101 of how these things are supposed to work, and for that reason alone it is often pointless even attempting something like this. However, since you don’t believe, I’m sure this will not pose an issue for you.” Note: The mere mentioning of a personal question seems to gain interest from the beginning, giving you a great start. The mention of “a load of rubbish” infers that you will not be impressing your ideas upon them and helps to get your audience on your side. By implying that you share the same belief system as your spectators, you will be more readily welcomed within their group. As a side note, I have never had anyone refuse to answer the question. If they did I would probably suggest they help with a simple exercise which would help them to decide one way or another. The important thing to remember here is that you will still be performing the same routine no matter what their response is. It is simply the presentational angle that must be adapted to suit your audience. On the Level
102 A Piece Of My Mind
Spectator as Mind Reader
104 A Piece Of My Mind The Spectator as Mind Reader Plot: The spectator as mind reader plot is very much like Marmite: you either love it or you hate it. Most who dislike the plot believe that the entertainer should be seen as a specialist with unique abilities. Anything that distracts from this model is therefore seen as a negative. Whilst I do see a partial truth in this, there is also another point of view which is worth considering. Before we delve into this, I would like to point out that not all “Spectator as Mind Reader” effects involve the spectator reading someone’s mind. Instead, this label can be given to almost any effect in which the spectator plays a starring role. When you are offering plausible methods for your spectators to swallow, you are often suggesting to them that if they practiced hard enough, they would also be able to do the same things as you. It is in this fashion that we are able to give our spectators a small glimpse as to what they can achieve with a little thought. Whilst I do accept that this will take the limelight away from the performer, I do not think of this as a negative. In the following essay I will detail a few of my personal reasons for this. The Cross Bar Challenge: In November 2009 a rugby fan by the name of Stuart Tinner was randomly selected from a crowd of over 46,000 people to take part in the Wembley “Cross Bar Challenge”. At half-time Stuart was led onto the pitch so that he could attempt to kick a rugby ball off the crossbar, which was situated 30 meters in front of him. Despite the challenge that lay before him, Stuart managed to kick the ball off the crossbar whilst he was not wearing any shoes. This successful kick landed him a staggering quarter of a million pounds. For those interested in seeing this kick in action, please check out the following link: http://youtu.be/cMkimxS_swA
105 As you watch the clip, please listen carefully to the commentary of the event. Now if one of the professionals had managed to do this, it still would have garnered an amazing reaction from the spectators, however no one can doubt the impact that the underdog achieved that day. When you couple this with the fact that people will naturally be more interested in their family and friends than a stranger, you already have a compelling argument. Note: I am also confident that Stuart’s success had no detrimental effect on the audience’s appreciation of the skills of the professionals, too. Expected vs. Unexpected: Let us consider another notion. The very fact that the mentalist has been booked to appear at an event is a direct result of the faith that the booker has in the performer; i.e., the performer is expected to be successful in his mind reading demonstrations — I’m sure that this goes without saying. However, it is always the unexpected that takes you by surprise. Why else do we hold surprise parties for our friends and relatives? Simply put, this increases both impact and emotion of the event. Suppose for a moment that you went to see your favourite band, and during the gig your friend was pulled up on stage, handed a guitar and asked to play along. Having known your friend for many years you never knew he could play, let alone play to a professional standard. This revelation alone would no doubt make the night even more memorable for you, but at the same time this wouldn’t stop you going back to see the band for a second time. If you take the time to realise why people go for psychic readings, it soon becomes clear that they are generally more interested in themselves than anyone else. Give them the limelight they so desperately seek, give them memories to treasure and in return, even if it’s indirectly, they will always thank you for the pleasure. Just remember, people will always remember how you made them feel. Spectator as Mind Reader
106 A Piece Of My Mind
107 Going Propless...
108 A Piece Of My Mind
What Does a Mentalist Do? I would like you to consider for a moment what it is to be a mentalist. If we could read minds, we would be able to do so without the need for props. In this next chapter we will be examining several approaches to propless mentalism.
110 A Piece Of My Mind Read My Mind! Since a lay audience will generally have no perceived idea of the process we go through to read a mind, we can sometimes find ourselves in challenging situations where a spectator may ask you to read their mind cold. As such, I have developed the following introduction to my skill set which helps to prevent the above from occurring. “Before we begin, I would like to inform you that mind reading is not an exact science; for any of the following demonstrations to be successful we will require two key players: firstly, a good sender of information, which is where all of you come in, and secondly, a good receiver of information, which is where I will play my part. “Without these two things working together, we are simply setting ourselves up to fail. If you listen to my words and follow what I say, I’m hoping that we can all enjoy ourselves and perhaps discover a latent talent within at least one of you here tonight.” The above lines have been structured to remove confrontation, increase cooperation and preempt the possibility of failure (should you be following this with any routine that isn’t 100%).
Dave’s Pin
112 A Piece Of My Mind Effect: The following routine makes an ideal opening routine. It allows you to seemingly reveal specific details regarding the PIN numbers of five spectators. Best of all, this may be performed on the spot with zero setup required. Note: I tend to open this effect with the introduction outlined in the “Read My Mind” segment of this book. Performance: You begin by asking five spectators to stand. Directing each of them to close their eyes, you begin: “As a mind reader it is expected that you are able to reveal the private thoughts of another. What I’m going to attempt to do is reveal specific details regarding each of your PIN numbers. “Please note that I will not be revealing the full numbers to the audience. I simply wish to find out who amongst you is the most talented at sending this information to me. “Please concentrate your thoughts upon your PIN numbers for me. As you do this, I would also like you to think about how you got these numbers. Were they issued to you by the bank, remaining unchanged, or have you purposefully changed them to something else? If you did change your number, please think specifically about what this number was changed to... “OK, let me explain some of the thoughts I have received...” Pause for a moment or two in concentration and then continue: “There are two people within this group who have not changed their PIN number from the moment it was issued to them by the bank. One of you has been meaning to change it but hasn’t yet gotten around to doing so. “The other three have changed their PIN numbers to something specific, and so if I’m talking about you here, please concentrate on the reasons for the change.” Note: You must carefully observe your spectators’ reactions as you talk. It is surprising how often your spectators will smirk or smile as you deliver certain
113 pieces of information. These must be mentally recorded for later use when present. If you do notice any reaction, be sure to point at the relevant spectator as an indication of whom you are receiving the information from. Just remember that the audience won’t be able to see these reactions as the spectators are facing you. It is also worth noting that the facial reactions are almost always amplified due to the fact that their eyes are closed. “OK, one was changed to an important year (pause for any signs of recognition) or date, the other was changed to match another code, possibly an alarm or voice mail code...the third...ah, that’s too easy. I’ll keep that one secret!” You then continue in quick succession: “Two of the group have a double digit in there; one is a double three and the other is a double six. There is a PIN number beginning with a one, another that starts with a four, one ends in a nine and I’m a missing a digit from... Oh, that’s zero in there! “Excellent work folks. If I’ve managed to receive any details about your PIN number or how you got it, then please open your eyes and take a seat.” All five will/should sit down! The reason why is very simple: we are capitalizing on David Hoy’s marvellous “Hoy Principle” (hence the title of this effect). In short, all spectators must have either kept their original PIN number or changed it specifically to something else. Since we mention both scenarios we have everyone covered! We also use generalised number statements, being clear to leave room for at least one other possibility, which allows us to take statistical-based guesses on most numbers whilst appearing to be very specific. If any of the specific numbers or generalised statements hit, then that’s a bonus. Notice how the specific numbers called are not referenced to any one individual without getting a reaction first! We also increase the likelihood of a reaction by using the date and existing-code ploy, as these are the most common reasons for changing a PIN (see additional thoughts). If you noticed any reactions as you talked, you can seek individual affirmations Dave’s PIN
114 A Piece Of My Mind afterwards, cementing all of your prior work! In the very unlikely event that one or more spectators are left standing, I will conclude as follows: “Apologies, I thought I had given you specific details regarding the creation of your PIN number... Without revealing your PIN number aloud, I would just like to ask you if this is correct.” I then lean in and whisper to them, “You were issued your number by the bank and haven’t yet changed it even though the thought has crossed your mind.” I then step back and ask, “Is that true and specific of your PIN?” The spectator will openly agree and I then say, “I trust that you also don’t mind acknowledging to the audience that you have never changed your PIN number from when it was first issued to you by the bank.” The spectator will agree. Note: I can hand on heart say that every spectator who has ever remained standing for me in this routine has agreed that they NEVER changed their PIN number from bank issue. I believe their sole reason for remaining standing is that they forgot this fact was mentioned, since it is announced at the very beginning of the routine. If any remaining spectator denied this was true, then I would simply thank them for their help and ask them to take a seat, stating that I will continue further demonstrations with those that were more successful in transmitting their thoughts to me. Milking a Date: Should you be fortunate enough to observe a reaction from your spectator when you mention that one spectator is thinking of a year, then you are in a fortunate position. Since most people (when using a year to generate their PIN number) will opt for a year of birth, this limits their choice to something within the 1900s (most likely) or the 2000s (least likely).
115 In this fashion you can openly state that you were picking up on their impressions quite clearly, and to prove it, you further ask them to choose either the first or second digit of their PIN number (the pretense being you don’t want to verbalise the full number for everyone to hear). If the spectator chooses the first digit, I would take the educated guess that it is a 1; if not, then it theoretically must be a 2. Conversely, if they suggest you go for the second digit, I would opt for the 9 first, and failing that it should be a 0. If you are using this and you get a “No”, you can either ask if the number called exists within their PIN anywhere or perhaps brush it off, reminding the spectators that this is just an exercise to determine which spectators are the best at sending information. Believe me when I say that this hits them very strongly. Dave’s Process: For those that wish to provide a pseudo explanation for the information that you reveal, you could ask all five spectators to simultaneously call out the numbers zero through nine as they think about the numbers in their PIN. This implies to the audience that you are somehow able to pick up on the numbers through the tonality or body language of your spectators as they call out the numbers. This also provides a logical explanation as to why you are skipping from one spectator to another as you apparently pick up on the digits (since it is impossible to keep track of all five spectators at once). For some reason, the audible nature of this helps to make the routine play a little larger, and for this reason this approach is more applicable for stage use. It’s Just a Selection Process: Remember that to create miracles you have to take chances or, to be more exact, “calculated risks”. Don’t forget that any guesswork can be easily written off as part of a selection process (to find the best senders of information), and in this respect you always have a safety net to fall back on. Dave’s PIN
116 A Piece Of My Mind Additional Thoughts: Those of you who have the amazing “iUnlock” iPhone application (designed by Myke Phillips and Salah Aazedine) could use this as a lead in to nail an exact PIN number, too. I would always recommend pointing at spectators even if their reactions are slight. The spectators won’t object to your comments since their eyes are closed and most of the remaining audience will forget that the eyes of your spectators are closed anyway. Feel free to amend the number of spectators as you require; I have worked this equally as well with three spectators as I have with five. Here are some interesting facts about PIN numbers that you may find useful: There are 10,000 possible PIN numbers ranging from 0000 through 9999. 1,000 of the possible PIN numbers have 0 as the first digit. 3,439 will contain at least one zero. 1234 is the most common PIN number, representing 4.3% of all PIN’s. 34% of people use the same PIN for each of their cards. 34% of people use their PIN in another authentication system. Banks do not give out numbers where all digits are identical or consecutive. For some further reading on this subject, please check out the following link: http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2012-09/infographic-dayfastest-way-crack-4-digit-pin-number
Picasso
118 A Piece Of My Mind Introduction: From the moment I first read about the Triangle/Circle force in Banachek’s Psychological Subtleties, it has remained one of the most successful psychological forces within my repertoire. Never content that I had explored its limitations, my mind wandered for many years until I had the good fortune to meet Pete Turner. Pete has some marvellous thoughts on expanding limited range forces to give the impression of a much wider choice. In applying Pete Turner’s thinking to the Triangle/Circle force, I believe I have come up with something quite novel. Performance: You begin by seeking the assistance of four spectators. “If I were to mention the term artist, it would probably conjure up the idea of someone who is very skilled at drawing or painting. However, as we know, art can take on many different forms. These include singers, sculptors, dancers and musicians. “The type of art that I specialise in is something altogether different, but with the theory of art in mind, how many of you here have heard of Picasso?... Picasso was the pioneer of the Cubist movement, and during this time he produced a series of paintings which were primarily made up from simple geometric shapes. “So with this in mind, I would like each of you to think of a simple geometric shape, something like a square, but not that one because I’ve mentioned it. Do you have one in mind?” The spectators respond positively. “In a moment I’m going to ask each of you to make a drawing in your mind based upon your chosen shape. To do this I’d like you to think about the first letter of your shape (allow them a moment to think) and then to think of any animal that begins with that letter...the first one that springs to mind. Do you all have one?” The spectators confirm that they each have an animal in mind.
119 “Out of over a million different species you each have a single animal locked in your mind. I would like each of you to imagine drawing your animals with a black marker pen. As you do this I will announce the impressions that I am picking up...” Note: Since the scripting psychologically forces them to think of either a Triangle or a Circle and you put pressure on them to think of the first animal that pops into their mind beginning with that letter (a T or a C), their choices are actually very limited. Through trial and error on my part, the selected animals will almost certainly consist of a mix of the following: CAT, CROCODILE, TIGER, TORTOISE, TURTLE and OSTRICH (For the awkward spectator who chooses an oblong or oval). You will note that there are six animals above, yet we only have four spectators, and so when we deliver this list, we will subtly cover all possibilities whilst apparently listing only four animals. This is achieved as follows: “...I have received four distinct animals...a cat, like a wild cat, like a tiger. A turtle or a tortoise, I’m unsure which, a crocodile and finally an ostrich. If I have successfully received your animal, please take a seat.” All four spectators should now sit down, concluding the effect. If anyone remains standing I will resort to the following out. I take a single business card and upon it I draw (sight unseen) a boat. I will follow this by writing the words “Noah’s Ark” below it. I can then follow up the effect as follows: “Upon this card I have made a very specific drawing. Considering that my artistic skill is limited, If I had drawn a four-legged animal, this could be interpreted as many different animals. For example, it could be a horse as much as it could be a dog. For this reason I have written beneath my drawing exactly what it is, eliminating all confusion.” I now look intently at the spectator and smile as I suggest: “I think you will be impressed with this. Please take a look at the card and confirm aloud with a yes or no, would you happen to see your animal on here?” Picasso
120 A Piece Of My Mind Framed correctly, the spectator will look at the card, laugh aloud and agree. This will be perceived by the audience as a positive reaction to the revelation of their thought-of animal. Special thanks go out to Tim Lichfield, who suggested turning my gag into what appears to be a physical revelation. Note: Another alternative to “Noah’s Ark” is to draw a cage with long metal bars and to write the word “Zoo” below it. I would normally then close with the following words: “Now that I have a clearer idea of how your mind works, I hope that you won’t mind assisting me with another demonstration.” I will then follow this with a sure-fire routine to establish my credentials with this spectator. In the unlikely event that you have one or more spectators remaining standing, I will comment that they must think a little differently to most and suggest that they may be thinking of the exact same thing. I will then use the gag “out” for both spectators in the same way. Additional Thoughts: I have in the past performed this over the phone and have also used this one on one, too. To perform this for a single spectator, you must carefully observe them when they are asked to think of an animal beginning with the first letter of their chosen shape. A quick acknowledgement that they have an animal in mind will indicate that they were most likely thinking of a circle, as it is very easy to think about an animal beginning with the letter C. Any delay or initial look of confusion in their response will indicate that they were thinking of a triangle, since animals beginning with the letter T won’t spring into mind as easily. I will then ask them to think of the colour that they would use to paint this animal. I then use the Derren dodge, stating: “Repeat the colour in your mind like green, green, green...” Any reaction, or lack thereof, to this should help you to narrow down on the spectator’s choice of animal. If you present this as a warm-up exercise with a preempted possibility of failure, then this will cover you should you fail.
121 Note: For those that don’t want to present this as a mind-reading feat, you could opt to do the following. Take hold of each spectator’s wrist in turn and slowly move it around as you ask them to imagine tracing the shape of their animal in their mind (try to use the observational technique above and you can get some amazing hits by forcing their hand to draw the shape of a crocodile for example). In this fashion it will appear as though you are reading their muscle responses to get your information. Picasso
122 A Piece Of My Mind
123 Some Thoughts on Billet Work...
124 A Piece Of My Mind
Why Write Down a Thought?
126 A Piece Of My Mind Introduction: I detail below some expanded thoughts that were originally written up for Ran Pink’s amazing centre tear book, which is titled T-Rex. I sincerely hope that you enjoy my thinking on this subject and that my approach provides you with a fresh perspective on the subject. When it comes to billet work, I often find that most routines are quite linear in their approach, namely that the spectator is asked to think of something which is then committed to in writing. The mentalist then makes his peek, pretends to receive some impressions and finally makes his revelation, all in quick succession. Note: There are some notable exceptions to the above which are worthy of your attention; these include Bob Cassidy’s “Name Place” routine and the incredible work detailed within Ran Pink’s book (as mentioned above). If we were to liken these routines to a dot-to-dot puzzle, then they will simply form a straight line/path. The issue arises when a spectator attempts to walk this path in reverse. The spectator wrote something and handed it to the mentalist, who ripped it up before revealing what was written. More often than not it is very easy for the spectator to walk this path in reverse, at least until they are satisfied that they know how the effect was achieved. It doesn’t matter one iota whether the spectator missed the peek action. Providing that their suspicions are congruent enough to follow the path that was taken, they will be satisfied that they have discovered the root of the deception. An effective routine is one which would force the spectator to abandon such thoughts, as they simply could not be cogent to the path from A to B. My efforts to achieve this have given rise to a couple of thoughts, but before we cover these, let us backtrack for a moment and consider why a spectator should be asked to commit their thought in writing in the first place. A One Step Process: Almost all mentalists will be forced to answer this question at some point in their performing career. From the onset this would seem like a realistic
127 question for a spectator to ask. After all, if we could really read minds, then there would be no need to have anything written down. So how can we hope to overcome this catch-22 situation? How is it possible to get the spectator to willingly write down their thoughts without question? Before I detail my solution to this issue, I would like you once again to consider how this act is normally framed within the minds of the audience. As mentioned earlier, this is typically a two-stage process. Firstly, they are asked to think of something, perhaps a name. Having made their selection, they are then requested to write this “thought” (as a secondary step) upon a card. More often than not the spectator’s selection is labelled as a thought before it is committed to paper (a big no-no in my opinion). The moment this thought is written down it becomes something else. What makes matters worse is that some performers will hint at what they are about to do (reveal the thought). It should now become clear why this action is met with scepticism or, even worse, resistance from the spectator. In an effort to overcome this issue, I propose the following approach: Firstly, NEVER state or hint at what you are about to do in advance; this will leave the spectator with no grounds to question your instructions. NEVER ask them to think of something and THEN write it down. Read that line again (the reason for this is stated above)! Simply TELL them to write down any word/number (or other) without stating what you’re going to do. As they do this, caution them to make sure that no one sees what is written. So long as you NEVER refer to this as a thought during this stage, it will never be questioned. Only AFTER this process is complete should you begin to reference their selection as a thought. Providing that you adhere to the rules above, your actions should never be met with any resistance from your spectators. Why Write Down a Thought?
128 A Piece Of My Mind
129 The Circle of Truth
130 A Piece Of My Mind Introduction: As mentioned on a previous page, most of the routines which use a peek or centre tear are linear; they travel in a straight line from point A to point B. If we were to imagine joining the ends of this line together we would form a full circle. In visualising our routines in this way we can still see a clear path for our spectators to follow, however we can now use this as a foundation to create more deceptive routines. In the event that a spectator should contemplate any method other than that of real mind reading (or whatever skill you’re implying), they will be forced to walk/check the full circle in their quest to find the “truth”. As performers we must ensure that any method that the spectator could conceive of for the effect will not be congruent with the path that they have taken. In other words, you must strive to rule out any notion of trickery by creating various checkpoints along your path. At each of these checkpoints the spectator must be forced to abandon any notion of trickery as a result of the following internal dialogue: “The mentalist couldn’t have done X because of Y.” Luckily this is quite easily achieved by using multiple methods within a routine. Below is a basic example to illustrate this point. A Sight Unseen: The mentalist places his wallet onto the table. He mentions that it contains a couple of business cards and asks if the spectator has any idea what is written upon them. The spectator will either guess or reply in the negative (either is fine). Note: The above is a little subtlety that I use with my peek wallets to demonstrate that they are opaque. The wallet is now opened and two (pre-folded) cards are removed from the inside pocket, and these are seen to be blank. Handing one to the spectator,
131 the mentalist requests that they write the name of a close friend upon it. Once this has been done, he requests that this is shown to another spectator so that two minds are now aware of the single thought. Note: The above idea (which isn’t mine) serves as a perfect non-verbal justification for the writing process. The spectator is then asked to refold the card into quarters before handing it back to the mentalist. The card is then torn into pieces and destroyed. After concentrating for a moment or two, the mentalist jots something quite lengthy upon his card. This card is then handed to the spectator. Both spectators are then asked to verify the name of which they were thinking. The mentalist smiles and then gestures for the spectator to open up the card. The spectator opens up the card to discover the words “Look in my wallet” written upon it. Picking up his wallet, the mentalist slowly opens up the zippered compartment and asks the spectator to reach inside it. Upon doing so they discover yet another folded card. This card is found to have the spectator’s thought-of name printed upon it! Modus Operandi: For this effect, I personally use Mark Strivings “Sight Unseen Case”, however this would work equally as well with most other card-to-wallets or perhaps even a small pay envelope with a window section cut out of it. For the sake of this explanation we will assume you are using a card to wallet. Place two (pre-folded) business cards into one of the credit card slots of your wallet. Take another business card and write upon it “look in my wallet”. Fold this into quarters and place it into your trouser pocket along with a pen. Remove the wallet and take out both cards, handing one to the spectator so that they may write their thought-of name upon it as per the presentation. After they have shown this to at least one other spectator, request that they The Circle of Truth
132 A Piece Of My Mind refold the card and hand it back to you. Your pretense for this could be that two minds concentrating on a single thought will make the thought easier to receive. You will now apparently destroy the card, gaining your peek at the same time. Showing your hands to be completely empty, you take the second card and begin to write some words upon it. Firstly, you will write the name that you just peeked, however when you have finished writing the name, you will keep the pen moving as though you were writing something longer. You will now refold this card and place the pen into your pocket. Under the cover of this action you will steal the additional billet (the pre-folded one that reads “look in my wallet”). You now have the perfect cover to perform a switch of the two billets (for my preferred handling of this, please check out my “Racquet Switch”, detailed elsewhere within this book). Note: Psychologically speaking, the spectator will never suspect a billet switch at this point. The reason for this is that it is very illogical to switch something on which you have just openly written. It is this illogical nature that makes this so deceptive. After all, why would you need to switch in anything? You would logically just impress upon the card whatever it was that you wanted the spectator to read. You are secretly retaining the folded billet which contains the spectator’s thought-of name. After a suitable build up have them reveal their thought-of name. You now gesture for them to open up the billet. As they begin to read this, casually pick up the wallet and load the billet inside of it. Slowly and deliberately open the zipper compartment of the wallet and ask the spectator to remove its contents. This is then opened up to reveal the spectator’s thought-of name. Note: The above effect could easily be performed without the centre tear. To do this you could simply have the original card placed back into your peek wallet.
133 Closing Thoughts: I wish to highlight for a second time the switch that takes place within this routine. It happens exactly when the spectator would least expect it. This, I feel, is a huge benefit in the construction of this routine. Logically speaking, if you had just peeked the information as you destroyed the spectator’s card, they would have expected you to write this information upon your card. Since this does not happen, the notion of a peek is not suspected, and furthermore if the spectator did suspect a peek, then they would have to abandon this train of thought since the word was predicted ahead of time. Each stage can’t be backtracked using a single method, binding the spectator into acceptance that what they just witnessed must have been real. This in effect is “The Circle of Truth”. Those that appreciate this technique may also wish to take a closer look at the work of Bob Cassidy and his “Logical Disconnect”. The Circle of Truth
134 A Piece Of My Mind
Crossword
136 A Piece Of My Mind Introduction: This effect is dedicated to Paul Vigil, who, after witnessing a performance of it, kindly encouraged me to write it up. Upon sharing the method behind this with a few friends, I was informed that the principle at play has roots with Ted Annemann. Having come up with this independently, I feel a deep sense of comfort that we have both shared similar thoughts. Effect: The mentalist is seemingly able to predict the result of a simple word association game. Best of all, this effect is accomplished without any of the usual methodology. The Set-Up: The setup for this effect is minimal; simply fold one of your business cards into quarters, roll up your sleeves and then tuck the folded billet into your left sleeve, towards the inside of your elbow (see Figure 1). In this position the billet will be hidden from almost any angle and as such can be set up in advance of your performance. Note: I would also advise putting some scribbling on the inside of the folded card. The reason for this will become clear during performance. Should you Figure 1
137 wish to perform this wearing a t-shirt, you can use a loose-fitting rubber band to hold the folded billet in place. The Work: With the setup complete, I am ready to begin the routine, however before I do this, I normally assess their belief in mind reading using the “On the Level” process detailed on page 99. In most instances I find that (when pressed) my audiences aren’t ready to accept a belief in reading minds, and in these instances I will open with the following: “Whilst I don’t believe in mind reading myself, I do believe it is possible to simulate this by simply following someone’s train of thought. The reason for this is that there are distinct trends in the ways that people think. “Certain words and phrases are capable of triggering identical responses in the minds of like-minded people. What I’m proposing here is a simple experiment. I’m going to suggest a word to you, and I would like you to think of something closely related to that word. For example, if I was to suggest the word circle, you could think of sun, wheel, roundabout or indeed anything that may be remotely connected to that word.” Once the spectator understands the way that the game will work, I ask them to think of the word “Oval”. Note: This could be any word, however I have a fondness for this word as it appears to limit the number of possible connections that could be made to it (increasing believability in the method). Once the spectator has made an association in their mind, I ask them to continue the process with the new word of which they are thinking. Then, just for good measure, I ask them to repeat this process once more. With the spectator content that they have a fairly random word in mind, I continue: “As you made those changes in your mind, I was following suit, and as a result I think I have a good idea which word you are thinking of right now, or at least I have narrowed it down to one of two...
138 A Piece Of My Mind “...To be sure that we are on the same page, can I ask if you know how many letters are in the word of which you are thinking?” If you watch the spectator carefully, you can now get an idea of how many letters are in their chosen word. Note: The “CUP’s Principle” should help you to determine the approximate length of the word that the spectator is thinking of as they count in their mind. In short, a quick acknowledgement in most cases will indicate that this is a four-letter word, a medium response will generally indicate a five-letter word and a slower response will most often indicate that the word is seven letters long. Note: Sometimes you may even notice that the spectators head bobs up and down as they count; others may openly count on their fingers. Either of these should provide you with a clear indication of the spectator’s thoughts. With the above in mind you are now going to openly ask the spectator if you are correct in your assumption. “If I am correct in my assumptions, you are most likely thinking of a (X) letter word (where “X” represents your guess).” If you guess correctly then you have your first hit, and this suggests to the spectator that you already know the spectator’s thoughts. If you miss on the count do not worry; simply ask the spectator how many letters are in the word they are thinking of and follow by suggesting: “Ah, so you went for that one!” Now that you know the number of letters in the spectator’s word, you will now remove two business cards from your pocket, handing one to your spectator. Upon your business card you will now mime writing a word of the same length as your spectator. This is then placed into your left pants pocket so that it protrudes slightly (see Figure 2). You will now request that your spectator commits the word that they are thinking of to paper. Caution them that no one other than the person to their left sees this (where possible). Once this has been done, you will ask them to fold it into quarters, mimicking your actions.
139 As this is being done you must turn away, however as you do this you must hold out your left hand, giving your spectator the “non-verbal” instruction to hand you the card. With the card in your possession, you will now openly ask if there is any way you could see through it. The spectator should respond with a No. As you question your spectator, you are going to switch the billet in your hand for the dummy billet hidden in your sleeve. This is a simple switch which was influenced by a sponge ball steal from Albert Goshman. I have labelled this technique “The Racquet Switch”. The Racquet Switch: With the spectator’s billet resting on your left palm, you openly push it into left-hand finger palm position as in the image below. Clearly showing the right hand to be empty, you now apparently transfer this billet into the right hand, closing the right fingertips around it. In actual effect you will retain the billet in the left-hand finger palm position. Your left hand (along with its concealed billet) now pulls up the right-hand sleeve. As soon as it has done this, your right hand (which supposedly holds the billet) now pulls up your left sleeve, and as it does so it will secretly steal the billet with the right hand. This billet is brought into view as the hands uncross. As this is being performed you will comment: Figure 2
140 A Piece Of My Mind “Even if I could see through this card, it wouldn’t help me because my thoughts have already been committed to.” As this is said, you will openly hold the right hand’s billet outstretched at your fingertips, and the left hand (which secretly hides the spectator’s billet) now reaches with its fingertips into the left pants pocket. As it enters the pocket it will discretely push the visible billet deeper into the pocket (Figure3). Upon doing so the left hand is now removed, leaving the palmed billet in place of the other (Figure 4). Note: It should appear that you have simply gestured towards the billet in the pocket, however in this action the visible billet is pushed further into the pocket and the palmed billet is left (protruding) in its place. In short, it should appear that nothing has changed. The images below show this move in action. Concluding the Effect: Since two people are aware of the spectator’s word (the spectator and one other), you comment that their card is no longer needed. Note: Since you placed some scribbles upon this card, the torn pieces should now be indistinguishable from the spectator’s writing. As you apparently tear up the spectator’s card (the one at your fingertips), you will now ask a third spectator to remove the card from your pocket, asking them to peek at the word that you (apparently) wrote down. Figure 3 Figure 4
141 Note: This all seems logical since there are also two people thinking of the first spectator’s word. This card is then taken back and destroyed (you don’t want the spectator to accidentally expose any of the handwriting on this card to the original spectator). With four people (you, your spectator and two others) now thinking of the same word, you can now count to three, asking everyone to call out the word that they saw. Since both the second and third spectators glimpsed the same word, everyone will call out the same word together. The effect will then be brought to a successful conclusion. Final Thoughts: When you are performing the effect, you may wish to actually follow the game in your mind. When you know the length of the spectator’s final word, you can take an educated guess as to which word the spectator arrived at. You can then write this down as your prediction. Whilst I have never personally been correct in doing this, there may come a time when no switch is required. Considering this takes almost no extra effort, it is certainly worth trying. As an added justification for your third spectator opening the billet, you can use this opportunity to perform Banachek’s “Word to Your Mother” from his book Psychological Subtleties. In this fashion you will point out which letter you believe the spectator is thinking of within their word. You may also choose to draw a line upon the spectator’s card, allowing you to perform a centre tear as you are apparently destroying your own billet. In this fashion you do not need to look at the word, as the spectator opens your (apparent) card.
142 A Piece Of My Mind
143 Principles Within Mentalism...
144 A Piece Of My Mind
What are Principles?
146 A Piece Of My Mind Introduction: I’ve always been a huge fan of the 80s TV series The A Team. What I found most fascinating (and yes, I do realise it was a fictional series) was their ability, when faced with defeat, to construct such things as an armoured vehicle with little more than the most basic of equipment. To draw a parallel between the work of The A Team and the art of mentalism, we must consider “principles” to be our tools. It is only through pushing their limitations that we can begin to build remarkable routines. This next chapter will touch upon several principles of my own construction, and each includes several suggestions for possible application. It is my sincere hope that you follow in the footsteps of The A Team by creating your own unique effects with the tools provided. With this in mind, I would also like you to dissect the other routines within this book. Try to rebuild the routines in your own way, with your own tools, and as a result you will create something that is not only beautiful, but most of all something that is unique to you. I would also suggest that you read and learn as many principles as possible. These tools will give you the power to improvise should anything go wrong during your act. Another Analogy: For those of you who aren’t familiar with The A Team, I suppose you could also liken principles to the colours of an artist’s palette. Having an additional colour in the palette can aid the artist in being able to paint a more accurate representation of any given thing. For the mentalist, the use of the right principle or combination of principles will allow us to give a more realistic demonstration of mind reading/influence for our audiences. Think about it...
Small but Deadly
148 A Piece Of My Mind Introduction: More often than not it’s the smallest changes that make the biggest difference in an effect. What I present here is a rather simple technique that can be applied to almost any routine that uses a “peek”. This facilitates in eradicating the selection procedure from the minds of the audience and, as a result, strengthens the belief that the card was merely thought of. To help illustrate this, I offer my handling of an Ed Marlo peek. Begin by suggesting that you would like the spectator to think of a card. With your head turned (so that you can’t see the cards), you begin riffling the outer corner of the deck, allowing a spectator to call out Stop. Once the spectator has done so, you will simply say: “Have you got it?” or “Do you have it?” To the spectator this will imply that they should remember the card. As soon as the spectator confirms that “they have it”, close up the deck and secretly hold a break below this card. With your head still turned away, you will complete the following actions. With the little-finger break secured, you will squeeze the deck so that the cards above the break are stepped to the left as in Figure 1. You will follow this by moving your thumb to the face of the deck as in Figure 2. You will now squeeze the deck between your thumb and first, second and third fingers. With the deck securely held you will extend the right fingers as in Figure 3, and Figure 1 Figure 2
149 the face of the deck will now face you. You will now use your right first, second and third fingers to pull some of the top cards of the deck to the left (this will help to disguise the stepped nature of the deck). Figure 4 shows the completion of this action from the spectator’s view. You will now ask your spectator if they wish to change their mind. If they do, you will simply square the deck and repeat the process. Assuming that they are happy with the card they have, you will ask them to hold out their hand. Leaving a moment for them to do this, you will use your right hand to search for their hand (remember, you still aren’t looking). At this moment you have an excuse to turn around (to find their hand). As you do this, you quickly glimpse the card as the deck is placed onto the spectator’s hand. What follows is the biggest part of the deception: You will now ask them to place their card back into the deck. The spectators will be quick to correct you, letting you know that they never took a card from the deck. You are now free to suggest, “So you just thought of a card.” Under normal circumstances, labelling a peeked card as a thought-of card may meet some resistance, however this method pushes an objection onto the spectator, and as a result it is the spectator that validates that the selected card was merely thought of. The result is that the spectator will only remember thinking of a card as opposed to ever making a physical selection. Small but Deadly Figure 3 Figure 4
150 A Piece Of My Mind Additional Thoughts: Here is another example of this technique in action. Please note that I do not claim any credit for this one, and despite my best efforts, its origins remain a mystery. Let’s assume that you have had a card physically selected from a group. With your back turned you will split the deck and hold it out as in Figure 5. This gesture implies (non-verbally) that the spectator should return their card to the pack. The moment you feel that the card has been returned, you are free to either close the pack, taking a break above their selection, or you can perhaps control the selection as you turn to face the spectator. You will now immediately ask them to return the card to the deck, prompting them to confess that the card has already been replaced. The resulting offbeat will also provide you perfect cover to execute your preferred control. In this instance, the spectator’s revelation non-verbally forces them to accept that the returned card is out of your control. Take a few moments to think about how you may push a “favourable” objection onto your spectators within the context of your existing routines. I know that there are so many applications of this technique just begging to be discovered and look forward to its future exploration. Figure 5