ is a system that can be used for almost any type of reading. Let me explain

why I say this. The ‘Cool Readings’ System relies on 4 things: A memorised stack

(Stebbins, Eight Kings, Wonky Duck), basic Numerology for a name and two other thing,

which I feel it would be unfair to disclose but they are very easily picked up. Once you have

an understanding of the system you can pretty much use it as you see fit. As and when you

feel like it.

I feel that many may have already decided that ‘Cool Readings’ is not for them; I believe

that’s a pity. You see the only thing Gene does not give you is a/the memorised stack.

Now I’m sorry but if you don’t know a decent stack by now, then why you shouldn’t be

reading Center Tear. I’d better make this clear before I go any further – ‘Cool Readings’

uses a memorised stack but it DOES NOT USE PLAYING CARDS! So

everything else is in there. Sure you can expand it, but to be honest there’s no real need.

Gene lays it all out in black & white on the page for you. You can tell ‘Cool Readings’ is

something that Gene is both proud of and something that he uses.

In the manuscript you get all the ‘basic’ goodies and 7 variations or ways to use the basic

system. The great thing about the system is that it's not rocket science, so it allows you to

do the important thing – the reading(s).

If you were to use ‘Cool Readings’ straight out of the box I’m not sure how it would sit with a

UK audience. But if you take the time to read over the 7 variations, you‘ll see that

different elements of the system can be used together or on their own – just like Lego! You

can use it how you see fit and that’s what I feel is the beauty of the ‘Cool Readings’ system.

It can be delivered how YOU want to deliver it and it can be put together how YOU want

to put it together. So I still feel it has a place in the UK performer's library.

All in all, if you’ve considered putting a Q&A section into your act, ‘Cool Readings' is

worth buying.

If you’re interested in Q&A, ‘Cool Readings is worth buying.

If you want a lovely set of mnemonics for the letters & numbers used in numerology, look no

further. For this alone is worth the price…no more charts!

Contact – Gene Nielsen, genen@silcom.com

Review - Fat Free Mentalism by John Riggs

Reviewed by Bruno M

Available at:

http://www.jonsaintgermain.com/books.htm

77 pages $35.00

any newcomers to Mentalism soon discover that a lot of the classic books

depend very heavily on props, and are outdated, both in presentation and

patter. These classics effects are of course worth learning as the foundations

one must build upon and improve in order to grow in the art.

“Fat Free Mentalism” can be defined as: “Mentalism using little or no props and no

obfuscating patter designed to overwhelm the audience”. One important clarification point

should be made: this book is not about impromptu mentalism. There are some effects that

can be done impromptu, but for the most part you will need small items that generally people

don’t carry. This doesn’t defy the purpose of the book.

In this book John Riggs wanted to demonstrate, it is not only possible to do strong

mentalism without the big and numerous props, and the boring lectures on ESP or psychic

phenomena but it is advisable, you as the performer spend more time on presentation. The

patter of his effects is written with one objective in mind: “fun and dramatic entertainment”.

His writing style is simple, concise and to the point; exactly the way it should be on all magic

books. The effects he shares with us are practical, tried and tested in the real world. No

pipe-dreams.

The book is divided in three parts:

1) “Ostin-Tatious Presentations!”

This part deals with effects using the Ostin-style bulldog clip. It describes three quite

clever effects using this clip. I wasn’t familiar with this device before reading this book but I

must say it’s quite a handy tool to have for predictions. In one effect in particular, you can

put the clip around the neck of a spectator with your prediction completely visible at all

times; then take the paper off the clip and the prediction is correct. It can be used more than

once since his reset time is only a few seconds. You can carry this device in a pocket and

can be built with two common items for less than 5 dollars. The only disadvantage is that

you have to take the paper off the clip yourself, but good presentation skills solve this

problem.

2) “That’s using your head!”

Part two provides you with an entire 30-minute act, which can be performed with no more

than a LePaul wallet, some index cards, envelopes and dollar bills.

Riggs also includes some more ‘Fat Free’ effects, such as: “The Last of the Spike Tricks”,

which is a Russian roulette using paper cups and a spike, and one of my personal favourites.

If you like “Desire” by Max Maven (in “The Red Book of Mentalism”), you’ll love “Cards

of Desire” which is adapted to the non-verbal communication theme; a thought from Ford

Kross allows you to perform it using the psychic ploy, should you need it.

This book is really not for beginners. And the proof of that is “Name and Sign Killer”. A

difficult routine but well worth the effort to master it. Two billets are written: an astrological

sign and the first person the spectator went out. The performer divines both without ever

opening the billets.

Riggs offers some advice for those of us who have trouble finding a way to present our metal

bending routine, along with some essays on the center tear, how to improve social skills and a

reading prop. All very informative and provides much need food for thought.

3) “The Art of the Read”

The third part of the book deals with a method for Q&A and a Cold Reading system. He

describes an excellent reading system without any props, cards or billets. You just look at

the person and describe his personality traits. It soon became my favourite reading system

for impromptu situations where I don’t have my tarot deck or runes.

I think that the method of Q&A presented here defies the purpose of the book. It uses a

somewhat large bag that doesn’t fit on the “Fat Free Mentalism.” There are methods for

Q&A that would fit in this book more nicely, as one with only envelopes and billets for

example.

Since the title of the book is “Fat Free Mentalism”, when I first bought it, I was expecting

more impromptu effects that the ones that are provided here. Nevertheless, I consider this

one of the best of John Riggs books and one of the best in my collection.

I’m sure nobody will regret buying it since it’s worth every penny; and for those of you who

still carry a “truckload full of props” to your show, this is essential!

Review - Explicit Content by Sean Fields

Reviewed by Sean Boon

Available most dealers priced £29.99

The tag line reads, “Sean Fields long awaited book on visual mentalism

is finally here!”

This is certainly true, this book contains nearly a dozen visual mental

effects, the first half of the book concentrating on psychokinetic

bending. Whether it is spoons, keys, rings or pens you wish to bend you will be sure to find

something in here.

Sean covers a few key-bending techniques and even describes a device you can make on a

tight budget for use with your bending routines. Some of the key bending methods seemed

to be nothing new as far as I was aware although there may be slight adjustments to handling.

The Callous bend seemed to be of particular interest to me as the method fascinated me

more than the effect, also because this is the only key bend in the book that can use a

borrowed key.

I’ll admit that I cringed when I read the routines involving bending someone’s ring because of

the value and sentiment attached to such items but was relieved when Sean commented in

the routines closing that you could do this with something like a bottle top instead which in

my opinion is a perfect substitute suitable for walk around performers.

The pen bending is an unusual idea but I have seen the method applied elsewhere, however

the second pen routine had potential in my mind as I can see this being a possible impromptu

demonstration of PK as it uses a natural property found in a lot of pens, funnily enough this

effect was apparently donated by Banachek.

The PK bending section draws to a close and we start moving into other visual mental

miracles, I’ll admit that while they read well in the sales blurb I found that they became a little

too mental-magic for my persona. The Tesla experiment reads well, a thought is felt, seen

and heard to leave the spectator.

This is all true in practice; unfortunately I was a bit disappointed upon reading it as I felt

that the amount of gimmicks used to achieve this effect where too bulky. I guess if I saw it

performed I could be converted, but it just seemed over the top.

There are two effects where water turns into ice, which is really nice, and I would love to see

them performed, unfortunately again because of the incredible miraculous nature I don’t

think an audience would buy into it unless you were a magician who performs mental effects.

It struck me as too much of an illusion than a mental feat.

The book closes with what I can only say is a blatant duplication of Derren Browns Blair

Witch effect, I can see this book being bought just for this simply because it is one of

Derrens ‘tricks’.

It sounds like I’m not happy with the book, this isn’t true. It just is not suited to me as what I

consider a ‘pure’ mentalist. There are some wonderful ideas in here, giving suggestion

methodology to bending, adding a visual element to the process of bending and even

descriptions of devices you can make. But I feel that the public isn't quite ready for the

unbelievable.

Document Outline