3 out of 13 Souls
Foreword This will not be the last time I write a foreword to one of Fraser’s projects concerning a new way to billetlessly guess words, names or letters. This will not be, in the immortal words of our German cousins, the final solution. I know this because Fraser is perhaps my best friend in this world. He is a deeply flawed individual; obsessive, anal, persistent, neurotic, selfcritical to a fault – these are just some of his better qualities. But they are also the qualities that make him such a great creator. Fraser never stops. No solution is ever good enough for him. This is why, since he and I released Ouija just over a year ago, he has continued to pump out solutions to this problem, each better than the last. In my humble opinion, as someone who has worked continuously on this same problem, a great deal of that work done with Fraser, this is the best solution of its type that’s seen print to date. Fraser has eliminated many of the requirements for excessive structure, spectator control, naming letters, complex mental processes etc,
which have thus far been necessary for much of the work in this area. ROSE is elegant, direct, simple and deceptive. I really do believe that it distills many of the best ideas Fraser and I have had so far along this journey into a single cohesive unit. It is the best we have published so far. But it is not the end. In many ways, I wish Fraser and I would move on. How many methods to billetlessly divine letters will we need to create before we’re satisfied? There are many other problems we must set our minds to solving, problems which would benefit from our unique approach. But there is something very exciting about this particular problem, and I know Fraser won’t give up until he’s fully satisfied. As you may realise, I’m not sure when that’ll be, but I’m pretty confident it won’t be here. We could all learn something from Fraser’s faults. The ideas you’re about to read would not exist if Fraser was able to just be content with “good enough”. When creating, it’s important to realise that the first viable solution we come up with is not necessarily the best solution. It may be exciting, and we’re welcome to revel in the thrill for a moment, but we shouldn’t stop if we’re really determined to do something great. We may not all be able to develop the great instinct that Fraser has for what will work, but we can cultivate the habits which lead to his being great. I love Fraser a great deal, he’s like a brother to me. I’m really proud to have been alongside him on this journey. Given how fantastic ROSE is,
I for one can’t wait to see where we take it next; it’s almost as if we’re on the cusp of discovering real psychic powers… Until that happens, I hope you enjoy reading ROSE, and yet again are able to use Fraser’s material to create even more magical experiences for your audiences.
Ross Tayler Los Angeles, 2016.
Introduction I am writing this introduction after returning home from a weekend away filming with my close friend Peter Turner and feel that it would be a-miss to not include a brief outline of some of what took place, in the company of this amazing man, in this introduction. I feel it really highlights some of the aims, both myself and those few friends, who are contemporaries in this new age of mentalism share, not only in terms of our approach but also in the type of performances we wish to give to those who watch us work. First of all, I would like to go on record and state that Peter Turner is one of the greatest mentalists of our time, and perhaps of all time! He gets it. Not only is he one of the foremost creative and brilliant thinkers of our time, he is also one of the best performers I have ever seen. His scripts are tight and meaningful. His ability to affect his audience members and inspire, to leave them with life changing meaning as well as impossible moments of true wonder and beauty, is something to behold! He truly made me feel like a child again watching him perform and reminded me of why I love this art form so much and why I still do what I do.
He was able to completely prop-lessly divine personal information about those he met and give readings, not only 'hitting' a few times, with specific details about others lives, he couldn't possibly know, but constantly over the course of a single performance as well as over the entire time I spent with him – spectator's were left with mouths open wide, wide-eyed and left in complete awe, at what he was able to tell them about their life – proving beyond any shadow of a doubt, that being bold truly pays off! One spectator even cried tears, which must have come from the strange feeling caused by, confusion and of things left not-fully-understood combined with the beauty of living in a mystery. This reaction occurred when Peter hit on a name out of thin air! of the person she was only moments before discussing with her friend, after arguing with this person – I swear we didn't overhear the conversataion! Those who Peter performed for were all chosen at random by myself and my friend Bradley Duncan and everything was done without any pre-show or foreknowledge. Those who witnessed his unique style of mentalism, were completely floored! There only answer was that he must be psychic and no matter how much they insisted he was, he simply stated that he was just going with his feelings. This made the performance that much more perfect. Peter not feeling the need to contextualize or label his performance as anything other than – it is just something he can do, allowed it to become something much more. It allowed it to appear real, on some level, to those watching. Of course, this approach requires you play the part correctly and I suppose still apply a context for your performance,
that of your performance character, however, the way Peter decides to achieve this is naturally, yet again concerning himself with the converse of what everyone else is doing, and this is one of the reasons Peter is so brilliant! He approaches everything from a different perspective, deconstructing why we perform the way we do and use the methods the way in which we do and then builds on what has come before, whilst at the same time finding entirely new, simplified ways to do the impossible and in turn, ultimately improves the art form, as a consequence. Peter's meaningful scripts, meaningful performances and devilishly clever methods have set a bench mark towards which I constantly strive, in order to achieve the same brilliance! I have said this before but would like to say it again here, in print: I would not still be in magic, if you were not in it with me Peter. I thank you from the bottom of my heart for everything you have done for me and for constantly inspiring me to grow not only in magic but also in life! I am only where I am today, in terms of my thinking, thanks to having you to show me where I kept missing. You are like a brother to me and are truly deserve the legendary status in the art, you have already achieved at such a young age. The reason Peter stands out in this community, is due to the fact he thinks differently. He works smarter, instead of harder, as has long been taught by our mentor Kenton. As you will probably know both myself and Peter are students of Kenton and we are proud to be able to
continue the tradition, as students, set by the greats of magic and mentalism, of which Kenton belongs and is also a student, that of the importance of psychology in magic and mentalism. Both myself and Peter, as well as Kenton before us have chosen to use words as one of our methods. We don't always use just words as the sole means to bring about a magic outcome, however, we have learnt the power in words and how it is often easier to move something in people's minds and affect a change in the world with words than it is physically. We feel that a magician, if they are worthy of the name, should know about the power of words and how they can affect others and change our reality through perception. It is with this work I have continued to walk down this often lonely path and attempted to do what others thought impossible, and I believed was the only way this should be done – to use nothing more than words and how these words change the perception of others, to create the illusion of mind reading. If the future of mentalism is for mentalists to use words and perception alone, and it is to become mainly prop-less, then this work is certainly a step in that direction.
Fraser 13th June, 2016
Performance I will first outline the script for a typical performance of the name guess, so the reader can get a feeling for how this effect and method is structured, in terms of its premise, and get to grips with how the process appears, outwardly, to an audience. If you are fooled just by reading through the performance of this and have no idea how a name guess would be possible from the information you are given by the spectator then you can imagine just how well this plays to laymen. As you read through the performance script remember, those who watch you perform will simply remember jumping from specific letters of their thought of name, to random letters of the alphabet and then using those random letters to give you random characteristic traits of this person, for you to then give a reading about this person, using these traits to base your reading on. Thanks to the ingenious method, which follows this performance script section of this manuscript, that is all they will remember, period!
I prefer to perform this effect and the star sign guess (taught later) to a group of people in a close up setting. This suits the aesthetic I wish to create, that of the old gypsy fortune tellers. I feel this makes it much more personal. I usually, sit with the spectator while others are free to look on, at what is going on. However, there is no reason why this couldn't work on stage, even if you want to be completely sure fire and decide to use a more solid, classical method to get the name, the premise provided by your script is still valid enough for the bare bones of this effect/ method to be used as the presentation. I begin by introducing myself to the group and choosing someone to be my participant. We shall say that I have just picked a beautiful young woman, for the purposes of this write up. I proceed with the script, as follows:
Performer: “So one of the things I do is try to pick up on specific information from others and one of the ways I do this is by trusting my feelings and going with whatever impressions I pick up on, from those who I meet.” Performer: “So before we begin I would like to ask you a question. Do you believe it is possible for people in tune with such things, to go up to someone they have never met and reveal specific, personal details, relevant to that person's life?”
Spectator: “Yes.” Performer: “Excellent. With your permission this is exactly what I would like to try with you.” If they respond with a “no”, then change your script to the following:
Performer: “Would you be willing to try something along these lines to see if you will, perhaps, have a change of mind?” Performer: “What I notice about you, right away, is you have many different thoughts floating around in the back of your mind but what interests me specifically, is one of these thoughts stands out more than the rest. This is someone who has been on your mind recently, this is a Male who is close to you. Can you think of who this is, without saying their name?” Spectator: “Okay.”
Here the performer touches the spectator on their hand.
Performer: “Just focus on the first letter of this person's name [slight pause] and now focus on the second letter.” The performer breaks the process of having the spectator focus on each of the letters of the name, as if they need to change tracks.
Performer: “In fact, have you ever seen a psychic who would bring out a deck of Tarot cards and have you take a card or cards out of the deck and would use these cards to give you a reading?” Spectator: “Yes.” Performer: “This is known as an Oracle. Instead of using a physical Oracle such as a deck of Tarot cards, we are going to do this slightly differently, using a metaphysical Oracle that exists only in your mind. So just do this for me.” Performer: “Whatever letter you are now focusing on. I want you to mentally jump to a completely different, random
letter of the alphabet”. Spectator: “Okay.” Performer: “Whatever letter you are now on. Can you give me a positive characteristic or trait that begins with this letter, you believe would best sum up the personality of the person you are thinking of?” Performer: “If you can't then just give me the first word that pops into your head, beginning with this letter. Say this word out loud.” Spectator: “Loving.” Performer: “Okay, just jump back to the very first letter you thought of [the first letter of the name] and jump to the next letter of the alphabet.” Performer: “Can you give me a negative characteristic trait this time? If not then just the first word that pops into your head, beginning with this letter.”
Spectator: “Mischievous.” Performer: “Okay, just to re-cap, you focused on specific letters from the name and each time jumped to a completely different, random letter of the alphabet, in order for you to generate specific characteristics and traits for this person.” Spectator: “Yes.” The performer now gives a reading describing the person whose name the spectator is thinking of, using the characteristics and traits provided by the spectator, as a guide.
Performer: “Okay, just focus on the name, for me.” Performer: “If you can abbreviate the name then abbreviate it?” The spectator can be seen to be struggling to do this.
Performer: “Can you count how many letters are in the name?”
Spectator: “[Slight pause] Yes.” Performer: “So this is four or five letters?” Spectator: “Four.” Performer: “Okay, just repeat the name in your mind, over and over.... So this would be... Luke... Luke... Luke?” Spectator: “YES.” It is that simple! Usually, with very little additional work you will be able to more often than not divine the exact name your spectator is thinking of, completely prop-less, with nothing but words and perception as your method. As the following method exists within the script itself, I feel the best way to teach this, is to break the script down into it's constituent parts and explain each part, as we go.
Method What follows is the cleanest and easiest way ever devised to proplessly divine a thought of name or star sign (or any word, for that matter!) This method is the most elegant and stream-lined version of this plot that exists, to date. It is similar in aspects to the name guess in my limited work “False Messiah”, as it also borrows the re-frame principle created by my good friend Ross Tayler. However, it is not the same! It is improved to the point where method and effect are so interwoven, any notion of a trick method is completely irrelevant and goes by completely unnoticed by those who witness your performance. The fact the method exists in words and how these words change the perception of what takes place, in the mind of the spectator and audience members, means there is no method to be found by the end of the performance, all that is left is the illusion of what appears to have taken place, and yet you are still able to concretely reveal the name or star sign the participant is thinking of. Thanks to the method consisting of words and the very nature of words is to disappear as soon as they are spoken, it becomes impossible for those present to back-track what really occurred, meaning they are simply left with the impossible.
Performer: “So one of the things I do is try to pick up on specific information from others and one of the ways I do this is by trusting my feelings and going with whatever impressions I pick up from those who I meet.” Performer: “So before we begin I would like to ask you a question. Do you believe it is possible for people in tune with such things, to go up to someone they have never met and to instantly reveal specific, personal details, relevant to that person's life?” This line gets the spectator involved in the process by asking them a direct question. It also sets up a beautiful expectancy for what is about to happen. They will start to wonder if this is what you are going to start to attempt to do.
Spectator: “Yes.” If they reply with a “yes” then you know they are less sceptical about such things as psychics and intuitive people being able to know others just by following their impressions, and can up play to this!
Performer: “Excellent. With your permission this is exactly
what I would like to try with you.” If they reply with a “no”, then simply change your script to the following:
Performer: “Would you be willing to try something along these lines to see if you will, perhaps, have a change of mind?” They will now respond favourably, and if they still show a sceptical resistance then simply move on to someone else in the group. This two way out as applied to the introduction of the presentation, ensures that no matter whether the spectator is a believer in such things or a complete sceptic, you will still be able to move on smoothly with your routine. You will also be able to better handle and adjust their expectations throughout the performance, as either a believer or sceptic, respectively.
Performer: “What I notice about you, right away, is you have many different thoughts floating around in the back of your mind but what interests me specifically, is one of these thoughts stands out more than the rest. This is someone who has been on your mind recently, this is a male who is close to
you.” Performer: “Can you think of who this is, without saying their name?” This previous scripting is an aspect of Peter Turner's “confirmation” principle and allows us to essentially force what it is the spectator focuses on in a routine, whilst at the same time making it seem a natural part of the process. It fits much better theatrically, with the presentation doing the work for you. Not only will you be able to guide the spectator to a male or female name this way, meaning you don't have to divine this information, later on, you will also appear to be reading this information from the spectator, in real time. It is perfect! A male name will invariably be a boyfriend or someone of the opposite sex who is close to this person, when performing for a female. I personally, prefer to go for male names as these are easier to guess, in my culture. There seems to be a lot more different spellings and many less likely names this can be when going for a female name. Although, it is still possible to guess these using the following method and additional subtleties (taught at the end of this method). I also prefer to perform for the opposite sex, anyway, as I find it easier, perhaps due to the seductive and playful nature of mind reading.
Spectator: “Okay.” You now touch the spectator on their hand. This is done for theatrically reasons to help establish a connection with the spectator, and is used as a subtext for how I am able to do what I do. Touching the spectator must do something. Else why would you touch them? The spectator as well as those watching will have to assume it helps in some way. This is the “Old Witch Doctor” ploy from “Psyhcological Subtleties” by Banachek.
Performer: “Just focus on the first letter of this person's name [slight pause] and now focus on the second letter.” We at this point, appear to be going for specific letters and directly reading the participant's mind. It is only after we have them focus on both the first and then the second letter in the name, we apparently decide to change our process, as if we have become temporarily confused and need to jump tracks. This is where we set the premise of using a mental oracle, as a way to justify the process we are about to use, in order to get the information we require to later guess the thought of name.
Performer: “In fact, have you ever seen a psychic who would bring out a deck of Tarot cards and have you take a
card or cards out of the deck and would use these cards to give you a reading?” Spectator: “Yes.” Performer: “This is known as an Oracle. Instead of using a physical Oracle such as a deck of Tarot cards, we are going to do this slightly differently, using a metaphysical Oracle that exists only in your mind. So just do this for me.” This was one of the things my friend Peter Turner added to my basic idea for this routine when sound-boarding with him over Skype. It ties up the method with the effect beautifully and ensures the entire presentation seems justified and looks as it would, if you were to really do this. Jumping from letters in a name to completely random letters, in order to generate characteristic traits to use as a guide when giving a reading, makes complete sense and tightens up the effect, providing a beautifully justified context for the method. Another thing Peter helped with was with the problem of needing the spectator to first focus on the second letter in the name and then the first letter of the name, for the method to work (as you will see). His solution was for the spectator to first go through the process of focusing on letters from the name in turn, which lead to this part of the
process needing to appear as separate from the process which follows. Because we get the spectator to focus on the first letter and then the second letter in, the name, before jumping tracks and changing the process to that of the mental oracle, it means the last letter the spectator was focusing on, would now naturally be the second letter of the name. This eradicated the need for the spectator to focus on the second letter first and in fact, the need for specific letters to be named at all. This is beautiful! Having the spectator focus on the second letter first no longer stands out as an odd thing for them to do. They now do what they would do naturally, anyway, and focus on the subsequent letters in the name, from start to finish, become interrupted and then are left naturally, focusing on the second letter.
Performer: “Whatever letter you are now focusing on. I want you to mentally jump to a completely different, random letter of the alphabet”. This line instructs the spectator to jump from the letter they are now on (which will be the letter they were last focusing on, namely the second letter in the name), to a completely different, random letter of the alphabet.
Spectator: “Okay.” Performer: “Whatever letter you are now on. Can you give
me a positive characteristic or trait that begins with this letter, you believe would best sum up the personality of the person you are thinking of?” They will now give you a positive characteristic trait of the person who's name they are thinking of. If they seem to be struggling to do this then, continue on with the script, as follows:
Performer: “If you can't then just give me the first word that pops into your head, beginning with this letter and say this word out loud.” This ensures they can give you a word and in the process, automatically, and subtly, gives you the letter they jumped to (it will be the first letter of the word they say), more on this later! For now, you don't need to remember this letter, as it is in fact an irrelevant and entirely random letter that is un-releated to the name. I am just showing you how the word they give you, allows you to know the letter, as this is how you will divine the first letter of the name, in a moment.
Spectator: “Loving.” Note: The previous process is entirely fair. You do not need to know the second letter of the name at this stage to be able to successfully guess the thought of name. What follows
next, is the same process of the spectator focusing on a letter from the name and jumping, from this letter, to a completely different random, letter of the alphabet (or so it will seem after the subsequent re-frame, to follow). The process which now follows is, in fact, not random at all. The slight change in scripting of the following instructions dealing, this time, with the first letter of the name, allows us to back-track to the first letter of the thought of name.
Performer: “Okay, just jump back to the very first letter you thought of [the first letter of the name] and jump to the next letter of the alphabet.” You now instruct the spectator to go back to the first letter they thought of (during the routine), this will be the first letter of the thought of name. If you feel the need then you can remind them of this, however, I prefer not to mention any specific letter placements throughout the duration of the routine, as I feel it is much nicer not to focus on this. They are then instructed to jump to the 'next' letter of the alphabet. This instruction could not be any clearer from the point of view of a spectator, who is under pressure any way, to follow along with your instructions correctly. The spectator will be listening for your instruction and will go along with the most direct and logical meaning of your words. This psychology ensures they will simply jump to the
next letter in the alphabet. If you are worried and wish to be a little more direct then you can add in the word “now” before giving your instructions with a slight pause after the word “now”, to indicate you mean for the process to this time, be slightly different. Then allow the re-frame which occurs in a moment to adjust the meaning for you, so you will still be getting away with this bold ploy, in the same way you would applying the less direct instruction. This line is ambiguous enough, to also mean, we meant for the spectator to simply, jump (again) to another letter of the alphabet (at random). It is this ambiguity that will come full circle after the re-frame portion of this effect (taught below) but for now the spectator is simply following your instruction for them to jump to the very next letter in the alphabet, to the letter directly after the first letter of the thought of name. Due to the fact this line is so clear, it eliminates the need to mute the spectator before giving this instruction. If you see that they are becoming confused and will blow the illusion by asking for clarification on the instruction then simply cut them off and stop them from speaking saying, “it's essential you don't say anything out loud unless I ask you a direct question, as I don't want to know your thought
processes”. What happens here, is the spectator will simply jump to the following letter in the alphabet and now be focusing on the letter which comes directly after the first letter of the name, in the alphabet. This means that we can easily back track to this letter by jumping back one letter, once we know the characteristic trait.
Performer: “Can you give me a negative characteristic trait this time? If not then just the first word that pops into your head, beginning with this letter.” The reason we ask for a negative trait this time, is to provide polarity in order to make giving the reading later on, easier. As long as you deliver a reading based on the characteristics they give you which falls somewhere down the line of the two extremes of the polarity, you will be successful in giving an accurate reading.
Spectator: “Mischievous.” All we have to do now, is take note of whatever letter the word they say begins with, in order to back-track from there, what the first letter of the thought of name is. The characteristic they give in the example, begins with the letter “M”,
meaning that the first letter of the name must be whatever letter proceeds this letter in the alphabet, “L”. It is as simple as that! All we really need to be able to guess a name or star sign the spectator is thinking of, completely billetlessly, is the first letter (as well as the additional subtleties taught later on in this manuscript, which in turn allow us to obtain the length of word [how many letters it has], if it can be abbreviated and a second or third letter). Here is a list of mnemonics I use to quickly 'find' the correct letter, during performance:
[I have excluded the letters X and Z as names beginning with these letters will rarely be thought of. I would prefer to just 'miss', if and when such obscure names happen to come up]. Note: If they are thinking of the letter 'Z' they will not be able to easily jump to the 'next' letter, as they are at the end of the alphabet and have ran out of letters of the alphabet. This will cause confusion to appear on their face, as soon as you notice this then stop them and say...
“... just jump to any random letter of the alphabet”.
Now you know they we likely be thinking of the letter 'Z' and can guess the name 'Zach' for a male name or 'Zara' for a female, after following through with the rest of the process.
BRA CRAB DEC END FREE GOLF HAG ITCH JEDI KY JELLY LOOK MOOL NOM OWN PTO QUIP
ROYAL QUEEN STEER TOSS UHT VALUE UNDERPANTS WAV X WIFE ZANY Note: I have also left the letter “X” out of this list as the spectator will practically never think of a name beginning with this letter.
The rules to remember are, as follows: each of the words begins with the same letter of the first letter of the characteristic or trait they name and ends with the letter which proceeds it, in the alphabet: the letter you need to know to immediately know the first letter of the name they are thinking of. The only exception to this rule, is when two words are present in the crib. Then it is the first letter of the second word you need to take note of, in order to know the first letter of the name. It is simply a case of taking note of the first letter of the the word they
give you and allowing the corresponding word from the crib to jump into your mind and then following the above rules to find the correct letter, in order to know the first letter of the name the spectator is thinking of. Note: If you prefer not to memorize a crib then you can have it written down in the back of a notebook and 'peek' it, whilst using the notebook to write down the reveal of the thought of name. You can also learn the alphabet backwards as a way to easily jump back one letter from whatever their characteristic or trait begins with. I prefer to reveal information verbally and feel this is the easiest way for me to do this. I feel the “peg” memorization system is the best for me to use, in order for me to be able to get this up to speed in performance. Here is how I would use the crib with the previous performance scripting. Say they spectator names the following characteristic trait.
Spectator: “Mischievous.” As this characteristic trait begins with the letter “M”, I would now consult my crib mentally and arrive at the following word.
MOOL
This tells me that the first letter of the name is “L”. I now know the first letter of the name they are thinking of and proceed with the routine, as follows. This is where the re-frame comes in, which allows everything to come full circle and cements the illusion for everyone concerned.
Re-frame Performer: “Okay, just to re-cap, you focused on specific letters from the name and each time jumped to a completely different, random letter of the alphabet – in order for you to generate specific characteristics and traits for this person.” This is the re-frame, and is what essentially allows us to get away with being so bold with the subtle change of instructions during the second letter jump. We simply change the meaning of our second set of instructions to imply we meant all along for the spectator to again, jump randomly to a different letter of the alphabet, instead of simply jumping to the very next letter of the alphabet. To recap: The first time they jump to a letter, to give us a positive characteristic trait, they genuinely have a free choice of any letter of the alphabet, whereas, the second time, when generating a negative characteristic trait, they only actually jump to the very next letter of the alphabet (whatever letter is right after the first letter of the thought of
name). [You only need the first letter of the name and the additional ploys, which follow, to guess the name, so it doesn't matter that the first letter jumping sequence is entirely random and you can not back-track to the second letter of the name. Incidentally, the fact that this first phase is entirely fair, also helps cement the illusion created after the re-frame, due to the fact they will now much more easily believe you meant for the second phase of letter jumping to be identical to this one and also involve a completely free choice of letter]. This second, unfair, process is now readjusted by the re-frame, in the minds of everyone involved. By delivering the above scripting and getting the spectator to agree with your statement, you effectively change how what has happened is perceived. You first get the spectator to follow along and then change the rules of what supposedly took place, once it is too late. The spectator will now feel as if you always meant for them to change freely 'each' time, to a completely random letter of the alphabet and will think that they, perhaps, made a mistake and didn't follow you previous instructions well enough. This is a great position for you to be in, as they will believe their not following along correctly, actually makes your job harder when in reality, it makes it easier and is what actually makes the effect possible.
Whether this happens in their minds consciously or not doesn't really matter. This is what they will effectively believe your words to mean and is what they will take away from these words and the performance itself. This causes the spectator to doubt you know they only jumped one place away in the alphabet from the first letter of the name and they will therefore, believe you couldn't possibly back-track from the letter they are now on and in turn, couldn't know the first letter of the name they are thinking of. This brings the effect full circle and cements the illusion for the spectator as well as for everyone else watching. Everything will seem completely fair and as it should. If you think of this in a conceptual way, you have effectively shifted perception temporarily away from the effect and illusion you wish to create, in order to get a mental 'peek' of information, and then shifted it back to illusion, leaving nothing to be found in the process. Everything appears as it should and everyone is fooled. This is beautiful! And I believe the first time a re-frame has been used in magic, as applied to method. As the method exists in words and nothing is really changed outwardly, in terms of scripting and presentation, it means all method disappears after the words are spoken and the shift in perception has taken place which in turn, leaves nothing behind that is out of place – all that
remains is the pure effect. The illusion has truly become a closed circle. The fact it is words and perception which enable this work, makes what you do seem very real! Even to the performer due to the fact you are using as close to a real method possible, to create a magical outcome. Once the spectator agrees with your statement the re-frame goes to work in their minds and ensures no one, not even themselves, can back-track and work out what has happened. The illusion is water-tight due to their fooling themselves with their own faulty perception of what has taken place – thanks to the words and the psychology of the reframe. When delivering the re-frame you should state it as fact, as if it is already the case and not as a question, with slight pressure added for your spectator to agree, with a nod of your head and you confirming this to be true by you saying 'yes' afterwards, yourself. Note: The re-frame was first devised by my good friend Ross Tayler, when we were creating our first method for guessing a name completely prop-less, “Ouija”. I have since taken the basic idea and pushed it to even greater heights with the name guesses which subsequently followed this release. The spectator will now believe they had a free choice to jump wherever
they wanted each time they jumped to a different letter of the alphabet and will believe you couldn't possibly know they actually only jumped one place and you therefore, can't back-track to find out the first letter of the thought of name. I would now give a reading based on the characteristics and traits the spectator has given me. This is essentially a hot reading similar in approach to the name reading systems created by Richard Webster and Ken DeCoursey. They would generate readings from words which they would associate with specific letters, as they appeared in the name of the sitter, who had gone to have their reading given. What this system created was an oracle, which enabled the reader to easily generate associations which in turn, made giving a reading much easier, ensuring they could easily come up with things to say during the course of the reading but much more than this, it also meant that if they ever were to see the same sitter, in the future, they would be able to naturally and with no extra work, give a similar reading, as it would ultimately be based on the same name and letter associations, even if they had not realised the person who sat in front of them had crossed their path before. Where my system differs, is not only will the reading, each time, be random, the spectator will also give you information about the thought of person just by giving you positive and negative traits of the person's personality.
As already stated, all you have to do is give a reading which lies somewhere between the two sides of this polarity and use your common sense and associations you would naturally make with the words they give, to be able to give an accurate reading. My approach not only tips vital information required for you to eventually guess the thought of name, it also, at the same time, essentially gives you a hot reading, for free. You could, if you so choose, leave the reading portion out of the routine and simply claim that the characteristics or words the spectator names, give you enough information to divine the name, but I feel this would be a massive detriment to the effect. What is beautiful about the way this effect and method is structured is the fact, you are not only just going for the name but are instead divining much more about the personality of the person being thought of. You appear to be getting to know this person on some level and it is this which seemingly enables you to nail the exact name of this person, also. The reading therefore, not only adds to the presentation and theatrics of this piece, it also justifies the process and creates a pseudo method, in and of itself! It looks exactly as it should, this way. And lastly, it also provides time mis-direction and a disconnect between the moment you obtain the main piece of information required to guess the name, and the subsequent revelation. Note: I truly believe that the ability of the performer to give an effective reading and the tools each performer prefers to
use do so, is a very subjective thing. No two performers will read the same way. I feel it is important to find your own way of delivering effective reasons, where you find the tools which fit you. In order to get better at giving readings you have to just have the confidence to go out and try it! Doing it repeatedly in order to gain the experience you will need to be able to give the impression you know about the person in front of you or the person they are focusing on. It is for this reason I am hesitant to give you any further tips on giving readings, in this section of the manuscript, and will not give you my own personal approach and preferred tools, in this area. What I will give you is this following advice: You already know how to read others, just by being a human being yourself – all you have to do is remember your life and the lives of those around you, in order to relate to the person in front of you. Then it is simply a case of speaking out loud the impressions you have about this person.
Performer: “Okay, just focus on the name, for me.” You are now in the perfect position to start to nail down which of a few possible names this could be. You now know the first letter of the name and the gender of the thought of person, meaning this could only be so many names. The following additional ploys and subtleties are used in the order they appear here, in turn, to give you even more information for you to base your guess on.
You will essentially be guessing the thought of name but with all of these ploys, subtleties and with what has come before, you knowing the first letter of the name and sex of the person being thought of, most of the time you will be entirely accurate with your guess and nail the exact name being thought of!
Abbreviation Ploy The first principle we use before guessing the name involves getting the spectator to abbreviate the name they are thinking of, if this is possible. This principle is used in the “Billet-less Name Guess” (from “Bigger Fish 2” by Peter Turner). It is a way of narrowing down the possible names, although it may not seem it from the point of view of everyone watching, which is why this is such a perfect and subtle principle to use. This works by asking the following question to the spectator.
“Okay, if you can abbreviate the name or make it shorter, please do that now.” This is more of an instruction, which will have the spectator easily find
a shorter version of the name and give you confirmation they have done so, or struggle to find one. It is really easy to see when this happens. If you are still unsure whether or not they have abbreviated the name then just simply ask them, i.e., “Did you find one?” In either case, you now know whether they are thinking of a shorter version of the name or not and this gives you a further clue to use in a moment, when guessing the name. The next ploy we use, straight after this one, is the following principle from my good friend and ingenious thinker Michael Murray.
CUPs – Comparative Uncertainty Principle The basic idea behind CUPs in its simplest form (which Michael has very kindly allowed me to explain in my own work) is for the spectator to mentally count the amount of letters in the word about which they are only thinking. It is then possible to estimate how many letters are in the thought of word based on how long it takes the spectator to
complete this task. This is the capacity in which I use this principle in this work. For a deeper understanding of this and for further applications of this principle, get a copy of “A Piece of My Mind” by Michael Murray. You will not be disappointed. We use CUPS by asking the following question to our spectator.
“Can you think of how many letters there are in this name?” Asking this question will cause the spectator to mentally count the letters in their head. The fact you word this instruction as a question ensures they will respond verbally when they have completed this task. Their answer is what cues you into when they are finished counting, which in turn allows for you to make an estimate based on how long it took them to silently count how many letters are in the name. If they complete the task quickly then you can safely assume in most cases, they thought of a shorter name of 3 or 4 letters. If it takes them a little longer then this will more than likely be 4 or 5 letters and if it takes them a considerable amount of time then you can assume it is a much longer name, usually longer than 5 letters. I carefully watch how long it takes the spectator to complete the
instruction and confirm they know how many letters are in the name and then guess an amount of letters.
“So this is 4 or 5 letters, correct?” I always guess an amount and one above that amount, so as not be too perfect. This usually causes the spectator to actually tell you the amount of letters and will make you seem close. Most of the time you will only be one or two letters off. If they don't tell you the amount of letters on their own then simply ask for the amount. These smaller pieces of information will not seem to help you guess the name as much as they actually do; therefore it is okay to ask directly for this information whenever you are unsure. We always use this ploy after the previous ploy of getting the spectator to abbreviate the name and not the other way around, otherwise it would throw out the amount of letters for which we are fishing. The answer of how many letters they are thinking of will be invaluable when it comes to guessing the name, so remember the amount.
Repeat it Ploy It is rare that you will find yourself in this position but sometimes even after obtaining the first letter of the name, using CUPs to know the amount of letters and getting the spectator to abbreviate the name, if it is possible, you will on occasion be left with two possible names to choose between. This is where I would employ a method I first read in “Pure Effect” by Derren Brown. Say you have gone through all of the above process and you are now in a position to try to guess the name. I would simply throw out one of the possible names this could be. For example,
“Okay, just repeat this name to yourself over and over... like... Emily... Emily... Emily.”
If they are thinking of “Emily”, e.g., they will “freak out” and you will be able to tell by their reaction that you are correct and you can stop there. However, if they are thinking of the other possible name then your words will seem as an example of how you want them to concentrate on the name. This then gives you another chance at guessing the name. In fact, you will seem to be very close with your first guess and for this reason may have to discern between what reaction signifies a direct 'hit' compared to you only being close. My experience has shown me that you will hardly ever end up in this situation, but it is better to be prepared than not. Either way, once you know you were only close you can guess the exact name they are thinking of with complete accuracy. Usually this ploy alone will be enough for you to distinguish between whether their thought of name is a male or female. If you get the gender wrong then you just name the alternative male name. I prefer to find out the gender early on in the routine. This can usually be achieved as a natural product of the routine you are performing. For example, if I ask the spectator to think of someone from their childhood they will usually think of a friend who is of the same sex. If you find it easier you could use an idea from my friend Ross and apply the “repeat it” ploy to the second letter in the name and guess between the two possible names, accordingly. If the two names have
the same second letter then apply this ploy to one of the letter positions in each of the names, where this letter differs. Now it is easy to discern which name out of the two the spectator is thinking of. If you 'hit' on the second letter then go with the name option which includes this letter. If you get no reaction then go with the other option, this could be. In fact, this is how I now use the “repeat it” ploy when guessing a name. This is much nicer than how this ploy was originally handled as it appears nothing has been guessed already, leaving you to reveal the thought of name on its own, with complete accuracy. The following script is another example of how I would handle this in performance, fishing for a single letter.
“Just focus on the second letter in the name for me and repeat it over and over, in your mind... So this would be... M... M... M.” If I were to get no reaction on the letter then I would simply add on the words.
“... for example”.
This would then tie up what is essentially, a “hanging” statement and make it seem as if I was simply giving an example of how I wanted them to focus on this and was not actually revealing a specific letter. If you prefer you could use an idea for an 'out' created by Peter Turner, of which he uses in his “Billet-less Name Guess” from “Bigger Fish 2” and write down one of the names out of the two this could likely be, leave it face down and then openly guess the second option. If you 'hit' then you leave the written name face down and if you 'miss', simply ask the spectator for the name, stating the following, as you turn over your prediction.
“Good. I'm pleased I committed to [name whatever name they state]”. Then show the spectator you have correctly guessed the name they were thinking of. So there you have it! Please remember as you perform this that it is the overall illusion created by the performance itself, and the power of your words to shift perception, which makes this play, so well. Don't just think about this intellectually. Actually, go out and try it and soon you will realise the power you now hold in your hands.
Star Sign guess It is also possible to use the above process to guess star signs. The premise of having the spectator generate positive and negative traits surrounding their own personality or that of someone they are thinking of (so you can guess this person's star sign, instead of their own) in order to give a reading and subsequently guess their star sign, is one which fits the guessing star signs plot, beautifully! It could not fit any better, in my opinion. Not only is the above method perfectly suited to guessing star signs, it also makes practicing this method much less daunting. You may wish to start with this as your way in to performing the much harder name guess, as there are less outs to deal with. As this is essentially a 1 in 12 naturally occurring cap, you will be able to, with a little work get this to 'hit', every time. This will help you build confidence and get a lot out of the routine as you practice delivering the script smoothly and performing the effect. The above method will give you the first letter of the star sign and from this point there is only ever going to be a potential choice between two star signs, which share the same first letter.
Here is a list of the 12 star signs, with the signs which share the same first letter coupled together, for ease of remembering them.
ARIES AQUARIUS CANCER CAPRICORN LEO LIBRA SCORPIO SAGITTARIUS VIRGO GEMINI PISCES TAURUS All you have to do is use the CUPs principle in conjunction with the
basic method (taught above) to be able to discern between the two possible signs this could be, in order to nail the exact sign, thought of by your participant! If you prefer or are unsure on the read you got from applying the CUPs method, you can use the “repeat it” ploy and nail it that way! If you 'miss' then simply act as if you were giving an example, as usual and then go in for the kill with their exact star sign. It couldn't be any simpler. I feel that this is one of the best ways to perform the classic star sign guess plot, as it no longer requires anagrams, naming multiple letters or having to 'miss' on a specific letter to then know! A lot of the time anagrams from the past, especially when performed badly, seemed like nothing more than a lot of guess work, to the audience, with the performer essentially asking for confirmation whether or not different, specific letters existed in the spectator's star sign. This became more than a little obvious. We now have the ultimate method with ROSE, which allows us to perform a stream-lined version of this plot, without any real guessing, all performed in as natural a way as possible, that fits the premise of what a real psychic might do. It looks and feels like the real thing, with very little compromise, in fact, any and all compromise is now rendered invisible, thanks to the psychology of the re-frame.
A Quick final note: The basic method can be used for much more than name and star sign guesses – imagine a book test without the need for special gimmicks or being able to guess a country or even, any word thought of. I will leave it to you to find these and develop your own further applications, for this method. Suffice to say, you will need to adjust the positive and negative characteristic traits to any word you would freely associate, as well as adapt the premise to one of, following a train of thought – but I have already said too much! If you have read this far and are still wondering what to do if the spectator can only say a random word and not a characteristic trait then all you have to do is what I choose to do – continue with the effect as if the word they gave you was a characteristic trait. They will still remember something impossible happened, that they cannot explain, even if what took place doesn't entirely fit the premise of the effect. This works for the readings part of the routine also. I simply allow impressions to come to mind based on the random word the spectator has given me. If they argue that they didn't give you any characteristic traits then simply remind them that everything is connected in thought and this is how you were able to still get to specific details about the person's life, of who they were thinking of.
Please keep these secrets safe and away from those who do not own this manuscript and therefore, belong to that circle of magicians, who wish to do what others deem as impossible.
