for example only. In other words, you may use this book to develop an act and to learn new effects, but if you rip the act off word for word you are gonna piss him off royally and could possibly get sued . Since the author has been
disbarred he probably won’t do this himself . More than likely he will refer the entire matter to his personal representative, Tony “The Brick” Castellano. (Who probably isn’t licensed either due to a few bad felony raps, but has never let that prevent him from backing up his paison who once got him off the hook in Jersey for some stuff
you’d rather not hear about.)
Not authentic without this mark.
Table of Contents
Table of Contents ....................................................................................................................1 Part One ..................................................................................................................................2 An Overview of the Act ..........................................................................................................2 The Logic of the Program........................................................................................................2 Part Two .................................................................................................................................5 Performance Details ................................................................................................................5 The Psychological Forces........................................................................................................5 The Book Test.......................................................................................................................16 The Three Envelope Test.......................................................................................................21 Card Memory........................................................................................................................31 Part Three .............................................................................................................................38 The Challenge Tarot Card Reading........................................................................................38 The Card Through the Window .............................................................................................41
Part One
An Overview of the Act The program to be described and analyzed is approximately forty-five minutes in duration. It’s structure, however, is such that it may easily be lengthened or shortened as desired. The basic framework is as follows:
1. The opener 2. Name/place routine 3. Book test sequence 4. Envelope test 5. Card Memoiy
The Logic of the Program The traditional wisdom is that an opener consists of a quick, to the point, effect that establishes the performer’s ability and secures the interest of the audience. In fact, the opening takes place long before the first effect is performed. Pre-show publicity, the performer’s reputation, his introduction and his physical appearance following the introduction all serve to presell his ability and create interest. This is why an established performer, such as Kreskin, can get away with a long introductoiy monologue without losing his audience. It’s not that I recommend lengthy opening discourses- the point is that the degree to which a mentalist has been presold is directly proportional to the required impact of the opening material. An unknown performer whom the spectators have not specifically come to see has a much more difficult task ahead of him because he is working for a completely cold audience. The irony is that the lesser known you are, the more competent and
creative you must be. And while competence is required at both ends of the spectrum, it is a fact that being overly creative or innovative can actually jeopardize an established performer insofar as his audiences have come to expect him to perform in a certain way. (Which all goes to show why the creative geniuses in any art are only generally recognized by their peers.) Realizing that most of the audiences for whom I’d performed had never seen me before and had no idea what to expect, I long ago came to the realization that my openings would require total audience involvement, established as quickly as possible. Hence the theory of “major” and “minor” effects that I presented in The Art of Mentalism. Essentially, a “major” effect involves, or seems to involve, the entire audience, such as question answering, or “audience reading” as I prefer to call it. A “minor” effect involves only one or a few spectators and is effective only to the extent that the rest of the audience realizes that the volunteers are not plants and that any spectator could have served just as well. “Major” effects, therefore, must appear early in the program in order to sustain the interest of the entire audience during the subsequent “minor” material. In the program being discussed, the three envelope test is the core of the act, and, I think, the strongest piece of mentalism I have ever performed. It is, however, a ~~minor~~ effect and therefore would be a poor choice as an opener unless it was done before a “pre-sold” audience.” For these reasons I have found that a brief series of psychological forces worked on the audience as a whole, followed by a pinpointed “minor” effect, is an ideal opening sequence. In Part 2, the specific forces I use will be examined together with a discussion of the “minor” effect which immediately follows. There is enough room for variation , as will be seen, to allow customization for specific performing situations. Another advantage of the psychological forces is that they require no props. The use of props in an opening routine is, I think, a mistake. A mentalist is supposedly an individual who reads minds. Props, when used at all, must not diminish that impression. Dunninger is credited with once having observed that every time you add a prop to your act, your price goes down. He was right in that the use of
obvious “equipment” can only draw attention from the performer’s basic premise, ie. mindreading. When used in an opening effect they can only serve to prevent that premise from being established at all. Even when used later in the act they cannot be allowed to overshadow the premise. Always ask, as Ted Annemann did, “What would a real mindreader do?” Only then can the performance maintain the consistency required to complete the illusion of mindreading. The foregoing illustrates perfectly one of the prime reasons that the “real work” of mentalism is immune to the public exposure which has befallen many of the finer mechanical effects in the art of magic. While the methods of mentalism can, and in many cases have been, exposed to the public, the use of those methods can easily be disguised when no attention is brought to special props resembling those available in magic shops. Having established the desirability of using no props in an opening, it is obvious that the audience is left with only one thing to focus on- the performer himself This is where his appearance and speaking abilities are of critical importance. These are the two factors which separate the professional level performer from the hobbyist. How often have you heard disgruntled “wannabees” complain, after watching Kreskin perform, for example, “Why, he doesn’t do that effect very well at all- I can do a false shuffle (or a billet move, or any standard effect for that matter) better than that. What does he have that I ‘don’t have?” Well, what he doesn’t have, for one thing, is the “wannabee’s” sour grapes. What he does have is an appearance and delivery which are entirely consistent with the impression he is seeking to create. This is the primary secret of mentalism. And despite innumerable exposures of, and countless books on, the methods of our art, it has remained a secret to most would-be performers. This is probably why props are so popular among many amateurs who mistakenly use unnecessary equipment to compensate for their own lack of performing skills. Once the performer is established through his initial appearance and the major effect created by the psychological forces, a clear cut and direct minor effect is used to complete the opening sequence. In selecting volunteers for the latter I generally pick spectators who are seated near
the stage and who have reacted enthusiastically to their success with the psychological routine. The balance of the act builds to the next to last number, the envelope test. In fact, the opening followed immediately by the envelope routine is an ideal short program running approximately 17 minutes. The function of the final routine is to assure a strong closing with maximum audience response. While the envelope test serves this function ninety-nine percent of the time, there is nonetheless a remote possibility of it ending ambiguously. That is why I have always kept a surefire audience pleaser in reserve. In the act being described, a super memory demonstration serves this purpose. Thus, the act has two spots at which it can be terminated. This is an important point, well known to professional performers. Tough audiences, poor performing conditions or unexpected time constraints often call for an otherwise unplanned abbreviation of the show. Also, an unexpectedly strong response to the next to last routine often makes it artistically desireable to end the performance at that point. As George M. Cohan once put it, “Always leave ‘em laughing when you say goodbye.” In the case of the mentalist that may be paraphrased as, “If you’ve just convinced ‘em you’re divine, that’s a good time for your closing line.” Back to Table of Contents
Part Two
Performance Details
The Psychological Forces Following is an almost verbatim version of my opening routine of psychological forces. It goes without saying, I hope, that you’ll devise your own wording
consistent with your own performing personality. Sources for additional force material are contained throughout the literature, but I have included a few classic examples for your reference. For those not familiar with psychological forcing, the technique may be described thusly: When asked to make a quick selection from a defined category, most people will make the same selection if they are not given too much time to think about it. This is why the ace of spades, for example, is the most common card thought of, or “red” the most likely color. (Parenthetically, though, it should be noted that “ace of spades” and “red” are so obvious that they are not very effective.) The ideal psychological force does not seem obvious. The variety of possible selections should appear to be very large. To my mind, the ideal examples are the ones popularized by Un Geller. They are still extremely effective before lay audiences. Briefly, when asked to think of something that would be found out of doors, most people will think of a tree or a car. When asked to think of an odd number between 10 and 50, with the proviso that both digits both be different and be odd numbers as well, most people will think of 37. These examples are by no means new, but they are not as widely known as you might think and will actually serve to excite many audience members with the idea that they actually have psychic powers. As will be seen, I use a movie screen concept to focus the audiences attention. The technique is designed to prevent the audience from having any time at all to ponder their selections, thus increasing the percentage of “hits.” PRESENTATION: “Thank you very much. My name’s Bob Cassidy and I’m a mentalist. How many of you know what that is? Two of you, great. Actually, what I do is read minds and
tell you things about yourself that you didn’t want anyone to know. “But before I begin, I’d like to try a simple test with all of you to see how well you can receive my thoughts. Just sit back, relax, and look at me. Imagine that you are in a movie theater. The screen in front of you is blank, just an expanse of white light. Close your eyes if that will help you visualize the screen.
N “Now, in a moment I’m going to concentrate on an object and attempt to project its image onto your mental screens. Don’t try to guess what I’ll think of Just wait until I clap my hands and see what appears on your screen. “And, one other thing- if I were to concentrate on just any object, most of you would probably subconciously think of something that you’d see in this room, a glass or a chair or something. For that reason I’m going to concentrate on something you would find outside. “Ready, your screen is blank, and NOW [performer claps hands]... you should have an image in your mind. Focus on it for a moment and then make your screen and mind go blank. That was easy to do, wasn’t it sir? [smiling at a spectator near the front] “Let’s try it one more time. See the blank screen. This time I’ll think of something else you would find outside. Ready.. .NOW [claps hands], you should have a second object in your mind. “I was concentrating on a tree and a car. How many of you got at least one of them? Great! How many got both? Fantastic!” The performer now looks for a couple near the front who were successful in the test. The act now moves to the first minor, or specific, test of the program. “How did you folks do? [waits for response and ad libs appropriate comment] That’s great. Do you find that you [addressing the female] often know what he’s thinking? Yes? Well how long have you known each other?
“You see, the longer two people are aquainted the more likely it as that they will think of similar things when in a given situation. Let’s try a test. Sir, focus on your mental screen again. This time I’d like you to focus on the name of a famous person in history. It could be anyone, from the beginning of time until now. Do you have one? Good. Now look at me. Here’s a slip of paper. [the performer removes a billet from his right trouser pocket and holds it open, facing the spectator] Look at it, imagine that you see that person’s name printed on the paper. Actually see it in your mind. Good.” The performer now approaches the spectator, or has him approach the stage, depending on the peforming conditions. Removing a pencil from his pocket, the mentalist hands it and the billet to the volunteer. (Time for some parenthetical commentary - which you might just as well get used to because it is the only way I can convey the thinking behind what’s going on. The word “volunteer” isn’t exactly appropriate here, because at no time has the individual volunteered to do anything. The performer has selected him and his date because of their reactions to the psychological forces and is now simply telling them what to do. This gives the performer maximum control and generally eliminates the problems inherent in asking for someone to literally volunteer. Most normal people won’t volunteer this early in the program. They are, naturally, not quite sure of what the performer is up to and are afraid of being embarrased. By asking for volunteers the performer is actually inviting disaster, because those who do are the type who aren’t afraid of being embarrased at all. Showoffs or people comfortable on a stage are much more likely to disrupt your pace or intentionally not follow your instructions. At this stage of the performance, the performer is not yet completely established and the failure or disruption of this effect can prevent him from establishing himself at all. (Herein lies another lesson- If an audience member looks overly eager to participate, don’t select that person until after you have firmly established yourself as a mindreader. If you want to be totally safe, don’t use the individual at all.
Back to the presentation...) “Now sir, just keep looking at that paper, imagining that you can see the famous persons name printed on it. [The performer now addresses the female subject] “Ma’m, you have no idea what he’s thinking of, do you? But don’t be surprised if you think of something closely related to what’s in his mind. Make your mental screen a blank. I want you to now visualize a famous place. Anyplace in the world, whether it existed in the past, or exists to this day. “I have a slip of paper and a pencil for you, too. [Performer removes same from his pocket] Focus your mind on the paper and imagine that you can see the name of that place printed on it. Wouldn’t it be strange if that place were somehow related to the person that your partner’s thinking of?” The performer now distances himself from the “volunteers.” He walks just far enough away so that it is apparent that he will not be able to see what the spectators are about to do. “Sir, I want you now to print that name on your slip. And m’am, I’d like you to print the name of your place. Don’t peek at each others slips. “When you’re done, I want each of you to fold your slips into quarters. Make sure that you fold them neatly because I want both of the slips to look exactly alike. Have you done that? Fine. “Sir, hand your slip to her. And [addressing the female] what I want you to do is hold both of the slips behind your back and mix them up so that even you don’t know which is which. Here’s why- In a moment we’re going to destroy one of the slips. I had you both fold them the same way so that no one could possibly know if we have destroyed the name or the place.”
The performer, having removed a cigarette lighter from his pocket, now approaches the female volunteer. “Hand me either one of the slips. The moment I touch it, it is disqualified. We’ll only be concerned with the one you keep. [The performer now burns the folded slip that has been handed to him. It is assumed that there is an ashtray nearby.] “No one knows which one is burning, the name or the place. The slip you hold in your hand is our target. Make your hand into a fist and hold it up over your head. I don’t want to touch it. “I get the impression of whiteness and a sense of vertical columns. Yes, it’s clear now. Let me write this down.” [The performer has made his way back to the stage and has removed a packet of slips from his pocket. He writes on the uppermost slip, suddenly crosses off what he has written and writes again on a clean slip.] “Sir, just hold this for a moment. [The slip is handed, writing side down, to a nearby spectator] Don’t look at it just yet. “Well, I’ve committed myself “The performer approaches the female volunteer and says to her, “Hand me your slip and we’ll see if it’s the name or the place.” The mentalist takes the folded slip from the woman, opens it, and reads its contents aloud. “It’s the place. You’ve thought of Rome, Italy. Is there any reason you can think of why that popped into your head? Let’s take a look at what I wrote. “Sir, “says the performer, addressing the spectator who is holding the slip upon which the psychic impressions were written, “Nice and loud, read what I wrote on that paper.” “Rome, Italy,” states the custodian of the performers impression. There invariable applause at this point at what appears to be an amazing example of precognition.
“Obviously,” remarks the mentalist, “We must have burned the slip bearing the name this gentleman was thinking of The only place that thought now exists is in his mind. “Sir, concentrate on that name again. Once more see it on your mental screen and try to project it to me. This time I think I’ll write my impressions so you can all verify them.” [The performer picks up a large pad or clipboard and writes something with a magic marker. He holds the pad over his head with the writing side away from the audience.] “Nice and loud, so everyone can hear you. Tell us the name you were thinking of” The spectator replies, “Julius Caesar.” “And look at what I’ve written,” responds the master mind. He turns the pad around and the audience sees the name “Julius Caesar.” “I knew your thoughts would be related. Isn’t that incredible?” ANALYSIS AND METHODOLOGY: Here’s where things start to get interesting, for there is no one “best” way to accomplish the effect, nor does the effect always work out as above. There are times when there is no relationship whatsoever between the name and the place. Why, then, have I used this presentational approach? There are two reasons- first, the presentation is a logical approach to an effect involving a couple, and second, when there is a relationship between the name and place, the effect is phenomenal. For even if the performer somehow was able to use trickery to discover the thoughts, how, reasons the audience, could he possibly have known that the two thoughts would be related? And the fascinating thing, to me at least, is that the thoughts turn out to be related more often than not. Of course I’ve had to stretch it occasionally to find a
relationship I could point out to the viewers, but it does seem that the longer a couple has been together, the more likely their common experiences will result in related choices. This is an illustration of another of the so called “inside secrets” of the art. While unforeseeable luck can always be capitalized on to create a truly psychic effect, the wise performer creates situations that open the door for such good fortune. (Or if you believe, as I do, in the possibility of real psychic phenomena occuring where an atmosphere conducive to belief is present, it only makes sense to create situations where synchronistic phenomena are given fertile ground from which to spring forth.) How, then, does the performer handle the situation when luck has forsaken him or where the couples psychic compatibility is as minimal, say, as that existing between two bricks? He simply “gets” both of the thoughts and lets it go at that. When it becomes apparent to the performer that the name and place are not going to be related he simply makes no further reference to a relationship or lack of one. Since he will be in possession of this information before the first revelation is made, there is adequate time to adjust the presentation accordingly. The effect, as described, is a variation of an idea from the fertile mind of Bruce Bernstein, who used his version of an instant access center tear combined with the “one ahead” gambit to gain the necessary information from the slips. Those familiar with his tear, which I believe to be the best version of the center tear yet devised, will find that it serves admirably in the presentation. Personally, and in the interest of consistency, I use a switching technique to substitute a dummy slip for the one which is burned. The preparation is as follows: A packet of billets, about ten, are in the performers right trouser pocket. The billets are actually 3x5 blank index cards which have been cut in half to create 3x2 1/2 inch cards. One billet is folded into quarters and placed either in the right pocket next to the stack, or in the left trouser pocket, depending on the switching technique to be used and/or the performer’s handedness. Since I’m right handed it goes in my right pocket if I’m using a straight one- hand finger switch, or in the
left pocket, along with a cigarette lighter, if I’m using the lighter to cover a hand to hand switch. This selection is based on the prevailing performance conditions. If ashtrays are not available in the audience or if they are seated theater style, I use the standard one hand switch. If, however, as is usually the case in my performance venues, ashtrays are readily available, then I invariably opt for the two handed switch, covered by the transfer of the lighter from my left hand to my right. This creates perfect cover for the move and, thus, is highly recommended. The original description of this approach to switching appeared in the late Bascom Jones’s Magick. The actual working should now be apparent to you. When the folded billets are mixed behind the females back, the ostensible reason for the mixing and the actual reason are the same, ie. she should have no idea which billet is which. The billet that she hands the performer has supposedly been disqualified and therefore is not the point of interest. All attention is drawn to the billet she keeps held, at this point, over her head in her fist. This provides absolutely perfect misdirection for the switch of the “disqualified” billet. The dummy billet is burned and dropped into a convenient ashtray. (If you’re using this method, be SURE that the billet is completely burned- you don’t want some curious spectator inspecting it later and discovering that the writing has miraculously disappeared.) At this point, regardless of the switching technique used, the actual “disqualified” billet should now be palmed in the performers right hand. As he returns to the front of the room, he puts his right hand in his pocket and opens out the billet against the stack. (A classic Annemann technique) With the stolen billet now on the face of the stack, the mentalist removes the entire stack from his trouser pocket. He transfers the stack to his left hand and removes a pen from his jacket or shirt pocket. While apparently writing his impressions on the uppermost slip, he is actually reading the contents of the stolen billet. Feigning a mistake, he crosses off the writing and puts the stolen slip to the bottom of the stack. He now writes what he has just seen onto the fresh uppermost slip and then hands it to a spectator near the front.
When the mentalist returns to the woman holding the “target” slip in her fist, he takes it from her for the apparent purpose of reading its contents aloud. What he actually does is misread the billet, stating the contents of the stolen slip while mentally noting the actual contents of the paper. In the above example he says “Rome, Italy,” while noting the name Julius Caesar. He casually tears this slip up and drops the pieces into his pocket while the volunteer holding the mentalist’s “impression” slip is reading it aloud. The performer is now prepared to reveal the name that the male volunteer was concentrating on. It will be remembered that, instead of writing his impression on a billet as he did the first time, the mentalist writes this impression on a large clip board or pad with a magic marker. Theoretically this is an inconsistency. Furthermore, the performer could simply end the routine at this point by gazing at the volunteer and just telling him the name. But, by remaining strictly consistent (ie. jotting his impression on a slip as before) or by simply stating the name, the routine cannot finish in a sufficiently dramatic manner. This is because each alternative requires that a spectator have the last word, by either reading the performers billet aloud after the volunteer has revealed his thought or having the spectator verbally acknowledge that the performer was correct. And (here’s another rule) if you can ever avoid letting a spectator have the last word you should do so, otherwise you are making the climax of the effect dependent on the dramatic skills of a nervous and possibly faint-voiced volunteer. By ending the routine as described, the climax is reached when the volunteer holding the pad simply turns it around and shows the audience the performers writing. At the same time the performer himself can dramatically read it aloud while taking the pad from the volunteer and holding it aloft. Thus, it is the performer who controls the climax. The performance now moves logically to the book test sequence. Note that the movie screen concept is retained throughout the act since it adds consistency to the performers implied claim of being psychic by giving an apparent method for activating the psychic function. Far too many mentalists I have seen have not adequately grasped this point, but it is of extreme importance. Now, I’m not saying that the “movie screen” is the only approach that works- my point is that the
performance requires unity if the illusion of real” mindreading is to be maintained. As I noted in an earlier book, the more a performer claims, the less likely he is to be believable. He can claim to send and receive thoughts, to predict the future, to be clairvoyant (as in psychometry effects), to have a super power memory, to be a psychokinetic etc. ad nauseum. He cannot, however, claim all of these things in one performance. The various effects performed must have unity and be supported by a plausible subscript. A subscript is simply an acting device. It is a mental script followed by the performer in which he thinks as if he really were reading minds. My subscript is simple- if you project something onto a mental screen, I can receive it. Conversely, if I project something onto my screen I can either project it to you (as in the psychological forces), or I can burn it permanently into my memory. This is my approach to the memory routine which ends the performance- it is just another aspect of the visualization technique. Some other possible subscripts would be, for example; a) I can influence people as well as physical objects by simply willing it; b) I am able to channel information from other dimensions; c) I can invoke supernatural forces to do my bidding (the bizarrists approach), etc. etc. It’s up to the individual performer to decide which subscript is adaptable to his performing skills and personality, as well as to make a realistic appraisal of the consistency of his approach. These are the factors that determine plausibility- and if a mentalist cannot be plausible, or believable, he will be seen, at best, as the phony mindreader he really is. Of course if his subscript is that he’s a phony mindreader, the approach taken by many comedy performers, he must nonetheless be consistent in that approach. This is why sucker effects” such as Zuedo Zycho (in which the performer purportedly shows his audience how a prediction effect is performed), generally detract from a “straight” mental program. Such effects run contrary to the subscript and thus damage the unity and plausibility of the performance. The presentation of the book test I use to follow the Name\Place routine, therefore, retains the movie screen concept and is offered as a slightly more difficult test to the performer. I point out to my audience (and believe in my subscript) that the test
is necessary to further focus my mind, thereby preparing me, and the audience, for the more difficult experiments to follow. Table of Contents
The Book Test PRESENTATION: “Now let’s make things a little more difficult. I have three paper back books here. [shows them] We have Brian Garfield’s Death Wish, All Quiet on the Western Front, and Ian Fleming’s Goldfinger. Is there anyone here who likes to read? Is there anyone here who reads? You know, if I were to harness all of the mental energy in this room I could probably make a piece of toast. [The preceding repartee, obviously, is only used for a somewhat unresponsive audience. Play to the room.] “Miss, [speaking to his prospective subject] which book would you like to use? Death Wish? I knew you’d pick that one. It’s a gift I have. Why don’t you just come up here so everyone can see what we’re doing. [The spectator is encouraged, with a round of applause if necessary, to the stage.] The mentalist gives the selected book to the spectator and says, “Tell everyone, please, how many pages are in the book.,, don’t count them, just look at the last page, it tells you. [spectator responds] One hundred and forty seven. Now there are about forty lines on each page and about eleven words on each line. So multiplying the result of that calculation by the number of pages in the book would give you how many words in the book, give or take a few hundred?” The thoroughly confused spectator either stands mutely or attempts a guess. The performer interrupts, “That’s right, there are dozens of them.” [Trust me, the material is funnier than it reads.]
Retrieving the book from the volunteer, the mentalist hands her a business card. “Take this card and insert it anywhere you’d like into the long side of the book. Just say ‘stop’ as I flip through the pages. Leave part of the card sticking out like a bookmark.” After she has inserted the card, the performer, holding the book at arms length with both hands, turns his head away from the book and opens it partially at the bookmark. “Just remember the first word on the page,” he instructs his assistant. The performer lets the book flip shut and turns to face his volunteer. “Just hold that word in your mind. Picture it on your mental screen. “Let’s get someone else involved in this, just to make it more interesting. “Sir,” states the mentalist, approaching a seated male spectator, “Remove the bookmark from the book and reinsert it someplace else.” The performer turns his head as before, and the same procedure is followed as with the woman onstage. “Stand up sir so everyone can see you. “[The performer has pulled the card from the book and tossed it aside. He is now standing midway between the two subjects, one of whom is on the stage, the other standing in the audience. The rationale behind this staging will be discussed later.] “Both of you- picture your words on your mental screens. Mentally spell them out. Don’t move your lips, sir, it makes this too easy. “Okay, your word is rather short- in fact it’s only four letters,” states the performer to one of the volunteers. “The second letter would be an ‘0’, is that correct? Good. And your word [addressing the other] would have six letters, right? And the last one would be an ‘R’ - am I right? [both have affirmed the mentalists impressions and continue to do so] Proceeding thusly the performer reveals both words and continues, “You know, everytime I do this I can hear the conversation as it goes around the room, and invariably someone says, ‘Oh, he must have seen a reflection of the word in their
eyeballs.’ So I’ll tell you what I’11 do.” At this juncture one of the volunteers is asked to point to a third spectator, preferably someone seated near the back of the room. That person is requested to stand and call out which book he/she would like to use. One of the onstage volunteers delivers the book to him/her. Once the third volunteer has the book, the performer picks up one of the remaining books and turns to the volunteer remaining on stage. “Sir, as I flip through this book just tell me when to stop.” The spectator complies and the performer asks him if he prefers the right or left hand page. Whatever his response, the mentalist requests that he call out the selected page number.. “Fifty-six. Fine.~~ The volunteer standing in the back of the room is now requested to open his/her book to the selected page and to concentrate on the first three or four words. This time the performer, on the same pad used in the Name/Place routine, writes down his impressions and then holds the pad high over his head, writing side away from the audience. “Nice and loud now, tell us all what words you were concentrating on.” The spectator does so and the performer dramatically turns his pad around for all to see. He reads his impressions aloud. They are the exact words upon which the volunteer was concentrating. Following the audiences reaction the performer comments, “And you thought this was a lot of bull****, didn’t you?” (The closing line requires some commentary. It is not the exact wording I use. But I must reiterate that I have not been setting forth what amounts to a verbatim transcript of my act with the intention that the sequence and script be followed literally. My purpose is to show you the thinking that goes behind a professional program in the hopes that other performers will subject their own acts to similar analyses. The script I use works for me. Were another performer to copy it exactly, the result would probably be a failure. It should go without saying that scripts must
suit the personality of the performer. This being said, I’ll explain the rationale behind the closing line. Performed properly, the program to this point will have progressively built audience interest. The spectators, or at least a good many of them, will be starting to wonder if the mentalist may actually be psychic, even though such ability has not been explicitly claimed. This can cause an audience to become tense. The final line, “And you thought this was a lot of bull****,” diffuses the tension by what would appear to be an unexpected incongruity in the mentalists persona. That is precisely the reason that the line gets a lot more laughs than it would appear to deserve. The same purpose would be served by any line that is somewhat inconsistent with the performers character. It is no different from a theatrical aside, and actually is a subtle form of disclaiming actual psychic ability. This is an example of how a practiced performer manipulates his audiences emotions as well as their interest. The stronger an act is, the more important it is that similar “safety valves” be employed to insure that the acts primary purpose- ie. entertainment- is achieved.) FURTHER ANALYSIS AND METHODOLOGY: Book tests, as has been noted by the late Barrows Mussey, are inherently flawed effects. A real mindreader would simply walk up to a stranger, hand him a sealed envelope and ask him to mention a word. The word would be written inside the envelope. Of course, that is a flaw inherent in all mental effects. Why write anything? Why use cards or billets or dice or ANYTHING??? You might say, “BECAUSE I’M A FAKE MINDREADER AND I HAVE TOO!!” Bad answer. You don’t have to. Or at least that’s the impression you must give. All elaborations, however necessary they are to the successful performance of an effect, should be presented as precautions designed to insure randomness, absence
of collusion and to prevent trickery. (!) Nonetheless, book tests are like four ace tricks- there are a few good ones, which, when taken together with the innumerable others which have been devised, serve to verify Sturgeon’s Law. (STURGEON’S LAW- Named for the science fiction writer, Theodore Sturgeon, who observed that “ninety percent of science fiction is crap. But then again, ninety percent of everything is crap.) The reason is that overelaboration obscures the effect and serves to make it look like a magic trick. ANY elaborations, therefore, must be the minimum required to accomplish the effect deceptively. If you must, as Ford Kross and the late Chet Miller have noted, multiply the value of a selected card by your grandmothers bra size in order to arrive at a page number, you have missed the point entirely and are politely requested to return to traditional conjuring. And the fact is that the vast majority of book tests are wonderful examples of just this sort of overelaboration. The presentation as described above can be accomplished by several good methods. Larry Becker’s commercial effect “Flashback” serves wonderfully, as does its predecessor “Peek a Book” or “Peek a Book Impromptu” by Danny Tong. Combined with Syl Reilly’s marvelous “Brain Echo,” either would produce the effect I’ve described. But assuming you are unfamiliar with the methodology of these effects, or if you, like me, prefer to use only props that can be obtained in any department or drug store, I present to you here a method which has served admirably. It is a combination of ideas by Annemann, Koran , Hoy and me. Required are three identical paper back books. The covers are carefully removed from two of them and are replaced with covers from other books of the same approximate size. (If you are using “Brain Echo,” you will note that only one marking pen or crayon would be needed for the necessary crib sheet.) All of the books are prepared for a short page force. In other words, three or four consecutive pages near the center of the books are trimmed down the long side so they are
about one thirtysecond of an inch narrower than the rest of the pages. Thus, the two uncut pages on either side of the shorts can be riffled to by riffling from front to back or from back to front. By cuffing several pages near the center, rather than just one, the force is made very easily. It is recommended, however, that you use books whose pages are not colored on the edges. The thinner the cut the better, but there is no real reason to wony about the preparation being suspected given the control the performer wields over the volunteers actions. Those readers familar with “Peek a Book” or “Flashback” will note that the force approach obviates the possibility of words like “the” or “and” being selected and allows for more interesting revelations. Before the right audience it is sometimes effective to force an off-color word on a shy or reserved spectator. (Is my sadism showing?) The revelation of the words selected by the specator in the back of the room is easy considering that all of the books have identical pages as in Annemann’s “Magazine Test.” While the onstage volunteer is reading aloud the number at the bottom of the freely selected page in the book the performer is holding, the performer simply memorizes the first three or four words on the page. There is nothing dramatically new about the methodology here, but I think you’ll agree that, in combination with the above presentation, the effect is pretty hard to beat. Additionally, it leads perfectly into the Three Envelope Test. Table of Contents
The Three Envelope Test As I noted earlier, the Three Envelope Test, or “Fourth Dimensional Telepathy” as it was dubbed by Annemann, is, to my mind, the most effective piece of mentalism I’ve ever performed. Readers of my previous works will note the way the effect has evolved over the years. From forcing the first selection, as Annemann did, and through various impression devices and billet switches, I finally arrived at a method that involved no forcing, no impression and no risk. Nonetheless, I have never seen another performer use my methodology. Perhaps that’s because the
method appears to be very complicated. Trust me, it’s not. It just reads that way. But as a further incentive for you to try this out, I offer you here a way to do the effect without finger switches and without the use of your pockets. You could perform this variation naked if you were so inclined. But even if you prefer to remain clothed, you should appreciate the fact that this approach leaves room in your pockets for all the other stuff that’s used in the show. Neither will you ever be accused of playing pocket pool. Since by now you should have the feel of the presentational approach of the act, and because I have already given a verbatim transcript of my presentation in previous writings, I give you here a nuts and bolts description of the effect and method without the extensive patter I’ve been providing. (I will, however, leave in the good jokes.) PRESENTATION: “Up until now,” continues the performer, “we’ve been dealing with rather impersonal thoughts. Names, places, objects and words in books. You’ve all done very well so far, so now it’s time to reveal things about you. Things that no one could possibly know except you. “What’s your name, please?” asks the mentalist of a female spectator. “Mary... I knew that. It’s a talent I have. [old line, always works] I want you, Mary, to concentrate on someone you haven’t thought of in years, perhaps a relative or a childhood friend. “Do you have a name in mind? Good. Picture that persons face on your mental screen and imagine the persons name printed underneath it.” While he is speaking, the mentalist has picked up a small packet of manila coin envelopes and has removed a folded index card from on of them. He unfolds it and draws the card to the spectators attention.
“Mary, look at this index card. Pretend it is the movie screen and imagine that you can see the persons name printed on it. I want you to take this card and print the name on it. When you’re done, fold it up and hold on to it. I won’t touch that card at any time. The only reason you’re printing the name is to further fix it in your mind and to prevent you from changing your mind later and making me look stupid.” The performer hands her the card and a pencil. While she is printing the name, he turns to address another spectator in a different area of the room. He requests this spectator to think of the name of a pet he or a relative owned during his childhood. Pointing out that there would be no way for anyone to possibly know that name, and in the meantime having removed another card from an envelope in the stack, the mentalist requests this second spectator to print the name and fold his card just as Mary did. While this spectator is complying, the performer returns to Mary and asks her to hold her folded card to the light to verify that the writing doesn’t show through. He continues, “Mary, just slide your card into the envelope. I don’t want to touch it. Good, now stick out your tongue.” The performer has proferred the stack to Mary and she has inserted her card into the uppermost envelope. When he requests her to stick out her tongue, he holds the stack in front of her face in such a manner so that she may lick the flap of the envelope containing her card. “Just lick the flap. [she does so] Look at that,” says the performer to the rest of the audience, “She must think I’m Colonel Sanders. She just licked my fingers.” Handing her the envelope, the mentalists requests that she seal the flap shut. “Just hold on to the envelope, I don’t want to touch it.”
The performer now approaches the second spectator and hands him an empty envelope in which he is told to seal his folded card. He also retains his envelope. Returning to the front the mentalist requests a third volunteer, “Someone with a good imagination who likes to do things differently. An artist perhaps.” An attractive woman is selected and requested to visualize a picture of something-something she feels capable of drawing. Removing a folded card from another envelope, the performer unfolds the card while explaining to the woman that she is to draw her picture thereon, refold it, and seal it in the envelope. The performer illustrates by refolding the card, putting it into the envelope, and handing it to her along with a pencil. A fourth spectator is selected and handed a pencil. She is told to collect the envelopes and to number them from one to three, number one designating the first spectator selected, number two the second, etc. “And when you’re done doing that, just hand them to this gentleman over here who will act as our judge. You look like a credible judge sir.” The performer has selected the least credible looking person in the room for this role, thus garnering yet another cheap laugh at an unwary spectator’s expense. (Another parenthetical is called for- at least I can’t resist it. The above description is absolutely accurate. The performer has not touched any of the cards. He even had someone else collect and number the envelopes. Yet he is nonetheless prepared to dramatically reveal the contents of each. Stop reading here and try to work this out. I’ve provided enough details of the handling to lead you to the solution. If you are familiar with my previous versions of the effect you’ve probably worked out most of it. But I’ll bet you’re bothered by that business of having a fourth spectator collect the envelopes and hand them to the ‘judge.”) The performer now reveals the spectators thoughts as follows. He picks up his pad and a magic marker and asks the first spectator to come to the stage. As she approaches, the mentalist, feigning great concentration, writes something on the
pad. When the volunteer arrives at the performers side, she is told to hold the pad with the writing side against her body. “Don’t peek,” cautions the mindreader, “and make sure to rub the marker ink well into your blouse.” Turning to the judge, the performer request the first envelope. “That’s the one with the one’ on it, sir.” Opening the envelope and extracting the card, the performer reads its contents aloud. The onstage volunteer is now asked to peek at what the performer previously wrote, and then to show the pad to the audience. The mentalist, of course, has correctly written the thought of name. Applauding his volunteer, the mentalist dismisses her from the stage and requests the writer of the pet’s name to approach Again, the performer writes his impressions as the spectator approaches. The same procedure is followed as before, the judge handing up the envelope numbered “two” after the performer has given the pad to the volunteer. Once more the performer is seen to be correct. The procedure is varied with the revelation of the picture. The artist is called forward and asked to retrieve her envelope from the judge on her way to the stage. The mentahist takes the envelope from her, crumples it up and discards it. He then hands the volunteer a large pad and marker and asks her to stand back to back with him. The mentahist also holds a pad and marker. “Now hold the pad so no one can see what you’re about to draw. I want you, when I say ‘go,’ to draw the same picture you’ve been thinking of, but this time you’ll do it nice and big so everyone can see it later. I’ll draw at the same time and see if I can catch your thoughts. “Ready, go!” “Are you done yet?” queries the performer. “Good. Hold the pad close to your body and turn to face the front.” The performer does likewise and says to the
volunteer in a state whisper, “If you show me yours, I’ll show you mine. They peek at one anothers drawings and the performer directs the volunteer to turn her pad around and show hers to the audience. The performer exhibits his drawing and they are seen to be virtually identical. To resounding applause and gasps seemingly heralding an impending rapture, the volunteer is dismissed with the mentalist’s thanks. (If, in fact, rapture appears to be imminent, the performance is ended here. Otherwise the show proceeds into the Card Memory finale.) ANALYSIS AND METHODOLOGY: As you all should know, the effect is simply a presentation of the ancient one-ahead principle. Having obtained knowledge of the contents of the first envelope, the performer is able to to determine the contents of the other two merely by opening the second envelope first and the third envelope second, misreading the contents aloud each time while secretly noting the information to be revealed on each subsequent revelation. It is necessary, therefore, that when the envelopes are collected they be misnumbered as follows- the first volunteer’s envelope is numbered “3”, the second volunteer’s “one,” and the third volunteer’s “two.” If the performer collects the envelopes himself, as in my previous versions, he casually misnumbers them during the collection and mixes them around a bit before handing them to the judge. If, on the other hand, the mentahists wife or girlfriend is in the audience, he simply asks her to collect the envelopes for him. In the above presentation she was the fourth spectator. This, I believe, is one of the most effective ways of using an assistant. She appears to be nothing more than a “gofer,” and thus her actions go virtually unnoticed. By misnumbering the envelopes for the performer, the illusion of the performer never
touching, or even coming near, the envelopes is solidly reinforced. Of course, the performer working alone can dispense with this assistance when it is unavailable, but on those occasions where it is, the technique is guaranteed to confound the most analytical spectator. Which leaves us, then, with the problem of obtaining the contents of the first envelope. In order to do this, a stack of number 5 coin envelopes is prepared as follows: (Those familiar with my previous versions are advised to read this carefully, the set up is similar to, but NOT the same as, those I devised earlier. The set up has been changed to allow the performer to work without the use of his pockets. All necessary props can either be carried on the performers person or set out on a table or stool.) Five # 3 coin envelopes are required. (Unless you decide to use a Shaxon flap, in which case you will require six.) Slightly larger sizes will work, but anything smaller is unsatisfactory. I suggest, though, that you avoid the larger envelopes since they make the removal of the folded billets more difficult. Also needed is a supply of blank three by five index cards. If you prefer, you may cut these cards in half so they are identical to the cards used in the Name/Place routine. In the interest of consistency this is the procedure I follow. Extraction of the billets from the envelopes, however, is easier with the larger cards and the minor inconsistency is not critical. Prepare one of the envelopes by licking its flap and folding it into the envelope. Flapless envelopes prepared this way, instead of by simply removing the flaps, are much easier to work with as they make insertion of billets easier. (This is unless you are using a Shaxon flap, aka Al Mann’s Circean Vessel. If you decide to use this type of envelope it is preferable that the flapless portion be prepared by actually removing the flap. The only reason for using this type of envelope is to allow the volunteer to insert the billet herself, rather than having the performer put it into the envelope before handing same to the volunteer for sealing. It is, therefore, not essential that this type of envelope be used. For that reason, the remainder of the preparation instructions will presume that the reader is using a
standard flapless envelope. Details on construction of the Shaxon envelope may be found in his book, Al Mann’s “The Circean Vessel,” or The Art of Mentalism.) Fold three billets into quarters and insert each of them into a separate, unprepared, envelope. Leave the flaps of all three envelopes turned up and place them on top of each other to form a stack, seam sides up. Place a fourth folded billet into the flapless envelope and put this one on top of the stack, again with the seam side up. Paper clip the stack together and you are ready to begin. While the performer is instructing the first volunteer to think of the name of a childhood friend, he picks of the stack of envelopes, removes the clip and tosses it aside. The packet of envelopes is held in his left hand. Still while speaking to the volunteer, he casually removes the folded billet from the flapless envelope, unfolds it and hands it to her along with a pencil. When he is speaking to the second volunteer, instructing him to think of the name of a pet, he casually transfers a regular envelope from the bottom to the top of the stack. He removes the billet from this envelope, unfolds it, and gives it and a pencil to the volunteer. While returning to the first spectator, he returns this now empty upper envelope to the bottom of the stack. At this point, the envelopes in the left hand would be in the following order: Top envelope is flapless and empty; the second envelope down is unprepared and contains a billet, as is the third envelope from the top; the bottom envelope is unprepared and empty. The first spectators billet goes into the flapless envelope, and the standard flapless envelope switch is performed- ie. after insertion of the billet, the performer grasps the flap of the second envelope and pulls it from the stack. It is this second envelope whose flap is presented to the volunteer’s tongue for sealing. Since it contains a folded (albeit blank) billet, everything appears to be as it should. If she peeks into the envelope before sealing it, she will merely see what she presumes to be her folded card. Do not, however, walk away from this volunteer until she has sealed the envelope. The misdirection (although little is needed) for the switch
comes when the spectator is asked to stick out her tongue. Being a rather unusual and funny request, it provides perfect cover for the move. Walking back to the second spectator (and please take note of all the things I get away with in the act by walking all over the place- man, with all the walking around I do, I think I could nailwrite the Declaration of Independence without being noticed!), the mentalist removes the empty bottom envelope from the stack and hands it to the volunteer so that he may seal his billet inside. It is at this point that the performer starts reiterating how he never touches the billets. (But don’t, for God’s sake, call them billets. Audiences do not speak or understand Mentalese.) The envelope situation is now as follows: The uppermost, flapless, envelope in what’s left of the stack contains the first spectators folded billet. The next two envelopes contain blank folded cards. Returning to the front the mentalist selects and addresses the third volunteer- the artist. While illustrating to her how she is to visualize her picture before drawing it, the performer pantomimes what he wants her to do by removing the billet from the flapless envelope. He opens it casually and notes the name written on it while he mimes drawing a picture. He then refolds it and returns it to the flapless envelope. While walking to the artist he withdraws the second envelope, once again, from the stack and hands it to her along with a pencil which he has either removed from his pocket or picked up from his table. “Here’s your envelope and card. Draw your picture, refold the card and seal it into the envelope,” he instructs her. And that’s it. All that remains is for the envelopes to be collected, misnumbered, 3, 1, 2, and handed to the judge. You may have noticed that you are left over with an extra envelope containing a blank billet, along with the flapless envelope. The extra card isn’t strictly necessary, but the flap on the remaining unprepared envelope creates a consistency of appearance if anyone should be paying attention to the stack. (Which they shouldn’t be). The only reason it has a card in it is to sooth my paranoia about the
stack somehow getting mixed up prior to the performance. This way all I have to remember is that the flapless envelope goes on top, and that all of the envelopes contain billets. As in my original version of this effect, it is possible to return the billets to the first two volunteers after they are “read.” This, however, does require the use of the side jacket pocket. This is accomplished by placing the stack in that pocket after giving the third volunteer her envelope. Once in the pocket, the right hand buckles the flapless envelope open and allows the billet to drop out. The envelopes are immediately removed from the pocket and placed in the left hand which in turn drops them in the left jacket pocket. Done casually, it should just seem like you’re fumbling around while putting them away. In ten years I have never been called on it. After misreading the contents of envelope number 1, the performer tells the volunteer to turn the pad around. At that point, all eyes are on the pad as the performer refolds the billet, puts it in his right pocket, and comes out with the actual number 1 billet. This is given to the spectator as she leaves the stage, along with the sheet from the large pad upon which the performer had written. Thus, the second billet is now in the right jacket pocket to be later given to the second spectator, if so desired. The third spectator’s envelope is discarded, and after the revelation of the drawings, the large sheets from both pads are given to her. To conclude this description, I give the neophyte mentalist a piece of advice. Sooner or later, somebody, unversed in the history of this effect since Annemann’s original appeared in Burling Hull’s Worlds Greatest Mental Effects in the 1940’s, is going to reinvent the wheel by forcing the first spectators selection, thereby “simplifying” the working. It was, however, a realization that a reliable force could not offer anywhere near the effect of using something only a spectator could know that led to the subsequent variations. Further, if the spectator wrote something other than what was forced on him, or if the force failed, the entire effect would collapse. Impression devices presented similar problems if, for some reason, the impression was illegible- a far too common occurence. I suggest, therefore, that you try the effect as written before trying to improve it. If you can eliminate the envelopes and billets, and merely let the spectators hold the thoughts in their minds, please let me know.
Table of Contents
Card Memory This effect was directly inspired by George Sands’ Extra Sandsational Perception. The presentation also has roots in Al Baker’s card memory routine from his Magical Ways and Means, and in the original Nikola Card System as it is described in Hugard’s Encyclopedia of Card Tricks. The presentation is somewhat unique in that the performer briefly explains how mnemonic coding works and describes some of the mental images he uses while memorizing the deck. I’ve had several psychic entertainers object to this on the grounds that I am exposing a valuable technique of mentalism. My response is simply that mnemonics are not the exclusive property of the magician or mentalist and are, in fact, well known to many public speakers, educators, and just about anyone who has ever seen a television infomercial hawking the so-called secrets of a super power memory. The rationale of using this effect as a closer is that it is an entirely consistent illustration of the practical purposes to which the movie screen concept can be applied. Thus, it also serves as a subtle disclaimer of paranormal abilities, and is apt to leave the skeptics with the impression that similar psychological principles could explain the working of many of the performers effects. Believers, of course, will continue to believe. But by the time the act is over, even the hardened skeptics will have been given a plausible, albeit false, explanation of how the effects were accomplished through sound psychological principles. That’s because the entire explanation given by the performer about his use of mnemonics is false. But although it is invariably accepted by the audience, they are nonetheless astounded at the rapidity with which the performer uses the system, for the entire “memorization” only takes about twelve seconds. Considering that the most accomplished memory expert would probably find it difficult to memorize a deck of cards in less than a minute or forty five seconds, the performer is apt to be
credited not just with a photographic memory but with high speed film to boot! Finally, the effect has never failed to bring resounding applause and/or standing ovations. PRESENTATION: “You’ve been such a wonderful audience that I think I’ll show you a practical use for what I’ve been doing tonight. How many of you are gamblers? Come on, tell the truth. “Good, quite a few of you. Now throughout the show we’ve been visualizing things on a movie screen. Those of you familiar with mnemonics, or the art of memory, know that visualization is the key to a photographic memory. Right now, I’m going to show you how it is possible, using visualization techniques, to memorize a pack of playing cards in less than twenty seconds. “Not only am I going to memorize the deck, but I’m going to describe to you my mental processes and tell you exactly how I’m storing the cards in my memory. “Here’s a new pack of playing cards. [performer produces a new deck, opens it and removes the cards while speaking] And this isn’t going to be very impressive at all if the cards aren’t mixed thorougly, so I’m going to have four of you shuffle the cards.” The performer, after shuffling the deck himself, gives about a quarter of the pack to each of four spectators. Each is told to shuffle his cards thoroughly. Two of the spectators holding cards are now told to give their packets to the other two persons holding quarters of the pack. These spectators, in turn, are told to shuffle the half packs together. Finally, the performer gathers the two shuffled halves of the deck and riffle shuffles them together, following up with a few cuts. While the shuffling is going on the performer continues,~”The key to memorizing cards is to have a mental picture for each one. The picture must be vivid and easy
to visualize. For example, in my mind I picture the ace of spades as a giant shovel. Shovel, spade-same thing. The two of spades is a large sun. Why a sun? Simple. In mnemonics we take numbers and turn them into letters. Then we make words. The number ‘two’ is represented by the letter ‘n.’ The letter ‘s’ means spades. ‘5’ and ‘n’ together can be read as ‘sun.’ You see, the consonants don’t count. “In the same way, I have mental picture for each of the cards. The three of spades is the word ‘sum.’ ‘5’ for spade and ‘in’ for three. I picture an arithmetic problem drawn on my screen. “Now, if I’m playing in a card game and want to remember which cards I have seen, I simply visualize the appropriate picture and destroy it mentally. I break the shovel. I cross off the arithmetic problem. I see the sun explode. I must actually see these things happening in my mind. “Later, if I want to know if a card has been played or not, I merely have to bring up the picture and see if I destroyed it. If not, if the picture is still intact, the card has not been played.” By this time the shuffling should be complete. Instructions to the participating spectators are given as asides during the above explanation. The performer is holding the deck and requests a spectator sifting near the front, and who is wearing a watch, to act as timekeeper. “When I say ‘go,’ I want you to mentally count off twenty seconds. When you get to twenty say ‘time. “Now the first secret of memorizing the deck is that I only have to look at about half of it. I’ll mentally destroy the cards I see. By process of elimination I will then know the cards I haven’t looked at. “At this point I must ask you all to be as quiet as possible for the next twenty seconds or so. Ready, go!” The performer runs, at a fairly rapid pace, through about half the deck. He finishes
before the timekeeper calls time and says, “There, I’m done. How long did that take? Fourteen seconds? I’ve never done it that fast before. I hope I’ve got this right. “Here,” says the mentalist to a seated spectator, “I want you to take the half of the deck that I looked at. “And I want you,” indicating another spectator, “to take the half I haven’t looked at.” Giving the halves to the two spectators, the performer instructs them to separate their cards into suits. While they are doing so, he briefly recaps what has taken place up to this point, elaborating on the visualization process, if necessary, to cover the time taken by the spectators to separate their halves into suits. The two spectators are now directed to gather their cards and come to the stage. One is positioned to the performers right and the other to his left. After introducing himself to the volunteers and getting their names, the performer continues, “In a moment I am going to go through the pictures I have in my mind and try to tell you which cards each of you are holding. ff1 say you have a certain card, don’t waste a lot of time saying that I’m right, just drop the card I’ve called to the stage. That way everyone will know I was correct and we can move very quickly. Please try to keep up with me, this could get fast. “Now, Ed,” says the mentalist to the left hand spectator, “You are holding the cards that I looked at. They are the images that I mentally destroyed. Both of you look at the suit of clubs. “In my mind the ace of clubs is represented by a club. I see a broken club, therefore I saw the ace of clubs and you, Ed, are holding it. Drop it to the stage. Good. “I didn’t see the two or three of clubs, so they must be in your hand, Ray, drop them. Quickly. I did see the four, the five, and the six, so you have them, Ed, but I didn’t see the seven, so Ray must have it. Drop them.”
This gets faster and faster until the volunteers are having trouble keeping up with the performer. Done properly, and with the right volunteers, it can create a very funny sight as the spectators frantically search for the cards the performer has called. Each time the mentalist completes calling a suit he directs his volunteers to another one, etc. until he has properly called out who holds each card from the entire deck. When he is finished calling cards, one of the spectators will still be holding one card. The performer concludes by saying, “And you have one left, Ed. It’s the joker. Show it to everyone. Thank you. And how about a nice round of applause for Ed and Ray. They did a great job.” The performer shakes hands with both men as they leave the stage. Standing alone on stage he waits for the applause to subside and says to the audience, “Ladies and Gentlemen, its been great receiving your thoughts and now I’d like to send the best of thoughts to all of you. I’m Bob Cassidy. Thank you very much and goodnight.” ANALYSIS AND METHODOLOGY: As I indicated earlier, many performers who have seen this routing have objected to me explaining the mnemonic aspect of memorizing cards. But if you consider what I tell them, you’ll understand that only those spectators who have some familiarity with mnemonics will really understand completely what I’m talking about. And even they will be astounded at the speed with which the performer proceeds. In fact, there’s no way that I can legitimately perform the effect in fourteen seconds, and I doubt if anyone can. (I know someone’s going to prove me wrong on this.) So I cheat and fake the whole thing. The deck is stacked and the performers shuffles and cuts are false. When the cards are initially shuffled by the spectators, two of them are given one half of the pack to shuffle. Two others shuffle the other half It is the performer who
false shuffle these halves together. Thus, while the order of the cards has been thoroughly changed, the same cards remain in the same respective halves. While apparently memorizing the cards, the performer simply counts off twenty four or twenty eight cards, not counting the Joker. The reason for this will be explained shortly. Since he knows which half contains the joker, he knows, if he has previously memorized the respective halves of the deck, which cards are in the halves held by the two volunteers who are ultimately called to the stage. In the George Sands version of the effect, which, by the way, used a gimmicked pack of cards to assure that the right cards ended up in each half, a simple system was provided which told the performer where each card was. Those familiar with the Sands version will immediately see how it is used in the presentation. The problem with the Sands system, though, is that if you are distracted and lose your place, you have to start all over again. This poses a problem when many cards are already on the floor, and furthermore, starting over would not be consistent with the mnemonic presentation. If you’re just looking for destroyed mental images there would be no reason to restart, and the actual methodology could come dangerously close to the surface. Before I get into the system I devised, which, I think, is even easier yet, I’ll explain the false shuffles used by the performer. When I’m in a confident mood I routinely use a pull through false riffle. The best shuffle of this kind, done while standing up, is the one described in Henry Hay’s Amateur Magician’s Handbook. (Which, as I’ve said before, has always been one of my “bibles.” It is simply one of the best books on the art ever written.) But since full deck order does not have to be maintained (the performer need only be sure that the cards remain in the same half of the deck they started out in), a simple Hindu, or strip, shuffle will do nicely. Simply pull out your first bunch of cards from a point above center. The deck can also be turned face to the audience and rehindooed (there’s a new word for your vocabulary, I learned it just yesternight.), again taking the break above center. Which leaves us with the problem of knowing which cards are in each half All you
need to do is remember four telephone numbers and four names. You don’t even need mnemonics to do this, since you’ve probably memorized hundreds of phone numbers in your lifetime. The ones you use all of the time are easy to remember, Since you’ll be using this routine all of the time once you realize the effect it has on an audience, you’ll find that memorizing the numbers is a snap. The best part is that you can easily make up your own phone numbers. If you’re lucky you might even already know some phone numbers that will work. The names and their corresponding numbers tell you which cards of a given suit are in which half The digits appearing in the number correspond to cards in one half of the deck. Digits that don’t appear in the number correspond to cards in the other half of the deck. For example, the first name is Mr. Club. (Guess what the other names are. I’ll bet you have those memorized already.) His phone number is 837-4915. Thus the 8,3,7,4,9,1 (ace), and 5 of Clubs are in one half of the deck. Since the digits or letters 2,4,6, (ten),J,Q, and K do not appear, they are in the other half. ALL of the cards corresponding to the four phone numbers are placed in one half of the deck prior to performance. This is a total of twenty eight cards. The remainder of the deck, plus the Joker, is represented by the numbers which do not appear. Now, if all of the phone numbers contained digits and no letters, all of the picture cards would fall in one half of the deck. (Okay, they are not really halves, they are two portions of 28 and 25 cards respectively. Close enough!) Therefore, two of the phone numbers have old time exchange letters which correspond to court cards. For example, Mr. Hearts phone number is KJ 7-1956. The King, jack, 7,ace ,9, and 6 of Hearts appear in the same half of the deck as Mr. Club’s number. The remaining hearts are in the other half of the deck. I won’t insult your intelligence by giving you phone numbers for Mr. Spade and Mr. Diamond. (I will tell you, though, that Mr. Diamond’s first name is King, a fact that Mercyful Fate fans will appreciate.) If you’ve followed my explanation so far you’ll have no trouble coming up with numbers for all four suits that you’ll find
easy to remember. The function of the Joker is twofold. One, it makes for a good conclusion to the presentation. Two, it acts as a marker that lets you know which half of the deck you~re in while you’re apparently memorizing the cards. A good double check is to make sure that both black aces appear in the phone numbers. That way you have two additional markers for determining which half is which. If you trim the corners of the joker, making it a corner short, it can be used to separate the two halves of the deck prior to the presentation. This makes it very easy to split the cards up in the initial distribution to the four spectators who shuffle. And one last tip. If you’re a perfectionist, it is an easy matter to use a new deck for the effect. Carefully open the cellophane at the bottom of the card box and, using an eXacto knife, open the box from the bottom as well. Prepare the pack and seal it up like new. Be sure to remove extra advertising cards and jokers before beginning the effect. Table of Contents
Part Three
(Consisting of diverse bonus effects and discourses relating to the ancient and exalted art of penetrating minds and influencing total strangers to pay money for the pleasure of being deceived)
The Challenge Tarot Card Reading
Invariably, following a successful performance I’ve had many people ask if I do private readings. After many performances I sell my version of Miriam Ruthchild’s CycleScope, originally published by Lee Jacobs. These provide
short but profitable readings, and, since they have my name and phone number printed on them, are good advertisements that clients will keep and show to their friends. They also open the door for longer, more expensive, readings. It’s easy to get reading appointments this way because I’ve been presold by my performance. But what would I do, I once wondered, if I wanted to do readings and did not have the opportunity to perform my act first? The Challenge Tarot Reading was designed to set me apart from other readers I’ve had to work with at psychic fairs. Further, when this sort of event is attended by the media, the routine singles out the performer because he literally proves himself to be legitimate by successfiully meeting a challenge to his card reading abilities.
Apart from that it makes a great party stunt.
EFFECT:
Spectators call out the names of famous historical figures, and one member of the audience records the names on separate index cards. Approximately fifteen names are written and each card is sealed in a separate security-style envelope. An audience member mixes the envelopes and one is selected at random. The selected envelope is placed on the table where the psychic is seated and takes the place of the significator in a Celtic Cross Tarot Spread.
The psychic shuffle his tarot pack and deals ten of the cards into the Celtic Cross pattern. One by one he turns up and interprets the cards. He divines dates, places, and other facts which supposedly relate to the personage whose name is in the selected envelope.
At the conclusion of the reading the envelope is opened and the name read aloud. The psychics impressions are verified to have been 100% accurate.
METHOD:
The description alone should have provided you with enough information to dope out a workable method. There are several that come to mind, each with its own strong and weak points. I prefer to simply mark the envelopes ala Pseudo Psychometry and, using mnemonics, associate each name to the envelope into which it is sealed.
The mixing of the envelopes, therefore, is irrelevant, as I am ready to read for any one offered to me. This is easy for me because I’ve spent far too many hours playing trivial pursuit and reading almanacs. There are very few historical names that I could not associate with places, dates, and events. But the trick is NOT to initially divine information that makes it immediately apparent which historical figure you are describing. That shouldn’t become apparent until you get to the last few cards of the spread.
The method is risky if you are not confident in your ability to come up with a suitable reading for what might turn out to be a relatively obscure name.
If that is the case, or if you really want to do a reading on a particular name that has been called out, all you have to do is force the proper envelope after they have been selected and mixed.
To do this cleanly, I would make the selection appear random by employing this version of the classic equivoque. Deal the fifteen envelopes into three piles of five each, noting which pile contains the desired envelope. Request that a volunteer pick up two of the piles. Depending on whether he picked up the pile containing the right envelope, you instruct him to either put the two piles aside or to hand one to you. This will
leave the desired pile either on the table, or in your or the spectators hand. If he has the right pile, work with it. If he gave it to you, tell him to put his aside. This is standard equivoque and must be performed quickly to be effective. It should appear to be very casual and there must be no hesitation during the performers instructions.
The five envelopes “selected” are now dealt into a row and equivoque performed once more. It should be noted that since no one apparently could know what name is N in what envelope, the use of the magicians choice is better disguised than in similar forcing situations.
The five object equivoque has been described most thoroughly by Phil Goldstein in his booklet of the same name, but here is a brief summary:
Have the spectator point to two of the envelopes. If neither is the desired envelope have him put both of them aside and continue as in the three object version. If one of them is the right one have him hand you one of them and proceed from there. The trick, again, is to make it appear as if this is the same procedure you had in mind from the beginning.
It should be obvious that this routine is intended for a performer who is familiar with Tarot cards and spreads. Faking the meanings or layout would be fatal before any group of “new- agers. ‘~ Buzz words won’t work, you need to do your homework.
Properly performed, this effect will generate a good deal of interest in your availability for private readings, and lays the groundwork of acceptance for a higher than average fee.
Table of Contents
The Card Through the Window
It is almost heresy to include a blatantly magical effect in a book of mentalism. But I have an excuse for this one. It falls into the miracle class and has created quite a reputation for me in some of the seedier taverns and dives in which I’ve occasionally had to busk for a living.
Also, an occasional offstage magic trick serves to relieve any twinges of guilt I may get from overplaying the mindreader role.
Besides, its fun.
For reasons that will become apparent in the methodology, this effect can only be properly performed in a fairly crowded tavern atmosphere. Dark tinted window glass is also essential for maximum effect.
The basic secret was discovered quite by accident. I had decided to make a selected playing card penetrate a bar window and figured that the easiest was would be to stick a duplicated to the window from the outside before presenting the effect. The obvious problem was that someone would be sure to notice the card long before I wanted it seen.
I noticed, though, that at about dusk it was very difficult, from inside the tavern, to see various posters, etc. that had been stuck on the outside of the tinted windows. I think this was due to a combination of the tint, the darkness outside, and the brighter interior lighting. So I stuck a playing card on the outside of the glass and went inside to see how noticeable it was.
Returning to the inside of the bar, I looked through the window at the spot where I had placed the card. At first I couldn’t find it! It was barely visible and entirely unnoticeable unless pointed out.
The seed of the effect had been planted.
Going behind the bar (I was a bartender at the time) I found an interested patron and had her select a card. Of course I forced a duplicate of the card in the
window. After she returned the card to the deck, I controlled it to the top, palmed it off, and handed
the pack to her for shuffling. While she did so I casually put both of my hands in my pockets thus ditching her card.
I told her to hold onto the deck. Then I walked around the bar and grabbed her by the wrist saying something like “Come with me, you won’t believe this!”
Practically dragging her to the window, I pointed to the glass in the general area of the duplicate and said, “Watch this spot.” I pointed to a spot about five inches to the right of the cards actual location. It was obvious to me that she didn’t notice the card on the outside.
I took the deck from her and immediately placed it against the glass, immediately over the duplicate.
Slowly rubbing the cards against the glass, I let them fall to the floor in bunches. When all had dropped my finger was directly on the glass over the duplicate.
“Look!” I exclaimed. “A card has penetrated the window.”
She finally noticed the card on the outside. Later she swore that there was nothing on the window when we began.
I liked the results of this preliminary test so much that I decided to elaborate on the presentation and method. I wanted to have the volunteer sign the card before returning it to the deck. It could be palmed out as before, but the problem would be sticking it on the outside of the window glass.
I figured that an assistant would come in handy, so I recruited a fellow bartender. His job was to walk behind me after I had palmed out the card and returned the pack for shuffling. I would simply drop my hands to the side and he would take the card as he passed.
It was an easy matter for him to leave the bar unnoticed and stick the card to a prearranged spot on the window. As I noted earlier, working in a fairly busy environment allows for lots of things to go unnoticed. Just ask any pickpocket.
The effect ended as before, with the spectator leaving the bar after the “penetration” to remove the card from the window and verify her signature.
I did the effect as described one or two times and decided to abandon it for a while to see if any of the regulars started talking about it.
They did.
It wasn’t long before complete strangers were coming into the tavern asking me to make a card melt through the glass. The story had apparently spread all over town. This was being perceived as something more than a run of the mill four ace trick.
I didn’t trust my secret assistant though. I knew that my reputation rested on his keeping his mouth shut.
So I had him killed.
Only kidding- but I had remembered the old saying that the only way two people could keep a secret was if one of them was dead.
There had to be a way to do the effect alone and still let the spectator mark the card. I settled on the old method of tearing a corner from the selected card and switching it for a duplicate corner torn from the duplicate I had stuck on the outside window earlier in the evening. The missing corner also allowed for an easy location of the card after it was returned to the deck by the volunteer.
The basic lesson to be learned by all of this is that if you choose your time and place carefully to do seemingly impromptu work, the results can be just as effective as the most elaborately planned, and costly, stage illusion.
By the way, a glue stick works best for affixing the card to the glass. Don’t use
scotch tape, just a dot of glue. The card should barely cling to the glass. If you put tape or heavy glue on the card you will change the mystery from how the card penetrated the glass to “Who stuck it on the outside?”
