The Book of Anls
The Book of Anls by Fser Parker Proofrding, Proofrd ing, Editing and yout by James Sco
Intuition Publishing 2018
Copyright © 2018 by Fraser Parker Parker All rights reserved. Tis book or any portion thereof may not be reproduced or used in any manner what-soever without the express written permission of the publisher publisher except for the use of brief quotations quotations in a book review or scholarly journal. First Printing: 2018 Intuition Publishing Badgers Hollow Chapel Lane Mareham le Fen Boston Lincolnshire PE22 7PZ United Kingdom www.fraserparker www .fraserparker.co.uk .co.uk
An old alchemist gave the following consolation to one of his disciples: “No matter how isolated you are and how lonely you feel, if you do your work truly and conscientiously, conscientiously, unknown friends will come and seek you.” Carl Jung
Table of Contents Foreword by Ross ayler
ix
Introduction
1
Mental Peek Single-Digit Number
10
wo-Digit wo-Digit Number—Springboard
15
Spectator as Mind Reader (Reverse) Pin
16
Name Guess
21
Mental Peek—Reverse Name Guess
27
Tought-of Playing Card Divination
33
Mental Card Force
37
Te Small Quiet Qui et Voice—Silent Voice—Silent Questions Ques tions Star Sign Anagram by Peter urner
38
ell ell ale— ale— ruth eller eller or Liar
43
ruth ruth eller eller or Liar—No Force Ghost Card
52
ruth ruth eller eller or Liar Billets
54
Slip of the ongue
58
Slip of the ongue— ongue—ruth ruth eller eller/Liar /Liar
61
ruth ruth eller eller or Liar Predictions
65
Ploy
70
Pigs Might Fly—Tr Fly—Trowaway owaway Reverse Star Sign
84
Prop-less Horrors! (Kioku) Memories
90
Prop-less Ploy
97
Roots in Heaven—Fr Heaven—Free ee Choice Prediction
100
Paz by Adrien Lochon
102
Clubbed Over the Head (C.O. (C.O..H.) .H.)
108
O Force
112
Half Life Equation
117
Te Beautiful No—Utsukushii
119
Miriaj—Prop-less Star Sign
124
I Fall to Pieces—Prop-less Drawing Duplication
130
I Fall to Pieces—Opposite Drawings
143
I Fall to Pieces Pieces— —wo for the Price of One
146
MOOL
147
Rose—A Rose by Any Other Name Prop-less Name Guess
156
Rose 2—Extra Toughts on Fraser Parker’ Parker’ss Rose by Adrien Lochon
179
Credit Card Reverse Pin
183
Memoria 2
191
Quiet by Adrien Lochon
194
ESP Mental Sound Reading
208
Getting One Ahead with Marked ESP Cards
211
Change of Beliefs
213
Final Toughts
219
Foreword by Ross Tayler I was slightly worried when Fraser asked me to write this foreword that having written so many for him previously I’d have nothing more to say. Especially given the closeness of our friendship, it would be too easy to slip into mere sycophantic praise, every bit as tedious and nauseating to write as it is to read. He then sent me the draft manuscript. I was truly blown away. Te comprehensiveness and thoroughness of this work is astounding. Continuing in our path of merging method and effect seamlessly with words, Fraser has integrated innumerable techniques and principles, old and new, to create multiple systems for divining information prop-lessly and invisibly invisibly.. When Fraser and I began our journey together, together, many years ago, that thing which we held most most in common was an absolutely immovable vision for the aesthetics of an effect. Every single moment had to be perfectly justified, and entirely relevant to the routine at hand. Every line of scripting we would sit back and paint a mental picture of a real mind reader, reader, in order to double check with them that they really would say this. this . We We applied Vernon’s Vernon’s lessons of naturalness of action to our scripts, using tension and release, pace, timing, clarity, ambiguity, justifications and offbeats to ensure that each moment flowed naturally from the performance. Troughout this book, Fraser’s Fraser’s adherence to that vision is as uncompromising as ever. For me, the most beautiful technique taught in this work is Slip of the ongue ongue . Fraser and I have long worked on binary cueing techniques and have consequently built up quite an arsenal of excellent methods. But when he showed this to me I was floored. It is a piece of pure genius. What struck me even more about it is that for those of us who know Fraser’s Fraser’s work, they will see this as a reworking of Change of Beliefs from from rue Mysteries , Fraser’s first published work. Tis quality of Fraser’ Fraser’ss cannot be overstated: his mind never stops toying with concepts. Everything we’ve ever come up with, four months down the line he’ll he’ ll have reshaped into another entirely distinct and devastating application. If you take something from these pages other than fantastic methods, let it be the lesson to never let go of an idea. Never think something is finished; because almost everything throughout these pages can be said to be an extrapolation on the first two principles Fraser published: 1) giving g iving direct commands; and 2) acting as if it is so. Yet, look how far it’s come. I was asked recently by a truly excellent sleight slei ght of hand card magician, whom I’d I’d just reduced to a spluttering toddler with the Kings force (taught across several of mine and Fraser’s projects), whether I thought what Fraser and I do could be taught. I think what he meant by by that was that these scripts cannot be said in any way, way, by by any one, at any time, and and be expected to achieve their full potential. Tese Tese are excellent methods, in part because they require you as a performer perf ormer to be as excellent excel lent as you yo u can be. You You must be b e in control. contr ol. You You must be b e engaged engage d and engaging. engag ing. You You must be quick and attentive and flexible. Te importance of this could not be exaggerated. You are practicing the necessary skills to apply this work every time you perform, whether its hypnosis or sponge balls. When you talk to your friends, your partner, the person on the checkout—you check out—you ix
are practicing these skills. So yes, any person can use these scripts to produce incredible magic; they must, however, put in the work. I explained this to the aforementioned sleight of hand artist. Tis Tis made complete sense to him: “Well, I wouldn’t expect to read about a double lift, then go out and perform ambitious card the next day.” I’m very grateful that Fraser asked me to write this introduction. We’ve had an incredible journey together together,, and through that time it’s been a true privilege to watch as his thinking— already ahead of its time—has grown and matured and expanded. Tis work, if our previous collaborations haven’t, haven’t, will cement his name in the history histor y of magic and mentalism. I hope you enjoy it. Ross Tayler London, 2018
x
Inoduion What you now hold in your hands is a book of real magic, or at least l east the t he closest c losest I have ever come towards achieving this in performance perf ormance within my own work. When I first got into magic, I was unhappy with how I found the art form. I remember as a child picking up a book on magic and quickly becoming disillusioned with the methods found within its pages. I knew there had to be something more to magic; something real, a way of performing that not only felt real to those who witnessed your performances but also felt as close to real to the performer. It was during my pursuit of this pure form of magic I discovered the work of my now mentor, Kenton Knepper. I thought to myself, “Finally, here is some of the real work I was looking for.” My path in magic seems to have been a very magical one, in and of itself. Te right teacher appeared at the right time I needed. Te old way of thinking about this would be: “When the Student is ready, the Master shall appear.” Kenton says that, “Students tend to appear.” He He also believes, as do I, that magic supports those who support magic. As you may have realized from what I have said so far, there is a sense of real magic and an understanding of esoteric philosophy that underlies my work and how I carry myself as a magician and in life. Kenton is very much the same and wears the symbol of a real Magician in all the glory of its older meaning, too. Another person who entered my life at the right time was Peter urner. He is like a brother to me and my best friend both in magic and real life. I have said it before in print but would like to repeat it again here: I doubt I would still sti ll be in magic if it were not for him. Meeting him in person and becoming friends was what I personally needed to become a better magician. He taught me to finish ideas and to present magic in a way that made sense theatrically. Without his help along the way—as well as his trust tr ust for fo r me to use us e any of his hi s material in my own work without needing to ask—I doubt my ideas would have become as refined. I was complacent and thought I was “doing it” until I met him and witnessed with my own eyes his sheer brilliance. bril liance. Tat moment changed my life forever; so, thank you Peter. Peter. Ross ayler ayler has also become an integral part of o f my thinking, as well as one of my closest c losest friends. Wee have something very W ver y special. Our O ur thinking thi nking is on the same wavelength and fits with each other’s perfectly, often coming from the same vision and viewpoint of what we believe magic should look and feel like. We seem to be able to talk with each other and create effortlessly. Without the breakthrough of his re-frame, much of the work work in this book would not exist. So, So, thanks must also go to Ross for coming into my life at the perfect moment. 1
Te Book of Angels
And finally finally,, thanks to Michael Murray for allowing me to use a few of his principles in my own work. I feel the two principles featured f eatured in the effects which follow have become necessities within the modern modern prop-less approach. approach. For example, you would be foolish not to use the CUP’s principle to tidy up certain effects and clean up the overall appearance of an effect when dealing with multiple outs. Tis is part of Michael’ Michael’ss legacy legacy.. We We can c an’t’t do it without his principles. He is a genius and one of the nicest guys I have ever met, and I would like to thank him for his friendship. I believed that I would be able to create magic and that this was right for me. I knew that what I wanted to achieve was was possible. When creating, I tend to assume the solution is already fully formed in the ether; I just have to bring it into this realm and make it solid. Everything I imagined I could achieve came true. I wanted my first book to be considered as good as Luke Jermay’s book bo ok 7 Deceptions; and without any prompting from me, Kenton described my first work rue Mysteries in such a way, saying in ad copy: “I would put this right up there with 7 Deceptions by Luke Jermay. Fraser is going to make a name for himself quickly with this work.” w ork.” He also referred to me as “the next Luke Jermay.” Another Another instance of this was when I wanted to become a member of Kenton’s prestigious S.E.C.R.E. School. I used to look at the cover of works released by the School and imagine what it would be like to be in the School and have my name printed on the front cover along with the other renowned Students—and this also came true. Kenton talks about coincidences that surround his life and some of the time these coincidences have become evident being a member of the School myself. On one occasion, I was working with a cane to control the weather and I needed another use for it. Around this time, Kenton decided to release his work on the “Magnetic Canes” without knowing what I was doing with my work. My first thoughts on what later became rue Mysteries was Mysteries was so similar to what Kenton had been working on independently independently,, he confessed to being a little frightened! Another example of these strange coincidences was when I was deciding which image to use on a book and, having dismissed it without mentioning it to anyone, a few weeks later discovered Kenton had decided to use the same cover image i mage on one of his works. I dreamt of creating methods as close to real as possible, and this belief that it was possible—as possi ble—as well as actually doing the work in the physical—is what made my dreams come true. My desire and proper mental focus, in addition to work in the real world to transform transf orm the outer to match my inner vision, as well as my belief that what I imagined was possible, po ssible, is what made it a reality. Tis is the true meaning of Te Magician in arot. Toughts create our reality. reality. I understood by reading Kenton’ Kenton’s works that words were powerful. Tat they were useful tools to change how others perceive reality and that a magician should, therefore, know how use them in order to do so. 2
Fraser Parker
If the Universe is Mental and everything is vibration, then language—being based on sound vibration—is a powerful tool for the Magician to wield. Te way we understand the world around us is through the labels and words we ascribe to objects of our ou r consciousness. Te words are not the things themselves. However, However, we understand the world as being made up of apparent separate objects, thoughts or concepts. Tis is illusion and only a half-truth, as all is truly one. Tese objects of thought tho ught are of the Mind and contained in the Mind of God or whatever you want to label absolute reality. reality. We are part of reality and this Universal Mind. Mind came before Matter, and Matter is also We Mind in form. It is In-formation. We We are one of the “Million masks of God,” each wearing our own “persona” or mask used in Drama to lose ourselves within the play of life. We do this to such an extent we forget that we are all one and one with the Universe. We become fooled by appearances of apparent separateness, believing that the things we label are actual things in and of themselves, unconnected from everything else—which, of course, is also a half-truth. half-tr uth. If all is vibration and words are made up of letters which are also vibration and these letters derive from Te All or the lost name of God or the name that cannot be named—“ named—“ o name it, is to lose it”— then then speaking words becomes an act of co-creation in part. Of course, your thoughts and actions matter too. Now, if we use language to shift others’ Now, o thers’ perception of reality, we are able to create other specific illusions within the minds of those we meet and fool others further in order to create the illusion of magic or the impossible. And if we do so to remind others to look deeper than the mere surface appearance of things, we begin to become real magicians in the oldest sense of the word. Wee use ruth W ruth to show illusion and illusion illusi on to show ruth. ruth. Tese are very esoteric ideas which are Hermetic in nature, taken from what was once only a verbally transmitted tradition which can now be found in print in Te Kybalian by Tree Initiates. Magic is about recognizing patterns. However, However, as esoteric all of this sounds, as long as it can be made practical and works then it is magic. Tis relates in a very real sense s ense to real life as well as to the performance of magic. Agriculture can be thought of as a form of Alchemy. Alchemy. If we operate from a higher Mental plane with an understanding and a recognition of patterns to then help nature take its course, we don’t’t force nature but help it to achieve don achie ve the best results in a balanced manner. Te best way to to win at the game of Chess is to see it from the perspective of an outsider with a higher vantage v antage point and not only from the perspective of one of the players, black or white. Tis, of course, deals with another of the Hermetic principles: polarity. Tese are the half-truths apparent in our faulty view of reality, which also makes our o ur unique experience what it is. Again, this is a half-truth and Divine Divi ne Paradox; the highest is expressed in the lowest. You cannot have 3
Te Book of Angels
light without dark, hard without soft, inner without outer, hot without cold, etc. It is such esoteric esoter ic notions that have sometimes informed infor med my work; for instance, within my light and heavy deck routine Strength of Imagination taught Imagination taught in my first work rue Mysteries . I realize these notions are very esoteric in nature and that I am taking a risk sharing my points of view so candidly upfront at the start of this book. However, However, I feel it is important to share such notions with you—the reader and student of my work—as they will help you to understand my own understanding of what magic is. Do NO believe such things thi ngs because I have said them or because you have read it in this thi s book; instead, find out if these notions are true for yourself. I am still a Student of life myself and have likely spoken falsely in places about such ruth, ruth, which cannot really be put into words. I am aware that I am a Fool on the Fool’s Fool’s Journey and always have the following maxim in the back of my mind: “Only the foolish think themselves wise; but the wise know they are foolish.” If you are interested in the esoteric, then I suggest reading the work of Masters and Students who are much better at transmitting these ideas—such as Te ibetan ibetan Book of Living and Dying by Sogyal Rinpoche as well as Te Kybalian by Kybalian by Tree Initiates. I realise that I’m not a preacher and so prefer to either suggest such esoteric notions within my performances using metaphor or not to include them at all and only speak to those who show an interest after the show or ask me specifically. I have no desire to force certain notions on my audience. However, if magic be art then we can dare to weave such ideas in with our performances, as long as we do so carefully—we do not want to cause others to scoff at notions we ourselves find sacred or cause others to turn away from such ideas completely. completely. Whether we like it or not magic is and always al ways has been an allegory for f or life. A lot of the time even magicians were unaware of the symbolism they were using. For example, making an object appear is Birth; making it vanish is Death. We also do not want to cause trouble for ourselves by “casting pearls before We before swine” and expressing higher ideas to the “thick-headed” or those not ready to receive such ruth. Tis is why using metaphor is often useful. Tose with ears to hear who want to listen will take what they want from what we say, say, and those who don’t don’t will be able to more easily disregard it and hear only the surface of we say—and will take it to be simple patter dressing the effect. Tis means we can say what it is we wish to express without being too direct or sounding like a preacher. For more on creating instant art and using metaphor in your performances on magic, I suggest looking into Kenton Kenton’’s work on the matter matter.. What follows in this book then is how I use words and certain language patterns to shift the perception of those who I perform for in order to create the illusion of real magic. Tis is only part of how I am able to succesfully perform perfor m what it is I do, as you will see. s ee. Te other part is my 4
Fraser Parker
attitude towards what it is I do and how I act. More on this in a moment. We play with perception by assuming the experience of reality for those who we come across We is malleable. My first breakthrough in all of this came from when I was playing around with concepts which became my first work rue Mysteries . Tis was my work work on creating the illusion of trance or hypnotic hypnotic influence without without any need for actual hypnosis or any inductions of any kind ki nd needing to take place. I realised that by giving direct instructions to my spectator I could get them to follow along and do as I wished. Tis ensured that something actually happened or was stopped from happening, depending on what effect I wanted to create. Tese direct instructions ensured I had a definitive outcome and was able to create the desired “hypnotic” result I was going go ing for. I then, very much by accident, realized the true power of what it was I was doing. I initially intended to only create the illusion of hypnotic control within the minds of those watching. Te spectator would not be convinced by what took place, but their differing reality realit y caused by my performance would be tied up in such a way their lack of effect and diminished experience of what took place would not be an issue. However, I soon realized that by acting as if what I was doing was actual hypnotic influence that would be enough to convince everyone (including the spectator) that this is what was actually happening—to the point where my previous direct instructions would be considered as less direct hypnotic suggestions which made the effect work. It was the performance itself that created the false appearance and experience of real magic. Everything was framed within the context of the performance and was viewed in the light of what had apparently took place, as opposed to what was actually the true situation. Tis then became a general concept that informed all of my later work, as mentioned by Ross in the foreword. I realized I could use words to shift the perception of my spectator and audience members as well as act as if what I was doing was real to create the illusion of real magic. Tis second point about acting as if what you are doing is so is very important. It will allow you to appear credible. If you carry with you the silent script that the methods you are employing are closer to a real form of magic or control in the sense they allow you to manipulate reality to create an apparent magical outcome, then this is how it will appear to those who witness what it is you do. 5
Te Book of Angels
It is this belief that will ultimately make what you do believable and is what will give you instant credibility credibility.. Tey will vicariously pick up on your silent script and how you carry carr y yourself; this will leave your audience audience feeling like they have witnessed something real, as opposed to just clever trickery. How you act is important. If you act as if what you are doing is real, then you will appear credible. Te second breakthrough came from Ross with his wonderful re-frame concept. concept. It’s hard to imagine any of the newer work in this book being possible without this beautiful ruse being hit upon by Ross in our early experiments in prop-less. Wee have come so far in our thinking within the short space of a few years. W It’s a little frightening to think that only onl y a few years ago the work of both Ross and myself—as well as a few of my peers—would have been considered impossible and wishful thinking. What is now possible is truly breath-taking. It seems we have had a renaissance in modern thinking within the art of Mentalism and in regard to prop-less performance per formance itself, of which I am happy to have played a role. Here is the basic concept behind the re-frame as explained by Ross, himself: I prefer to call this principle prin ciple the “Double-think re-frame” and Fras Fraser er calls it simply the “re-frame”, with which owners of our previous releases will likely already be familiar. Te re-frame allows us to give direct commands to our spectat spectators ors in order to achieve specific outcomes, and then alter their perception of the events which just occurred in order to bring it back in line with the effect we are creating. Something we think has been missed by some readers of the work is that the re-frame works alongside the principle of “acting as if it is so” from Fraser’s Fraser’s work rue Mysteries. Te illusion is created by the appearance appearance of the effect e ffect itself, which is achieved almost exclusively through the acting and silent script of the performer. Tus, it is the attitude that you carry as a real magician which in large part sells the effect. Tose who don’t feel that attitude is a sufficiently reliable and deceptive component of method would be mistaken, as their perspective would require dismissing not only such fields as hypnosis and pickpocketing, but even such mainstays of the workers’ arsenal as (the misdirection and attitude dependent) “Cups and Balls” or “Card Under Box.” One must believe in this and approach it with an almost brash confidence, as one would a psychological force. Tis was a belief of many of the greats such as Orville Meyer, Annemann and arbell. Self-doubt is self-sabotage.. Understand that it is your authenticity which sells any e ffect you perform, and any other self-sabotage method is more or less incidental. Tis understanding allows us to use nothing n othing more than our words, shifting perception to create effects. 6
Fraser Parker
While a “false” shuffle uses visual deception to create a false perception, or a “bite-through” coin uses facsimile to set up false expectations which can be overthrown to create effect, the use of words as method allows us to do all this without physical props, as beliefs can be created and altered by doing no more than telling the spectator what the current state of reality is or indirectly suggesting this to be so. In simple terms, we use straight-up verbal lying as a method, rather than the the physical lies of “gaffs” “gaffs” or sleights. Te beautiful thing about the re-frame is that the lie only exists for a brief moment in time, until the appearance of the effect convinces the spectator of its truth, at which point there is nothing to backtrack as the spectator spectator is reviewing the proceedings from this fresh perspective. Tus, the illusion comes full circle, method and effect are equivalent and all that is le ft is the beautiful lie and appearance of real magic. Ross Tayler
As soon as Ross formulated this principle, we knew literally anything was now possible and within our reach in terms of performing entirely prop-less with nothing but our words. Te reason the spectator will easily follow along with your instructions is because they don don’t’t yet have a sense of the whole picture of the effect you are going for. Tey only have the immediate piece of the puzzle to work with, so to speak and will therefore, just go along with the most obvious meaning of your instructions. Ten this meaning is subsequently re-framed to be perceived from the perspective of the overall effect and illusion being created by your performance. However, magicians However, magicians tend to think from the start that th at what you are doing is i s magic; because they have an understanding of what the potential effect you are going for may be, they tend to only think in terms of the effect and therefore misunderstand your instructions and blow the entire effect. Tis is why why most of this material material will not always work with other magicians—or you will find it hard to get it to work—but will fool laypeople completely (as was my intention with this work all along). o get the most out of this book and indeed to be successful in your performance o perf ormance with any of the effects taught, you will need to read it from start to finish a few times to ensure you have all of the tools firmly implanted within your subconscious. Ten you will be able to apply the many principles and nuances of language consciously in performance in order to create complete miracles for those who witness you perform. I have taught many principles that can be applied to the creation of your own effects and routines. As to not repeat myself, sometimes I have only referred to a specific technique once with the intention that students of this work will understand that all principles pr inciples can be applied to each of the effects taught as required to ensure a successful outcome. You will only get a complete and comprehensive view of the work and what is necessary to perform each of the effects on their own if you read it in i n its entirety. entirety. Many Many of the principles and subtleties s ubtleties taught in 7
Te Book of Angels
a specific effect will also apply to others. Most of these effects will work 90% of the time, if not more. I suggest only performing one of these effects at a time within a set of more sure-fire material. Tis way, way, failure really won’t be a problem, but will instead create credibility credibilit y in what it is i s you do. Mind Mind reading should appear to be difficult and any slight miss within an overall successful set will be forgiven and will in fact make what you do appear real. If you could really read minds, then you would be expected to miss from time to time. Tis work is largely mechanical in nature; the only difference to the prop-less approach and that of more classic magic is the t he fact that your method exists in the words and instructions you give the spectator. It is, therefore, therefore, important that you deliver your script s cript precisely and take note of the importance of o f each of your words. Tey each serve ser ve a purpose and should not be omitted. Having said that, you should find your own way of saying such things but ensure you keep the structure and meaning of what it is i s I teach you to say. o be successful you will need to have a commanding, yet friendly, performance style— o bordering on a brash form of confidence—that requests the full attention of your participant. Speak your instructions clearly, maintaining eye contact with your spectator when delivering parts of the script essential to a successful outcome and constantly bring back their attention whenever you can see it i t wavering. Tis can be done with a touch on the back of their hand or shoulder, as long as this thi s is appropriate behaviour within your culture. Do not touch a female f emale on their bare arms or legs, for instance. If you apply these safety saf ety measures, then you should be able to be successful with this work. I have provided full performance video of each of the effects taught within this book, so that you can get a sense for the timing of the script and the tone of speech required (as well well as how to deliver these effects in a casual and conversational style). Tis work is, therefore, best suited to close up performance when when performed within the context of psychic entertainment or with the aesthetic of that of a real mind reader. reader. I always strive for the simplest solution where method and effect combine seamlessly to create effect that has very little compromise and looks how it would if you were to perform this material for real. I feel this book is yet another step s tep in the right direction towards achieving my ideals. I feel as if the material contained within this book is on the leading edge of the modern approach towards prop-less performance, and for this reason is often met with disdain and resistance from those who not yet ready to accept this type of thinking as relevant. relev ant. I would like to thank my friends and peers who have taken a similar path to my own and made the journey much less lonely lonely.. I believe that for a work to be relevant it should polarize opinion, and that certainly is the case with this and some of the work of my closest friends. 8
Fraser Parker
I, for one, am excited to see what we can create together as we continue to push past the boundaries of what was considered possible in the past. I am extremely proud of this work and feel it is the best book bo ok I have written wri tten so far. If this were to be my last release, I would be happy to leave this material behind for posterity and hope it is worthwhile and will be considered a standout contribution within the history of the art of Mentalism. Tis book became more of a sequel to my other limited-edition books more than an exposition of all of the work in my notebooks. I, therefore, decided to leave out certain principles and effects that didn’t didn’t fit the theme of what this book started to become during the writing process. Because of this, it now contains even more, newer material than I originally intended on including. Remember,, it is the performance itself Remember i tself that makes such bold material fly fly.. You Y ou have to act as if what you are presenting is real to make it appear to be so. I hope you enjoy the wonders that await you within withi n these pages! Fraser, 2018
9
Menl Pk Single-Digit Number What follows is my go-to way to divine a single-digit number my spectator is merely thinking of. As you will see, this can also be used to obtain a two-digit t wo-digit number as well as any letter of the alphabet. Tis will, in turn, allow you to guess thought-of names, star signs, objects and playing cards. In addition, you can perform a reverse pin guess where the spectator successfully uses their intuition to guess the four digits of the pin code to your bank. I will first explain how to obtain a single-digit number number,, so that you can more easily understand the basic principle and see it at work in its simplest form before moving into its many applications. What makes this method so s o effective is its simplicity and ease of use. It can easily be plugged into pretty much any routine without adding too much process. In fact, the process is entirely justified by the scripting; scripti ng; the way you set this up is in line with what you would do naturally naturall y if you were to really read someone’s mind entirely prop-less. Nothing appears out of place or unnatural. Te method and effect run along the same line and run parallel to one another, mixing together and complementing each other perfectly. Te only bit of process is something someone using classic techniques (such as a billet peek or center tear) would use anyway to create presentation and a pseudo explanation for how they were really obtaining the information. Tis is what makes my approach to prop-less in general so beautiful: everything every thing appears as it would if you were to do this for real with very little discernible compromise, if any any. As you already know know,, we are playing with shifts in perception to the point where everything comes full circle and the illusion is entirely complete and cemented in everyone’s minds as reality. Everything looks as it should if what you were doing was real mind reading. All those who witness what you do are left lef t with is the beautiful lie li e and their changed perception of the true situation (which is impossible for them to backtrack from or unravel); they are left with the experience of real magic. Te following method is simplicity itself, which makes its application so effective. It first started as a seed of an idea around the time I was working out Sync (which (which was a way to always know what letter a spectator was focusing on). It is something that stayed in my notebooks unfinished. Later, Later, I read something similar in one of Matt Mello’s releases he had come up with independently and without knowing of my ideas along these lines. What we had both come up with was the idea of using a cap which occurs naturally within a set of numbers or letters. Essentially, we realised that the letters of the alphabet and the numbers from zero to nine each have a limited range and therefore a natural cap. Tis means if the spectator were to count up through each of the numbers or letters in the alphabet, changing the one they are focusing on each time t ime by jumping to the next letter or number in the set, they 10
Fraser Parker
would eventually run out of numbers or letters they could jump to. Tis would cause the spectator to become visibly visibl y confused, as they the y realise they can no longer jump to the subsequent number or letter in the set. I realised if I could somehow definitively know the moment that this “bump” takes place and create a theatrical frame where its use would not appear obvious, it would be a simple case of counting back through the number or letter set to easily obtain which number or letter the spectator had started on. Here is the frame and scripting I use to obtain a single-digit number: “Tink of a single digit number from 0-9.” “It’s hard for me to just pull numbers out of people’s heads without there being any context. So, to help me establish how each of these numbers feels in my head, in a moment I want you to simply cycle through the numbers from 0-9 and every time I snap my fingers just change the number you are focusing on.” I begin to set up the justification for having the spectator think of different numbers. Apparently, Apparently, it is so that I can compare their original thought-of number to how other thought-of numbers sound in their head to help me calibrate to their specific thought-of number in order to be able to divine it. In addition to setting up the premise, I am also getting ready for Peter urner’s urner’s Not Not Te Ed Marlo Marlo Snap Change from his limited release When In Rome . Te word “cycle” prompts prompts the spectator to start thinking of changing through the numbers in terms of their sequential order. Tis instruction will be fully understood, and its meaning pressed home in a moment; but, for now, it is left slightly slightl y vague whether or not you want the spectator to change the numbers sequentially or out of order. Tis helps soften the overall outward appearance of your instructions instr uctions and makes the reframe which follows—and the subsequent shift back to illusion—that much easier. “It is essential you only do this in your head and say nothing out loud, so each time I snap my fingers I want you to just jump to the next number, number, mentally. mentally. Whenever you run out of numbers or get bored, just give me a clear ‘yes’ to stop—so stop—so that we are not changing through numbers numbers forever!” A few things are happening within the above scripting. Te first is you you mute the spectator. Tis is essential with not only this piece but also with many of my other prop-less effects where the spectator could potentially question your instructions. Not only will doing so fit in with the overall appearance of the effect due to the justification of not wanting the spectator to reveal their thought processes, it will also ensure they do not mess up the t he effect and ruin the necessary setup and mindset you need them to be in to get the effect to play out. If you give them no choice to verbalise any confusion they may have as to whether they should randomly change through the numbers or jump sequentially from one number to the next, they will usually go with the most obvious choice out of the two based on the instructions you have just given and will therefore usually follow your instructions instr uctions correctly. correctly. 11
Te Book of Angels
If they begin to verbalise ver balise anything, cut them off right away saying: “Don’t say anything—I don’t want to know your thought processes.” Te last line is beautiful! “Whenever you run out of numbers or get bored, just give me a clear ‘yes’ to stop—so that we are not changing through numbers forever!” Te spectator will understand this scripting to mean they are to simply call cal l out the word “yes” when they reach the number number 9 and run out of numbers they can change to. Tis eliminates the need for you to discern when the spectator becomes confused and is therefore at the end of the number set. It also suggests that they may have simply got bored of changing through the numbers at this point. Tis is a nice little subtlety that helps to obfuscate the method further; sometimes it will seem they may have gotten bored fairly early in the process even before they have gone through all of the numbers mentally. Now you are in a position where you can begin to snap your fingers and have the spectator change sequentially, each time jumping to the next number in the set. “So, start on the number you were just focusing on [pause] and change [snap fingers].” Te reason I pause for a few seconds s econds after instructing the spectator to focus on their number is to establish the notion that I may be trying to compare how this thought sounds in my head with the other numbers that they will subsequently think of once I begin to snap my fingers. fingers. It is a small point theatrically but helps with the overall appearance of the effect. Tey should now stop you at some point with the word “yes.” It is also important to direct the spectator to start on the number they are focusing on first , to ensure you can calibrate the snaps and follow the number changes accurately. o ensure they follow correctly, I always instruct instru ct the spectator to change their thei r number as I deliver the first snap. Now comes the really nice part in the routine where everyone’s perception is shifted in line with the overall illusion you wish to create. Here I apply a soft reframe that ultimately hides the method and ensures everyone is fooled completely. As soon as I receive a “yes” from from my spectator, I instantly follow up with the following script: s cript: “Okay, just keep on doing the exact same thing you you were just doing and keep on changing the number at random every time I snap my fingers. Don’t worry if you repeat certain numbers, as I am starting to get a sense of how each of these numbers feels in my head.” What is beautiful about the use of the reframe here is how it is applied: it is delivered very 12
Fraser Parker
casually and matter-of-factly, as if what you say was always the true state of affairs. It also comes at a point in the routine that is very natural. Instead of what has taken place being reframed and the spectator essentially being forced to accept the false perception after the process has already taken place, it is applied at the mid-point during the process itself, as if this is a simple clarification during what was always a fair and entirely random process. I refer to this type of reframe as “soft” as I feel it is a much more effective use of the reframe and less jarring to the spectator’s overall version of events. Naturally, it works the same way a reframe would usually Naturally, usuall y work creating the silent notion within the spectator’s mind that they made a mistake and misunderstood your initial instructions and therefore carried your instructions out incorrectly; they mistakenly changed the numbers in a sequential order, as opposed to randomly. Your words and the casual, matter-of-fact nature in which you deliver these lines—within the Your context of the routine as a whole—ensures that all of what you have previously said and done is now understood in this new light. Tey will now either consciously think t hink to themselves or subconsciously understand that they misunderstood your instructions and changed their number in a sequential order instead of the random order in which you intended them to change. Tey will now either consciously think to themselves or subconsciously understand that they misunderstood your instructions and changed their number in a sequential order instead of the random order in which you intended them to change. You still apparently don’t know they have made this mistake, due to the fact you are acting exactly as you would if you had intended for them to change at random all along. Also, the issue iss ue never gets addressed due to the spectator being mute. Terefore, they assume there is no way for you to know what number they started on. Te worst case now is you somehow knew they changed sequentially when they were not supposed to and worked out their number this way (from backtracking from the number 9); this will still appear to be mind reading from the spectator’s perspective. However, this is the worst case and usually the reframe will work to convince everyone (including the spectator) that there is no way you could be privy to any of their thought processes and they may as well have been changing their number at random. You, therefore, do not know what number they were focusing on originally. originally. Now we are in the perfect position to have the spectator continue to change the numbers in a random fashion—apparently as intended all along. I usually snap until I have snapped my fingers approximately 9 times, in order to suggest I have mentally tuned in to all of the potential numbers the spectator could be focusing on. Tis means they will now be placed back in line with the overall intended illusion and will now essentially be doing what you meant for them to do from the start. As they are now following along correctly with this being the last thing they remember doing and due to the fact the reframe has already taken place within the mid-point of the routine), 13
Te Book of Angels
this last bit of process will all help create the effect and cement the illusion in place. Tey will remember they had a completely free choice to change these numbers at random and for all intents and purposes that is precisely what has taken place; at least it may as well have been what really took place as there is apparently no way you could tell the difference either way. way. Everything is now as it should be. Nothing can be backtracked, and the illusion has come full circle within the minds of everyone present—yet you secretly know the number they were focusing on from the start. Yes, I told you this was real magic; you Yes, you have used your words, belief and actions to shift others’ perception in such a way as to create a false reality in everyone ever yone else’s minds in order to apparently know something that would normally be unknowable. Now, it is a simple matter to backtrack from the number 9 yourself to arrive at their thought-of Now, thoug ht-of number. o do this, I simply count how many snaps of my fingers it takes before they call out “yes” and o and then take this number off the number 9. If you prefer, you can simply start on the number 9 yourself and secretly count backwards in your head each time you snap your fingers and whatever number you are on when they say “yes” will be the number they started on. Tis really couldn’t be any simpler. In fact, this strategy of counting backwards from the end of the number or letter set will be useful when we get into applying this method to the letters of the alphabet. If they stop you right away or only after af ter a couple of snaps, then I would simply say the following script (as if I am reiterating my first instructions) and apply the reframe here: “So, keep on changing these numbers at random. Don’t worry if you repeat a few numbers.” n umbers.” I would then snap however many times would cover the spectator changing through most of the numbers up to 9. Tis will appear as though they simply misunderstood your instruction to begin with and stopped too early ear ly or, from the audience’s perspective, perhaps they got bored really quickly qui ckly.. I think that covers everything to do with obtaining a single-digit number with this method. I will now move on to how to obtain a two-digit number (to be used with an “astrological number,” for example.
14
Two-Digit Number—Springboard Tose who perform Peter urner’s urner’s Isabella’ Isabella’s Star or or Isabella’ Isabella’s Star 2 will probably want to put this to use right away away.. Essentially, all you have to do to obtain the second digit in a two-digit number is to apply the previous way of obtaining the first digit and then use Michael Murray ’s wonderful wonderful Springboard principle to “piggy back” off this first digit you already know. “Okay, I think I have a sense for what this first and second number are. Just so I can check my impressions, focus on the second digit in your number. Is this higher or lower than the first?” Tey will answer accordingly. accordingly. Let Let’s ’s say the first digit we secretly secretly know is a 3. Spectator: “Higher.” “How many higher?” Spectator: “2.” “Okay good I think I have the correct numbers now.” It really won’t matter that they are essentially giving you the second digit for free, as you apparently don’t don’t already know the first digit and therefore cannot just work out the second from the first. You You appear to be checking what you have already picked up on from the spectator, so your questions will not be met with any resistance. Now you just simply work out the second number from the information they give you, using their first number as a springboard to jump off from. In this example, the second digit would of course be a 5 and their two-digit number would therefore be 35. Tey would still be impressed if you were to reveal their two-digit t wo-digit number, as you seemingly can’t know one without the other. Tey will therefore take the revelation as a complete hit if both numbers are revealed at the same time, as a two-digit number. However, we have better uses for this two-digit number than a simple two-digit revelation— namely an exact date of birth revelation using Peter urner’s urner’s Isabella’ Isabella’s Star .
15
Speator Mind Rder (Revee) Pin In my effect I effect I Fall Fall to to Pieces I I show how you can shift the premise of an effect halfway through to use a piece of information you already know to create a solid method for the spectator guessing your pin number. number. Here is how I use the method taught above to achieve the same effect entirely prop-less and without the need for a bank card to be in play. play. In this version, you no longer have to shift the premise during the course of the performance. Tis is because the number the spectator comes up with as the first digit in your pin number will in fact be a completely free choice that they generate mentally themselves and does not have to be forced in any way. I also feel this version of the prop-less reverse pin is superior to the version My version My Pin Pin taught taught in my limited book False Messiah due Messiah due to it being more streamlined. In addition, this method and presentation sit better with one another with less noticeable inconsistency in terms of the compromise in method that inevitably has to take place. I also prefer this to Peter urner’s urner’s prop-less reverse pin entitled Your Intuition from Intuition from his limited book When in Rome, due Rome, due to the fact it doesn’t rely on a psychological number force. However, without Peter’ Peter’ss idea to use Michael Murray’s Springboard principle within the context of a “spectator-as-mind-reader “spectator-as-mind-rea der pin guess” I would never have come up with my own versions. I still use Peter’s from time to time and it is a beautiful, strong and hard-hitting effect where the th e out is sometimes a nicer outcome than hitting hi tting with it dead on. A small note on Springboard : What Peter urner writes in When in Rome about the use of Springboard is is correct; it is better suited how Michael first intended it to be used. Tis is with the spectator guessing your thoughts th oughts instead of it being used to guess theirs. Te reason for this is the spectator will be answering questions based on their intuition; when used in this way, the process and reason for you asking questions is now entirely justified and feels completely natural. I begin the effect with the following script which allows me to set up the premise of what is about to take place: “I find it interesting to sometimes reverse the process and have the spectator use their intuition to guess things about my life there is no way they should know. So,would you like to try to do this?” Spectator: Spectat or: “ Yes.” 16
Fraser Parker
If they say “no” then then simply reassure them that it doesn’t matter if they get it wrong and see if they have a change of mind; if not, then simply move on to another effect or try this with someone else in the group. “It really doesn’t matter if you get it wrong, as this is really difficult. Especially if you have never tried to do this sort of thing before.” Reassuring them in this way will also suggest that everything ever ything else you do is difficult and perhaps relies on you using your real intuition. I also say that I will help them to begin with (more on this later). “Don’t worry, you will be great g reat at this. I will even help you to begin with, if you need me to.” “I want you to try to divine the 4 digits to my actual bank pin number. So, just focus on what you believe the first digit to my pin number is. Te only clue I am going to give you is it’s not a very high number.” Here the final line is not entirely necessary (as it was in my original prop-less pin guess My Pin), Pin ), but I feel it is nice theatrically and for this reason I wanted to leave it in. It also helps to create the notion in the spectator’s mind that I am helping them, so they should feel relaxed and comfortable trying to do the impossible and read your thoughts. Let’s Let ’s say they are now focusing on the number 4, for example. Here is where I use the Single-Digit Number divination divination taught above in the Mental the Mental Peek Peek section in order to secretly know whatever number they the y believe to be the first digit in my pin number. I will now outline the script I use, so you can see how I apply appl y this principle within the context of this specific effect. If you have not already done so, then read how I obtain a single-digit number first or else much of this may not make sense. “I said I would help you, so I am just going to check that you are on the right lines.” “It’s hard for me to just pull numbers out of people’s heads without there being any context. So, to help me establish how each of these numbers feels in my head, in a moment I want you to simply cycle through the numbers from 0–9, the numbers found in a pin number. Every time I snap my fingers just change the number you are focusing on.” “It is essential you only do this in your head and say nothing out loud. So, each time I snap my fingers I want you to just jump to the next number, number, mentally. Whenever Whenever you run out of numbers or o r get bored just give me a clear ‘yes’ to stop, stop, so that that we are not changing through numbers forever!” forever!” “So, start on the number you were just focusing on [pause] and change [snap fingers].” For example, let’s say the performer snaps 3 times [Snap… Snap… Snap…] 17
Te Book of Angels
Spectator: Spectat or: “ Yes.” “Okay, just keep on doing the exact same thing you you were just doing and keep on changing the number at random every time I snap my fingers. Don’t worry if you repeat certain numbers, as I am starting to get a sense of how each of these numbers feels in my head.” Wee now know the spectator thinks the first digit of your pin number is a 6, in this example. W Tey will believe there is no way for you you to know the number they started on (unless you could really read their mind in order to help them change to the correct first digit). Terefore, they will also be completely fooled by the reverse pin guess which follows. Here is where we provide them with the last bit of help we will give them: “Okay, I feel you are out slightly on this first digit, so whatever number you are focusing on just go up by 1.” (Naturally, if they are focusing on the number 9 to begin begin then we will have to instruct them to go down by 1 instead.) Wee now secretly know they have landed on the number 7 (in this example). W Now all you have to do is Springboard from from this number and in the process have the spectator write each of the numbers they arrive at on a piece of paper, billet or business card and place it writing side down as you look away each time. Tis is so that they don’t forget any of the numbers along the way or mess up during the process. If you are not familiar with Springboard and how it applies to reverse pin guesses, then read the effect taught later on in this book titled Credit Card Reverse Pin. Pin . Here is the script with notes, so you can follow along with what is taking place: “Okay, you have already got what you feel the first digit to my pin number is. So, write it down and then turn the piece of paper writing side down. I will look away as you do this.” Tey write down the first digit, which will be a 7 in this example. When they say they have finished writing and turning the piece of paper over, look back at them and say: say : “Okay, that is all the help I am going to give you. So, now it is entirely up to you. Just relax and trust your intuition. I think you will be perfect at this!” “Just focus on what you believe the second digit to my bank pin number is.” “rust your intuition. Do you feel it is higher or lower than the first digit you just wrote down? ” ” Here we remind them which numbers to compare to each other and make the instruction 18
Fraser Parker
easier to follow by referring to the number they have just written (which should be obvious). o bvious). It is important to always be clear with your instructions when performing prop-less pieces. And this is something I ensure doing throughout the entirety of the Springboard process, process, with all 4 digits of my pin number. Spectator: “Lower.” “By how many?” Spectator: “2.” “Okay. Whatever number is 2 lower that the first digit you just wrote down, write that next to the first digit.” Again, look away and wait for the spectator to finish writing and turn their piece of paper writing side down. All you are doing is secretly following along in your head and building buil ding whatever pin number the spectator must be writing down based on their answers to your questions. [For example, they should now have written wr itten the number 7 followed by the number 5]. A useful tip: continuously repeat the numbers numbers back to yourself, in your head, whenever you are not talking to your spectator. Tis will help to ensure you don don’t’t forget them. “Now focus on the third digit. Is it higher or lower than the number you just wrote down?” Spectator: “Lower.” “How many lower?” Spectator: “1.” “Okay, write whatever 1 lower is than the number you just wrote down.” Always look away away as they write and and only turn back around when when they have finished writing and turned their piece of paper writing side down. Again, work out this new number and mentally repeat each digit to yourself. [For example, 754]. I now take a shortcut and say the following: “Okay, the last digit and the third digit are the same. So whatever number you just wrote down, write wr ite it down again next to that number.” number.” 19
Te Book of Angels
Tis quickens the process and allows you to essentially get the fourth four th digit for free! Tey should now have written wr itten the numbers 7544, in our example. We have followed f ollowed along in our heads and can now simply miscall mis call these numbers as the th e numbers to our pin number. “So, the digits to my actual bank bank pin number are7544. How close were you?” Tey will freak out! “urn your piece of paper over and show everyone else.” Now the audience will start to react. It is that simple to get such a great reaction. rust me when I say that this type of routine absolutely slays your audience.
20
Name Guess As I mentioned earlier earl ier this basic technique can also al so be used to obtain a thought-of letter as well as numbers. Te only differences required to perform it this way effectively are as follows: Te way in which we get the spectator to change the letter or number they are focusing on. Te way we handle the spectator calling out “yes” to to inform us they have run out of numbers. Due to there being substantially more letters in the alphabet than in the number set 0–9 (26 letters to be precise), there is potential for many more changes through the letters needing to take place before they run out of letters and hit the letter “Z.” Tis Tis also means you would likely have to snap your fingers a ridiculous amount of times in order o rder to get the method to work. It is for this reason I have decided to change the handling slightly slightl y when working with letters of the alphabet and utilizing this method. Essentially what is do is this: instead of snapping my fingers to denote the moment I want the spectator to change the letter they are on and jump sequentially to the next letter in the alphabet, I squeeze the spectator on their shoulder. Tis is done as I apparently hold their shoulder with one of my hands, as if establishing a psychic connection with the participant. Ten I squeeze with my hand (which is usually missed by onlookers). It really doesn’t matter if anyone else sees these squeezes. But, if the majority of the audience don’t’t see you do so then a small “Dual don “D ual Reality” Reality ” will be in i n play. play. Some of your audience members will imagine the spectator s pectator is simply changing letters entirely at random at their own pace and volition, without without any further prompting from the performer. You should squeeze firmly enough on their shoulder for the spectator to feel it, but not so hard You it could cause discomfort discomfor t or harm the spectator. Another reason a squeeze cue is better than the finger snaps for this routine is the fact that you will be able to do it at a much faster pace, eliminating the dead time, as you go through the letters of the alphabet. o set up the “Dual Reality,” o Reality,” I simply rest my hand gently curled around the top of the spectator’s shoulder and then say the following: “It’s hard for me to just pull letters out of people’s heads without there being any context. So, to to help me establish how each of these letters feels in my head, in a moment I want you to simply cycle through the letters of the alphabet from A–Z.” “It’s essential you only do this in your head and say nothing out loud. So, in order to establish a connection with you [pause], every time you feel HIS [squeeze]... [another slight pause] I want you 21
Te Book of Angels
to just mentally jump to the next letter of the alphabet. Whenever you get to the point where you can’t me a clear ‘yes’ ‘yes’ to stop.” stop.” think of any more letters , just give me In order to perform the cue so that it remains clear for the spectator but stays obscure and hidden to the rest of the audience, after saying the line, “So, in order to establish a connection with you [pause]...” I turn my head away from the spectator slightly sli ghtly and glance downwards at the floor and pause— as if I am sending them a thought mentally—then continue with my script, applying the squeeze cue on the word “HIS.” “…every time you feel HIS [squeeze]... [another slight pause]” Before turning back to the spectator and saying: “…I want you to just mentally jump to the next letter of the alphabet.” I then complete my instructions with the following scripting: “ Whenever Whenever you get to the point where you can’t think of any more letters , just give me a clear ‘yes’ to stop.” Terefore, the use of the word “feel” and and what it means to the spectator is left open o pen in the minds of the audience members; they may imagine it is a telepathic feeling the spectator is picking up on and this is how you intend to stay connected to the spectator and follow mentally when they are changing the letter in their head. You may find it easier to hold your spectator’s You s pectator’s hand—as if establishing a psychic connection with them—applying the cue by gently gentl y squeezing their hand with your thumb. Tis may be more reliable for some and will ensure the spectator can’t easily miss the cue due to them wearing thicker clothing or simply not discerning your change of pressure. It is also a better cue to employ in certain certai n situations where, for example, the spectator is a female whose clothing c lothing leaves their shoulders bare (which would make touching them on their shoulder inappropriate). I feel it is not even necessary to hide these cues during this routine. You can even apply taps on their shoulder, and when giving your instructions state openly that this is what you will be doing. I decided to leave in how this can be performed covertly for those of you who want to add an extra layer of deception to this routine. Tere is a subtle difference in the above scripting that becomes necessary when working with letters of the alphabet as opposed to numbers. Instead of instructing the participant to change letters until they run out of letters or get bored, we change the script slightly and instruct the spectator to stop whenever they the y can’t think of any more letters to jump to. Tis scripting has the same result as the previous way of wording the instructions but ensures they won’t decide they are bored early on in the process or stop changing before running out 22
Fraser Parker
of letters. Tese words will fly right past everyone; the audience will perceive it to mean the spectator is to say “yes” out out loud whenever they can c an’t’t easily think of more letters to change from because the process has become boring for the spectator. Tis revision of the scripting ensures the spectator stopping you early will never become a problem. In fact, to be sure they will not stop you too early you may prefer to also use this scripting with smaller sets (such as numbers from 0–9). Wee will now also have to change the reframe scripting that comes later, as follows: W “Okay, just keep on doing the exact same thing and and keep changing these letters at random , every time I snap my fingers. It doesn’t matter if you need to repeat any of these letters , as I know you are already struggling to think of letters.” Tis ensures ensures the process process stays congruent from the audience perspective as well as the perspective of the spectator, once the different reality of the reframe has taken hold. Because the spectator has supposedly run out of letters they can think of to change to, it now becomes necessary to remind them they are allowed to repeat certain letters as they try again to think of different random letters of the alphabet. You are now in You i n the perfect position to either covertly or overtly overtl y control the pace at which the spectator jumps through the letters of the alphabet with a cue. I now continue with the script as usual: “So, start on the letter you were just focusing on and change [squeeze].” Again, it is important here to start s tart the spectator on whatever letter they are focusing on (the first letter of a thought-of name, for example) as well as instruct them to change their letter when you deliver the first cue. Tis just ensures ensures you are are both on on the same same page and you are both calibrated to each other’s other ’s changes. Everything else is the same as when divining your spectator’s thought-of single digit number. Te only difference being instead of secretly counting backwards through numbers from the number 9 you will mentally count backwards through the alphabet every time you apply your cue, starting on the letter Z. If you are worried about being able to do this, it really isn’t difficult to learn the alphabet backwards. It will take a day or two and will be well worth the effort you put in to be able to get to the correct letter with ease during performance. It is either this or learning a mnemonic “peg” system that will allow you to count along with the cues and instantly recall which word is connected to which letter of the alphabet in root memory. You Y ou could also write a crib cri b of the alphabet backwards on a notepad and count to the correct 23
Te Book of Angels
letter secretly as you write down your reveal. I prefer to be able to perform this entirely propless and without the need for any additional props that contain cribs. For me, using cribs is a crutch I wish to avoid whenever I can. For example, say they call out “yes” after after you have cued them 16 times. Ten you would have secretly counted down to the letter J in your head and will therefore know that this is the letter they are focusing on. You now apply the reframe as usual by You by instructing the spectator to continue changing letters at random. I would suggest cueing them an amount of times depending on how many letters of the alphabet are left lef t over. If they have already counted through more than half of the alphabet, then I would probably only cue them another 5 or 6 times. However, However, if they have only moved a few letters then I would have them change at random at least another 8 or 9 times. Tis is so that from a theatrical standpoint it will always appear I have had enough of a mental peek at the way most of the different letters of the alphabet sound in the head of the spectator to allow me to discern their specific thought-of letter from the other letters they focus on. If you are going for a name divination using this method, then you will already know the first letter of the name they are thinking of. It is now a simple matter of applying the other ploys found in my prop-less name guess Rose to nail down on the exact name your spectator is focusing on. Naturally, this method can also be applied to a star sign revelation. How to use this technique to guess a star sign will become apparent once you have read the other star sign divinations taught in this book. Of course, reverse name and star sign guesses are also possible where the spectator will be able to apparently successfully divine the name or star sign the performer is merely thinking of. I will now show you the scripting which makes this possible and briefly describe what is going on, as much of this will now be fairly fairl y self-explanatory. But before doing so, I will teach you how to make the large amount of letters of the alphabet more manageable when guessing thought-of letters. In order to make going through the letters of the alphabet easier and to reduce the amount of potential snaps or touches you will need to use during your routine, it is a simple matter of cutting the alphabet in half (without (witho ut anyone being aware that this is what you have h ave done). You do this in You i n a very sneaky and subtle way, way, hiding it within the scripting and the theatrics theatr ics of the piece itself. Depending on the routine you are performing, there will be a subtle difference in the scripting used. Here is how I would handle this within the context of a name guess when using the snap change method to secretly know the first letter of the name the spectator is focusing on: 24
Fraser Parker
“So just focus on o n the first letter of the name. Tis isn’t an M for MONEY, is it?” I simply throw out the letter that is at the halfway point in the English alphabet. Tis is framed in the negative form of a closed question. If you get a hit here, then great! You don’t need to apply the snap change part of the process to successfully divine their thought-of name. If you get a “no” response, response, then this is also a good outcome as it will essentially allow us to cut our potential process down by half. It is important here that the spectator doesn’t mishear an incorrect letter. Terefore, I offer a phonetic word that begins with the letter so that our communication stays clear. Tis is a common practice in communications (e.g., when speaking on the phone) where certain certai n letters may get confused with others. Here is the script change that needs to take place, in the part of the scripting s cripting where we instruct the spectator when to interrupt the snap change: “ Whenever to Whenever you can’t can’t think of any more letters or you happen to think of the letter M , I want you to give me a clear ‘yes’.” What this will do is will give you a “yes” response response whenever the spectator is either at the end of the alphabet or at the halfway point. Now,, all you have to do is check which of these is the case with the following Now foll owing question: “Tis is the letter M for MONEY, yes?” If they say “no” then then you simply continue on and apply the reframe, as follows: “Okay, it doesn’t matter. Just keep on doing doi ng the exact same thing you you were just doing and keep changing the letters at random , every time I snap my fingers.” If they respond with a “yes” then then you would apply the following adjustment: “Okay, good. I think I know why I was confused before. Just keep on doing the exact same thing you you were just doing and keep changing the letters at random , every time I snap my fingers.” It will now appear to everyone ever yone involved that the reason you had the spectator inform you when they happen to be thinking of the letter M was so that you could check why you misunderstood your previous impressions and guessed the first letter of the name incorrectly incorrectly at the start of the routine. Tey may also imagine that you didn’t didn’t want to get caught out by it again, so you wanted the spectator to let you know when they were focusing on it. 25
Te Book of Angels
Tis fits with the theatrical justification for the process to such an extent that the reason you need to give these instructions will usually speak for itself and no one will ever feel the need to question why you do things the way you do. You are getting the spectator to change through different letters of the alphabet at random, You so you can better distinguish their thought-of letter from the rest of the alphabet; doing so in isolation would be a lot harder, as you have nothing to compare it to. Tat is the justification you need to have in the back of your mind as you perform these effects. Now, it is a simple matter of either backtracking from the end of the alphabet and the letter Z Now, or from the midway point and the letter M, accordingly accordingly.. Tat’s it! What is beautiful about this little additional subtlety is the fact that you can now apply the snap change with letters of the alphabet without there being any long, drawn out process. It is now just as practical and efficient to use as the number version. You can even use finger snaps if you prefer instead of shoulder squeezes squeez es or taps, as the process is now streamlined enough to do so. If I were to apply this to a star sign guess, I would simply guess the first letter of their star sign as L. Tat Tat would cut the alphabet approximately in half and then, of course, I would guess Leo L eo or Libra if I get a hit on the letter letter..
26
Menl Pk—Revee Name Guess “I find it interesting when we reverse the process and I get spectators to use their intuition to try to guess specific details about about my life there is no way they could know.” “I’m thinking of a name of someone who is close to me. Tis is a male person. Is there any way you could just guess who this is?” Te spectator will usually respond respond with a “no.” What What is great about asking this question quest ion is most spectators and audience members will feel that doing this would be impossible. Tis will build up the effect in everyone’ ever yone’ss mind and make the subsequent outcome of the spectator successfully being able to divine your thought-of tho ught-of name that much more impressive. You have also subtly given the spectator You s pectator the sex of the person you are apparently focusing on, for free. Te reason I prefer to use male names in prop-less name guesses will become apparent as you read other variants in this book. Tat is not to say female names are not possible to divine by both yourself and participant; it’s it ’s just easier to use male names in these presentations. You Y ou now reassure the spectator that they will be able to this perfectly. “Don’t worry, I promise you this isn’ isn’tt a difficult name to guess.” Tis is a really clever line as it suggests to the spectator the name is, in fact, a common name that they will be able to easily guess. As you will see, by by making it easy for the spectator to guess the name you are thinking of you are actually making it easier for you to perform the trick! “If you just go into this with an open heart and an open mind then we should be able to get this to work, together.” Te previous line will put the spectator at ease and ensure they understand they are to work with you. with you. Tis will stop the spectator from being difficult or trying to mess up the effect. Tey will understand it is about them and their own abilities. abilities. Terefore, they will want to do well well and will most likely follow foll ow your instructions properly. properly. “So, just allow the first letter of this name to come into your head now [touch the spectator on their forehead].” Here I touch the spectator on their thei r forehead, as as if placing the thought-of tho ught-of letter in their mind. 27
Te Book of Angels
If you prefer a less-direct approach, then you can get the spectator to allow a few letters they feel could be the first letter of the name you are thinking of to come into their mind and to settle on one. I would then dismiss whatever this thought is. Tis is purely for theatrical th eatrical reasons only. However, it suggests I know what they are thinking even when I don’t. I would then get them to change one more time. No No matter which route I have taken, I would exclaim: “Okay, that feels right. But, I would like to just check you are on the right rig ht lines.” I would now move into the next phase of the effect and apply the snaps in order to secretly know which letter they are now focusing on, whilst apparently checking they are on the right lines. “It’s hard for me to just pull letters out of people’s heads without there being any context. So, to to help me establish how each of these letters feels in my head, in a moment I want you to simply cycle through the letters of the alphabet. Every time I snap my fingers, just change the letter you are focusing on.” on. ” “It is essential you only do this in your head and say nothing out loud. So, each time I snap my fingers I want you to just mentally jump to the next letter letter of the alphabet. Whenever you can’t think of any more letters, just give me a clear ‘yes’.” “So, start on the letter you were just focusing on [pause] and change [snap fingers].” finge rs].” I will not explain this process again, as I have already taught the method in depth. Suffice it to say the scripting is adjusted slightly when using letters of the alphabet as opposed to numbers. As soon as you get a “yes” from from the spectator you apply the reframe, as follows: “Okay, just keep on doing the exact same thing and and just change the letters at random a few more times, as I am now beginning to get a sense how each of the different letters sounds in your mind.” I then snap a few more times. When performing this thi s process, I have also said sai d the following scripting scr ipting during the reframe to throw off the spectator even further: “ I feel you thought of the same letter a couple of times t imes , , but that’s okay as I am now beginning to get a sense for how these letters sound in your mind.” Tis works just as well whether we are applying this method to letters or numbers. Another ploy I may employ employ for purely theatrical reasons is to now get the spectator to go back and focus on the letter or number they started on. Tis suggests that I am now comparing the sound of their original thought to those I have just picked up on, as they apparently changed their letter or number at random. “Okay, just focus on your letter again. I think you have the first letter of this name.” 28
Fraser Parker
“I want you to just allow a name to come into your mind.” I now apply the additional subtleties I would use to guess a name prop-less in reverse, effectively getting the spectator to tell me the details of the name they are now focusing on. Tis is done while making it seem to everyone else from the answers answers the spectator give as if the spectator is still deciding on a name. For For those of o f you who are not already familiar with these subtleties, it will all make sense once you have read the Rose name name guess. “Do you feel this is a name which can be abbreviated?” “Okay, just focus on the amount of letters in this name.” Here I apply Michael Murray’s CUP’s principle principle in reverse to be able to estimate whether this is a shorter name or longer name, and then I write down the name I feel the spectator is focusing on. Tis is supposedly the name I was thinking of all along. I write this name on a billet—without anyone else seeing—and then place it writing side si de down in front of the spectator. I usually just write the most obvious name I can think of given the clues I already have about the name. Most of the time this will match the name the spectator is also thinking of, as they have essentially gone through exactly the same process I have to arrive at the name. If you want to be even more direct, you you can ask for f or the specific amount of letters the spectator believes are in i n your thought-of name and then write wr ite down your name accordingly accordingly.. Tis may be too bold, so instead I would handle this as follows: I would use the reverse CUP’s to to gauge the approximate amount of letters in the spectator’s thought-of name and then commit to a name by writing it down on a billet. Ten, after placing it writing side down in front of o f the spectator, I would ask: “So how many letters do you feel are in this name?” If they answer correctly correctly,, then all is good. goo d. If not, then I would simply direct the spectator to the correct amount of letters and get them to change the name they are thinking of. Tis is the correct way to ensure both names will likely match. It is the spectator who is supposed to be guessing the name you are thinking of, so helping the spectator to adjust their thought after you have already written down your thought-of name makes complete sense and fits with the theatrics of the routine. Most of the time, the spectator will be close with the name you have written down. If not, then you can simply state: “Not bad. You were close. Tis just shows you how difficult it is to guess a thought someone else is thinking. If you don’t mind, I would now like to try to guess a name you are thinking of.” 29
Te Book of Angels
Now I would simply use a billet peek or other sure-fire method to be able to guess the name they are thinking of as proof it really is possible to guess a name or other piece of information when you have more practice at doing so. so. Teir failure will then serve as a way of making what what you are about to do seem that much more impossible. If you want to add in a layer of security to ensure they will always be close—if not exactly right on the name—then you can apply an idea I have used with my other reverse name guess ploys. Tis involves temporarily shifting roles with the spectator, with you guessing a piece of information as a way to check they are on the right lines. Here I would apply the Repeat It Ploy . “Okay, just focus on the second letter of the name and repeat it over and over in your mind. So, this would be O… O… O… for example.” If you get a hit here and you have written down the name “John” for example, then your work is done. Tey will be close with either “Josh” or “John.” If If not, then you would simply direct the spectator to think of a different name with the same letter. “Okay, I think you are close but don’t have the exact name I’m thinking of. So, change to a different name with the same first letter.” Now the spectator should be on one of o f the correct force names. You Y ou can take this even further and dismiss one of the potential names completely. “Tis isn’t Josh, so if this is the name you are focusing on change it to a different name which is still close to this name.” If they need to change the name here, then you will usually get credit for knowing the incorrect name they were focusing on as well. Of course, this can also be used for a spectator-as-mind-reader effect, where the spectator apparently guesses your star sign. All you need to do is follow their thoughts the same way we would when applying this to a name and then miswrite a false star sign, sig n, unless you get lucky and they hit your actual star sign. You Y ou must get the spectator to already have a star sign in mind before applying the snap change. change. Te scripting I would use to do this would be as follows: “I want you to trust your intuition and try t ry to pick up on what you feel my star sign is. So, just allow a few different star signs to come into your your mind and settle on whichever one feels right.” I also eliminate the star signs that begin with letters near the beginning of the alphabet. Tis 30
Fraser Parker
will ensure you will not have to count through through most of the letters of the alphabet when applying the snap change. “I will give g ive you a clue. My star sign doesn’t begin with a letter near the start of the alphabet.” Of course, this ruse can also be applied to the previous reverse name guess. It is slightly illogical but will still fly right past everyone and seem as if you are simply trying to help the spectator use their intuition. In order to nail down on the correct sign whenever two are in play, you can again use CUP’s in reverse. Each star sign pairing beginning with the same letter contains a shorter word and a longer word. Tis makes applying CUP’s easy. easy. Here are the possible star sign pairs that contain the same first firs t letter, they could be thinking thi nking of: ARIES AQUARIUS AQU ARIUS LEO LIBRA SCORPIO SAGIARIUS CANCER CAPRICORN I would commit to one of the signs and then ask the following question. “Do you feel this is one of the shorter signs like Leo or one of the longer signs like Capricorn or Sagittarius?” Now, no matter what they say, I would usually just settle for being close or even leave this question out altogether al together.. If you really wanted to, you could then direct the spectator back to the correct star sign out of the pair. “I think you are close. So whatever sign you are now focusing on, change it to a different sign with the same first letter.” Tat should give you another chance at getting getting the spectator to hit whatever star sign you have have written down. Naturally, Naturally, when posing the above question ques tion to your spectator, you would change one of these star sign examples to one of the relevant short or long star signs you know the spectator could be thinking of. 31
Te Book of Angels
Another option would be to simply use CUP’s in in reverse, on its own. Ten once you have picked up on whether this is a longer or shorter sign from the reaction of your spectator, simply write down the correct sign as your own. “Okay, just focus on how many letters you feel are in the sign.” If they seem to struggle or take a long time to think of the amount of letters in the sign, you can safely bet on the fact they are likely thinking of the longer of the two signs. Naturally, instead of directing the spectator away from letters near the first half of the alphabet, Naturally, you can instead use the ploy of halving hal ving the alphabet (already discussed discuss ed in the name guess) to make your work easier and to ensure the process stays short.
32
Thought-of Pying Card Divination Naturally,, this method can also be used to divine a thought-of playing card. Naturally I have said in interviews in the past that this is a bad use for this principle. Te reason for this is I feel that if you are already going to be introducing the use of a deck of cards into your performance then you may as well simply use a deceptive physical force in order to secretly know the playing card your spectator is focusing on. However, for completeness, I will briefly teach my way of utilizing this ploy to divine a playing card merely thought of o f by your spectator. spectator. How I personally introduce and justify the use of a deck of cards in my performances of Mentalism is taught in this book in the effect entitled Ploy . Te first part to getting this to work is to subtly direct the spectator to think of one of the number cards as opposed to a picture card. Tis streamlines the process and ensures you will not have to deal with court cour t cards whose numerical value your spectators may not be aware of. I use the following piece of scripting from Ross ayler’s O O Force Force to to achieve the same results. Tis effect is also taught in this book. “ Tink of any card f rom the deck. Forget Forget the suit for now and just get a card in mind that isn’t isn’t obvious or easy for me to guess.” Tis language will usually steer the spectators away from from cards cards that would usually be considered considered obvious choices, such as aces and the court cards ( Jack, Queen and King). Te odds of the spectator choosing a number card over a picture card after delivering this scripting is also als o much higher than you may think at first, as there are considerably more number cards to choose from than pictures. If you want to be entirely sure they focus on a number card, you can simply substitute the scripting for the following line: “I want you to forget about the suit for now n ow and just focus on the value of the playing card. In fact, so this is fair, change to a completely different number.” Tis way even if they were focusing on one of the picture cards to begin with they will now be forced to change it to one of the number cards, while the reason for changing their card will feel openly fair and above board. Most spectators will not even notice that it is your clever use of scripting which restricts restr icts their choice and causes them to become “boxed” into only choosing number cards, as the words “value” and “number” are usually interchangeable in everyone’s 33
Te Book of Angels
minds and mean the same thing (especially for those not familiar with playing cards). Tey will still be impressed if you can successfully divine their thought-of card, whether they feel they were limited to just number cards or not. Here you apply the method for obtaining a single-digit number and keep whatever number this is to yourself, saving it for the larger reveal of the thought-of playing card in a moment. I would now pick up the deck with the faces toward me and begin to spread through the cards, as I say the following: “I want you to say a suit out loud for me.” Tis will prompt the spectator to name a suit. Here I simply look for the playing card with the corresponding value to the number I have already secretly obtained which has what I would consider the opposite suit to the one they have just named. I then take this card out of the deck and place it face down on the table, as I apparently correct the spectator with the following script: “Sorry. I meant for f or you to say the suit after I have already committed to a playing card. So, whatever whatever suit you just named change it to a completely different suit.” suit.” Tey will think they made made a mistake here and usually apologise. It was a pleasure fooling many of my magician friends with this ploy over Skype and having them apologise to me, entirely unaware that this was a cleverly planned response and subterfuge. Tis is a beautiful ploy I first wrote up in the card section in Ross ayler’s ayler’s and my limitededition book Second Coming . What it allows you to do is know the suit the spectator will name and place a card with the correct suit face down on the table seemingly before they have even thought of this freely chosen suit. It is similar to something Kenton’s mentor John Mendoza used to do and doubtlessly others even before him. He would have the spectator name a card, control it to the top of the deck and then ask for the card again as if he didn’t hear what the spectator said before. Tis would suggest he couldn couldn’t’t have done anything tricky tricky,, as he apparently didn didn’t’t hear the playing card in the first place. In my version of this ploy, my words “…change it to a completely different suit” will will usually push the spectator to change colours completely and think of the most obvious suit of the opposing colour. Te reason they usually change the colour of the suit is because they imagine this is the easiest way for them to be sure the card they change to is completely different. If you want to make sure they change the colour, then you can add the following line to the scripting: 34
Fraser Parker
“Sorry. I meant for f or you to say the suit after I have already committed to a playing card. So, whatever whatever suit you just named, change the colour so so that you have a completely different suit suit in mind.” Because of the John Mendoza ploy, ploy, the spectators will feel you were not paying attention to the suit they were naming when you were spreading through the deck, so being more direct with your instructions for them to change the colour of the suit should fly and be above suspicion. It really doesn’t matter, as you are going to nail the exact playing card in a moment anyway; and this revelation of the number and suit at the same time will be enough to impress the spectator. Both of these pieces of information will blend into the same reveal, which will be impressive in and of itself. I find most spectators in my culture will think of either Spades or Hearts to begin with, as these are the easiest for fo r the spectators to recall; recall ; Clubs and Diamonds are, for some reason, not as prominent in most people’s minds and are usually considered the more intricate or difficult cards to imagine. Terefore, Terefore, in my experience, they are not often chosen. Perhaps Perhaps the reason the other suits are more appealing is due to these suits being embedded within the consciousness of my own popular culture. For For example, the Queen of Hearts is prominently featured in literature l iterature such as Lewis Carroll’s Alice Carroll’s Alice in Wonderland Wonderland and and the Ace of Spades is mentioned in a rock song. If you want to be entirely sure as to which suit they will change to, you can mention the opposite suit you wish to force of whatever colour you know they will be changing to. For example, say they have already named “Hearts” out out loud. I would then use the following language to direct the spectator to think of “Spades.” “Spades.” “Sorry. I meant for f or you to say the suit after I have already committed to a playing card. So, whatever whatever suit you just named change it to a completely different suit suit like Clubs, for example [snap fingers].” Tis is the standard ploy used in psychological forcing to ensure specific items are not chosen; by mentioning one of the possible suits they could think of, they will be much more likely not to choose it. Tis leaves them with “Spades” as their only possible choice. I may also snap my fingers after delivering this last line, to suggest they are to get a suit in mind quickly. Tis pressuring of the spectator is often useful when applying such psychological forcing techniques. You are now in a position where you have whatever playing card You card the spectator is about to build in their mind placed face down on the table in front f ront of the spectator as your prediction. “Whatever suit you have just changed to, place it with the value of playing card you we re just focusing on so that you have built a playing card out of your free f ree choices that exists in your mind and only your mind.” Here I change the word “number” back back to “value” to to help complete the illusion of free choice. Have the spectator name the card they freely thought of and have them turn over your prediction. Tey will match perfectly! 35
Te Book of Angels
Te way I now prefer to handle the above ruse of narrowing their possible choice of card to one suit of the opposing o pposing colour is as follows. I feel this is much more deceptive. I say the following: “Sorry. I meant for you to say the suit after I have already committed to a playing card…” As I place my force card face down down on the table and then miscall whatever card they have said out loud. I always miscall the opposite opposit e suit to whatever force f orce card I have taken out of the deck. Tis is obviously also a suit of the opposite colour to the suit they just named. For For example, they have called out the suit Hearts, I would now take out the correct value of card in the suit of Spades, place it face down and then say the following fol lowing (as if I mean to confirm whatever suit they just said out loud): “So, this is Clubs.” I then pause for a second before cutting off any response I get from the spectator s pectator.. “In fact, whatever suit you just named out loud… change it to a completely different suit.” suit.” Tis miscall of whatever suit sui t they named out loud before will serve as a way of directing the spectator away from whatever suit is named. Terefore, they will now only be able to think of the suit of whatever card you just placed face down on the table. Tis works in the same way naming certain options would when performing classic psychological forces. By mentioning a specific suit, we eliminate it as a choice due to the fact it has now been made obvious and too conscious of a thought. What is beautiful about the miscall is it fits perfectly in line with the subtle notion we are setting up in everyone’ ever yone’ss minds that we have either ignored or not properly properl y heard whichever suit the spectator has just named out loud. lo ud. It will seem that we misheard a completely different suit from the spectator, and and therefore couldn’t couldn’t know their actual choice to then do anything sneaky with the deck in terms of changing the card to an opposite suit.
36
Menl Card Force If you wish to force a card instead of simply simpl y divining it, you you can utilize the previous previ ous method by performing the effect up until the point where you would usually reveal the card and at the last minute have the spectator modify their card slightly. As you seemingly don don’t’t know what card the spectator s pectator is focusing focusi ng on, it will still be impressive to them if you have somehow used that knowledge to get them to change attributes about their thought-of card in order to have it match a prediction or card you wish to force. Naturally, the ability to be able to do this would be very useful in situations where the force of a playing card is required in your routine. Te way we would do this thi s is to simply use what Peter urner refers to as “piggy-backing.” He uses this technique within his mental card-forcing work. What he does is he gets the spectator to a psychologically appealing card that would be easier to force and then from that position directs the spectator to either change the value by going up or down so many cards or has them change the suit. For example, if he knows they are focusing on the Queen of Hearts and he needs to force the Jack of Spades he may something along the lines of: “Whatever card you are on now, go down 1 in terms of value and change the suit to whatever it’s complete opposite would be. If it is a red suit, change to a black suit and vice versa.” In fact, he actually uses the O Force and and first mentally guides the spectator to the Queen of Hearts without the spectator ever saying anything out loud. Tis way, way, he is able to cover any of the picture cards he needs to force.
37
The Small Quiet Qui et Voice— Voice— Silent Queions Sr Sign Anagm Anag m by Peter Peter Turner Turner While helping Peter urner urner film his definitive DVD set Devil in Disguise 2, 2, I mentioned to him something I had h ad been working on that involved obtaining a cue from the participant. Tis is very odd thinking, as you would usually use cueing techniques the opposite o pposite way around with the spectator being the one who is cued by the performer. At the time, I was playing with the idea of the spectator blinking as a way to signify s ignify a specific answer to the questions I was posing. I wanted a way to always know if the spectator was answering “yes” or “no” silently in their head and realised just how useful this would be for obtaining information that could be broken down into 2 or 3 questions which conform to this binary yes/no form of questioning. Te idea for this strange reversal of the classic instant stooging stoogi ng form of cueing came out of a much broader concept I had discussed with Ross ayler ayler and mentioned to Peter urner urner in the past. I have always thought it would be great to be able to perform any of the “wo-Person Code” effects one on one—using the mind of the spectator only—without onl y—without the need for a third party or accomplice who can secretly transmit t ransmit the information to you. My original idea was for the spectator to code me the information without realizing they were doing so. I know that Robert Costly has also worked on this concept in a written form and you should definitely check out his work on this—it is beautiful! I still feel I have not fully explored this concept but what I am now sharing certainly seems to be a step in the right direction to being able to achieve similar results in terms of effect and how what you do outwardly appears to the audience. As well as finding a way for the spectator to cue the performer secretly secretly and and without any any audience members being aware that this thi s was taking place, it was important that the spectator didn didn’t’t feel they were “in on it ” or just “playing along” and and that this method didn’t didn’t rely on the usual gambit of creating an instant stooge situation. In addition, it was important to me that this method also completely fooled the t he spectator. After jamming with Peter Peter,, I realized that my original thought when conceiving this method— that of receiving the cues from the spectator by instructing them to squeeze my hand on a specific answer—was, in fact, the best solution. Having the spectator blink ended up with a script that was too convoluted. answer ing me back with a whisper w hisper as I am whispering Note: I have also played with the spectator answering 38
Fraser Parker
instructions to them à la Peter urner’s Bob principle. I think I may have mentioned this to Peter before he shared his idea for receiving cues from the spectator with a hand squeeze (which is also an old idea of Pete’s he tipped to me a few years before I started playing with these newer ideas along these lines). However, what makes my use of this type of cue so interesting is the way I eliminate the spectator feeling like they are simply helping the performer per former and playing along as well as how I ensure they are also completely fooled. I will explain how I do this later on; but for now, I want to teach you the method Peter first used this idea for when working w orking out the scripting that allows allo ws this technique to fly right past your audience member’s perception and remain unnoticed. He first used this idea within the context of a star sign anagram. Naturally, Naturally, if you apply these reverse cues to an anagram the spectator will not feel like they are “in on it” or stooged in any way. Tis is because they will only be tipping the same information they would normally be doing anyway if you were performing perf orming the anagram the standard way (with the spectator verbalizing verbalizing their answers). What is beautiful about applying this technique to an anagram is the t he spectator now never has to verbalize a “no” —in —in fact, they never say anything out o ut loud whatsoever. Of course, the use of this method creates a “Dual Reality” situation where the audience members get a slightly better effect and version of events than the spectator. However, the spectator will still get the same s ame pay-off as they would normally from the use of an anagram and the subsequent reveal of their star sign and will still be completely fooled—albeit along slightly different lines to the audience. o the audience members, the spectator stays completely o completely silent and simply answers “yes” or or “no” in their head—without giving anything away—and the performer is able to pick up on these answers telepathically. However, to the spectator all that is happening is they are communicating with the performer in a different manner and instead of verbalizing their answer they are squeezing the performer’s hand on the correct information. If changing what you do slightly allows for what you would normally perform to be seen as something even more incredible to onlookers, then why wouldn’t you perform it that way!? Tis is all al l that is really happening by applying applyi ng “Dual Reality” Realit y” in this situation. Tis is more in in line with how Kenton intended “Dual Reality” to be used when he first started to teach his applications of the principle. It should not be used to create wildly different realities where the spectator and audience members experience something completely different. In fact, its proper use ties up both of the slightly different realities created and on a deeper level involves both the realities of the spectator and audience members playing off each other. Tis creates a situation in which whatever they say to each other after the fact f act actually helps to bolster each other’s experience of the effect and causes the illusion to be cemented even 39
Te Book of Angels
further—in terms of a shared reality—as opposed to quickly becoming unravelled as soon as they talk to each other. Here is how Peter urner urner uses this technique with his update on the classic c lassic star sign anagram. Naturally, this can also be used for any anagram you already use to divine any specific piece of information your spectator is merely thinking of. Please don’t don’t skip over this section of the book as it i t will also give you an understanding for how the scripting works and will help you better understand its other uses later on. For those of you not familiar with the th e star sign anagram, let me briefly explain. Essentially, it is a branching anagram where you throw out letters from a star sign in a specific order and as soon as you receive a “no” from from your spectator—denoting that particular letter is not present in their sign—you are instantly down to two star signs they could be thinking of. I will not teach this effect any further, as many of you will already be familiar with Peter’s version of the anagram; and if not then it is readily available av ailable from dealers at a good price. You You will only ever receive one “no” response response from your participant par ticipant with Peter’s version. Terefore, all you need the spectator to cue you on is this “no” response response and you will have all of the information you need to nail down on their star sign using whichever two-way out you wish to use. Tis ensures the process stays simplified and the cue stays hidden h idden to onlookers, as you are only getting a cue once from the participant during this routine. Here is the script and an example of this effect playing out, o ut, along along with the explanation: “I want to ask you a question and it’s going to seem a very strange question. But, in a moment it will make complete sense. Do you know what NVC is?” Spectator: “No.” “So, NVC is Non-Verbal Communication. It’s a way of communicating with someone else without speaking out loud. Now being a mind reader, I know only too well how to do that. But, there are different examples in other o ther walks of life. For example, someone who is deaf will use sign language. Or if you’ve ever been with a partner long enough, you can often look at them and know exactly what they are thinking without them saying a word.” Tis is a way of framing the method method as well as the effect, so that the cues will make sense to the spectator and are entirely justified by the theatrics theatr ics of the piece. “Now in a moment I am going to try tr y to pick up on letters in your star sign, and you are going to tell me if I am right or wrong when I pick up on those letters—without saying a word, all right?” “So, give me your hands and I will tell you what it is I need you to do.” 40
Fraser Parker
Here Pete holds both of his hands out palm upwards, inviting the spectator to hold on to his hands. Tey will now place their hands outstretched and hold on to both of his hands with their palms down. It is important you give further fur ther instructions here, if needed, directing them to grip your hands so that both thumbs from each each of their hands are in contact contact with the backs of your hands and vice versa (to ensure the method will work properly). Te justification given for needing such a grasp—ensuring you are properly properl y connected to each other physically—is so that you can establish a psychic connection that will help you to read their mind. You can either state this verbally or carry this belief within your silent script (and never actually state it outwardly) in order to provide a reason that will satisfy onlookers. “So, I want you to look at me. In a moment, when I say these letters to you, I’m just going to tell you what I am picking up on. If it’ it ’s a ‘yes’ and it is in there, I want you to concentrate on it being in there and keep a poker face. But, just tell me I’m correct in your head; that’s that’s all I want you to do if it’s a ‘yes’.” “If it’s a ‘no’ I want you to do something slightly different —I —I just don’t want you to worry; I don’t want you to worry about what’s going on in our heads... [squeeze] HA’S all I want you to do, if it’s a ‘no’.” Here is where you give an example of the physical cue you want the spectator to give you whenever they are focusing on a “no” response. response. First of all, you say you don’t want the spectator to worry and then pause slightly. Tis breaks up the instruction into two separate parts where the spectator only takes notice of the second half of the statement: “…[squeeze] HA’S all I want you to do if it is a ‘no’.” If you pause and then squeeze their hand at the same time as delivering the above scripting, then the spectator will understand fully what it is they are to do. Tey will understand that they are to squeeze your hand in exactly the same way you just did theirs whenever their mental response is a “no” and and the letter you name is not one of the letters in their star sign. Te audience members looking on—who are unaware of the secret cue of the hand squeeze— will put both of these sentences together in their minds and believe that you mean for the spectator to simply not worry worr y about what is going on in both bo th their own head and the performer’s mind at the point a “no” response response comes up. You now give a little reminder to the spectator as to what it is they are to do if it’s a “no” You response. Tis just ensures they don’t don’t get confused or miss the instruction, as well as encourages them to verbalize any misunderstanding that may arise at this point in the routine. “So, you know what to do if it’ it ’s a ‘yes’ and you know what to do if it’ it ’s a ‘no’ [squeeze].” Here you simply give the example of the cue again when you say the word “no.” 41
Te Book of Angels
I will now continue along with the scripting and performance example, so you can see just how well this effect plays out when combined with all of the other gambits we would typically t ypically use when divining a star sign with the use of an anagram. Tis really is a beautiful method that allows you to seemingly pick up on the silent answers merely thought of in the mind of the spectator—telepathically spectator—telepathical ly and without them ever saying a word. Te audience members will never notice the subtle hand squeeze cues going on between you and your spectator and will be completely fooled by this method. “So, look at me. Tere’s an ‘R’ in this... and an ‘A’ as well. Keep sending me the letters. Tere’s an ‘I’ in there as well. Keep telling me them. An ‘S’... keep telling me these letters. Just drop your hands for a second.” You Y ou may notice the use of a subtle “context “context shift” shift ” taking place here. “Look at me and imagine your star sign written in the air air,, and focus on the exact amount of letters in your star sign.” We also make use of Michael Murray’s CUP’s principle We principle to nail down the exact star sign the spectator is focusing on. “ You You’re ’re thinking of Libra, this time?” Spectator: Spectat or: “ Yeah Yeah!” !” Tis is how the effect played out when Peter Peter was first testing it on me during one of our many jamming sessions, which is why he had me focus on a random sign; s ign; but, naturally natural ly,, the same method can be used to divine the spectator’s actual sign. Note: If you get all of the way to the end of the anagram without a “no” response from the spectator then simply throw out Aries as you would if you were receiving verbal responses. If you are incorrect then you will instantly know the spectator hasn’t hasn’t followed your cueing instructions. Here I would just move on and perform per form a different effect e ffect altogether, altogether, rather than belabouring belabouring the effect e ffect and trying try ing again with the spectator answering out loud.
You should always make sure your spectator understands the cueing instructions fully by using them in a smaller effect first (such as the star sign anagram) before applying these cues to the other effects covered in this book. Pablo Amira and Luca Volpe have also played with reversing the classic cueing methods in order for the spectator to cue the performer. I have a slightly different handling than Peter when it comes to how I hold hands with the spectator and the specific word I use to notify the spectator of the cue. Tese small details will be addressed in the following section. 42
Tell Tale—Truth Tale—Truth Teller or Liar Now you have the basic handling for how to secretly set up your participant to cue you on a specific mental answer, I will show you a few ways I eliminate any notion the spectator may have that they are acting as a stooge of some kind. As already mentioned, using the previous cueing technique with an anagram is absolutely fine due to the fact the spectator will still be as fooled by the anagram method as they would normally. However, when it comes to having the spectator answering any binary question silently in their head instead answer with a physical cue there needs to be an additional layer of deception added into the proceedings. I want the spectator to be able to answer any questions I ask with a mental “yes” entirely entirely in their heads and to apply a hand squeeze cue to my hand whenever their mental answer is a “no” —without —without the spectator ever feeling they are just jus t secretly helping you and crassly giving up the information to you. My solution to this problem was to establish a “ruth eller or Liar” situation where the spectator would believe there was no way for you to know if they were playing the role of a truth teller (and always answering with the truth) or they were taking on the role of a liar (and always telling a lie). What is beautiful about this is the fact that no matter what answers you now receive from the spectator, the addition of the spectator playing the role of a truth teller or liar seemingly unbeknownst to the performer ultimately obscures their real answer and renders the cues seemingly worthless in terms of being able to help you in any way. It is this additional layer of deception which ensures the spectator remains completely fooled throughout your performance. Tis would, in fact, work if they spectator were to answer your questions verbally as long as they believe there is no way for you to know which role they are playing. I have a few different ways to establish this “ruth eller eller or Liar” situation and a few different methods which cause the spectator to believe there is no way for you to know their real answers or actual thought processes. Here is a simple si mple way to set up the “ruth eller eller or Liar” Liar ” whenever a deck of cards is already in play and being used within your set of o f effects. Tis is one of the easiest and quickest quic kest ways to establish this connection with your spectator. I would recommend recommend using this whenever whenever you are are adding additional process to your performance. For instance, in a “silent answers” routine where you plan to use the spectator hand squeeze cues 43
Te Book of Angels
as an additional layer of deception within your routine. I begin by apparently trying to simply divine divi ne a playing card selected at random by the spectator from a deck of cards. “I would like to begin by using a deck of playing cards. Tis Tis is a collection of fifty-two different symbols which, due to their visual nature, allow me to much more easily get inside of other people’s heads and tune in with their thought processes.” Tis scripting justifies the use of playing cards, while at the same time establishes you will be starting with an easier set of information to hopefully more easily get in tune with your spectator’s thoughts. It also means that the apparent failure of you guessing their card which comes in a moment will make sense. It will seem you haven’t haven’t been able to fully tune in with their thoughts yet. Here I perform an Eddie Fetcher Drop Force and force a playing card on the spectator. For example, let’s say I force the 3 of Hearts. Te card you force doesn’t matter as long as it is not close to the card you are going to miscall in a moment. I have the spectator look at and remember the card they just selected and then place it back in the deck and shuffle the deck. Tis happens as I look away, away, to be sure everyone ever yone watching knows there is no way I could know which card the spectator is focusing on. Te deck is placed on the table in front of the spectator and then I instantly begin to attempt to divine their thought-of playing card. What follows is a ruse r use Peter urner urner uses in his hi s Unnamed name name guess from Devil in Disguise 2.. He uses it for a different purpose altogether, to achieve one of my favourite effects on the 2 project. Essentially, you are going to completely fail at the playing card divination and then dismiss it as unimportant. Tis is a kind of “Context Shift Shift”” in and of itself. Apparently Apparently,, you are not able to divine any of the details about the spectator’s thought-of card. Terefore, any of the forcing procedure, use of a deck of cards and any notion of method is also entirely discarded as unimportant—in not only the spectator’s mind but also in the th e minds of everyone ever yone watching. “Okay, just focus on your card. I’ I ’m confident I’ve I ’ve got this—it’s a King? Te King of Spades?” Spectator: “No.” “Really? You’re You’re sure? Just go back and focus on your card—it’s not the King?” Spectator: “No.” 44
Fraser Parker
“Sh–t! Well, this has failed before it has even started!” “Okay, forget about the card for now. Perhaps we will come back to it, later. I think I will be better at picking up on other information from you.” Tis seeming failure on your part will convince everyone ever yone that there is no way you know any of the details about the spectator’s thought-of card… c ard… period. Why else would you fail so spectacularly? Tey have to assume you wouldn’ wouldn’t, t, and therefore you you also don’t don’t know any of the details about their card. Tis is the handling hand ling Peter urner urner created and it is this outright guess and subsequent failure that makes it so nice! My previous way of handling the situation was to simply struggle to get the card and move into something else without actually guessing a card. Tis is the main difference between what I was doing and how Peter allowed everything to play out in his version of the ruse. Te similarity was that we were were both saving information to be used secretly later on in our performance. It is a beautiful moment that should be played up by the performer and acted out to the best of their abilities, in order to convince everyone watching that the performer has really failed. It helps if you build up the reveal by acting entirely confident that you know their card before revealing the wrong card. In addition to acting confident, you should also get the spectator to double-check their thoughts—as if you believe they must have made a mistake instead of you. Ten begin to come to terms with the failure, pausing for a moment to build an air of awkwardness. Tis will ultimately lead everyone to feel sorry for you and believe you have entirely failed. Tis is clever and the position you want to be in theatrically, as it will also lead everyone to believe there truly is no way for you to know any of the details about the spectator’s spectator ’s thought-of card. Tis is Peter’s Peter’s addition to the ruse and the reason this becomes so fooling. It makes what comes next entirely fooling and above suspicion: “In fact, I often find it useful to reverse appearances to find truth. So, what I want you to do is this: if your card is a red card I I want you to always tell the truth from now on. If it is a black card then then always lie to me , okay?” Here I simply use a detail about their card I secretly know—due to the fact it is a force card—in order to control which role they will play; they will either be a truth teller or will always lie. Te line,“I line, “I find it useful use ful to reverse appearances appearances to find truth,” is is a nice way to theatrically set up the premise of a “ “ ruth eller eller or Liar” L iar” routine, routine, while also giving a reason for why you would need to set up such a situation. Apparently, it will help you to tune in to your spectator’s thoughts. It will make sense this is what you need to do, due to your seeming failure at guessing their thought-of card. 45
Te Book of Angels
Tere will sometimes be an inconsistency created by this line of scripting from a theatrical standpoint, as it only really makes sense if the spectator decides to lie. However, this is not something that is noticed by the spectator and serves as a nice seeming justification for the process either way. I prefer to not overstate the “ “ ruth eller eller or Liar” L iar” presentation and leave my reasoning for this vague, due to the fact that I prefer mystery over an explanation as to how I am doing what it is I am doing. I feel the standard s tandard use for the “ruth eller eller or Liar” plot feels a little li ttle too psychological in nature and once you begin to explain you are looking for body language cues it loses some s ome of the mystery and becomes too much like a game you are playing with your participant. What is nice about this situation si tuation is you can decide if you always want the spectator to tell the truth or to always lie. It is a simple case of linking whichever whiche ver role you want them to play to the piece of information infor mation you already know about their card—namely, card—namely, its colour. Now, because the spectator entirely believes there is no way for you to know this information, they will also believe there is no way for you to know if they are going to be lying or telling the truth; this will make the answers they give to the questions which follow seemingly irrelevant in terms of being able to help you in any way. Why this additional layer of deception is so useful is because it allows you to now ask multiple multiple binary questions (which have yes/no answers) in a row in order to divine practically any piece of information with no extra work. Naturally, you Naturally, you can now either simply have the spectator respond verbally or use the cues already described to seemingly pick up on silent answers only ever e ver stated inside the spectator’s spectator ’s head. If using this without witho ut the cues, with the spectator answering out loud, I would suggest calibrating their role to that of a liar. Doing so prevents the audience from easily following fol lowing the spectator’s answers. Tis ensures onlookers don’t arrive at whatever piece of information you are going for before you reveal this piece of information yourself—which could potentially ruin the impact of the effect for your audience. If, however, you are using this within the context of the secret cues then I suggest always calibrating the spectator to that of a truth teller. Tis is to ensure the process doesn’t become convoluted and difficult for the spectator to follow along due to the addition of extra process required to make the cues work. Tey will, of course, be able to answer with the truth much more easily than if they were playing the role of a liar. Tis is due to the fact that this is their natural state, as well as not having to reverse their answers to tell a lie. Te use of the card force with a calibration towards them telling the truth is therefore the clearest for the spectator to follow when adding in the process of the silent cues. I am now in the perfect position to silently receive answers from my spectator using the cueing 46
Fraser Parker
method taught previously, in order to divine practically any information—leaving everyone fooled, in the process. I said in the previous section I would teach my specific handling on the th e hand squeeze cue. Here is how I use these cues within the context of the update for my star sign guess Ploy . For example, let’s imagine I have just failed on the card as previously discussed and set up the ruth ruth eller/Liar eller/Liar with the spectator. “Okay, so it is important if you are telling the truth, you always answer with the truth; and if you are a liar then always lie—whenever I ask you a question.” “Tink about your answer before saying anything out loud, so that you don’t hesitate and give away whether you are lying or telling the truth.” “In fact, just give me your hand for a moment.” Here I hold out my right hand, palm up. Once I receive their right hand facing palm down into my right hand, I place my left hand on top. Tis creates a nice aesthetic theatrically and is reminiscent of psychic readers and how they would traditionally establish a connection with their sitter. It also means that any movement caused by either you or the spectator cueing with a hand squeeze is largely covered by your other hand. If you are mainly applying pressure with your thumb to the back of their hand, then it is important that you cover both your and their thumbs with your left hand (or whichever hand is placed on top of theirs, thei rs, which which is acting as a cover). “Whenever I ask you these questions qu estions I want you to stay completely silent and only answer these tr uths or lies in your head, okay?” It will make sense that you now want the spectator to answer only in their head. Tis is to ensure that they cannot give anything away with the tone of their voice, any uncertainty they may have or hesitancy before answering out loud. Tis appears to the spectator to be why you have changed to a silent approach, as well as making it seem that much more impressive to the audience due to the “Dual “D ual Reality” Reality ” now at play. “So, if your answer to my question is a ‘yes’ I want you to imagine screaming this answer at me in your head. If it’s a ‘no’ ‘no’ I don’t don’t want you to worry wor ry about what is going goin g on in our ou r heads. [Squeeze] HA HA’S ’S all I want you to do if it’ it ’s a ‘no’. So, you know what to do if your answer is a ‘yes’ and what to do if it’s a ‘no’ [Squeeze].” Tis scripting scri pting should be self-explanatory self-explanator y to those who have already read the previous section explaining the spectator cue. If you haven’t read this part, then do so now or else none of this will make much sense to you. Instead of using the phrase, “HA’S all I want you to do if it’s a ‘no’” I I actually prefer to say, 47
Te Book of Angels
“HIS is all I want you to do if it’s a no.” Peter Peter prefers the previous version, but I find it flows better and is more deceptive when using the word “HIS” to to prompt the tactile cue. You can now ask any binary question of your spectator and at the same time create the You illusion they are merely answering in their head and you are able to pick up on these answers telepathically. I would suggest asking each of these questions at different points during a set in between the performance of other effects. Some will prefer to ask all the questions ques tions in a row required to know a specific piece of information, to get the work out of the way. However, I prefer to keep on coming back to the spectator— each time taking hold of their hand again and asking the next question. It is important if you decided to break up the questions in your set during your performance that you always remind the spectators to stay in character and only answer in their heads. Tis is not so important if you have guided them to always tell the truth, as this will be how someone would answer naturally. naturally. Tey will therefore not not likely deviate in their role, even though you did did not give them a reminder. reminder. “Okay, just hold my hand and do exactly the same thing again. Remember, don’t say anything out loud and always tell the truth if you are a truth teller and always lie if you are playing the part of a liar. Here’s my second question...” Using the words “do exactly the same thing again” ensures ensures they will remember to act the same way they did on the previous question quest ion and follow all of your previous instructions in the same way.. It is a way of calling back way back to the previous previous process quickly and efficiently efficiently,, without having to go through the entire process again. By the third or fourth question, they should know exactly what you want them to do without having to be reminded—as they would have now become fully accustomed to the proceedings. I would likely just remind them to stay silent on these subsequent questions. “Okay, hold my hand. Again, stay completely silent... [Question 3?].” Something else nice that I have been doing is to use the following subtlety (I only perform this bit if I have at least one “yes” answer answer amongst the answers to my questions). After I have finished asking the questions for f or which I need answers to and have already let go of the spectator’s spectator ’s hand and begun to turn back to face the rest of the group, I stop in my tracks and turn back to face the spectator s pectator.. “I was unclear on one of these questions. So, I am going to ask it again. Stay completely completely silent and only answer in your head.” I then repeat whichever question I had a “yes” response response to. Tis bolsters the illusion of telepathy for everyone ever yone else watching, as well as helps to cancel out any notion of a physical method. Tis 48
Fraser Parker
is due to the fact that I apparently no longer need to hold my spectator’s hand to receive my impressions. Now that we have discussed my particular handling, subtleties and scripting for this, I will show you the quickest way to get to a star sign reveal using questions that only have yes/no answers. Te first first question I would would ask when trying to nail down down which star sign the spectator is focusing on is: “Were “W ere you born in the first half of the year?” Tis instantly narrows down the potential star signs they could be thinking of by half (from 12 possible signs to t o only 6). Actually, Actually, this is not quite true because of signs which cross over more than one month. Tis will be dealt with later l ater on. I would usually delineate which of the signs would be considered existing in the first and second half of the year by first outlining which month numbers fit into which respective half of the year. So, the full script would be as follows: “Were “W ere you born in the first half of the year? Tis would be within the months 1-6.”
Due to the fact we are already used to writing the month we were born as a number on certain forms and documents, the spectator should have no problem working out if they fit into this category of being born in the first half of the year or not. Tey will then answer accordingly, depending on which method you are using to obtain this information covertly covertl y. Naturally, this piece of information also gives you six potential signs they could be. Well, that is not quite true; because each sign crosses over two months, there are two extra possible signs the spectator could be focusing focusi ng on depending on which half of the year you are dealing with. For example, the star sign Capricorn crosses over from the end of December into the start of January, so Capricorn becomes a problem sign si gn when we know the spectator was born in the first half of the year. If they were born in the second half of the year, then the other potentially problematic sign is Cancer. Tese are easy to remember as they are the only star signs which both begin with the letter C. Tis really isn’t isn’t a problem, as you will see when you ask the following series of questions: “Are you one of the water signs: Pisces or Cancer?” Tis is the second question ques tion we will need to ask to nail down on the star sign. If the spectator indicates a “yes” response response by not squeezing your hand at this point, then you will now know they are either a Pisces or Cancer sign. Ten you can use one of the two-way outs already discussed in this book to nail down on the exact star sign. 49
Te Book of Angels
In fact, you you will always be down to two outs when applying these questions in this way. way. If you receive a “no” response response and a squeeze of the hand from your participant, then you simply continue to the next question. quest ion. Tis is a different form of the anagram where instead of throwing out letters you are, in fact, asking multiple questions instead: “Are you one of the Earth signs: aurus or Capricorn?” If you receive a “yes” response here, then you know they are either a aurus or Capricorn. Not only are you now down to two potential signs, you have also dealt with the potentially problematic cross-over sign of Capricorn. Te way we ask these questions is important; we make it seem a lot less general and more intuition-based by asking if they are a star sign belonging to one of the elements. Tis makes it seem as if we are first trying to get a sense of their overall characteristics and traits based on which element their star sign would fall into, before guessing their exact star sign. If you instead receive a “no” response response at this point, then you will be down to the three signs left: lef t: Aquarius, Aries or o r Gemini. Now, Now, with one additional question, you can further fur ther narrow these signs down to one or two: “Is this the sign of the twins, Gemini?” Tis looks as if you are only now starting to be specific specific with your questioning. If you get a “yes” response now, now, then you you can simply wrap w rap up the effect with the following scripting: “It is. Good!” It will appear as if you are simply confirming your impression that they are indeed a Gemini to be true. If you get a “no” response, response, then you will be down to Aquarius or Aries Ar ies as the signs the spectator could be focusing on. It is now a simple matter of applying applyi ng one of the two-way outs already discussed in this book [see Ploy ] whenever dealing with two possible star signs. Tis seems to have become an acceptable compromise within the modern approach to star sign divinations—utilizing methods that always result in one or two star sign outs. Not only are two outs easy to deal with without any loss of impact to the routine, using a process that leads to two outs usually ensures the method stays streamlined. Naturally, the structure of these questions will also work perfectly Naturally, perf ectly for the signs contained in the second half of the year; it is a simple matter of interchanging each of the star signs relating to the first half of the year with those found in i n the second half of the year year.. Here is how the questions would play out when dealing with star signs from the second half of 50
Fraser Parker
the year and the order you would deliver each of o f these if you were to get a “no” response response on the question which precedes it: 1. “Are you one of the Fire signs: Leo or Sagittarius?” 2. “Are you one of the Water signs: Cancer or Scorpio?” 3. “Are you the sign associated with balance: Libra?” Tis covers the potential problematic “cross-over” sign Cancer as well as covers all of the signs found in the second half of the year. year. If you get a “no” on on all of these thes e questions, then the two star signs you are left with will be Virgo and Capricorn. If you wish to limit the amount of questions your spectator has to answer in their head in this routine then you can ask the first question—“W question—“Were ere you born in the first half of the year?” —in —in the form of a hanging statement before setting up the hand squeeze cue and going into the routine proper.. Terefore, it will seem as if they only really answer three questions mentally proper mentally.. Tis, of course, is the worst case in this particular routine and isn’t really even a problem as everything is seemingly answered silently in their heads and there is no way you could know the true answers given each time ti me by the spectator. o learn how to ask the first question concerning the first and second half of the year in a way o that allows the spectator to openly state their th eir answer and it still seem as if you knew the correct answer and weren’t weren’t simply just asking, refer to the effect Ploy taught taught elsewhere in this book. Tis is just one example of what these cues can be used for. Tese cues and what information infor mation they can be used to divine is only limited by your imagination; all you need to do is consider how information can be expressed in terms of binary binar y questions that can only be answered with “yes” or or “no” answers. answers.
Te Wrap Wrap Up What is nice about the way we use a deck of cards along with a force of a playing card to set up a ruth eller/Liar effect is the fact the thought-of playing card can be called back to later on. We can redirect the spectator back to focusing on their previous thought-of card and— now that we are seemingly more in tune with their thought process—nail the thought-of card (taking back the “hit” in the process). Tis brings everything full circle, as well as allowing everything to wrap up perfectly. “Now that I feel we are in tune with each other’s thoughts, focus on the card you originally took out of the deck. Obviously, we now know this is a red card. So, just just focus on the suit for me.” Obviousl y, we know their card as it was “forced” on them at the start of the routine. You Obviously You are now free to use whatever pseudo-presentation you prefer to reveal their thought-of card. c ard. 51
Truth Teller or Liar— No Force Gho Card I was jamming this effect with my friend Benjamin Sleight over Skype and he helped to come up with the following. It is by no means necessary necessar y but might be an additional layer of deception you want to use. After missing on the spectator’s card, give the following instructions: “In fact, just jump to a completely different card, card, mentally [snap fingers]. It doesn’t matter about the other card, as that’s already lost somewhere in the deck.” What is beautiful about this situation is the spectator will now have a card in mind that is entirely mental and is seemingly not linked to the previous physical card selection or the deck in any way. However, their mental card and the physical card selection will in fact be linked together. Te spectator will usually think of a card with an opposing colour to whatever colour the force card is, when asked to jump to a completely different card mentally. Because the spectator is instructed to think of a card that is completely different to the one they just looked lo oked at, they will do so in the easiest way they can imagine, which will be to change the colour entirely and choose a suit of this opposing colour. Tis is so subtle it will fly right ri ght past the spectator and everyone watching. If you wish, you can be even more explicit with your instructions and direct the spectator change to a different colour than the card they just looked at. As you seemingly don’t don’t know the force card, you also could not logically lo gically know the card they will wil l change to either. I prefer using the more subtle form for m of this ruse, and leave it up to the spectator to change to the opposite colour on their own without any further instruction from me. Tis will make what comes next seem absolutely absolutel y fair and entirely removed from any notion of trickery or indeed that anything of the sort would even possible. “If you are now focusing on a black card, I want you to always tell the truth. If this is a red card, then always lie to me.” Now, you can use the binary cues to divine an entirely thought-of playing card—or get all of the answers you need pertaining to this thought-of card—alongside performing a different routine. Ten place their playing card face down in front of the spectator and reveal whatever other piece of information you were going for. Get the hit and then ask them what card they were only thinking of. 52
Fraser Parker
Ten it is a simple matter to instruct the spectator to turn tur n over the face down card, in order to prove you knew everything! Naturally, you have to place the card face down before the reveal of whatever other piece of information you have also divined using the cues. Tis then acts as a kind of prediction, once you have shown you knew what they were thinking and could therefore follow along with their mental answers. If you revealed the card first, then th en any subsequent reveal would be made redundant from the spectator’s perspective. Tey may imagine you could backtrack from their answers given to reveal the other piece of information, now that you know you were correct with the information and have therefore calibrated to their cues. Tis would cause the spectator’s reaction to be stilted, sti lted, if not entirely mute. Terefore, this would be the wrong order in which to reveal these two different pieces of information. If you want instead to reveal both pieces of information verbally verbal ly,, then you would need to reveal both at the same time. Tis will mitigate the problem which arises when you have multiple revelations based on the same root information or cues.
53
Truth Teller or Liar Billets I have included two billets bill ets or folded pieces of card with each purchase of this limited l imited book. Note: Tese should not be referred to in performance as “billets”; instead, simply call them what they are—folded pieces of card. Tis will place no importance on the billets themselves and will also avoid audience members researching the word “billet” “billet ” and discover methods in the process.
Tese should have arrived with a sticker denoting which number your book is out of the two hundred copies printed. You are free to place this sticker wherever you choose on this book’s cover or somewhere on its inside. Te billets are very special, as they allow you to always know which billet bill et out of o f the two t wo your spectator has held in their hands. Tey each have a different artwork printed on their face: the billet signifying si gnifying the truth tr uth has an Angel printed on it, whereas the billet signifying a lie has a little Devil Dev il illustration on its face. Te idea behind these billets is for the spectator to pick up and hold whichever of these billets signifies the role they have decided to play during a ruth eller/Liar routine, in order to be able to secretly notify onlookers which role they have decided upon. What ’s so ingenious What’s ingenious about these billets is the way in which we are able to secretly secretly know which of these billets the spectator has picked up and held onto for a few seconds before placing it back with the other billet on the table and mixing them together—all while we are turned away and cannot see what it is they are doing. One of the billets—namely the billet with the little Devil drawn on its face—is in fact marked in a very ver y special way. Hidden within the design which makes up the shading on the Devil, De vil, there there are two places where the design is blocked out with a different ink. In fact, this is a type t ype of paint called “thermochromic” paint and is temperature sensitive. Tis paint looks exactly like l ike the solid black ink i nk used to print the designs on each of the billets bill ets and blends into the overall design of the billet it is applied to— hiding in plain sight perfectly. Yet, Y et, when the billet is activated by the heat of the spectator’s hand this mark turns entirely transparent and effectively disappears. Tis is more akin to a reverse marking or marking which disappears; for fo r example, a dry erase mark that can be wiped off purposefully by the performer or unknowingly by the spectator. However,, this works with the body temperature of your spectator. However 54
Fraser Parker
Te paint is set to activate at body temperature, providing your spectator is already at a standard room temperature and don’t already have cold hands for any reason (such as having just come from outside or having recently washed their hands in cold water). What is great about hiding this type t ype of marking within the line art of the billet design is the fact that no discernible change in the design will be noticed by your spectator or audience members. Te design on the billet appears practically the same whether the paint is in its solid black state or has turned completely transparent, due to it being hidden in the design itself. I only mark one of these billets; this allows me to essentially essentiall y discern which of the two has been picked up by the spectator. Te reasoning for the spectator s pectator picking picki ng up one of these billets is so that they can place their energy into it. You direct the spectator to choose a billet based on whether they have decided to lie or tell the truth: obviously, instructing them to pick up the billet with an Angel drawn on it if they are playing the role of a truth teller and the Devil if they have chosen to always lie during the routine. You will always direct the spectator to hold it in one of their hands in a closed fist. Tis ensures You they will make contact with the billet in the areas where the paint has been applied in order for it to become activated and turn transparent. I make sure I am looking away at this point, for obvious reasons. I wait a few seconds for the billet to have activated and then with my head still turned away from proceedings, instruct the spectator to mix the two billets together on the table and give me a “yes” when when they have finished doing so. Note: Always test how long it takes for the billet to become activated and for the markings to disappear entirely before using these in performance, so that you will know how long you will have to leave the billet in the spectator’s spectator’s hand during performance. per formance. Performers will be performing in different countries— each of which have their own environmental conditions—as well as performing environments that differ; all of these factors need to be taken into account when using these billets.
Next, I turn back around and take either of the billets in my fingertips as I apparently sense energy from it with my other hand. After a couple of seconds, I place it to the side. si de. I then pick up the other billet and perform perfor m the same actions, discarding it with the other billet as if neither are that important. “In fact, we don’t need these any more. Tis was just to help me get a feeling for what you may have gone for.” Naturally, you have very casually and easily taken note of whether any of the markings on the “liar”” billet have turned transparent as you hold it briefly, while apparently sensing its energy in “liar order to discern which of the two billets contains the spectator’s energy. 55
Te Book of Angels
Ironically, you Ironically, you will in fact be taking taki ng note of which of the t he billets actually contains the spectator’s energy; the only difference being that this will wil l be their physical heat energy energ y from their hand as opposed to a psychic form of energy. You can now perform You per form the silent cues taught previously or any other routine that th at utilizes the ruth ruth eller/Liar eller/Liar plot. I have no problem performing per forming with the aesthetic of a psychic entertainer entertai ner,, so having the spectator hold the billet in their closed fist to place their energy into it makes sense theatrically within the context of my performance style. s tyle. However, However, I understand this will not suit everyone. Te way to work around this theatrical constraint is as follows. Instruct the spectator to pick up the billet that corresponds to whichever role they the y have decided to play and to hold it up so that everyone ever yone else knows which role they have decided upon. Next, direct them to hold it in their closed first so that if you were to turn around you would not be able to see which billet they have selected. Wait Wait a few seconds for the billet to activate, as if you are still waiting for the spectator to carry out your previous instruction and then continue with the script: “Have you done that? Good. In fact, mix both of pieces of card on the table and give me a ‘yes’ when it’s safe for me to turn around.” It will seem as if you have simply simpl y changed your mind as to what it is you wanted them to do to obfuscate which of the billets they have chosen. Instead of having them hide one of the billets in their closed fist and conceal the other by placing their other hand on top of it while it sits on the table, you decided to have the spectator mix the billets so they could be left in view out in the open on the table. Due to the fact the billets are marked on both sides, it will not matter which way up the spectator places the billet they picked up previously previousl y when placing it with the billet on the table. It should, therefore, be a simple task to casually glance at the billets on the table in order to discern which has been held by your spectator s pectator.. Tis happens in the action of moving them out of the way by sliding each of them one-by-one to the side of the table t able as you say: “Wee won’t be needing these anymore.” “W If the “liar” billet with the Devil design on it still has its markings, then you will know via logic that they have not picked up the “liar” billet; so, they must have picked up the “truth teller” billet—the one without any markings on it. If any of the “liar” billet’s markings have vanished from it and become transparent—leaving the white of the billet in its place—then you will know that logically this is the billet they have picked up and held onto. We can therefore use very basic logic to allow We all ow us to only onl y ever have to mark one of the billets to ultimately know which of the two the spectator has activated with the heat of their hand by 56
Fraser Parker
holding onto it in a closed fist. You may prefer to slide both billets to the side of the table at the same time as each other. It is You important you always “justify “justif y your gaze” gaz e” when when “peeking” or “glimpsing” markings markings or any other piece of information. infor mation. Here Here you will get your “glimpse” as you begin to move your hand towards the billets to move them. Tis is when you would naturally look towards the billets and your glimpse will therefore be entirely concealed and will not raise any suspicion—as it would if it were performed at the wrong moment in your performance. Tis final line of scripting will appear to everyone watching to mean the billets are no longer needed, as their usefulness as a means for the spectator to show everyone their choice without having to verbalize it—thereby ensuring it stays hidden from the performer—has perfo rmer—has already been achieved. Not Not only does this thi s apparent need for the billets entirely justify their use, it also means that the very moment in which they seemingly become useless within the routine—with the performer discarding these to one side—is in fact where they actually become useful to the performer!
Credits After coming up with my solution for f or the billets, I discovered that Ran Pink has a product on the market called P’ink P’ink that that does a similar job to the “thermochromic” paint but is actually ink contained within a pen. What I have done with this type t ype of substance is what makes my work on this really unique, in my opinion. Tose of you wishing to make your own billets may want to try tr y out Ran’s P’ink P’ink pens; pens; or if you want to go down the same route as me and and use paint, you can find this particular product as as well as many more interesting materials along similar lines at www.sfxc.co.uk.
57
Slip of the Tongue Te following method allows you to obtain a piece of information from the spectator in a very unconventional manner. manner. It is entirely prop-less and relies completely on the t he words you use and the shift in perception these words create—in order to complete the illusion and bring it full circle so that everyone remembers the effect in terms of real magic. magic. Tis is similar to previous effects using the re-frame. However, However, the main difference is how the “mental peek” peek” is handled—the spectator will be verbalizing their answer out loud for everyone to hear. What is beautiful is how the answer they give is subsequently re-framed to give it an entirely entirel y different meaning. Tis in itself indirectly suggests that even e ven the performer themselves has not understood the actual meaning of their answer, and therefore cannot make use of the answer or use it as a clue c lue for divining other information info rmation (as far as the spectator and audience members are concerned). Tis will become clearer as we move through the scripting I use. I will show you how I use this to obtain a simple piece of binary information that only has a yes/no answer and will then expand it for its use with the silent hand squeeze cues already discussed. “Were “W ere you born in the first half of the year?” Tis is the piece of information I use as a template for all of the work that follows, and it is the answer to this question I am hoping to obtain from my spectator with the following ploy. Naturally, obtaining this piece of information is useful when diving the star sign of your spectator. What follows could be used to divine literally any binary information during the course of a routine. I would only use this technique once. However, once I have explained the basic principle I will show you how you can use it to establish a ruth eller/Liar situation, which allows you to ask multiple questions without having to apply this method multiple multiple times. I begin with the following set up and scripting: “In a moment, I am going to ask you a question that relates to your personal life. If you were born in the first half of the year, within the Months 1–6, then I want you to answer with a ‘yes.’ If you were born in the second half of the year, within the Months 7–12, I want you to answer with a ‘no.’” ‘no.’” Here it is important to state which month numbers would be considered as falling in the first and second half of the year, to ensure no confusion arises at this point during duri ng the routine. 58
Fraser Parker
“So, have you ever had a psychic experience?” I now ask a seemingly unrelated question of the spectator; but, due to the previous instructions i nstructions and the fact this question comes right after af ter these instructions are given, the spectator understands they are to answer this question with a “yes” or or “no” response response based on the previous information you provided. Terefore, if they were born in the first half of the year you will get a “yes” response response from the spectator at this point and if they were born in the second half of the year you will get a “no.” Tis answer secretly tips you in to whether they were born in the first half or the second half of the year. Now we apply a soft sof t re-frame with the next piece of scripting, and in the process adjust—in the mind of the participant as well as those watching—the meaning of what has just come before. If the spectator responds with a “no,” then then we say the following. “Okay, what we are going to attempt will will hopefully still make some sense to you. It is nothing to worry about. Essentially, all that is going to to happen is you are going to silently send me a piece of information and I am going to try to pick up on this information telepathically.” If they respond with a “yes,” then then we deliver the same script with a slight adjustment: “Okay, what we are going to attempt should should therefore make some sense to you.” Tis scripting re-frames the answer they just gave as belonging to the generic question of “Have you ever had a psychic experience?” while while the words in bold suggest the process hasn’t hasn’t even started yet. Tis change of meaning and shift of context as to what has just taken place convinces the spectator that perhaps they made a mistake and answered your question in the wrong way. way. However, because you continue on with your script and performance as if the answer they just However, gave was a correct response to the question ques tion regarding their experiences with psychic phenomena, the spectator will believe you are unaware of this mistake and thus are not taking into account the fact they just revealed whether they were born in the first or second half of the year to you. If you have seemingly not connected their answer to the question of which half of the year they were born, then the fact they responded in the wrong way doesn’t doesn’t seem to matter in terms of the method; it will seem as if you still could not know if they were born in the first or second half of the year, even though they have given away this information by mistake. We then further bolster within the spectator’s mind this false perception of the true situation, We sit uation, with the following script: 59
Te Book of Angels
“In fact, it doesn’t doesn’t really matter if you have had a psychic experience or not. All I need you to do is stay completely silent and only answer this question relating to your personal life in your head.” Here we get rid of the notion that their previous answer was important. Tis will not only help the spectator to also disregard it as important, but it will also make it appear that we are not even acknowledging the answer or taking it into account. It will also ensure the spectator doesn’t try to correct their answer once they realise they answered the question quest ion incorrectly, incorrectly, whenever their first answer is at odds with their actual experience in terms of psychic phenomena. If they do begin to verbalize anything during the routine, then quickly “mute” “mute” the spectator by reminding them that you wish for them to stay silent. Tere is also a slight callback to the type of question you will soon be asking—a question relating to their “personal life.” Tis will help to solidify the notion in everyone’ ever yone’ss minds that the question referred to previously in the script has not yet been asked of the spectator. It is then the actual asking of the question that fully cements everyone’s reality and completes the illusion. “So, I am going to ask you this question now. Remember to stay completely silent and only answer in your head. Don’t Don’t nod or shake your head or give anything away. Were you born in the first half of the year?” Te statement, “I am going to ask you this question now,” also also helps to suggest you are only now asking the relevant question. Tey will now answer answer silently in their heads and you will already have the information you need to know the correct answer. answer. It will now appear to everyone ever yone that the only way for you to know the correct information must be if you were able to somehow pick up on their silent thoughts, thoughts , telepathically. telepathically.
60
Slip of the Tongue— Truth Teller/Liar I will now show you how I use the previous ploy for secretly obtaining a piece of binary information to set up and establish a ruth eller/Liar situation that allows you to apply the spectator hand squeeze cues to enable you to ask multiple questions—with the spectator always answering silently in their head—and always know the true answer to whatever questions you choose to ask. Te easiest way to teach how I do this is to simply show you with an example of the scripting I use. I begin with the same scripting scri pting already discussed in the section above, up until the point where I secretly know the information they the y have apparently just sent telepathically telepathical ly.. I typically typicall y use the same question frame surrounding which half of the year they were born, but this can be substituted substitut ed for any other binary binar y information you wish to know know.. Let’s imagine I am now in the position where I secretly know if they were born in the first or second half of the year—apparently made possible by the spectator sending me their answer mentally. For the purposes of this example, they answered my first general question—“Have question—“Have you ever had a psychic experience?” —with —with the word “yes” so so I know that the spectator was also born in the first half of the year. Here we pretend to be struggling to pick up anything from the spectator. “Okay, right away I’m struggling to pick up on anything from you. So, do you mind if we try this a few more times and I ask you a few different questions?” What is beautiful about the above scripting is the fact it suggests you don don’t’t know any information at this point in the routine. Te fact you need to change the process slightly slightl y by asking different questions also suggests you have entirely abandoned trying to figure out the answer to this first question, while still apparently not knowing it. You You are also throwing away any previously previousl y useful process that led up to this point and are therefore disconnecting the method from the effect in a brilliantly brilliantl y clever way—utilizing the presentation itself as your “modus operandi.” Tis is similar to Ross ayler’s idea of a “Context Shift.” However However,, we are not shifting the pseudo-explanation for how we are achieving our results in this routine. Tis is a great place to be in theatrically as well, as from a methodological point of view you seemingly know nothing and can therefore steal the piece of information you in fact do know to set up the following situation—with everything appearing entirely fair and above board. 61
Te Book of Angels
Te previous scripting also sets up the notion that you will be asking ask ing more than one question. “I want you to do exactly the same thing as before. I’m going to ask you different questions and each time I want you to answer these questions in your head and say nothing out loud. Okay?” Tis serves as a reminder that they are to stay silent, as well as informing the spectator they will have multiple questions to answer mentally. “In fact, if you were born in the first half of the year then I want you to always answer in your head with the truth. If you were w ere born in the second half of the year then always tell me a lie. l ie. I find it is often useful to reverse appearances to find truth. So not no t only will this help to obscure your answers answe rs further, further, it will also—in an odd way—help me to pick up on your thoughts.” Tis scripting achieves a few different things at the same time: It creates what seems to be an additional layer of obfuscation, while suggesting that this will actually help you to now be able to pick up on their thoughts—despite you struggling before. Tis is the reason you wish for them to either lie or tell the truth—so you can counterintuitively better tune into their thoughts. It also allows their true answers to apparently stay hidden from the performer, allowing you to apply the t he cue methodology later l ater on. It creates a nice theatrical frame for the ruth eller/Liar: that of the Wizard’s Creed, “It is often useful to reverse appearances to find truth.” It also forces the spectator to take on the role of a truth teller and therefore always give a truthful answer answer.. Tis last point is important.
ruth ruth eller/Liar eller/Liar Reverse Reverse Equivoque I am essentially applying a “reverse equivoque” in order to always force the outcome I want, in terms of which role the spectator will play in a moment. I simply use the answer I have already obtained from the spectator to always force the correct role on the spectator. It is a simple matter of adjusting the previous instructions verbally and placing whichever role you wish for the spectator to act out in the correct position in your script. For example, let’s say I wish for the spectator to always tell the truth and I secretly know they were born in the first half of the year. year. Terefore, my instructions would be as follows: “If you were born in the first half of the year I want you to always tell the truth. If you were born in the second half of the year, year, then always lie.” However, if I knew they were born in the second half of the year then I would simply reverse my instructions as follows: 62
Fraser Parker
“If you were born in the first half of the year I want you to always lie to me. If you were born in the second half of the year year,, then always tell the truth.” Te reason I wish to be able to control whether the spectator lies or tells the truth tr uth depends on the situation in which I am performing. I intend to apply the spectator hand squeeze cues as an additional layer of deception to this routine and don’t want to run the risk of the additional process causing confusion in my spectator’s mind or make it any more difficult for them to follow my instructions. i nstructions. It is therefore much safer to always calibrate the spectator into telling the truth whenever having the spectator answer silently in their head; it is the natural situation they usually find themselves in and they will therefore find it easier to simply tell the truth (as opposed to having to apply a further step and reverse their answers to create a lie before answering). However, if I were performing a routine where the spectator was answering out loud then I would want them to always lie. Tis will help ensure that those watching will wil l not be able to easily follow foll ow the spectator’s answers and get to the reveal before you. Tis would ruin the th e impact of the reveal for the audience members. You are now in the perfect position to apply the hand squeeze cues; everyone You ever yone will wil l be fooled and it will appear you are able to simply hold onto the spectator’s hand and pick up on their thought-of answers telepathically telepathic ally..
Answering Out Loud If you prefer not to apply the cues here or feel it is too much additional process, then instead of instructing the spectator to continue to answer in their head simply change to having the spectator verbalize their answers. Tis now becomes the reason for applying an additional layer of obfuscation obfuscati on and adding the ruth ruth eller/Liar eller/Liar element to the proceedings. “Okay, right awayI’m struggling to pick up on anything from you. So, do you mind if we try this in a slightly different way?” “I’m going to ask you a couple of questions and each time I want you to answer out loud lo ud with either a ‘yes’ or a ‘no.’ ‘no.’ However, However, in order to obscure your answers so there is i s no way for me to know the truth, if you were born born in the first half of the year year I want you to always lie to me. If you were born in the second half of the year, then always tell the truth.” “ ake your time to think about each of your answers, so it won’ wo n’tt be obvious you are lying l ying if you hesitate before giving an answer.” Note: Whether I am having the spectator answer out loud or silently using cues, I would still ask each of these questions at separate moments in my set. Naturally, this will depend on the situation and will be dictated by which effects you want to achieve and the information you wish to obtain in your performance. 63
Te Book of Angels
I will leave it up to you to discern which approach best fits you and the different performing situations you find yourself in when applying these tools. Sometimes, you may wish to ask a few questions in quick succession and get the process out of the way, saving the information garnered for a later reveal.
64
Truth Teller or Liar Prediions Here is another idea that came from jamming with Benjamin Sleight over Skype. I had a different version of this effect half-finished in my notebook, which relied on a playing card force as well as covert cues to subtly guide the spectator towards a prediction of a facedown card. However, However, it was too clunky and remained unfinished for some time. alking to Ben and listening to what he had to say regarding these cues helped me to see how alking I could effectively use what was already present in the method to always successfully guide a spectator to a prediction of a specific playing card placed face down on the table (or any other prediction within reason). I will teach this with a playing card prediction, but feel free to let your imagination go wild thinking of all of the possible applications for this ruse. Te following adjustment to the previous method can be used to divine playing cards, star signs, drawings and literally anything that can be thought of in terms of binary! Imagine writing your star sign down on a piece of paper and placing it face down on the table in front of the spectator and then reading your spectator’s silent thoughts in order to help guide them towards the correct sign. Or helping the spectator accurately guess whichever playing card someone chooses from a deck of cards and places face down on the table. Here’ss how all of this can be made possible. Here’
Te Secret—Silent Questions I will first explain how we can use the secret touching cues in order to get the spectator to use their intuition in order to divine a playing card that has been placed, sight unseen, face down on the table. Tis is reminiscent of my mentor’s effect Te Secret ; hence the name of this effect. However, it uses an entirely different approach in terms of its method. In this variation of the effect there is no need to have already established a truth teller/liar scenario with the spectator. In fact, they will always be telling the truth. Tere is no need to add an additional layer of deception with the following handling. Te playing card is forced, a marked deck can be used or you can employ any other oth er favourite method you have for secretly knowing the playing card that will be placed face down in front of the spectator. As long as the method used to secretly know the playing card appears fair then the following method will play fine. 65
Te Book of Angels
Tis becomes much more more streamlined when utilizing a force, due to the fact that we can control control the card that gets placed in front of o f the spectator. We will always al ways force one of the picture cards. c ards. Te reason we will will be using a picture card in this routine will become apparent apparent as we continue. continue. Essentially, it allows us to more easily guide gui de the spectator to a specific choice by needing to use less binary questions. However, other cards can be used when using a freely chosen card and/ or a marked deck. You You will just j ust have to ask more determining questions in order to ensure the spectator ends up thinking of the correct card. Te fact the card is forced f orced means we will be able to offer help to the spectator whenever they guess incorrectly, and they will still be impressed we knew how to steer their choices when needed. Tey will therefore not feel like they are simply “in on it” i t” but will still get an effect. o the audience at large, due to their answers being given via the secret cues, it will appear as if you can sense their answers and are adjusting their impressions after first picking up on them telepathically. It really won’t won’t matter if this thi s Dual Reality breaks down after af ter the fact, as the audience members will still not understand how you knew the card placed face down or were able to help the spectator and direct their choice. “I want you to hold my hand for a moment. Tis Tis will help us u s to establish a connection with each other.” Tis is a truthful statement as well as a nice theatrical th eatrical justification jus tification for holding the spectator’s hand (e.g., in order to establish a psychic connection of some kind). Terefore, it will play to both the reality of the spectator—who will be aware of cueing taking place—as well as fit the effect of silent communication taking place between the performer and spectator à la the the audience’s perspective of what is going on. “I want you to use your intuition to try to divine whatever you feel this facedown playing card is. It’s essential you trust your feelings to be able to do this and don’t overthink your decisions. Don’t worry if you make a mistake; if I sense you are going off track then I will correct you. I have been doing this longer than you, after all!” Tis last line is nice, as it suggests to the audience audience at large that you you will be sensing the spectator’s spectator’s answers; but to the spectator will mean something different. Tey will perceive that you mean you will be trying tr ying to sense the identity i dentity of the facedown card yourself, and if your impressions don’t match their own you will direct them to change so that they can stay on track as they attempt to divine the card using their intuition. Here is where we set up the secret cues and give our instructions for how the spectator is to answer non-verbally non-verbally.. “It is important you just trust your feelings to be able to do this. If you were to try to just guess what this playing card is, then in all likelyhood you would be wrong—as there would be a 1-in-52 chance of you being correct. So, forget whatever cards you you already have in mind. Instead, Instead, you are going to to build up the image of this card piece by piece.” 66
Fraser Parker
“I’m going to ask you if you feel this card is red or black, high or low, picture or a number, etc. If you feel what I say is correct, then I want you to imagine answering answerin g with a ‘yes’ in your head. If you feel what I say is incorrect and this is a ‘no’ then then don’t worry [squeeze their hand]. HIS is all I want you to do if it’s a ‘no.’ ‘no.’ So, you know what to do if it’ it ’s a ‘yes’ and you know what to do if it’s a ‘no’ [squeeze [squeeze hand again as a reminder].” “Don’t say anything out loud or give anything away by nodding or shaking your head.” We are now ready to begin getting the spectator to answer our questions mentally using their We impressions about the identity of o f the facedown card. “So just trust your feelings. Obviously, there’s no way for me to know the card either; but, I will help you if I feel you are going off track.” Here I remind the spectator and everyone else watching that I couldn’t possibly know the identity of the facedown card, either either.. Tis will ensure that the spectator still gets an effect even if they need a considerable amount of help to intuitively divine the card. For example, let’s say we have forced the Queen of Spades and this card is now face down in front of the spectator. A typical typi cal performance may flow, flow, as follows. It is important the spectator also slowly builds up the card in their imagination as they answer questions regarding its characteristics, so that they will be able to name which card they think the face down card is at the end of the routine. “So just slowly build up the identity of this playing card in your imagination, as you answer the following questions.” Performer: “So to begin with, do you feel this is a red card?” [Spectator [Spectat or answers with a squeeze, indicating a “no” response]. response]. Performer: “Okay good. Do you feel this is a spade?” [Spectator [Spectat or doesn’t doesn’t respond with a squeeze sq ueeze of your hand and is therefore indicating a “yes”]. As soon as I get my cue or lack thereof, after waiting a couple of seconds I would now add on the other side of the polarity of choice. “…or club?” You should now get confirmation that they don You don’t’t feel the card is a club. club. Tis will help you check your work whenever you get an inverse cue or non-response non-response from the spectator, spectator, as well as help to further “muddy the waters” from the perspective of the audience. It won’t look as if you are just prompting the spectator by only giving one side of the polarity. polarity. In fact, it is important you always ask the spectator whether or not the facedown card contains a characteristic that is not 67
Te Book of Angels
present in the force card whenever you are only giving one side of the polarity of choice. Tis is so that it doesn’t look like you are simply prompting the spectator verbally and also ensures any adjustments you need to make to their choice flow naturally. “Do you feel this is a number card… or a picture card?” [Spectator [Spectat or doesn’t respond on the number card part of the question, indicating a “yes” response]. “Okay, I feel you are wrong about this. So, whether you feel this is a number or a picture card, change it to the opposite choice.” Here is the adjustment. We We simply direct the spectator to think of the opposite whenever their choice is incorrect. Because everything stays hidden, in terms of their response it will look to the audience as if we have sensed their silent answer—only spoken in their head—was incorrect. oo the spectator, spectator, we are simply offering some help by instructing them to change their mind to the opposite choice cho ice based on what we “feel” the facedown card might be. “Do you feel this is one of the male cards—the Jack or King … or the Queen?” [Spectator [Spectat or squeezes on the male cards]. “Good. So, you now have a playing card that exists in your mind based on nothing but your feelings, yes? Say out loud the card you just built up in your head you you feel this card could be.” Tey will now say “Queen of Spades.” All All that is left to do is to direct the spectator to turn over the facedown card as proof it is possible pos sible to use your intuition to know things there’s no way you should be able to know. What is nice about this effect is often the t he spectator will only onl y have to be prompted to change one or two times. Terefore, Terefore, it will seem as if they are genuinely able to trust their intuition to know details about a card they couldn’t know without looking at the card. Tey will feel they are truly using their intuition, intuiti on, but they needed your help now and then. If you frame this as you reminding the spectator not to doubt themselves, they will still feel all of their decisions were their own. However, even without this additional presentational ploy the spectator will still be amazed that you knew the correct details of the card even when they were wrong. What took place will wil l therefore appear to be a joint effort and accomplishment between you and the spectator and a real use of intuitive abilities. You You were just there as the magician or real psychic to help guide their choices as they trusted in their own intuition. If you use a force card that is already psychologically appealing to your spectator then you will be able to get the spectator to divine the card without any adjustments being necessary, most of the time. Tis will leave you with the perfect effect! 68
Fraser Parker
For example, if performing for a female I may use the Queen of Hearts (as this is the most psychologically appealing card amongst females in i n my culture). For For a male, I may use the Jack of Spades. Te nice thing about this effect being about the intuitive abilities of the spectator is that often the spectator will want to take credit for successfully divining the card and will therefore do the work of convincing the audience for you that this is what took place. Credit must go to Bob Sheets for his idea of using the force of a playing card as a safety net, where the performer can take credit for guiding the spectator’s choice as an out—as taught in Kenton’s manuscript Te Secret . I feel this method would become too heavy if a truth teller/liar scenario was established before the proceedings, and and this additional layer of deception is not necessary when combined with a seemingly free choice of card. However, if you want to use this ruse of directing the spectator to the correct choice after receiving the silent cues from the spectator, then it will be necessary necessar y to first set up a truth teller/ liar scenario with your spectator [as already described]. Now, it is possible to subtly lead the spectator to the correct prediction—whether this be a star Now, sign, number, drawing, etc. I will leave it up to you to work out how to do so. Suffice it to say that all the information you need to be able to achieve this effect is contained within this book.
69
Ploy What follows is an idea I have had in my notebooks for f or quite some time and is something I only recently decided to go back to in order to solve the issues I had with it. I am pleased to say that I have finished this idea to the extent where the basic concept can now be successfully applied to many different effects and used as a secret tool for indirectly obtaining information such as star signs, thought-of colours, memories, etc., during the course of a performance per formance that already features the use of playing cards. Te basic idea is to use a deck of cards with a thought-of card revelation to gather other information from the spectator without anyone ever realising this is what you are doing. It involves sometimes only being close on the card and using this potential miss to obtain more information from your spectator. Yes, this is twisted logic and the opposite of what most performers Yes, per formers would consider doing. It is for this reason it will always fly right past those thos e whom you perform for fo r. Tis will become clearer c learer as I show you how I have recently been applying this idea to the effect of successfully divining the star sign of my spectator. So, without further ado, let’s get into the workings of the star sign reveal using this concept.
Star Sign Colours We start off by establishing whether the spectator’s We spectator ’s star sign falls into i nto the first half or second half of the year. Tis allows us to shorten the process and is necessary to ensure the method remains elegant and does not become too complicated or too process-heavy. Doing so will mean we will only have to deal with six star signs as opposed to the full set of twelve.
Half of the Year Closed Question Te way we do this is to use a closed question/statement which allows us to always appear as if we know the correct answer, answer, no matter how the spectator responds. “ You weren’t weren’t born in the first half of the year year,, were you? Tis would be within the Months 1–6.” Due to the fact f act we ask this question in the negative, either answer from the spectator can seem to be the correct one. If they answer with a “no” then then we simply state: “I didn’t think so. I feel right away you are someone who is very loyal and although you have a large amount of acquaintances, you only have a few close friends who you would trust to share your innermost secrets with. Tis would be indicative of someone who was born towards the latter half of the year, year, which is how I was able to instantly know this about you.” 70
Fraser Parker
No one is going to want to argue they are not loyal when it comes to their close friends— especially not in front of everyone during the course cours e of your performance. Because you tie this to the notion that these characteristics and traits would belong to someone who was born near the second half of the year, everything wraps up beautifully and ensures you always appear to be correct whenever you have to ask this question. Tis is Kenton Kenton’s ’s Confirmation Confirmation principle at work (for those who know it) with an idea from Peter urner to use a “flattering” description for the spectator they would struggle to disagree with under the pressure of the social situation situati on they are in. Most won’t won’t want to argue that they are not a loyal person within a social gathering of friends and other acquaintances. If they do disagree with your statement, then due to the speed at which you move on with your script and performance this slight miss on the reading will not matter; matter ; all you will need to do is confirm in which half of the year they were born. But, in most circumstances, this beautiful little subtlety will enable you to tie up the closed question completely and make it entirely solid. If the reading is correct, then the rest of the statement this is based on must also be correct. It logically follows that you must also know whether or not they were born in the first or second half of the year; otherwise, other wise, your statement wouldn’t wouldn’t make any sense. So, it must be true. tr ue. Te two pieces of information are intimately linked with each other, and for this reason your spectator and those watching will have a tough time trying to unravel the true situation. Tis is the Confirmation principle Confirmation principle at work and only one aspect of it. I also add on the line: “…which is how I was able to instantly know this about you.” Tis further ties the two ideas together in everyone’s minds and completes the statement to such a degree that it really does feel as if you already knew the answer to your own question (and your asking of the question was therefore simply to check that your first impressions were correct). If they say “yes” then then simply change the script scr ipt to accommodate this answer, as follows: “I thought so. I feel right away you are someone who is very loyal and although you have a large amount of acquaintances, you only have a few close friends f riends who you would trust to share your innermost secrets with. Tis would be indicative of someone who was born in the first half of the year, which is how I was able to instantly know this about you.” Now, no matter what the spectator says, you can always respond in a way that makes it appear Now, as if you already knew the answer. It is important when asking the question, “Where you born in the first half of the year?” that that we also add on the line, “Tis would be within the Months 1–6.” Tis acts as a helpful guide to the spectator and ensures they give us the correct answer relating to themselves. 71
Te Book of Angels
Due to the fact we are already used to writing the month we were born as a number on certain forms and documents, the spectator should have no problem working out if they fit into this category of being born in the first half of the year or not. Tey will then answer accordingly accordingly,, depending on which method you are using to obtain this information covertly cover tly.. Naturally, this piece of information also gives you six potential signs they could be. Well, that is not quite true; because each sign crosses over two months, there are two extra possible signs the spectator could be focusing focusi ng on depending on which half of the year you are dealing with. For example, the star sign Capricorn crosses over from the end of December into the start of January, so Capricorn becomes a problem sign si gn when we know the spectator was born in the first half of the year. If they were born in the second half of the year, then the other potentially problematic sign is Cancer. Tese are easy to remember as they are the only star signs which both begin with the letter C. Tis really isn’t isn’t a problem, as you will see in a moment. I now go on to list the potential star signs they could be and associate different primary primar y colours to each of the star signs, using the following theatrical justification: “You probably don’t know this about me, but when I hear specific star signs I get different bursts of colour appearing in my imagination. “I’m going to list the star signs and the colours I would associate with each of these signs and I want you to just focus on whichever whichever colour I personally associate associate with your sign.” It is important that we instruct the spectator not to give anything away before we go through this process. “Stay completely silent. Don’t Don’t nod or shake your head or give anything away.” Say we are performing for a spectator who is born in the first half of the year; we would simply throw out the star signs contained in the first half of the year, year, as as follows: “Aquarius and Pisces, I would associate with the colour red.” “Aries and aurus would be the colour blue.” “And the star signs, Gemini and Cancer would be the colour yellow.” “So, you are now focusing on whatever colour I personally associate with your star sign, correct?” Naturally, if we are dealing with the second half of the year then we would just substitute each Naturally, pair of star signs with those contained in the latter half of the year, while still using the same 72
Fraser Parker
primary colour associations, as follows: “Leo and Virgo, I would associate with the colour red.” “Libra and Scorpio would be the colour blue.” “And the star signs, Sagittarius and Capricorn would w ould be the colour yellow.” We are now in a position where the spectator will be focusing on one of the three primary We colours: red, blue or yellow. Naturally, if you see the spectator struggling to think of a colour at this point—or they flat out state that they can’t do so—then you know you must have not included their sign within whatever star sign/colour groupings you have stated out loud. Tis actually places you you in a beautiful position due to the fact that you can now apply a “Context Shift”; you simply have the spectator disregard your previous instructions and focus on their sign in a different manner, while you now know for certain which star sign belongs to them. Tis is due to the “crossover” star signs s igns mentioned previously previousl y. If the spectator says s ays they were born in the first half of the year and cannot think of a colour, then you will instantly know they must be a Capricorn. If you are dealing with the second half of the year star signs and they can’t can’t think of a colour, then you immediately know they are a Cancer sign. Now you no longer have to continue with the process and can end successfully without any further work. “In fact, just focus on your star sign.” I would then give a reading and finish by nailing their star sign. “I feel, based on all of these characteristics characteristics and traits, there is only one star sign you could be. Are you a Capricorn/Cancer [insert the correct sign here]?” Now that we have covered what could have been a potential problem in the routine—which in fact makes it easier to perform in certain situations—we will now move on with the main routine and what we do if the spectator confirms they are able to think of a colour. What follows is how I first used the ploy you are about to learn. I wanted a clean way to always know what colour the spectator was focusing on. Te following scripting scripti ng creates a nice aesthetic and logical premise for what it is you are performing. “Each of the primary colours have their own visual vibration and therefore have a corresponding mental vibration I am able to tune into whenever someone is focusing intently upon a specific colour within their imagination.” 73
Te Book of Angels
“So just focus on your colour. Imagine it painted brightly and vividly in front of you.” Here is where we appear to struggle to tune into their thoughts. Tis opens up an excuse for bringing a deck of playing playi ng cards into play, play, which will ultimately give us the leverage we need to not only know which colour the spectator is focusing on but also their star sign in turn. “For some reason I’m struggling to tune into your colour at the moment. So, let’s go back to the playing cards. I feel these will help me to get in tune with your thoughts.” I would usually have already introduced a deck of cards into my set and already used the justification for fo r their use I have outlined previously in this book, so calling back to the use of the cards will make complete sense. It will appear you need to use playing cards to more easily easil y get in tune with your spectator’s thoughts and to get over your current lapse in ability. If you haven’t’t already justified the use of the deck of cards, then you can do it now haven now.. ake out ake ou t a deck of cards and spread their faces towards the spectator to indirectly show that they are all different and ordinary. “Tese are essentially a collection of different images and symbols that allow me to more easily get into your head and connect with your thoughts.” thoughts.” Tis is a nice justification for the use of a deck of cards. Here I would perform perfor m a false overhand o verhand shuffle, in preparation for a force. False False shuffle the deck as you say the following words: “I want you to take a card at random—it is essential that only you will be focusing on this card and that no one else sees it.” Tese words imply you are going go ing to now attempt to read their thought-of card and this is the excuse for using a deck of cards—to better get in tune with the thoughts of your spectator. Here I would use the Drop Force by by Eddie Fetcher to force a specific card, but any card force that is fair and looks “hands off ” will suffice.
Drop Force by Eddie Fetcher Te following f ollowing force is a “timing force” which fits this requirement perfectly. It is a very ver y open force and feels to the participant very fair—as if they truly had a completely free choice as to which card they stopped on. o perform this force, simply have the force card on top of the deck. Cut one third of the deck o deck to the bottom of the th e deck and hold a break with your little l ittle finger. Now take off packets of cards from the larger block of cards above the break and place these either on the table or the hand of the spectator while asking the spectator to call out “Stop!” at at some point. 74
Fraser Parker
Cut this larger block of cards three times, timing it so that you will be cutting off the last of the block of cards above the break at the same time the spectator will feel compelled to call out “Stop!” Tis is the classic c lassic “timing force.” If you practice and get used to the timing that works for f or you then you will find you will hardly ever miss this force. If they don’t don’t stop you on the third t hird cut, then continue in a smooth fashion fashi on and cut off half of the remaining deck. Tis is placed on the table or hand of the spectator using the same timing and “beat” used for the other cuts. Tey will now feel inclined to stop you, due to the timing of the force and the fact you are nearly at the end of the deck and are running out of cards to cut to. Now, it is a simple case of having the spectator take the top card from the tabled packet as opposed to the card just cut to in order to ensure the force card comes into play. play. Have the spectator take the card they cut to and focus on it. It feels to the spectator as if they had complete control over where the deck was cut and therefore which card was chosen. Tis coupled with the fact the performer doesn’t need to touch the cards any longer will convince the spectator the selection was completely fair. Te force card I use is the th e 3 of Hearts. I look away and have the spectator focus f ocus on their card and then place it back in the deck and shuffle—“So shuffle— “So there is no way I could know where the card ends up.” Tey then place the deck on the table and this is where I employ the key part of the routine that will ultimately give me all of the information infor mation I need: “So, you have a card in mind. Tis is random. Tere is no way I could know the card you are thinking of.” Tey will agree with you. “In fact, just to make this even more random, if you were focusing on the colour red before then go up one in value from your thought-of card. If you are focusing on the colour blue, then go down by one. And if you are focusing on the colour yellow then just keep your your card the same.” Te spectator will now either add one to the value of their thought-of card, take one away or stay with the same card depending on which colour they had in mind previously previousl y. What this allows us to do is either miss slightly on the thought-of card or nail it exactly during the card reveal. In the process, we secretly obtain the additional information we require to reveal their star sign—namely, which primary colour col our they were focusing on. 75
Te Book of Angels
If we don’t don’t care about missing, we can place any card indifferent to the force card face down on the table and simply have the spectator name out loud their thought-of card; this will tip to us which colour they must be focusing on. Sometimes, I prefer to get the card completely wrong, as this effectively cancels out any method for those watching. For example, we place the King of Clubs face down on the table and then have the spectator name their thought-of card. Tey say, for example, “wo of Hearts.” We then turn over the card on the table and, of course, it is seen to be incorrect. Not only We will our being wrong make everything appear much fairer—as if any process before is now irrelevant—but our asking for their card within the context of a thought-of card revelation will also allow us to “get away” with secretly obtaining the information we need to divine their star sign. For example, we will now know they went down one value from the force card Tree of Hearts and must have therefore been focusing on the colour blue—which in turn means they are either an Aries Ar ies or aurus aurus in this example. Due to the fact we apparently don’t know what card the spectator started on, our asking for them to name their card out loud is entirely above suspicion. Tey believe it couldn’t possibly give us any information. Tat is the basic secret. It couldn’t be any simpler to now know the colour and two potential star signs of the spectator. It is important that you give the following instructions to the spectator, while asking for their thought-of card. “It’s essential you don’t let me know if you’ve changed your card or not and that you don’t say what card you started on, if you have changed it, okay? What card are you you focusing on?” Tis will stop the spectator from blowing the rest of the effect by revealing whether they changed their card and how. Naturally, this would make the subsequent star sign guess redundant and would stop your being able to continue along with the effect. All you have to do is mentally compare their answer to the force card you secretly know they th ey selected out of the deck to know whether they have modified their card and, if so, how? And this allows you to know everything! If you prefer, you can place the original force card face down as your prediction and now always be close. Either you will appear to be off by one or you will get it exactly right one out of three times.
76
Fraser Parker
Card Displacement by Peter urner Peter urner has a nice handling for f or when you want to go down this route. He spreads through the deck of cards—faces towards himself—and takes out an indifferent card, placing it face down on the table. He then picks up this card and exchanges it for fo r a different card from the deck, as if he is unsure which card to use. Ten says something along the lines of: “In fact, I probably should have stayed with the first card. Now knowing you, I feel it will will be one higher! It’s too late to go back into the deck and change it again, as it’s already lost in the deck.” Peter then asks the spectator to name their card out loud. For example, let’s say they name the wo wo of Hearts. Now when you turn over the Tree of Hearts—or whatever force card they selected previously— previou sly— if they are thinking of a card one value v alue either way, way, it will seem as if you knew the correct card all along and shouldn’t shouldn’t have doubted yourself and changed the card c ard at the last minute. By stating up front that you feel the outcome will be one too high—and using obscure o bscure language by not being specific as to whether the word “it” refers to their thought-of card or the card placed on the table—your words will fit either outcome. Either the card the spectator names will be one one higher than the card you placed face down on the table or the facedown card will be one higher than the card they name. Tis naturally covers both outcomes. Ten, I simply confirm whichever side of this polarity polarit y I need to with the following scripting. If they name a card one value lower than your force card: “Yeah, I thought my card would would be one higher than yours! Now Now that we are more in tune with each other’s thoughts, go back and focus on your colour again.” And if they state a card one higher than your force card, it is a simple s imple matter to say the same line in the inverse: “Yeah, I thought your card would would be one higher than mine! Now Now that we are more in tune with each other’s thoughts, go back and focus on your colour again.” If they happen to have stayed with the same card and are thinking of the colour yellow, then you will get a direct hit on the card and you can simply brush away your previous doubt. “Good! [urn over the card] I’m pleased I changed my mind at the last minute.” Performing the thought-of card this way allows you to always appear to be correct. 77
Te Book of Angels
Always remember to tell the spectator not to say anything about the first card they took out of the deck before turning the force card over; otherwise, they may say something along the lines of: “Close! Tat was the card I started with.” And in the process overtly o vertly tip the rest of the information to you and therefore ruin the set s et up for the star sign/colour reveal that follows. So, we are now in the perfect position to divine their star sign with no real extra work. Here I use any of the two-way outs we would usually employ in a star sign divination that allows us to get down to two possible signs the spectator could be thinking of. Tese will be outlined later but first, I would like lik e to mention one more subtlety Peter urner urner came up with when I first showed him this routine. If you want to eliminate the need to ask up front whether the spectator was born in the first half or second half of the year, then you can instead explain how a deck of cards has certain correlations to astrology astrolog y. “Te different suits pertain to different seasons of the year. Te black cards relate to half of the cycle denoting night and red cards to day.” “So, if you are born in the first half of the year I would w ould like you to place your card back in the first half of the deck [lift up the top half of the deck, as an example of which half into which you want the spectator to place their card]. If you were born in the second half of the year, place it back in the bottom of the deck [point to the remaining cards on the table and then place the top half of the deck back on top of this pile].” Now when you go back to the deck to take out the card you feel they are thinking of, all you need to do is take note of which half of the deck the force card has been placed back into. Make sure you look away when they place their card back in the deck and that they straighten up the deck after they have done so. Of course, when performing this variation, you will need to list four star signs instead of two for each of the primary colours—with each of the pairs taken from different respective halves of the year, so that all of the star signs in the zodiac will be represented. Ten, once you know where the force card card was placed back into the deck, you will automatically know which two star signs are relevant to whichever half of the year you are working with and can continue with the revelation using whichever of the following two-way outs you wish to use. Some of you may prefer this approach to obtaining the first or second half of the year, as it 78
Fraser Parker
outwardly implies there are more star signs in play than there actually are. I prefer to keep the proceedings as simple as possible and eliminate half of the signs from the start with the use of the closed question.
Revealing the Sign Now that we’re down to two signs, si gns, you you have a few options. Let’s assume that we’re down to the signs Libra and Capricorn. You could simply take a guess and if it hits, great. If it doesn You doesn’t, ’t, just reply reply,, “Really? I hesitated between that and Capricorn” and and take a smaller (but still impressive) hit. Or you can use a couple of ploys to further narrow it down to a single sign.
Repeat It Ploy Tis is an idea that I first read about in Derren Brown’s Brown’s effect entitled Smoke from from Pure Effect . He calls it the Repeat It ploy, ploy, and it’s a thing of beauty. All you have to do is say: “Keep repeating your sign in your mind. So, this would be… Libra, Libra, Libra, Libra…” Libra…” If they react, you’ve got a hit. If they don’t, don’t, just play it as if you were giving an example for how you want them to think about their sign: “…for example.” In this circumstance, you now know they must be a Capricorn. “Tis is a Capricorn, correct?”
wo-W wo-Way ay Outs Peter urner has some very clever work on two-way outs, and a very simple version of these ideas is to write “Libra” on on a piece of paper and ask the spectator, “Are you a Capricorn?” If they are a Capricorn, it’s a hit. You can now just place the card—sight unseen—away in your pocket, as if it is no longer You relevant. If they are a Libra, just say, “I’m glad I committed myself to Libra” and and show them the piece of paper. José Prager has a nice subtlety for this: 79
Te Book of Angels
Write “Libra” on on a piece of paper and say, “It’s barely legible. Are you a Capricorn?” Ten Ten proceed as described above. In this way, the participant won’t feel the urge to see the paper, since you state it’ it ’s illegible and that’s that ’s why you directly ask if they’re a Libra. You You can then hold it up briefly briefly,, with its writing facing towards yourself and away from everyone else and say the following, before placing it away in your pocket: “Good! You wouldn’t be able to read this anyway.”
wo-W wo-Way ay Verbal Verbal Reductive Out by Peter Peter urner urner Tis reductive out is always used at the end of the process—after we have given a reading to the spectator—whenever we are down to two possible star signs. Note: I feel that giving readings—and how each of us approaches readings—is something very personal to the performer. Terefore, I am not going to give you any example scripts, as I feel ultimately this should be left to each individual performer to work out what works best for themselves.
Te reason for giving a reading is to bolster bols ter the effect. It is personal in nature and is often the thing most remembered by the spectator. Te naming of the star sign is just the cherry cherr y on top! It also acts as time misdirection, which helps the method and reveal become disconnected in the minds of the spectator and for those watching. Te scripting is as follows: Performer: “When I sat down I instantly got the feeling you were a [say out loud the other sign].” Tis is where you will pause for a second. If you get a reaction, great; if not, continue by saying, saying, “I then felt the better of this, and chased my own instincts and committed to my thoughts.” “I feel you are a [name the sign].” Tat’s it! What is nice about this out is its naturalness. Tis feels very ver y conversational and not at all al l like anything tricky is going on linguistically. linguistically. Not only is it very natural in appearance, it also allows the hanging statement to be “stretched in time,” so to speak. You You supposedly supposed ly knew from the beginning which sign they were. I feel this temporal use of the hanging statement adds something to its deceptiveness and its believability from a theatrical point of view.
Other Applications Te basic method for Ploy can can pretty much be applied to any other thought-of category or group (with a little thought), such as memories, memori es, colours, drawings, drawings, insects, etc. etc. First, we get the spectator to think of one of the primary pr imary colours. Ten we we perform the Toughtof Card with Card with the usual excuse of needing to better get in tune with the thoughts of the spectator and this secretly gives us their thought-of colour. 80
Fraser Parker
Tis leaves us in a beautiful position. Because we know the colour they are thinking of, it means we can then instruct the th e spectator to mix their thought-of colour with another one of the primary primar y colours to create a freely thoughtof colour there’s no way we could just guess. Tis makes the colour they are thinking of appear to be from out of a much larger selection range—literally a choice out of “all of the colours of the rainbow.” We have a few options when it comes to the spectator mixing colours. o We o make this easy to follow, I will break down the scripting into steps (which should be self-explanatory, now that you know the basic Ploy utilizing utilizing a card force. Have the spectator think of one of the primary colours. “Each of the primary colours has its own visual vibration and therefore has a corresponding mental vibration I am able to tune into whenever someone is focusing intently upon a specific colour in their imagination.” “So just focus on one of the primary colours—red, blue or yellow. Imagine it painted brightly and vividly in front of you. Te reason we use the primary colours will become clearer in a moment.” “For some reason, I’m struggling to tune into your colour at the moment. So, let’s try something with cards first.” “Tese are essentially a collection of different images and symbols that allow me to more easily get into your head and connect with your thoughts.” thoughts.” Have the spectator take a card out of the deck and focus on it, place it back in the deck and shuffle the cards. Get the spectator to modify their thei r thought-of card, as in the previous routine. “In fact, just to make this even more random, if you were focusing on the colour red before then go up one in value from your thought-of card. If you are focusing on the colour blue, then go down by one. And if you are focusing on the colour yellow then just keep your your card the same.” Now reveal the card and in the process discover the t he colour the spectator was focusing on. You are now ready to create You create the illusion the spectator has a complete complete free choice of colour from a much larger selection. “ Te reason I had you focus on one o ne of the primary colours before is because these can be mixed to create every other colour of the rainbow.” “I feel I have a different colour in my head to yours. I’ I ’m focusing on the colour blue. So, in order for us to get more in tune with each other, I want you to mix your colour with mine—unless it happens to 81
Te Book of Angels
be the same, in which case just mix it with any other colour you wish or just stay on the same colour.” Te fact we secretly know the colour the spectator is thinking of means we can c an throw out o ut a different colour as the one we are thinking of and always know the colour they will mix to. It also means we can create the illusion of a larger and much more random possibility of choice due to the fact we also give a redundant instruction for them to mix to any other colour if our colours match (which, of course, they never will). Because we never appear to actually know their thought-of colour, the spectator and everyone watching will assume that this process is i s entirely fair. If you wish to utilize one of the primary colours then you can give an inverse of the colour mixing instructions, so that the spectator always stays on whichever primary colour they are focusing on from the start. “I feel I have a different colour in my head to yours. I’m focusing on the colour [say whatever you know their colour to be]. So, I want you to mix your colour with any other colour unless it happens to be the same as mine, in which case just focus on your colour.” Now it is a simple case of labelling each of the possible primary and secondary colours they apparently could be thinking of, to force our category item. For example, if we were dealing with memories, we could list the options as follows: “If you are now focusing on the colour red, focus on your first kiss. If it is blue, then focus on a sad memory. Yellow, focus on a holiday you went on when you were a child. Orange, focus on X. Purple, focus on Y. Green, focus on Z.” All you have to do is associate the memory or category item you wish to force with the colour you secretly know they are now focusing on. If you are doing this with different possible drawings— such as a house, tree, car, etc.—then you can even have your force drawing placed in i n an envelope and on the table before any effect has even e ven begun. Tis can therefore be demonstrated as a mind reading drawing duplication or as a prediction effect, accordingly. accordingly. Tink of the many ways this could be used for “pre-show.” “pre-show.” Tese are just a few of the th e possible applications for this new method. I will leave it to you to find all of the wonderful ways you will personally use this approach for indirect information gathering amidst your casual performances. perfor mances. I have also played with many variants and ways to divine a thought-of colour prop-less. Te previous method for Ploy utilizing utilizing just the 3 primary colours was born out of my effect Seeing Signs which used the binary method known as “matrixing” found in the effect Horrors! by Stuart Robson in Annemann Annemann’s ’s Practical Mental Effects. I Effects. I took the core method and eliminated the need for any props of any kind to be used; those of you who know the original Horrors! method will know that the spectator would have to pick up whichever card or cards contained their thought-of item from an amount of cards with different items written wri tten upon them as lists. Te performer would then secretly add up whatever binary value each of o f these cards had been secretly assigned by the performer. Tis total would then cue the spectator into which of the 82
Fraser Parker
many different list items the spectator could be thinking of. Tis worked due to certain items being repeated in different lists on each of the cards as well as not appearing on some. Without explaining this principle fully, suffice it to say that in order to make this entirely prop-less— and to eliminate the use of cards all together—I realized I needed a non-physical method for knowing which cards or list contained the spectator’s thought-of item. I also needed to know which of the cards the spectator would have effectively picked up or pointed towards if I were performing the standard effect. My solution was to attribute one of the primary colours—red, blue and yellow—to different groupings of list items, i tems, effectively creating a set of three lists/cards entirely prop-less. Now, in order to know which of these list/item groupings were relevant to the spectator and contained their thought-of item, all I would have to do is get the spectators to remember which colour or colours corresponded to their thought-of item and if their item was repeated in two colour categories then simply get them to mix the two primary colours together to form a new colour. Now whatever colour the spectator ultimately ends up focusing on will tip to you the information info rmation required to essentially know which cards the spectators would have picked up if you were performing the classic method and which of the lists are relevant. I performed this with groupings of star signs, after already halving the signs into the two halves of the year utilizing the hanging statement taught previously. Ten, by by asking the th e spectator two seemingly innocent questions, I was able to instantly nail down to two signs the spectator could be focusing on. Ten it was a simple matter to apply appl y whichever two-way out I desired in order to divine their t heir sign. Te reason I am not teaching the full version of this effect is because my good friend Adrien Lochon has kindly k indly allowed his effect, which was inspired by my own, to be included in this book. It is a much better and improved way of utilizing binary in a prop-less fashion to divine a star sign, in my opinion. Not only does it eliminate the need for multiple questions to be asked—if using my “one question” variant—the question asked makes complete sense theatrically and appears to fit in naturally with what it appears you are doing. It looks as if all you are doing is simply giving a reading to your spectator, yet you will always be able to divine their star sign afterwards. Before sharing his effect Paz with you, I will first show you another way of utilizing Horrors! entirely prop-less, as well as how to perform Ploy without without the use of a deck of cards. But first of all, here is a “spectator “spectator as mind reader” star sign guess which was an early precursor for Peter urner’s Pigs on Steroids routine. routine.
83
Pigs Might Fly— Throwaway Revee Sr Sign It was Peter urner who first suggested attributing two star signs to each one of the primary colours and in the process covering half of the star signs from whichever half of the year you were dealing with. Te way way he was using this arrangement was in a reverse star sign guess where the spectator would attempt to use their intuition to divine the star sign of the performer. He would get the spectator to think of a colour utilizing the classic psychological force of a colour—red or blue—and then eliminate one of these with scripting, ultimately forcing the spectator to think of one of two signs. His presentation revolved around aura colours and spectators intuitively picking up on the correct aura colour after making a snap judgment based on the appearance of the performer. Tis is how the use of a psychological force came into play. I took this basic unfinished idea of his and refined it to the point where the spectator can now (most of the time) successfully divine the actual star star sign of the performer, as opposed to the performer’s star sign having to be miscalled to match whatever we secretly know the spectator thinks it is. My handling also allows for a potential direct hit on the star sign early on in the routine, meaning that 1 in 12 times you will not even have to apply appl y the process. o perform, I write down my actual star sign—Cancer—sight unseen on a blank billet or o business card and place it writing side down on the table. [Write whatever your actual star sign is] . “I want you to use your intuition to attempt to divine my star sign. So, just say the first star sign that instinctively pops into your head now [snap fingers].” If they say the star sign that is written down, then great! We We can simply have the spectator turn tur n over the billet and BOOM! Tey will freak out! If they say a different sign, then simply re-frame with the following language: “Okay, that was just a guess. So, I want you to take your time and really trust your feelings to be able to do this and not just go with the first thing that pops into your head.” “Do you feel I was born in the first or second half of the year?” No matter what they respond with, simply agree and say that they are correct. Tey will have no way to prove this at this point in the routine. 84
Fraser Parker
“I want you to look at me and just allow a colour to pop into your head intuitively [snap fingers]. Now, change to a different colour [snap again].” Tis is the basic psychological force of o f the colours red and blue, and the reason we snap our ou r fingers is to suggest to the spectator they make their choices quickly (which aids in getting the force to work). “Tere is a belief that each of the star signs relate to specific aura colours that everyone carries around with them based on their own o wn sign and its corresponding personality charact characteristics eristics and traits.” I always perform the psychological force first, without giving it any context theatrically. Tis labelling of their choice comes after they have made their decisions. Tis is so that they don’t have a chance to veer wildly away from the most commonly selected force colours due to the fact they feel they have a completely free choice of any aura colour. “What is interesting in teresting about aura colours is they tend to be sensed by others even when they are invisible, to the point that when someone is asked to think of a colour colour,, they will usually be influenced to think of the aura colour which relates to the person in front of them.” “When asked to think of a colour this way, people tend to think of the colour red first [pause slightly, looking for a reaction].” If the spectator reacts at this point, you know they thought of the colour red first and likely changed to the colour blue. If they don’t react, then you know they are likely now focusing on the colour red (having first thought of blue). “Perhaps this is due to the fact that I am covered in tattoos, which would instantly suggest I am a creative and independent personality type. Tis would also suggest sug gest I have to be very passionate about what it is that I do, hence the colour red for passion.” Naturally, take out the reference to tattoos if you don’t have any and either find a different reason why someone may make a snap judgement based on your appearance or simply don’t include a visual reference point in your scripting. If you are concerned the spectator won’t react or you won’t be able to pick up on when this happens, you you can add the line: “And this is what you did, correct?” If they did think of the colour red first, then you will get a “yes” response response here and it will look like a smaller hit. If they say “no” then then you continue: “Good. You You didn’t think the same as everyone else and just go with wi th your more conscious snap judgment based on appearances. Instead, you picked up on my aura colour in an intuitive way—using your subconscious.” 85
Te Book of Angels
Now you know for certain whether or not the spectator s pectator is now likely focusing focusi ng on the colour red after changing their mind to the colour blue. “I’m going to list each of the star signs which relate to each of the main aura colours and I want you to focus on whichever sign you feel belongs belongs to me that corresponds to to the colour you are now focusing on.” “Obviously, you already know I am not a [name whichever sign they called out as wrong before].” Tis last line may not be needed but is added for safety to ensure the spectator spectator ignores the sign they have already called out as wrong (which in turn will allow them to be left with only one star sign—the force sign or your actual star sign, already written down. I now list signs from whichever half of the year they have apparently already successfully divined I was born in, with the following adjustment: I list my own star sign [the sign written down]—and whatever sign they guessed guess ed at the start of the routine and got wrong—in whatever colour grouping I know the spectator s pectator is likely focusing focusi ng on. For example, if they say I was born in the first half of the year and I know they are focusing on the colour blue (due to the fact I got a reaction from the spectator previously), the scripting would be as follows: “So, just focus on whatever colour you changed to.” If they were thinking of the colour red first, I would say: “So, you thought of red first like everyone else after making a snap judgment, and then changed to a different colour? Good, just focus on this new colour.” Tis will make the colour they changed to appear even fairer fairer,, even though it is still stil l essentially one of the common force colours people will choose when put under pressure. Note: If the spectator has already verbally confirmed that they did not think of the colour red first, then I would always list the signs in groups of two using the three primary colours red, yellow and blue.
However, if they confirm they thought of red first, then obviously they are not now focusing on the colour red (as they changed from this colour to a different one). I would, therefore, omit the colour red as a possible option when listing the star signs in this instance and would substitute the colour red for a different aura colour (such as green). I would then continue: “ Te signs Aquarius and Pisces relate to the colour red; Aries and aurus aurus relate to the colour yellow; and Leo and Cancer to to the colour blue.” 86
Fraser Parker
All you have to do is ensure that you place your actual star sign and and the one they guessed wrong within the colour grouping you secretly know they are thinking of, to ensure they have to now think of the correct star sign (which is written down). “So, you now have a star sign you feel could belong to me?” Tis will work most of the time due to the psychological force of the colours red and blue. I would name the star signs out of order and usually state the signs and their corresponding thought-of colour first, followed by the rest of the signs, in order to help hide any inconsistency. Tey will remember hearing heari ng signs that actually fit whichever half of the year we are dealing with, due to the fact these are the last ones called out. If they look confused or unsure at this point, then that will mean they are thinking of o f a colour which has not been listed. When this happens, simply say: “Change your mind a few times and just settle on whichever one of those signs feels correct.” Tis will give you another chance to get the star sign to hit. If it doesn doesn’t’t work, don’t don’t worry. Tis is the spectator trying to use their intuition. Simply explain how difficult it is and move on to guessing guess ing their sign using a solid sol id method, such as an anagram. “I’m actually a Cancer. Don’t worry. Tis shows you just how difficult it is to walk up to a complete stranger and having never met that person before be able to trust your intuition to perfectly divine their star sign. So, with your permission, I would like to tr y this with you and guess your star sign.” If they don’t react when you state most people think of the colour red first, then you know they likely changed from the colour blue to red and you can adjust the placement of the signs accordingly—to ensure the force works in most cases. cas es. Tey will, most of the time, be thinking of the colour most would associate with your aura colour. Terefore, the spectator will feel their choice was truly intuitive i ntuitive and in-line with “true” meanings and associations relating to the different auras and their corresponding star sign personality traits and characteristics. Naturally, there may be a slight inconsistency every time you perform Naturally, per form this effect. Namely Namely,, if you are listing the signs belonging to whichever half of the year they believe you were born in and your star sign doesn’t doesn’t fit, it will stand out to those who know about such things as star signs and the months they each occupy. Also, you may need to name a sign which doesn’t fit whichever half of the year you are working with whenever the sign they guess wrong at the start is from a different half of the year. I feel these inconsistencies will fly past most spectators you perform for. However, if they do notice and when it comes to revealing your sign s ign they say something along the lines of: 87
Te Book of Angels
“But that sign isn’t in the first half of the year.” All you have to do is say: “Sorry, my mistake; but even with me telling you the wrong half of the year, you were still able to just trust your intuition and correctly divine my sign. Well done! Tat is the difference between overthinking and trusting your feelings, and you did perfectly!” Tey will not want to take away from their success and so everything will tie up perfectly whenever this could become a potential problem. Most people don’t don’t know the order of the star signs and which signs s igns fit in which half of the year, anyway; so, most of the time you will be golden. If If you are performing perfor ming for those knowledgeable in such areas, such as psychics or those into astrology, as trology, then simply use a different method. If they refer to the star sign they named wrongly as not belonging to whichever half of the year you are working with, then again you can simply s imply apologize. Just state that you must have confused one of the signs with another, as most signs share specific characteristics and traits that cross over. Finally, if you prefer, you can tell the spectator if they guess the half of the year wrong and get them to take a deep breath in and let it out (as if needing to start over and prepare them for using their intuition instead of just guessing). guess ing). Ten apply the psychological force and continue with the routine. Now, you will always list signs which fall in the same half of the year as your own. I feel this is overly safe and spoils being able to get a “free” hit by simply agreeing with whatever the spectator says and adjusting accordingly. Not only will any inconsistencies fly most of the time, it also allows for a much nicer outcome theatrically—with the spectator in this instance seemingly being able to successfully successfull y use their intuition to divine the correct half of the year you were born in, the correct colour and finally the correct star sign. Teir ignorance is your bliss. If you are worried, then you can ask the group you are performing for whether or not they are into astrology or know the specific months belonging to each of the star signs and abandon the method if anyone in the group appears particularly knowledgeable. Tose of you who are still concerned with the inconsistency created by naming star signs not in the half of the year the spectator intuits your sign to belong in i n can simply leave this question ques tion out of proceedings. Instead of asking if the spectator believes you star sign is in the first or second half of the year year,, all you need to do is move into the psychological colour force right away and then say the following when creating the star sign/colour associations later on in the routine: “Tere are a few star signs that would be said to include different characteristics and traits which fit my personality. I’m going to list a few of these—as well as their colour associations—and I want you 88
Fraser Parker
to focus on whichever sign matches the colour you are focusing on that you believe belongs to me.” I would now list the star signs at random—using star signs from both the first and second halves of the year—making sure I place the force sign and the sign they have already got wrong in the colour grouping they are thinking of, as before. Te grouping of each of the signs into half of the year year and then into three groups groups of two seemed to be a good way to keep everything e verything simple and easy to manage. Tis is how Pete had arranged the star signs in order to apply the psychological force of the colour. Due to its simplicity, I decided to adopt this arrangement within my various variants for the Ploy star star sign guess. Due to the fact that this effect relies on a psychological force of a colour, it can easily be turned into a “macro” “macro” effect that acts as a convincer that auras exist. All you need to do is deliver your script about auras often being invisible yet still influencing the choice of colour people looking at the performer will make. Naturally, explain this after the entire audience—as well as the spectator on stage—have made their decision. Ten explain that your aura colour is in fact red, getting everyone who thought of red and picked up on your aura colour to raise their hands. Te majority of the audience members will put their hands up, thus proving there are such things as auras that can be sensed by others. If you wish to make this surefire and don’t want to rely on a psychological force, then you can use my prop-less way of knowing which colour your spectator is focusing f ocusing on, utilizing the Propless Ploy method method (which will be taught after this next beautiful piece of prop-less subterfuge).
89
Prop-less Horro! (Kioku) Memories Again, I will not teach my exact uses for this; suffice it to say that if you know how the binary bi nary system works with the classic Horrors! methodology methodology then you will easily understand how the following scripting essentially allows you to perform similar routines which utilize the basic binary method without any props whatsoever. Tis is something I tried to do many years before the release of Seeing Signs and and it was only in coming back to it that Ross ayler suggested something close to what I had previously envisioned working. As already discussed, Seeing Signs utilized utilized colour associations asso ciations and the mixing of primary primar y colours. Before this solution, I was thinking of naming items on a list and then getting the spectator to indicate if I had named their thought-of tho ught-of item or not. I would then repeat the same process with each of the different lists, which would usually be written w ritten on different cards. Te way I covered this theatrically theatr ically was that I was simply stating s tating out loud my impressions i mpressions and then trying to nail down on their specific thought. Ross suggested I ask if I am getting “warmer” or “colder”—with their answer tipping to me whether or not their item was on the list I had just spoken out loud. Te naming of these lists in blocks naturally eliminates the need need for the physical props of cards with lists written on them. Let’s say I am divining a memory from a list of possible memories they could be focusing on à la Outlaw Effects’ Kioku Kioku.. Here is the script I would now use to get the binary bi nary cues I need to divine their exact thought-of memory: “I need to discern the memory you are now focusing on from all of the others floating around your subconscious. So, in order to nail down on the correct memory, if I am on track and I name your memory then just nod your head when I look back at you.” I now turn my head away from the spectator and close my eyes, as I lift up my hand towards their face—as if trying to sense their projected thought. Tis allows me to name whatever list would normally be written on one of the cards in the version using props, and then look up towards towards the spectator and have them confirm whether or not I have mentioned their memory. Tey will will understand to only give a nod if necessary AFER I have listed each block of possible 90
Fraser Parker
thought-of memories, due to the theatrical staging of the routine and my previous instructions. instr uctions. Tis will stop any confusion, and and ensure they follow your instructions and do as you need. I repeat this however many times the routine demands, each time using a slightly modified list, as per the original Horrors! method. method. It will look as if I am simply stating my impressions out loud and feeling around while trying to nail down on their specific thought. Teir nod—or lack of nod—after each list has h as been spoken out loud will give you the binary binar y cue information required to nail their exact thought-of memory. What is nice about using a nod is that this stays silent and is therefore a less obvious cue than having the spectator simply read a card and tell you if their thought is on the card or not (as was the case in the original routine). Naturally, you could use the tactile cue from my Silent Questions in in place of the nod from the spectator for this routine, with a little adjustment.
Not My Own O wn Toughts Te binary method relies on the spectator thinking of one item out of a restricted field of possible choices. For example, 12 different memories or 12 star signs. Tis would happen naturally naturally when applying this principle with props, due to the fact that each of the possible thought-of thought -of items would be chosen from a list written wr itten on a card. Te way I ensure this stays entirely prop-less is by utilizing an idea that first appeared in print in my good friend Ben Seward’s book Cog . oo begin with, I state the following at the start of the routine: “I want you to allow a few different memories to float through your mind and then settle on one of HESE.” “So, the different memories floating around your subconscious I am picking up on are... your first kiss... a holiday you went on as a child... your first year at school...” I name a number of different items; the number of items and whether you name an odd or even amount will depend on the routine you are performing. What is nice about the use of the term “subconscious” is that the th e items you name are not yet conscious until you make them relevant and conscious by mentioning them yourself. Tis is a beautiful way to get the spectator to focus on a restricted field of choices, while making it appear these choices came from their own mind freely and were not simply forced into their conscious awareness by you. 91
Te Book of Angels
Tere is a Dual Reality created here, but the routine will still be just as powerful to the spectator as are the different versions which utilize props that are open about the restrictions. Te difference is I am giving myself the chance to create a greater deception and false memory in the minds of everyone watching that the restricted items are actually actuall y coming from the mind of the spectator s pectator.. “It is harder if you keep on changing your mind, so just change a few more times BEWEEN HESE memories and give me a clear ‘yes’ when you have settled on one of o f HOSE.” Tey will now change a few more times between the items you have stated out loud, due to the fact that these will appear to be the only memories you want the spectator to consider as their choices. o everyone else it will appear as if you have pulled these memories out of their conscious stream in real time and are now asking the spectator to settle on one of these specific memories. Tis can also be applied to a thought-of playing card. If you were to place a playing card c ard face down on the table, sight unseen, you could then use the following scripting to force a specific restriction of cards and use “potent placement” (the old Chan Canasta ruse of placing a force item second or second from last in a row of five, but instead perform a verbal version of this forcing technique). “ Tere are a few cards floating around your subconscious... 4 of Spades... 9 of Diamonds... 8 of Spades and the Jack... NO the Queen of Hearts.” Here the Queen and Jack will be too obvious, because they are marked out with the apparent change of mind and uncertainty between the two. It will also make it seem like two cards have been named, when only one has been added onto the end of the list. Te 4 of Spades will be forgotten, because it comes at the start and due to “potent placement” will also seem too obvious a choice (as it appears at one of the ends of the list). Te 9 of Diamonds will be forgotten due to the “memory recency” principle. Te spectator—when given a list of information—will only be able to recall the last few items on the list and will usually usual ly pick one of those for ease, as these are the ones most recent in their memory. Terefore, most of the time the spectator will pick the second from last item when scripting this way—in this example, the 8 of Spades. “It is harder if you keep of changing your mind, so just allow one of HESE cards to come to the forefront foref ront of your mind [snap fingers].” Tey should now name the 8 of Spades or whichever force card you have placed face down on the table. Tey will still be a little impressed with the 1-in-5, yet yet to the audience at large l arge it will seem as if their choice was from a much larger range of all 52 cards in a deck of cards. If they don’t don’t name the force f orce card then you can simply move on, stating the following: f ollowing: “Tis IS still one of the cards that was floating around your subconscious, so you were close. Let’s try something else.” 92
Fraser Parker
Tey will usually still want to take some credit for being close and will wil l usually just go along with the proceedings, especially if you quickly move onto performing something else else with that spectator. Tey won’t won’t have time to dispute what has happened. If you prefer, you you could state cards from f rom a “pumping” stack and then use “fishing” to nail down on their exact card. It wouldn’t wouldn’t be impressive to the spectator but would serve as a quick throwaway piece where the Dual Reality would ensure the rest of the audience perceived an impressive effect. However, However, if you were to combine this with the Silent Sil ent Questions Q uestions ruth ruth eller/Liar eller/Liar setup [taught elsewhere in this book] then this will become entirely deceptive for both the spectator and onlookers. Finally, this principle could also be used for a quick “throwaway” name divination, in a much more general way than has already been applied. Don’t overlook the following method. Tis is perhaps the cleanest and purest prop-less name guess available. I have left it here without a title as a way to hopefully hopefull y hide this gem among the other effects in this book. “ Tere are a few names floating around your subconscious. As well as female names, I’m picking up on a few common male names of people close to you. So, to make this easier for me, just focus on one of HESE more common male names.” “I’m actually picking up on a male name beginning with the letter M. Can you think of who this is, without saying their name?” Spectator: Spectat or: “ Yes.” “Who is this person? Is it a friend or family member?” Spectator: Spectat or: “It’s my boyfriend.” boyfr iend.” “Is there any way I could know who this is?” Spectator: “No.” Tere you have it! If they struggle to find someone they know with a name beginning with the letter you call out, then simply change the letter until they find a common male name of someone they know k now.. “ Tere’ Tere’ss also a male name beginning with the letter J. You can think of who this is, yes?” As you are essentially forcing the name they will choose in terms of the first letter letter,, you may as well use letters that only have a few common names attached to them to make your job of nailing down on the exact name even easier. 93
Te Book of Angels
Now, all you have to do is use the standard ploys utilized in the other name guesses in this book Now, to be able to successfully divine their thought-of name. It couldn’t be simpler! Tose with the eyes to read between the lines, who study this book in its entirety, entirety, will recognize the pure gold they now hold in their hands. Tis is the simplest prop-less name guess you will ever come across. Tere is literally very ver y little to no process involved. Te spectator thinks of a name and focuses on a few of its attributes and you are able to instantly nail the exact thought-of name. It is beautiful! Again, if you apply the other principles taught in the other o ther name divinations in this book, you will have a really reall y quick way to divine divi ne a common male name of someone close clos e to the spectator while making it seem s eem as if you picked up on this thought and pulled it out of o f the spectator’s subconscious mind. Tanks must go to Ross ayler for presenting the idea of applying a prop-less restriction to common male names in one of our many jamming sessions. Incidentally, Incidentally, I had already thought of applying my ruse to names (within the context of a psychic stage performance where you could create a justification for throwing out a series of names before getting one to hit with a particular audience member) a few years before Ross mentioned you could perform Peter urner’s urner’s “name “name steal” from from When in Rome essentially essentially prop-less and without a phone having to be in play. It is Peter’s way of directing the spectator back to a specific name and his use of the Confirmation principle that makes this so beautiful. Te entire performance looks exactly as it should. You You are seemingly picking up on thoughts which are floating around inside the back of the spectator’s head but are, in actual fact, simply directing the spectator what to think. It is a sneaky way of forcing them into a restricted choice that is ultimately easy to guess. As soon as the spectator confirms they can think of someone beginning with whatever letters you throw out, the deal is sealed and the illusion is wrapped up perfectly; it looks as if you really really were able to pick up on someone relevant to their life—even though they they,, in fact, find this person themselves! By getting the spectator to tell you how this person relates to them in their own life [e.g., they are their boyfriend or friend or family member], you cement the notion that you have actually picked up on someone relevant in the spectator’s life and could not have just been fishing for information. 94
Fraser Parker
Now, it is not simply a random name you are attempting to guess but a name of someone relevant in their life that there is no way you could know. It is perfect! Te spectator will give relevance to the name you have directed them to all al l by themselves and will effectively search their memory for a name that fits. As soon as you know the relevance of this person, you can then cement the illusion by stating: “And this explains why I was able to just pull this name out of your mind.” If you want to be slightly less direct with the scripting, scri pting, you may choose to frame it up this way: “ Tere are a few names of people you have been focusing on recently, floating around in the back of your head. I am picking up on a few female names, but one name in particular is standing out to me. Tis is a common male name beginning with the letter M. Can you think of who this person is, without saying their name?” You could be even bolder and not mention that the name you are picking up on is a common You name. Naturally, Naturally, this will make nailing down on the name sometimes harder. Tese are obviously less direct approaches than stating these thoughts have come from their “subconscious” mind (as per the original handling handli ng dealing with other thoughts as well as names). What is nice about using the word “subconscious” “subconscious” is the fact that the spectator can’t can’t argue that these thoughts haven’t at some point been on their mind and are only onl y now becoming conscious and relevant to the proceedings. Tis is the safer s afer way to perform this type of restricting without seeming to be restrictive. Do whatever you are most comfortable with. Of course, this name guess is the purest form of the prop-less name guess and you will only get away with such a bold subterfuge if you can perform it in a way that appears credible to your audience. Essentially, all you are doing is the standard gambit a psychic would use: simply throwing out first letters of possible names until you hit. However, the structure of this makes it entirely deceptive. decepti ve. It doesn’t appear to t o just be guessi g uessing. ng. You don’t need a large crowd and can do the same thing one-on-one or in a close-up clos e-up environment with a small group of onlookers. Everything is framed perfectly and looks as it would if you were to do this genuinely. It is the performance perf ormance itself that creates the magic; method and effect are one and the same. Tis is the correct way to fish for names. Tere is practically practicall y no way to fail and the illusion illus ion is watertight. 95
Te Book of Angels
Tank you, Ross, for allowing me to hide this effect here in this special book. Note: Tis method has similarities to an aspect of Peter urner’s Confirmation principle where you first state there are a few ideas floating in the back back of the spectator’ spectator’ss head and then you subtly force the the thought you want the spectator to focus on, negating the need to simply ask the spectator to focus on a specific piece of information. It is much nicer theatrically to imply this thought was already in their heads and you are picking pi cking up on it, as opposed to just telling them what to think directly.
Te reason I lead the spectators to a male name as well as a common name is that these are easiest to divine using prop-less methods in my culture. I also direct the spectator to think of someone close to them that fits my description and the first letter I am picking up on. Tis ensures they will be able to find a relevant connection to someone in their life. I recommend giving a reading about the person the spectator is thinking of before revealing their name. Not Not only will this bolster your performance and provide some time misdirection, it will also imply impl y you really are picking up on this information. Tis will, in turn, also make how you know the name entirely convincing. I performed this the other day over Skype for my good friend Kevin Hamdan while I took a break from writing, and needless to say he was blown away! He first thought of a name beginning with a J and this was the letter I threw out. His face went went white! I then subsequently guessed “Joe” and was correct. Te lesson here is that often you are going to name one of the letters of one of the common names already floating around their head if you pause slightly before nailing down on a specific letter. I then proceeded to nail his father’s name, Michael, after doing this again and throwing out the letter M. Each performance looked exactly as it would if I were doing this for real and each only took a few seconds to perform perfo rm in total. Tat is how streamlined this prop-less name guess is. What makes this so beautiful is the fact that the spectator—as well as the audience—will believe you have truly pulled this name from out of their subconscious. Even in the worst case scenarios, the audience will still perceive the greater effect due to the slight Dual Reality created and you will still be able to get a confirmation from the participant that the name you reveal is, in fact, someone relevant in their life. It is such a quick and easy piece, you would be foolish not to throw it into a set to help bolster all of the other hits you get along the way. It may be the best one, so far! And for this reason, I was hesitant to finally share this with everyone. Now it is yours. Enjoy! Enjoy! 96
Prop-less Ploy Te following method is a simple, beautiful and elegant way to know which of the three primary colours the spectator is focusing on. It is based on Peter urner’s Not urner’s Not Te Ed Marlo Marlo Snap Change Change , which I have lots of work on in my limited book False Messiah. Messiah. Te difference between Peter’s Peter’s handling handling and my own own use for the snap change here is that Peter Peter uses it to force an item/piece of information, whereas I use it to extract a piece of information to know which item the spectator is focusing on. Here is the basic scripting and words which make the method work. Tis can either be used to perform Ploy entirely entirely prop-less—without the need for a deck of cards to be in play—or can be applied to other list items and other effects as you see fit. “I want you to focus on one of the primary colours red , yellow or blue. Every time I snap my fingers, I want you to just cycle through these colours, changing the colour you are on mentally.” Tese words establish the order the spectator is going to think of each of the colours. Tey understand your instructions to mean they are to change the colours in this sequential order; the word “cycle” suggests suggests this is how you want the spectator to change through the colours, as well as suggesting they jump back to the start of the colours you mention when they get to the end of the set. Te fact that they last remember hearing the colours in this order means they will easily easi ly fall fal l into this pattern when it comes to them focusing on the colours and changing through them. o be sure they follow the order, you can add a subtle reminder with the next piece of scripting: “I want you to cycle through the colours red, yellow and blue a few times. Ten, when you are on your thought-of colour, give me a clear ‘yes.’” Tis scripting reaffirms the order you intend i ntend for the spectator s pectator to mentally change the colours, while also instructing them to “cycle” through these colours a few times before indicating when they are on their thought-of colour. Te reason for this is to help create the illusion the spectator s pectator is changing through the colours freely and in a random order of their choosing. Teatrically, it will appear to everyone watching that the performer is instructing the spectator to focus on each of the colours in order to distinguish their thought from the rest. Tis all comes full circle with the re-frame which follows. Te spectator will usually start on the first colour you mention on the first snap. If you are worried about this, you you can clarify your instructions with the following. fo llowing. “So, just focus on the first colour. And change [snap fingers].” 97
Te Book of Angels
We are now in the position where the spectator has cycled through the colours a couple of We times and stopped you on one of the colours. Tis is where we apply the re-frame. “Okay, just focus on this colour. Just to re-cap you could have literally changed these colours in any order, so there’s no way I could know the colour you are focusing on.” Here we nod our head and state this as fact. Tis nod subtly causes the spectator to follow along and agree with what we state. Tis is a Gary Gar y Kurtz idea he talks about in his manuscript Leading with Your Head. W Head. Wee are not really reall y asking a question, but are simply affirming with the spectator what we already know is the true state of affairs—even if it isn’t. Tis is the bolder type of re-frame that works just as well as the other manifestations of this principle. Te spectator will feel the order they changed the colours in is as good as entirely random, due to the fact that the performer seems to be totally unaware they have established any pattern or that the spectator indeed followed along. o apply this to the Ploy star o star sign divination, div ination, we set it up in i n exactly the same way we did when we were employing employing the use of a deck of cards. cards. Ten, instead of utilizing a deck of cards, cards, we can simply use the previous method to find out their thought-of colour and then the subsequent possible two signs they could be. First of all, we use the hanging statement to obtain which half of the year the spectator was born. Ten we list the star signs, and and attribute a colour to pairs of signs. Everything is the same in terms of method as with the version using the deck, except we no longer have to force a card or have a deck of cards in play at all. As soon as the spectator is focusing on the relevant colour, colour, we simply apply the above prop-less prop-less method to know which colour they are focusing and then nail down on the star sign utilizing one of the two-way outs already discussed. “I want you to cycle through the colours red , yellow and blue, changing the colour you are on mentally every time I snap my fingers.” Of course, the previous method can be applied in reverse to force a specific item such as a colour or playing card suit, as per its original intended use; you would tell them when to stop in this arrangement. You can also have the spectator jump one more time after they have stopped on a colour You mentally and mix the two colours just thought of together. Adrien Lochon has some nice work on this involving his prop-less Q&A act. Perhaps Perhaps he will wil l 98
Fraser Parker
release his work on it, if you ask him nicely! Tis allows you to make a force seem s eem much bigger than a 1 out o ut of 3 possibility, po ssibility, while while at the same time applying a subtle re-frame that suggests the spectator was, in fact, changing colours at random—to the point where they could have even thought of the t he same colour twice in a row. row. Tis is due to the fact that each of the primary colours can be mixed to create three extra secondary colours—giving us a total of six colours at our disposal. “Change one more time, and whatever colour you are now focusing on mix with your previous thoughtof colour. If you happen to have changed to the same colour twice, then just stay on that colour.” colour.” Tis means that you can now list all of the primary and all of the secondary colours at random and label each of these with a different item from a different category—such as a memories, star signs or drawings—and always know their thought. All you would need to do is place the item you want to force or know at the colour you you secretly know they have mixed to or get the spectator to do this themselves in some way. Terefore, you can either force the colour or allow the spectator to think of a colour freely and then force the item by associating the colour you secretly know they are focusing on with whatever your force item is. Tis leads leads me on nicely to an idea I had when writing rue Mysteries 2 that 2 that enables you to always successfully predict what the spectator will think of while they seemingly have an entirely free choice; it feels like a free f ree choice because it is, in fact, based on a free choice. Don’t worry; I haven’t forgotten about Paz. But, I thought I would save the best until last in this section.
99
Roots in Hven— Fr Choice Prediion Tis is a way of turning a free choice into a seemingly impossible prediction. Te basic idea is to use the information the performer secretly knows the participant is thinking of to ‘force’ a specific item, which has been predicted ahead of time. Tis is done verbally with a standard presentation of mind reading. Te prediction is more of a “kicker” ending to the mind reading. Te following principle can be used with any effect where a piece of information info rmation selected out of a finite number of selections s elections is known secretly to the performer. Here is how I personally use this ploy. I use the effect Mental effect Mental Images from from the book Skullduggery by by Leo Boudreau as a way of knowing what type of image a participant is thinking of out of a selection of images. per form this method taught elsewhere in the book within the Note: I now have a prop-less way to perform context of a star sign divination. Each image is classified into four different groups: skulls, trains, brass instruments and flying machines. I hand the participant an envelope containing my prediction before beginning the effect; this contains a copy of a picture of a skull (or whatever image I am going to force). I then perform the effect as explained in the book, up until the reveal of what type of image the participant is thinking of. Here is where my adjustment comes in. I say the following words to the participant: “Tere is no way for me to know what image you are thinking of, but just to make absolutely sure I want you to change the image to one that even you could not have known you would go for.” Tis sounds reasonable on the surface, no matter how illogical this statement may actually be. “If you are thinking of a train, I want you to change the image you hold in your mind to one of the flying machines. If you were thinking of a skull, then change change it to a train. A brass brass instrument, change change to a skull. And finally, if your image is of a flying machine, I want you to think of one of the brass instruments instead.” By getting the participant par ticipant to change the image i mage they are thinking of to one you suggest verbally, you ensure the t he image they settle on is the predicted image. It is simply a case of making sure the corresponding image to the one you know they are thinking of is the one in your prediction envelope when you give your directions; you always direct the spectator to change FROM whatever item you know they are focusing on O O whatever item you intend to force. 100
Fraser Parker
Tis is done by adjusting what you say, say, depending on what image they select. Tey will still feel as though they the y had a free choice, but now their original choice will seem to be part of an inescapable prediction. Not only will you be able to reveal their thought, but you will also be able to show that you knew what their choice would lead to ahead of time. “ Tink of whatever image you now no w hold in your mind. Tis is the image of a skull isn’t it? Te strange thing is I knew you would think of this image ahead of time.” I get the participant to open the envelope and look at the prediction and BOOM! Tis looks impossible to everyone. Te fact your your instructions were given verbally makes it more more likely they are forgotten. Tis will make the effect less easy to backtrack. Even if they remember your exact instructions, it will still not explain how you knew the correct image to begin with to enable you to direct the spectator to the prediction image. Te good thing about this way of predicting an outcome is there is only one prediction; there are no multiple outs, switches or obvious forces. f orces. It also eliminates the problem that comes from showing you have predicted what the spectator would think of after going through a mind reading process. Tis is a classic c lassic mistake made by performers; per formers; if you knew all along al ong what the spectator would think of, why on Earth would you bother with the process to read their minds? You You wouldn’t wouldn’t as it is rendered redundant. Te great thing about the way I handle this situation is the prediction is seemingly disconnected from their original thought-of image to which a process was applied. Te prediction can even be given to the participant days, weeks or even months before a performance. Tis is just jus t one use for this principle. I will leave it to you to find all of the many other possible applications for this principle.
101
Paz by Adrien Lochon Introduction “Paz” means “peace” in Portuguese, but that has nothing to do with this effect. Tis routine is called Paz because it uses a sort of Progressive Anagram (PA) to divine a Zodiac Sign (Z). Don’t’t get discouraged with the idea of Don o f using a Progressive Anagram, because the way it ’s done here doesn’t use individual letters; instead, the idea is to group the signs into three categories in a way that allows for us to make a few questions/statements about which categories the sign falls into and as soon as we get a “no” response response from our participant, we will automatically be down to two potential signs they could be and can then use our favourite two-way “out” to narrow it down to a single sign and always be seen to accurately divine their exact birth sign. I will start by describing the original version, then I’ll describe a variation that Fraser came up with when I showed him these ideas. It takes the original idea and twists it i t in such a way that you ask a single question to get to your participant’s sign. Tis is how I now perform this effect when I know I can be a little bolder and am sure my participant par ticipant is following fol lowing my instructions correctly correctly.. Both versions are conversational in nature and are performed within the context of giving a reading to the th e spectator. It is for this reason these methods stay completely hidden to everyone watching. How the effect/method appears outwardly is in line with how this would look if you were to do it for real. Method and effect work together, seamlessly. seamlessly. Fraser’s Fraser’s variation will allow you to seemingly never ask directly for the information you need to divine their sign, but will instead appear as if you are simply asking for clarification on which areas of their life the spectator would like you to focus on as you give them your reading—namely reading—namely their Past, Present or Future. Future. We feel that these approaches are some of the most We mos t natural ways currently available avail able to us to divine a star sign entirely prop-less, with nothing but our words. One last thing before we start: I feel I must point out that this effect will not be as strong if not presented in the context of a reading. It is the context that makes this deceptive and will make what you perform appear credible and not simply a trick. Te following method uses the Horrors! principle principle by Stuart Robson found in Practical Mental Effects and is updated to work prop-less, so that we now no longer need lists of words printed on business cards/billets to make it work. Fraser had already achieved something similar with his ingenious use of colour mixing in his Seeing Signs star star sign divination and this is what initially inspired my method. Fraser says he now uses the Paz Paz method method more often than his own, due to the efficiency of method versus effect. Tere is a time and place for different methods and sometimes you will want to change 102
Fraser Parker
the presentation/method to throw off the wise ones; so knowing both methods is important, in my opinion—even if you end up favouring one over the other. If you were to perform this as a bare bones effect and forego the readings presentation, then this would just look exactly as it is: a thinly veiled logic puzzle or binary cue. It is, therefore, essential you give this method the respect it deserves and perform it with the correct attitude and presentation to appear credible. If you perform as if what you are doing is real to some degree, then what could potentially be an obvious method will be successfully hidden in plain sight and will never be suspected. Making this fly is all al l down to your presentation and how believable you can be as a performer. So, let’s start! Adrien, 2017
Script & Explanation I begin by simply throwing out two possible star signs the spectator could be: “You’re not a Pisces or Gemini, are you?” Tis is a classic closed question. Because you you state this question in the negative using the word word “not” either answer can be framed as affirming your statement. In either case, you will appear to be correct. If they say they are indeed a Pisces or Gemini, it’s the cleanest divination ever and you won’t have to name the categories and go into my way of anagramming. o distinguish between which of the two signs o si gns they the y are, simply use any of the two-way outs Fraser has discussed previously in this book in his effect Ploy . If they agree they’re they ’re not any of those signs, continue: “I didn’t think so, but those two are the hardest to read, so I wanted to check. So, let’s try something I find interesting.” Te above line makes it look like you are only just starting to perform the effect, when in reality you have already eliminated two potential signs your spectator could be. “A person’s star sign is believed to be an indication of how much someone tends to focus on the Past, Present and Future aspects of their life. Some signs only on ly relate specifically to one of these aspects, while others always relate to more than one. I’m going to enumerate the signs and their aspects. So please, just remember the categories which relate to your sign.” 103
Te Book of Angels
“Tose with the sign Cancer , Taurus , , Virgo, Scorpio , Libra or Capricorn , are said to focus on the .” Past .” are signs relating to the Present .” .” “Aries , Leo , Cancer , Taurus , , Pisces and Gemini are “And Cancer , Taurus , , Virgo , Scorpio , Aquarius and Sagittarius are Future-oriented signs.” “So, focus on the aspects that relate to your sign.” You Y ou are now going to make a few statements; if you get a hit, keep going through the list. Tis isn’t isn’t fishing and shouldn’t shouldn’t look like it. Deliver these lines as if you know they are true and don’t be scared to miss; as soon as you do, you’ll be down to two signs and will wil l be able to justify the miss. If you get to the end of o f the list without a miss, then you know the sign is either Aries or Leo. So, after you have listed the categories, proceed with: “Looking at you, I ’d say you’ you’re re NO focusing on the Past, Present AND the Future, right?” If they say they are focusing on all three categories, you know their sign is either Cancer or aurus. aurus. Tis is probably the worst-case scenario, because you get a “no” before before you get any hit. Simply, say something like, “Interesting. Tat would indicate someone who has trouble prioritizing his life, and someone who is constantly focusing on other things instead of the issues at hand.” Tis is something that’s not very positive, which will make it easier for the participant to agree with the next line, line, “But, you don’t don’t seem to be like that. You feel grounded and a little more of a problem solver, right?” Tey’ ll agree to some degree and you can then reveal the sign. Tis is a great way of throwing Tey’ll out two statements that contradict each other, so the spectator has to agree with one aspect of the statement when it is completed, and this affirmation will confirm what is said as truth to some degree. Of course, this is the Rainbow Ruse principle principle by Peter urner urner and Kenton as well as an aspect of Peter and Kenton’ Kent on’s Confirmation Confirmation principle. principle. If they aren’t aren’t focusing on all three categories, categori es, then proceed. “It feels as if you are focusing on only one of those aspects, is that correct?” If correct?” If they say “no,” you you now know they’re either a Virgo or Scorpio—which Scor pio—which are Past and Future Future signs—so you can now say: “ Yes, but but you’re not the kind of person that usually gets stuck in the Past, so you don’t feel you’re you’re a Past person. Does that that make sense?” Tey may or may not agree here. Tis softens the negative response you get from the spectator 104
Fraser Parker
due to the fact you are again stating the polar opposite of the statement they previously previous ly disagreed with. You can now reveal the sign. Otherwise, if you are correct, proceed as follows: “And I feel you’re not focusing on the Past, correct?” If they say they are focusing on the Past, you know they’re either a Libra or Capricorn. You You can use the same justification as above and reveal the sign. If they say they are not focusing on the Past then simply say: “I’m not sure about this. You’ You’re re not focusing f ocusing on the Future, are you?” Tis is another closed question, but at this point I feel I’m I’m far enough from the initial question to use the same subtlety s ubtlety again. Tis flies due to the fact that I have already got three hits. Because I always ask in the negative: “You are NO focusing on the Past, are you?” It allows for me to seem correct, no matter what answer they give. If they say they are a Future sign, they’re either Aquarius or Sagittarius. If they are not a Future sign, they’re either Aries or Leo. In either case, I reply with “I thought so” and and reveal the sign, utilizing one of the two-way outs available to us.
Additional Toughts Jumping Signs In order to avoid a “no” at at the t he beginning, you could omit Cancer and aurus aurus when you list the signs, and add, “I think I skipped a sign. Did I name yours?” If they say you did, then you automatically know they are neither a Cancer or aurus and you can go through the statements described above, skipping the first step about the sign NO being in all three categories. If they say you didn’t name them all, you know they’re a Cancer or aurus. So, repeat the categories; but this time include Cancer and aurus aurus in the Future category only only,, then say: “Yeah, I think I missed Aquarius the first time.” Tis will make it seem you genuinely got confused confused and that you you have no idea what their sign is but can now reveal it effortlessly.
RIASE Speaking of leaving stuff to you, for those who are familiar with the RIASE anagram, notice how we eliminate the signs in the same order—except for Leo, which gets grouped with Aries. 105
Te Book of Angels
Tis makes it easier to memorize and opens some interesting possibilities when combining the letter anagram with this more indirect method, which I’ll leave up to you to explore.
One Question Variation by Fraser Parker My good friend and constant source of inspiration Fraser Parker, in his relentless quest for directness and simplicity in method/presentation, was kind enough to share his take on Paz in this manuscript. Tese ideas are bold and beautiful, so thank you very much much my friend. Te idea is to ask directly in which areas (Past, Present or Future) the participant’s participant ’s sign falls into. Whatever the participant answers, we give them a reading then reveal the sign via the same ploys as before. Fraser handles this in an indirect way that fits perfectly within the context of the readings presentation, which feels to the audience as if he is simply asking which areas the spectator wishes to focus on during their reading on. Since we are directly asking for the categories, we can rearrange the signs so instead of having them grouped in a way that we can progressively narrow them down, they are evenly spread throughout the categories in such a way that they form a binary code. Tis is the more obvious use of the Horrors! method. method. Tis arrangement also avoids us having to throw out Pisces and Gemini early ear ly on in the routine. Tis is the script scr ipt Fraser suggests: “I find it interesting that even though the stars and constellations are thousands upon thousands of miles away, they really do have an effect on our everyday lives in the here and now. Each of the star signs relate in varying ways to different aspects of our lives regarding our Past, Present and Future, so just focus on which of these aspects aspects relate specifically specifically to your own star sign.” “Pisces , Gemini , Scorpio , Virgo , Aquarius and Sagittarius are said to relate more specifically to our .” Past .” “Cancer , Taurus , Scorpio , Virgo , Aries and Leo relate to the Present .
And Libra , Capricorn , Aquarius , , Sagittarius , Aries and Leo have more of an influence on our Future. So, which of these areas of your life will we be focusing on?.” Here, Fraser asks one simple question and the answer the participant gives will narrow down the spectator’s potential star sign to only two signs: If they say the Past only, then their sign could be Pisces or Gemini. 106
Fraser Parker
If they say the Present only, then their sign could be Cancer or aurus. If they say the Future only, only, then their sign could be Libra or Capricorn. If they say the Past and Present, then their sign could be Scorpio or o r Virgo. If they say the Present and Future, then their sign could be Aries Ar ies or Leo. L eo. If they say the Past and Future, then their sign could be Aquarius or Sagittarius. Sagittar ius. Once the spectator has given their answer, Fraser now subtly adjusts the meaning of their answer with the following slight re-frame. Say they answer with PAS and FUURE: “Okay, so these are the areas you want to focus on. We will get to the PRESEN in a moment.” Tis subtly suggests the answer they have given is a freer choice which wasn’t wasn’t simply governed by whichever groups their star sign happened to fall into. It really doesn’t matter if they misremember the proceedings in the way you wish for them to do so or not. Either way, everything will appear fair due to the deceptiveness of the binary principle itself. It looks as if all you have done is simply outline the different ways in which each of the signs relates to their life in terms of the past, present and future in order to better structure your reading. You will always give a reading about all aspects of their life and include the past, present AND You future; but, you will focus on whichever aspects of o f their life are more relevant to themselves and their specific star sign first.
107
Clubbed Over the Hd (C.O.T.H.) What follows is perhaps one of the most mos t elegant ways to quickly force a specific s pecific suit on the spectator. Tis will work in English among English-speaking audiences, but I am sure the basic principle (once understood) could be taken and applied to other names of suits in different languages with a little thought. Perhaps Perhaps some of you will want to first link each of the different suits to different objects, for example, or any category where one of the items has a distinct difference when compared to the other items in the group—which can then be taken advantage of in a similar way as follows. Tis is perfect to use when you need need to nail down on a specific suit during a routine and and works incredibly well when combined with the effect O by by Ross ayler, as well as the thought-of card routine. Te following scripting is a thing of beauty; it looks entirely fair and simply flies right past everyone. It really seems as if you are trying to be as openly fair as possible by apparently ensuring the spectator s pectator will not think of an obvious card; whereas, in reality, reality, you you are restricting their choice to such a degree they really only have one suit to choose from—namely Clubs. Not only is this script an ideal way to quickly force a suit—due to the fact it is succinct, to the point and easy for your spectator to follow—it won’t matter if the spectator realizes the only suit possible for them to think thi nk of is Clubs. Clubs . It also won’t won’t matter if they feel they were forced into thinking of this specific suit, because it will usually be used within the context of a larger reveal of a complete playing card. c ard. Tis ensures the spectator reacts, even if they feel the suit was forced f orced on them. Te lesser reveal of the suit s uit will not be problematic when it is combined with the more impressive aspect of the reveal—the playing card’s value. However, that is the worst case and usually the following restriction will fly right past the spectator as well as everyone else watching. Here is the script I use: “I want you to think of a random playing card suit, but don’t go for something obvious like a Spade which just appears how it sounds. Go for something completely different. I want you to really think about your choice, and then commit to a suit.” What makes this so good goo d is its naturalness. Tere is very little added in terms of o f the language you would usually use when asking the spectator to think of a completely free choice of suit, s uit, which is why this looks so fair. Te words in bold instruct the spectator to choose a suit which doesn doesn’t’t look how it would typically be described by your spectator, as well as eliminate Spades as a possible choice. Tis supposedly makes proceedings fairer, as you are directing the spectator to not think of one of 108
Fraser Parker
the suits which would be considered obvious. Tis script suggests an obvious ob vious suit would be one such as Spades S pades (which represents the item it is named after, namely namely a “shovel” or a “spade”). Tis statement makes sense; and because it is said in a matter-of-fact and casual manner manner,, it flies right past everyone. ever yone. Naturally, all of the suits except Clubs have this characteristic; Hearts are a literal Naturally, l iteral representation symbolically of what they are named after; Diamonds are diamond-shaped; and Spades seem to be shaped like li ke a “shovel” or what most would refer to as a “spade.” It will usually usuall y be easy for most spectators to link each of the two together in their thei r minds, when considering each of these suits. Te fact you mention Spades out loud will ensure you spectator won won’t’t choose choo se it. Tis is the only suit which may cause you problems, due to its correlation to what it represents not being as clear as Hearts and Diamonds. Terefore, eliminating it in this way will ensure it won’t be chosen and thus become problematic. Te only suit left to choose then is Clubs. Te fact you have also told them to feel free to change their mind a few times ensures they will eventually end up on Clubs, while at the same time also making the process appear open and fair to everyone ever yone watching. Tey can seemingly change their mind to their heart’s content and really can, but they will only ever be able to think of Clubs due to your previous instructions and stipulation concerning their choice. If you prefer an even more surefire and direct scripting, you may substitute your instructions with the following line: “Don’t go for something obvious like a Spade or a suit which looks exactly how it sounds.” An important line in the above scripting is, “I want you to really think about your choice…” Tis Tis instruction not only directs the spectator to change their mind a few times, but to also think about each of their thei r choices in turn. Tis will ensure they consider each of the suits properly proper ly and, due to your other instructions, also dismiss the non-force suits—ensuring they will always end up on the force suit of Clubs. In fact, it may be better—in terms of the spectator’s experience—whenever they happen to think of Clubs if they do so before going through each of the other suit options first. Tis is because they wouldn’t have gone through each of the suits and in turn realized that 3 out of the 4 possibilities are already eliminated. However, as already stated, it really won’t matter if they pick up on the fact that they literally can’t think of any suit other than a Club with such a restriction placed on their choice. I would be willing to bet their thought process will usually be something like this: they first jump to a suit of the opposite colour to Spades (such as Diamonds) and then jump back to a black suit, landing on Clubs; or they first jump to Hearts and then to Clubs. In either case, one of the suits has not been considered, which will make it easier for the spectator to accept that perhaps only 1 or 2 suits have such an obvious correlation between how they appear and sound. 109
Te Book of Angels
Terefore, in any case, this ruse will fly perfectly perfectl y well. Because the method exists in the language used, once it has been spoken it will disappear; after the effect is over, it will be very hard for the spectators to backtrack exactly what happened. Tey will usually usual ly be satisfied in the moment and feel they had a free choice, and and it is this that is ultimately remembered by the spectator as well as everyone else watching.
C.O..H Context Shift Subtlety If you prefer, you can further obfuscate obfusc ate the proceedings by adding on the following ruse. r use. After forcing Clubs using the language discussed previously previously,, you can feign confusion—as if you are struggling to pick up on the suit the spectator is focusing on—as you say to yourself: “Diamonds... NO! I probably shouldn’t, but I’m going to change my mind.” Tis can happen as you take out a card from the deck when performing a thought-of card revelation or before placing a prediction down for a “Tink “ Tink of a Card” presentation. It is an extra subtlety that will help to convince the spectator there is no way you could know their thought-of suit, as well as plant the seed in their mind that perhaps the previous process wasn’t’t as straightforward or obvious as it may have first appeared. wasn If you want to take this further, then you can discard the previous process and get the spectator to focus on their chosen suit in an entirely different way; it will appear as if you don’t already know their thought-of suit and need them to focus in this new way for you to check your impressions to successfully proceed with the effect. Tis will also get rid of the notion that any method was at play—including whatever method the spectator and those watching may suspect—due sus pect—due to the fact that any process the performer per former could have been relying on has just been discarded as unimportant and not helpful in the slightest.
C.O..H. C.O. .H. Scripting Scr ipting by Peter urner For completeness, here is the scripting s cripting Peter urner urner prefers to use to force the Clubs using my method. Some of you may prefer his slightly different scripting. After sending him my basic script, he sent the following reply: I’m thinking of the one line to add into that, so it sounds like it’ it ’s an offhand comment. Like: “Don’t go for what you assume my favourite suit is, or a suit like Spades that sounds exactly like what it is. I want you to really think about your choice, and feel free to change your mind a few times.” I think the command needs to be hidden second instead of primary. I liked his variant and feel both of our slightly different approaches will work well. What I did 110
Fraser Parker
take from his scripting and started using immediately was the additional instruction for the spectator to properly consider each of their choices. Tis makes it entirely solid and added the finishing touch it needed. Tank you, Peter. Te next piece is the O Force by by Ross ayler. ayler. If you combine the preceding force of a suit with the following way to force a playing card value, you will find you have one of the most elegant and beautifully clever ways to psychologically force a playing card.
111
O Force Te following psychological force is something that has slowly changed over the last few years. It began as an unfinished idea in my first release, rue Mysteries . Ross ayler played with my basic idea and finished it in such a way that it was no longer my method but something very different Ross could be proud of all al l on his own. Ross and I Skyped one day early on in our friendship—long before we properly collaborated on a project together—and it was during this conversation that Ross mentioned he had been working on an earlier idea of mine which he felt he had finished. He got me to think of a random card and change my mind a few times, in the fairest way possible, and then asked me to name my freely thought-of card out loud. lo ud. I named the Jack of Spades and without any funny moves whatsoever he calmly reached into his top pocket (which was in view the entire time during our conversation) and with a clean hand slowly pulled out one card—it was the Jack of Spades. Needless to say, I was absolutely absolutel y dumbfounded. Even Even more so when he reminded me that it was based on one of my ideas, as I literally had no idea how it was achieved—let alone al one the fact that I may have had anything to do with it. Tis was the first time Ross blew me away with his ingenious thinking and the first of many times I was completely fooled; other times being when he applied his Pressure Peek and pulled my mother’s maiden name seemingly out of nowhere, as well as the first time ti me he demonstrated his principle which later became his Abyss his Abyss manuscript, manuscript, not to mention the countless times he has fooled me with a deck of cards. Most may not be aware that not only is Ross a genius when it comes to creating and performing material within the art ar t of Mentalism, he is also regarded as one of the top card workers within the Avant Garde card scene and is “up there” and comfortable performing and creating card magic alongside the modern greats (at the time of this writing) such as Steve Forte and Joe Barry (who is also a close friend of Ross). I knew I had to get him to publish it and persuaded him to write w rite up everything every thing he knew about it for a manuscript we planned on releasing through my company. It was around the time of its release that we both discovered for the first time Rus Andrews had a very similar work already scheduled for fo r release. We We decided to hold off on our release to give Rus the market and later (after gaining permission from Rus) I released an updated version of the effect in my limited book False Messiah. Messiah. Included in that version, as well as the version which follows, are certain subtleties from Peter urner; urner; one of which is very similar to something I was doing doing in an even earlier version of this 112
Fraser Parker
in the S.E.C.R.E.. School’s Mind School’s Mind Reading Lessons —namely, —namely, only allowing the spectator to change from one side of the polarity to another [this will make sense in a moment]. Ross originally forced the Jack of Spades and I decided to simplify the method using only the four Queens as my outs and sometimes only be off on the value by one. It was this miss on the value that Peter’ Peter’ss scripting later cleaned up. Ross also had two variants: in one he was more explicit with the language he used to force the spectator away from the picture cards to begin with (to get them to think of a number); in the other other,, he used language which was less direct (this is the language we eventually adopted). Te first version was called the Circle force. force. Ross then went on to create create Ecrof Ecrof with this principle, using a concept he refers to as “mirroring”—which allows you to psychologically force literally anything (a celebrity, country, sport, memory, beverage, you name it). I also released his way to perform Hoy’s classic ossed Out Deck utilizing Deck utilizing O that that doesn’t require a physical deck to actually be in play. Tis will also be shared in this book, after I have discussed how I currently perform the O force. force. Ross is a genius, and it is with his permission that I once again share sh are these effects in print. Now that I have talked a little about the history of this effect,t let’s get right into it. I will be brief with this explanation, as it really is simple to follow; fol low; it is its simplicity that makes this such a beautiful and useful tool. Te reason this is so beautiful as a method is the fact that you are seemingly opening up their choices and making the process even fairer, while at the same time actually restricting their choice and nailing the spectator down to a specific value of card. We begin by getting the spectator to focus on the value of We o f the playing card, in the following f ollowing specific way. way. Tis is restricting without seeming to restrict their choice (à la Peter urner). urner). “Just get a playing card value in mind. Don’t Don’t go for something obvious obviou s that I could easily guess. If this is an obvious choice, then change it to ensure this is as fair as possible.” Tis scripting directs the spectators away from cards which would usually be thought of as obvious choices such as aces and picture cards. You are also playing with the odds here; a deck of You o f cards has a higher h igher percentage of numbers cards as opposed to picture cards therefore, your chances of the spectator choosing a number card are much higher. I find that these increased odds as well as this previous previo us language nudges the participant to think of a number card first of all, most of the time. In fact, I have probably only ever had the spectator choose a picture card at this stage s tage in proceedings a handful of times during the few years I have been performing this effect, in casual situations. Tis is something that can be relied up and will work the vast majority of the time. 113
Te Book of Angels
If you are still worried, then you can adopt the earlier scripting from Ross that is a little more explicit about their choice being one of the number cards. “We are going to create a random playing card value and suit. So first of all, just get a random number “We in mind [snap fingers].” Te terms “number” and “value” are are interchangeable in the minds of your spectator and those watching, so referring to the playing card value as a number will not only direct the spectator away from picture cards but it will also easily be thought of as a completely free choice of value later on. Now here comes the beautiful language that ultimately forces the spectator to end up thinking of a Queen. “In fact, to ensure this is entirely random, if you are focusing on a picture card I want you to change to one of the numbers. If this is a number card then change to one of the pictures—Jack, pi ctures—Jack, Queen or King.” Naturally, they will only ever be able to change to a picture card and will now be thinking of either a Jack, Queen or King due to the fact they began thinking of one of the number cards first. Te first instruction instr uction for the spectator to change from a picture to a number is redundant. In fact, all the way through the changing process we are always going to appear to offer both sides of a polarity—which will in turn make their choice to change appear entirely open and fair. However However,, their choice is actually always al ways biased and being controlled in our favour towards a specific outcome. Tey will always be subtly guided towards our force card/value and will always end up thinking of the Queen. “So that you don’t think this is just mathematical or based on probability, if you are focusing on a male card then change it to a female.” f emale.” We now only offer one side of the polarity. Tis is Peter’ We Peter’ss idea, which was something I was playing with in an even earlier version of this. I was trying to apply this one-way change to multiple aspects of their thought-of card—including its colour and value—in an attempt to force a specific card or know many of its details ahead of time. I felt this was too obvious at the time, but what is nice about using it the way Pete proposes (in order to shift one detail of their card) is that it will fly by unnoticed. Especially if another completely free choice is given straight after af ter this instruction. i nstruction. Of course, this is yet another redundant choice, so it won’t won’t matter that it is open and free. It will serve as a way to bolster the effect and make the process seem entirely fair. Naturally,, this scripting also suggests Naturally s uggests the method is not what it actually is: is : based on probability. “If you are now focusing on a number card then feel free to change this however you want.” Tis last piece of scripting is part of the updated, streamlined version of this verbal force. force. It takes away some of the confusion that was created in the spectator’s mind when given a completely free choice to change the number afterwards after wards from odd to even and even to odd (as was the case 114
Fraser Parker
in the old handling). hand ling). Te way this was performed in the past sometimes opened up the chance for the spectator to think retrospectively that they t hey could also change from a female to male, and they would therefore not stick on a Queen whenever they happened to jump to this card first. I feel there is no real compromise in terms of the impact of effect when performing it in this more streamlined fashion, and it means you can be more succinct and a lot clearer with your instructions. In fact, if they feel like you may have nudged them from a male card to the Queen Q ueen and that they didn’t have an entirely free choice of how to change, they will still be impressed you somehow knew they were on a male card to begin with and knew that you needed to instruct them to change to ensure your prediction was still accurate. Now you can apply the Clubbed Over the Head force force of the suit Clubs and nail their exact card or arrange the four outs of each Queen of the fours suits and reveal accordingly. Suffice it to say, in my culture you will find the spectators will think of either Hearts if they are female and Spades if they are male. In the past, I have placed the Queen of Hearts on the table, slightly outjogged from the bottom of the deck, and either directed attention to this card as an isolated prediction whenever they name the Queen of Hearts; or simply picked up the entire deck (including this outjogged card) and handed everything to the spectator to then count down to a card of their choice and used the Stop force force to successfully stop the spectator on my other out—the Queen Q ueen of Spades (which was previously placed a specific amount of cards down in the deck). I have also used Michael Murray’s wonderful ombola principle principle [taught in his excellent book, A Piece of My Mind ] to always ensure I can direct the spectators towards one of these two outs for the suit. Te way I now perform this effect is to do a false shuffle—retaining my force card, the Queen of Clubs, on top of the deck—and have a spectator select a card out of the deck utilizing the Drop Force by by Eddie Fetcher [taught elsewhere in this book], directing the spectator to place their card away in their pocket, sight unseen. I then perform the O Force (leading (leading their mental selection to the force card) and then have them take their apparently freely selected card out of their pocket—where it is seen their free choice of a physical card and their free mental selection match perfectly! Tis can, of course, be performed by placing the force card face down down on on the table in front of the spectator from the start, allowing you to perform one of the cleanest Tought-of Card routines routines possible.
OD O Naturally, this can be performed for four or five spectators Naturally, s pectators picked from different areas of a large audience when performing on stage. Simply direct four or five random spectators to stand and get them to close their eyes and each go through the process of the O Force at at the same time. 115
Te Book of Angels
Tis will inevitably lead each of the spectators to think of one of the Queens. You You can now say the following line, à la the original Hoy ossed Out Deck: Deck: “I am picking up on a red picture card... a black Queen... either the Clubs or Spades... Te 8 of Diamonds... 3 of Spades... And the 2 of Clubs. If I have named your thought-of card, or if I’m close, then sit down.” If you examine the scripting used, you will see that in the process of naming seemingly four or five different specific cards you have also covered the cards everyone should now be thinking of. Tis means that everyone should now sit down, creating the illusion you have accurately divined each of their separate thought-of cards. Te line, “…if I’ I ’m close, then sit down” is is important here, as it instructs the spectators to sit even if you have only been vague with your description of their card. Terefore, if they are focusing on the Queen of Hearts they will sit due to your mention of a “red picture card” ; and if they are focusing on a Club or Spade they will also take this as a hit and sit down.
116
Half Li Eqation I will now show you a relatively sure-fire way to force a single-digit number. I say relatively sure-fire because this method—like all of the other prop-less effects taught in this book—will require you to perform in a way which demands the spectator to be attentive and follow your instructions correctly. Tis is covered co vered in the introduction of this book. Te Te following method is an update on the Life Equation by Peter urner from his book Bigger Fish 2 (which 2 (which itself was based on the old number force found fou nd in 202 in 202 Methods of Forcing Forcing by by Teodore Annemann). What Peter was able to do was update this forgotten about classic by updating the scripting of the original force. Tis made it infinitely more deceptive so that it could be performed on a modern audience more effectively. I also considered using this force in my own work before I knew what Peter was doing with it. After seeing his version of the force, I fell in love with it and decided to streamline it for my own use. I am now sharing my work on this, with Pete’s permission. His version required the use of a calculator cal culator to force fo rce a four-digit number number.. I wanted to be able to force a single-digit number quickly quickl y, without the need for a calculator. First, I stripped away half of the force. Tis made the process a lot quicker to perform yet maintained the deceptiveness of the original update of the force. I then combined this with another principle from Peter: a whisper—to disguise the mechanics of the trick and hide half of the process so that others watching could not easily eas ily backtrack the method. Te use of a whisper to hide process process is an aspect of Peter’s Peter’sBob Bob principle. principle. Te Te following variation is not meant to replace the original Life Equation but Equation but to simply si mply offer a streamlined alternative. Here is the full script I use: “Tink of your year of birth for me. Just focus on the last two digits. Tere is no way I could guess this number.. I could estimate it, but that is all it would number w ould be—an estimate. Just so that there is no way anyone else who knows you can follow along and give away any information...” Tis is where you lean in and whisper the rest of the line. “I want you to add this number and your age together for me. ake ake your time.” You then lean back out to give the spectator a little time to process your instruction before You moving on. “So, you end up at a completely different number. Tis number is personal to you and surrounds your life and nobody else’s. Terefore, it would woul d be impossible for me to just guess this number.” What this scripting does is force the spectator to think of the number 118 (at the year of this writing). Tis number will always be the same for everyone ever yone you perform for (with the number increasing by one for every subsequent year after the year of this writing and will be one less if 117
Te Book of Angels
the spectator has not already celebrated their birthday that year). Note: o work out what the force number will be in the year you are performing, simply add the last two digits of your own date of birth with your age.
It is easy to work around this and adjust the number by simply asking the spectator whether or not they have already celebrated their birthday this year. You can do this either during the performance or, if you prefer it to be more hidden, long before moving into the effect. Te whisper hides half of the process, which ensures others watching your performance will not be able to backtrack the method by trying the sum out with their own date of birth and age. As they don’t know the second half of the equation they will not be able to work out a total for themselves and in the process discover everyone always arrives at the same total. If you are performing perfo rming one-on-one, then there is no need to apply the t he whisper. It is the scripting which fools the spectator so effectively. Te words you use, along with getting the spectator to confirm the validity of each of your statements, is what cements the notion that all is fair. Tey will truly believe that because the number they arrive at at is based on their personal information— which is different for each person—this number must therefore be random and and impossible for you to guess. I then get the spectator to focus on the highest digit of the number they are now focusing on. Tis makes the process appear even more random, while at the same time ti me allowing you to get them to a single digit number. Tis force is a truly effective way of getting someone to a single digit number, number, quickly quickly.. It is both deceptive and efficient.
118
The Butiful No—Utsukushii Te following is my updated u pdated and streamlined use for my Utsukushii number number force. In fact, it can’t really be called a force as the number you spectator arrives at will always be different. However, you will always know with one hundred percent accuracy what single-digit number they will be focusing on, provided they follow your instructions and perform perfo rm the small amount of process correctly correctly.. Tis is based bas ed on the mathematics inherent in the original or iginal number force from from 202 202 Methods of Forcing also also utilized in the previous method Half Life Equation. Equation. It relies on half of the original force being broken down further into two separate halves, to provide a disconnect which makes the process appear entirely fair and impossible to backtrack (more on this in a moment). Te process used is small and easy for your spectators to follow and is covered co vered under the guise of applying numerology to numbers personal to the spectator. Again, I will be brief with my explanation, as this is really simplistic and easy to apply. Te best way to show you how this works is to provide an example. First of all, al l, we we instruct the spectators to think of a year that is special to themselves. Te Te reason I changed this from using their date of birth—as per the original Utsukushii —is —is because often they would feel I could somehow estimate their date of birth to the nearest decade by taking a guess on their age, which would make working out their thought-of number obvious. I also didn’t like having to get the spectator to think of someone else’s date of birth, as I wanted to keep the effect about their own personal details. “I find it easier to pick up on thought-of numbers when these are related to others’ personal lives in some way and not simply cold random numbers with no meaning.” “Tere is an esoteric system for working out these relevant life numbers known as numerology, where two-digit numbers are added together until all that remains is the essence of this number, represented represented as a single digit.” “So, to ensure this number relates to your life and resonates on a personal level to you in some way, think of a year that is special to you. But don’t think of a year of birth, including your own, as this is something I could potentially estimate from f rom your age and the demographics associated associated with it.” It is important we direct the spectator away from thinking of someone’s year of birth, as well as their own, as this will sometimes throw the mathematics off due to the spectator taking a shortcut and thinking of this person’s age in order to more easily easil y work out the amount of years 119
Te Book of Angels
since this special year. Tis can cause the spectator to calculate incorrectly and arrive at an amount one less than required, if this person has not yet had their birthday birthday.. “Focus on the last two digits digi ts of this year and add those numbers together.” together.” “If you are still left with a two-digit total then add these numbers together again.” Tis scripting scr ipting sets up the use of numerology as a theatrical device and ensures the process of adding numbers together is logical. “So, you now have a single digit in mind, correct? Good. Is there anyway this number could tell me the special year you are thinking of?” Te spectator will, of course, answer with a “no” and and confirm you last statement to be true, as it really is the true situation. However, due to the fact this number is derived from half of an equation you have not yet fully completed, it will always correspond to a specific different number they will eventually be focusing on. Tis question and their subsequent answer is what disconnects the method and ensure this becomes impossible to back-track. “Just so that I can see if you have followed along correctly, cor rectly, name out loud the single-digit number you just arrived at.” Say they name the number 5. We now secretly know the number they are about to end up on will be a 4. Tis will become We clearer as we move on with the scripting and explanation. “Because I couldn’t know the year year,, I also couldn’t know how many years have passed since this special year.” year .” Again, this is a truthful statement at this point in the routine and will further fur ther help disconnect the method in the minds of the spectator and everyone ever yone watching. “Okay. I want you to do the exact same thing again, but this time don’t say the number you arrive at. Focus on the exact amount amount of years it has been since that special year, year, and if you have a two-digit number in mind add those numbers together. If you still have a two-digit tw o-digit number add those numbers together again, so that you are left with a single-digit number there is no way I could know.” What you are essentially essentiall y doing is now completing the Half Life Equation but Equation but without actually adding anything together. Because each of the single-digit numbers arrived arri ved at are both derived from the two separate halves of this equation, they will always correlate due to the fact they are each different ratios or fractions of o f a whole number. Terefore, the single-digit the spectator names out loud at the start star t will always clue you into 120
Fraser Parker
the second single-digit number the spectator will ultimately be focusing on. Here is a table of possible numbers they could be thinking of. First Number
Second Number
0
9
1
8
2
7
3
6
4
5
5
4
6
3
7
2
8
1
9
0
You will notice that this table actually has a beautiful symmetry to it, which makes working out You their thought-of number an easy task. Each of the numbers will always add up to the number 9. All you have to do is take whatever number they first throw out away from 9, to work out the number they will eventually be thinking of. 121
Te Book of Angels
Due to the crossover between the 20th and 21st Century (at the time of this writing), you will have to apply the following safety when diving div ing their second number. In order to check my work, I would simply apply the following closed clo sed question whenever I have arrived at an odd number on my crib: “Tis isn’t an odd number is it?” And if they say “no” I I know that it has to be one number higher than my crib. If it is an even number I have already worked out from the crib, I would then ask the closed question in its opposite form: “Tis isn’t an even number is it?” And from here go up one number, number, if needed, whenever their reply is a “no.” No matter what response you get from the spectator, you always say one of the following two scripts—as if you knew all along and was not really asking a question but were instead looking for confirmation from the spectator that your initial impressions were correct. If they say “no” you you say: “I didn’t think so.” If they respond with a “yes” a “yes” you you say: “Good. I thought so.” Tis is the beauty of a closed question questi on where you ask the question in the negative. No matter what response you get, you can instantly frame the question as knowing instead of asking. Each response from the spectator will line up with the question when asked in this negative form. I think of zeros as even and always ask the question in reverse, as follows, whenever I am on zero in my crib: “Tis isn’t an even number, is it?” If you get a “no” here, here, then you instantly know they are focusing focusi ng on a 1. “I didn’t think so.” You will only ever be on a 1 or 9 when the spectator has first said the number 9. Te only time You they could be thinking of a zero is when they have chosen the same year as the year you are performing as their special year. Terefore, I never worry about getting a zero, as this will be such a rare occurrence (if indeed it ever comes up). If it does, then you should be able to see 122
Fraser Parker
the spectator struggle to think whether or not a zero is odd or even and you will therefore immediately know they are now focusing on the current year. Te only time they could be thinking of o f a 9 after first naming the number 9 is when they are thinking of the year 2009. o ensure you can also pick up on whenever this occurs, whenever they give me the number 9 first I change my scripting from dealing with odd and even e ven numbers to the following: “ Tis isn’t a high number, is it?” If they respond with a “yes” I I can say: “I thought so.” Now I know they must be thinking of 9. If they say “no” then then I know they must be focusing f ocusing on the number 1. One final point on this streamlined version of this method: if you end up having to add one to the number 9 to get 10, then you simply add these together again to resolve the number back to 1 (which would naturally naturall y be one higher than its corresponding number in the crib, zero). Tanks must go to Adrien Lochon for suggesting asking if their number number is odd or even to work out if they have shifted shif ted one place in a number scale; we worked this out together when working on another method, but it fell into place and fits beautifully beautifull y here all on its own.
123
Miriaj—Prop-less Sr Sign Although, I fell upon this method almost by accident while trying to achieve something else and feel I did so from a different diffe rent perspective altogether, co-creator Ross ayler ayler aptly reminded me where the overall basic idea had come from. Ross had originally suggested we get the spectator to guess opposite characteristics and traits to their own sign when guessing ours, which would then indirectly tip to us their own star sign. It was this general unfinished idea that eventually eventually led to the slightly different star sign guess in Second Coming. So, it appears I managed to finish a seed of an idea that first appeared in Ross’s mind, in a different way and without meaning to do so. Tanks, therefore, need to go to Ross for allowing me to release my own thoughts on his basic concept that started all of this off. What follows is yet another star sign divination. But why do we need another, you you say? I feel it is important to have different methods at our disposal to use at a moment’s notice when we need during our performances. Tis is because we will often want to repeat an effect or want to reveal more than one person’s star sign in a group. Here Here it becomes important that we constantly change the method, so what we are performing does not become easy to backtrack or obvious to audience members or the spectator. Sometimes, it is also useful to combine different types of methods. For instance, if I am working with colours and using a prop-less approach, I may work with someone who is creative or or a visual thinker and guess their star sign; while at the same time using an anagram to guess the star sign of someone who would consider themselves more of an analytical or logical thinker. thinker. I might also als o use a billet and get a peek of a third person’s person’s sign. In this way, not only are each of the different revelations justified theatrically theatric ally and that much more interesting, but each method is also cancelled out in the minds of ever yone watching. Te reason for fo r having the third person write down their star sign might be because you want one of the revelations to have physical proof that you were correct, to show it is not just a case of everyone ever yone playing along and simply agreeing that you are correct. Not only is it helpful helpfu l to have different ways of achieving achie ving the same effect, I also feel it is important impor tant to constantly refine my ideas and strive to find different and often better solutions to common problems in Mentalism. I tend to focus on one specific genre or type of effect at a time and become obsessive with this plot until I find I have a whole notebook worth of worthwhile solutions, as well as different and interesting ideas surrounding a specific theme. 124
Fraser Parker
Tis is why I am once again sharing shar ing something of o f mine from my notebooks surrounding s urrounding star sign divinations, as a way of passing on—from me to you—some of my work in this area so that it is recorded for posterity. What makes the following method so unique is how I have used the premise of the spectator attempting to use their intuition to guess my star sign to secretly know their sign—with very little work and without the spectator or audience members ever being aware that this is what is taking place. Te spectator will believe the entire effect is about their ability to guess your star sign. Tat is all they will perceive has happened; yet, with very little additional process, you will automatically know their sign, which you are free to reveal whenever and however you want during your set. First of all, al l, we we start off by setting the premise for what is about to come. “I find it interesting when we reverse the process and instead in stead of me just always guessing things about you, I help others to use their actual intuition intu ition to try tr y to guess things specific to my life, lif e, such as my star sign, of which there is no way you should know.” “So, are you willing to try to do this?” Tey will usually respond with a “yes” and and be excited to try tr y. If they say “no” then then simply move onto someone else in the group. “Good. I want you to go into this with an open heart and an open mind, and then hopefully together we should be able to get this to work.” Tis line is nice theatrically, but also ensures they are primed primed to the notion they will be expected expected to follow along with your instructions. Tis is necessary necessar y in order to ensure this will wil l work. “It is essential you don’t try to just guess my star sign, as the likelihood is you would be wrong. So, instead, just trust your feelings for this.” Tis is nice theatrically theatricall y, but also ensures they don’t don’t think of a random star sign si gn to begin with (not doing so will be important later on). Te following process will subtly lead the spectator to a specific group g roup of star signs opposite their own, which is why it is important they don’t don’t have a random sign in mind to begin with. “If you were to take a guess at my star sign, what do you feel is more likely—that we will have completely opposite signs to each other or that we will share the exact same star sign?” Here the spectator has to answer in a very specific way. It is more likely you will not share the 125
Te Book of Angels
same sign as each other, so they will wil l therefore be “boxed” “boxed ” into responding in a specific way and that they feel it is more likely you have “opposite” signs. Tis is great because it will seem the spectator has told you what their intuitive feelings are about your sign and we are simply going with their impressions. It looks as if this is what we are allowing to happen. We We will always al ways appear to go with the spectator’s preferences, once once they begin to trust their intuition. Each part of the routine, including what comes next, will then progress seemingly due to the decisions being made by the spectator and not because of us subtly leading the proceedings. “Okay, so this means we will also more than likely be born at opposing ends of the year. So, with this in mind, do you feel I was born in the first or second half of the year?”
Again, this is great because it seems we are simply helping the spectator better follow their instincts about our sign, when we are in fact secretly leading them towards giving us more information about their star sign. Te scripting “So, with this in mind…” is important, as it subtly guides the spectator into answering your question qu estion correctly. correctly. Tey will now follow the logic that your star sign does in fact fall within the opposite half of the year to theirs and we will therefore be able to deduce which which half of the year their sign falls into simply by paying attention to their answer; it will always be the opposite of whatever answer they give. If they say they feel you were born in the first half of the year, then we automatically know k now they must have been born in the second half of the year and vice versa. ake ake note of their answer and remember which half of the year their sign falls into; it will be important later on. “Okay, so based on your feelings about my sign, if you are a Pisces, Cancer or Scorpio then my sign will likely be one of the Fire signs. “If you are an Aries, Leo or Sagittarius then my sign will more than likely be one of the Water Water signs.” “If you are a Gemini, Libra or Aquarius it will be one of the Earth signs.” “And “And if you are a aurus, aurus, Virgo or Capricorn then it will be an Air A ir sign.” For those who are not familiar with esoteric astrology, each of the star signs fall into four different Element groups: Earth, Air, Fire and Water (with three out of the twelve star signs belonging to each). 126
Fraser Parker
Essentially, all that has happened here is you have told the spectator which star sign Element group to think of based on whatever their star sign is. However, However, you you have done this in such a way that it still feels to the spectator as if you are simply helping them to make a decision based on their first impressions about your sign. Tis is the quickest way to get the spectator to equate their star sign’s sign’s Element with with an Element grouping that can be considered opposite. For For example, you may notice that the star signs sig ns which fall into the Water Water Element—Pisces, Scorpio and Cancer—are redirected to the Element most considered opposite to Water, which would naturally be the Fire element. Te Fire signs are paired with the Water signs. Earth is redirected to Air and vice versa. In order to learn this scripting, all you have to do is learn the star signs and their respective Elements (these will appear in the scripting below); as you list each star sign in each Element group, simply direct the spectator to focus on what you would consider the opposite Element to the group of signs you are reciting. What this scripting scr ipting essentially does is force the spectator to always think of a star s tar sign for you that falls into the opposite Element group to theirs. Terefore, once you know which sign they believe you you are, are, you will be able to instantly backtrack to the Element belonging to their star sign and in fact be down to either one star sign or a choice between two potential star signs sig ns they could be (more on this in a moment). It is this arrangement which allows you to know their star sign’s Element and ultimately guess their star sign s ign with one hundred hu ndred percent accuracy. accuracy. “So, right now you have an idea as to which Element might belong to my star sign?” Again, this is framed as their choice, and not at all as us simply giving the spectator specific instructions to follow. Tey will now be thinking of an Element that is opposite to the Element their actual star sign falls into. Now it is a simple matter of getting the spectator to nail down on a specific star sign for you. “Okay, I’m going to list the signs and their respective Elements. I want you to take your time and trust your feelings to try tr y to nail down dow n on my exact star sign. Only when you’ve fully committed to one on e of these signs am I going to get you to write it down, so you can’t can’t change your mind.” We We justify them writing wr iting it down as a way for f or them to fully full y commit to just one sign, after they have deliberated between a few. few. “So, the Fire signs are Aries , Leo, Sagittarius. Earth signs are Taurus , Virgo, Capricorn. 127
Te Book of Angels
Air signs are Gemini , Libra, Libra, Aquarius. And Water signs are Cancer , Scorpio, Pisces.” Tese are the actual star signs and their Element associations. If you learn these, then the first part of the scripting where you direct the spectator to think of the opposite Element to their star sign will take care of itself. Notice a few of the star signs in each of the Element groupings are in bold type. t ype. Tese are the star signs that fall into the first half of the year. year. Terefore, if you already know they were born in the first half of the year—due to their first answer—you will half of the time instantly be down to one sign for the Element groups Earth and Fire. Tis also works for the Elements Air and Water Water when dealing with the second half of the year’s year’s star signs. Te rest of the time you will be down to a choice between two t wo potential signs the spectator could be. Tis is where we would utilize one of the two-way outs already discussed in this book. However, this is getting ahead of ourselves. First of all, we need to bring the perceived effect of the spectator guessing our star sign to a close. Here I may choose to perform a billet bil let peek. I would simply have the spectator write down what star sign they think I am and and fold up the card they have written on; then I would perform perf orm the Acidus the Acidus peek peek from Milliard Longman. I can then write down the same star sign—as my supposed star sign—on a piece of card and leave this face down on the table, to reveal later on. Ten I would give a reading and divine the spectator’s star sign, using the information I have now gleaned from the peek. Tis way everything is congruent in terms of effect: we have both guessed each other’s star signs. Even if they were able to backtrack the script and realize how one star sign would give you the other, because you have seemingly not seen what they wrote down everything will appear as it should. sh ould. Te method will be impossible to backtrack and will be tied up u p beautifully, with each method cancelling out the other. If utilizing the peek in this way, I would not reveal that they were correct with your sign until after you have divined theirs. Tis is the stronger order of reveals, as it ensures they don’t imagine you could backtrack from the sign they feel belongs to you. Having said this, although this is certainly a nice solid way to handle the two reveals I feel that the previous structure is deceptive enough to be used without a billet peek, if you prefer to perform this entirely prop-less instead. Tis is due to the fact that they at no point expect expect your script to be secretly secretly providing you with information. Tey are simply trying to guess your star sign and that is all they believe is taking place. Tey will be focusing on doing just j ust that and by the time you get to the end of the process, it will be too late for f or them to back-track. Tanks to the method existing in words, any evidence would have already disappeared and been misremembered. 128
Fraser Parker
I feel it is enough for the spectator to simply guess gues s you star sign and either be seen to be correct (because it happens to match what you have written and placed face down as your actual star sign) or to use this as a “throw away” introduction introduction where the spectator is most of the time seen to be incorrect. In the case of the latter, you would say the following. “Okay. I am in fact a Cancer [name whatever your sign actually is], but this just shows you how difficult it is to guess the star sign of someone you have only just met. So, with your permission, I would like to now try to read you to be able to divine your star sign.” Tis sets up the notion that guessing a star sign is difficult and will therefore make the subsequent divination of their sign even stronger. Some may prefer to always use their actual star sign and not want to simply agree with whatever the spectator says is their sign, due to the fact that others may research what your actual star sign is on social media (and in so doing open up the possibility of your method becoming transparent or appearing weak). Te fact they only perceive the effect as being about them guessing your star sign means that when they fail or get it correct, they t hey will always perceive the effect as over. Terefore, any method or process used previously will appear to have already served its purpose, which will in turn make your subsequent divination of their sign seem completely unrelated to what has come before. Tis is Ross ayler’s Context Shift in in action. You You are therefore now in the perfect position to divine their star sign without any method, for all intents and purposes. Here I would give a reading and then end by revealing their star sign using usi ng one of the two-way outs already discussed, if needed.
129
I Fall Fall to Pieces— Pieces— Prop-less Dwing Duplition Te following prop-less drawing duplication is based on the limited restriction field of commonly thought-of drawings—as well as the idea to distinguish between drawings via questions about real-life counterparts’ counter parts’ characteristics—found in my good friend f riend Phedon Bilek’s wonderful prop-less drawing divination effect entitled Proteus . However, my method does not require an anagramming process utilizing letters from the name However, of the drawing, as does the original Proteus method. method. I have also eliminated the need to ask multiple questions about the qualities of the real-life real-lif e counterpart or object o bject thought of. Tis was another aspect of the original method I decided I wanted to eliminate in order for it to fit my particular style. Instead, I harvest this information in a much more indirect way which I feel fits perfectly and is hidden within the routine and the performance of the effect itself. I am pleased to say that I have the full backing and blessing from Phedon to release, in his words, “my different AND similar variation variation” ” on on the prop-less drawing duplication plot. It is worth mentioning that the following routine only utilizes the basic amount of outs of potential drawings which could be thought of by your spectator—as in the original Proteus system—and Phedon has since expanded those outs to cover 27 possible drawings in his extended version. Although my method allows for further outs to be included, I prefer not to do so, instead only adding a few outs at the most to ensure I do not sacrifice the streamlined nature of the effect. I would prefer to miss occasionally occasi onally instead of adding too much additional process to the method. Te fact that I am in part working their drawing out from the amount of letters its word counterpart contains allows for a “free form” approach to performance where often of ten you will also be able to hit drawings not contained in the restricted field. Tis will make more sense as you learn about my method. Te shift that was required was to first get the spectator to try to guess a drawing you you are merely thinking of. Of course, the way I handle this is important, so that I am able to secretly obtain information about their thei r drawing secretly along al ong the way. way. Te inspiration for this method, as well as obviously coming from the Proteus drawing duplication, came from the way I would get which half of the year the spectator was born during my star sign guess Miriaj (which involves the spectator guessing the star sign of the performer and during this process the th e performer secretly obtains the star s tar sign of the spectator). 130
Fraser Parker
I would ask my spectator the following: “If you were to take a guess at my star sign, what do you feel is more likely—that we will have completely opposite signs to each other or that we will share the exact same star sign?” Tey would then of course—due to the self-evident s elf-evident and obvious probability at play—answer with the word “opposite” , which meant we could then say: “Okay, so this means we will also more than likely be born at opposing ends of the year. So, with this in mind, do you feel I was born in the first or second half of the year?”
Tey will then answer in a way that tips to you which half of the year they were born in, as they will now provide an answer that is always opposite and in direct contradiction to whichever half of the year they were born in. All you have to do is remember the opposite answer to the one they give. Tanks go to Peter urner urner for first posing pos ing such a question in order to elicit a specific response from the spectator in my other star sign guess Seeing Signs . I took Peter’s line and realized it could be used in the deceptive manner just described. Tis is the first part of one of my star sign guesses, which I hit upon while trying to achieve something else entirely. It was only after finishing the star sign s ign guess that Ross ayler ayler reminded me where the basic idea had come from: using opposites within the context of a spectator guessing information about the performer to secretly tip information about the spectator was first conceived by Ross in the early stages of his star sign guess that was later released in our limited edition book Second Coming . I feel each of our star sign guesses are different enough to warrant both being published, and the handling of this question about which half of the year they feel I was born in is a nice linguistic use of this basic idea that did not feature in any of the previous attempts at working out a use for this general concept. But why do we need to know all of this, you ask? Well, W ell, the following method—believe it or not—was born out of these thoughts. I first started with a statement about my thought-of drawing and the spectator’s not likely matching but instead having opposite characteristics, in order to receive answers that were opposite to the thought-of drawing of the spectator. I then realised this was too overt and was too much like giving directions that would make back-tracking easier and the method more obvious, so I decided to change what I was doing by simplifying it. 131
Te Book of Angels
Note: I have since gone back to this handling and will teach you how I now perform this effect in the update which follows the main teaching. I still feel both variants have their merits and I will leave it up to you to decide which you prefer to perform in any given situation.
Te following fol lowing reversal of technique made the effect and method work together in a way that was beautifully deceptive and perfect from a theatrical standpoint—it now looked exactly as it it should in terms of outward appearance of the effect, with the use of opposites now applied to presentation as opposed to being directly applied appli ed to method. Te way I shifted everything was to get the spectator to give similar characteristics to their thought-of drawing as opposed to opposites, without it seeming like I was asking directly for them to do this. What is really nice is the line I use to do this is later disregarded as unimportant and its meaning is re-framed naturally by the performance itself, which means the method cannot be easily back-tracked by either the spectator or audience members. Props should go to Ross here for first applying the idea of re-framing to method itself. It has since become such an important part of my thinking that it is hard to imagine modern Mentalism and the latest iteration of prop-less performance existing without it. Te overall appearance of o f the effect creates a false logic that makes everything everyth ing appear entirely fair and the fact the method exists in words and disappears after it is spoken means that all al l your audience will be left with is the appearance of what seemingly took place—real mind reading. Method and effect combine to create something larger than the sum of its parts. So, what does it look like and feel like? Here is the script I use: “I want you to imagine you are back at school. You You are around 8–9 years old, sat at your desk and are bored. So, you you decide to create a simple drawing on your notebook like a clock with hands, a mountain or a bicycle.” “Please avoid those, as I have just mentioned them; and also avoid only drawing simple shapes such as hearts or stars, as these are boring.” “Instead, draw something that is instantly recognizable as an actual object .” .” Tis is similar to the script Phedon uses to ensure the spectator draws something that will likely fit into our limited selection of commonly thought-of simple drawings. Te scripting, aside from ensuring the spectator thinks of something basic or simple, also forces them to think of an actual object. Tis is important, as it leads the spectator to think of something that can easily be visualized and also has distinct attributes necessary for the 132
Fraser Parker
following method to work. Note: Luke Jermay was the first to use a restrictive field that was not seemingly restrictive in his phobias anagram from his book 3510. 3510.
Morgan Strebler has also used the idea of getting the spectator to imagine they were back at school, to restrict their drawing to one out of a few simple drawings they could be thinking of. We have eliminated a mountain (or something like a mountain, such as a volcano) and a We bicycle from likely being chosen just by mentioning them, as is standard practice when applying psychological forcing. For more information on this, check out Psychological Subtleties 1 by Banachek. So now they will likely be thinking of one of the following commonly thought-of drawings when given these restrictions. Te list I work with is: MOON SUN REE CAR BOA APPLE AEROPLANE SICK-MAN HOUSE ABLE ABLE CHAIR GLASS PEN PENCIL BALL FISH FLOWER CA DOG Tese are from the restrictive field discovered to work well by Phedon. Of course, I have also mentioned the heart and star shapes and have therefore eliminated eli minated them from my system. Te reason for fo r this is so that each of the possible drawings conform to two basic properties: manmade and natural objects, and objects that can or cannot be held in your hand easily easily.. 133
Te Book of Angels
Art Vandelay Vandelay was first to use such distinctions in his work using anagrams to successfully divine objects thought of by a spectator and should therefore get credit. Te reason we need these distinctions—each of which come come from Phedon’s method as a way way of distinguishing between certain possible choices of drawing—will become clear c lear in a moment, Tese distinctions disti nctions are something Peter urner urner has also played with in the th e past when dealing with thought-of objects and polarity polar ity of choice. Tis is currently unreleased at the time of this thi s writing, but is something you should ask him to perform. per form. It is so elegant el egant I kept the cards he used to write the t he force items on; but, that is a story for fo r another day. day. Now I say the following: “Before I try to guess what it is you’ve drawn, I want you to try to instinctively guess the drawing I have in my mind.” It is this next line that underpins the entire method and makes it work. I casually say: “It would be interesting if by coincidence we had both drawn the exact same image.” Peter urner employs a slightly different script here which some may prefer, as it makes what you are doing appear that much more casual. He would begin the effect with: “I want you to imagine you are back at school... [apply the usual script here]. While you were drawing your image, I did the same and it will be interesting if we both coincidentally drew the exact same image.” Wee both then continue with the following questions about our drawing: W “ So, So, with this in mind, do you feel my drawing is natural or manmade?” Say they answer with “natural.” Performer: “Okay, do you feel it is something you can hold in your hands easily or is it much larger? ” ” Spectator: “Much larger.” Your previous comment about both of your drawings potentially being the same creates an Your expectation in the spectator’s mind that they will be the same and this causes the spectator to give you answers about your drawing that also pertain per tain to theirs. Tey will answer with attributes about your drawing which correspond to theirs. 134
Fraser Parker
Te scripting in bold is important, as it stops the spectator from answering incorrectly incorrectly by stating their object is something they can hold in their hands when in reality it is much larger and doing so would be difficult. For For instance, holding a dog in their hands—although this could be done with smaller dogs, they will likely respond with a “no” “no” when when asked if this is something they can easily hold in their hands. spectator struggling or hesitating before giving their answer, you can assume their Note: If you see the spectator thought-of drawing is something they could hold in their hands but it wouldn’t be easy to do so.
All you have to do is listen to their answers and this will give you the properties of their drawing! Tis would be obvious if it weren’t weren’t for what comes next. Note: o make remembering their answers easier, I visualize one of the drawings from the limited selection range that fits the attributes they give. Tis is much easier to recall later on in the routine, compared to two separate answers. An image will stay with you much more easily, enabling you to focus on your performance and not be worried about remembering these details; all you have to do is think back to the image placeholder you have in your memory for their drawing, take note of its characteristics characteristics and traits, t raits, and you will instantly know their drawing’s attributes.
After they have answered, I dismiss their answers as being incorrect but get them to think that this is their idea using the following piece of scripting from Peter urner. urner. “So, do you think it is more likely we have drawn the exact same image or that these are different?” Tey will usually usuall y say that they feel it is more likely we have drawn different images due to the odds involved. Tis helps to disconnect their answers about your drawing from theirs. Whether they say they think the drawings are the same or not, I always inform them that they were wrong on both bo th characteristics char acteristics and tell them my drawing has opposite characteristics to what they say. say. In fact, the way I perform this is to just state they were wrong about the characteristics of my drawing and give them opposite characteristics to work with, different to whatever it is they have said. Tis disconnects the idea that our drawings are similar much quicker, and I feel this is the most effective way to press this point. “Okay, my drawing is actually manmade [say the opposite of their answer] and is something you can’t hold in your hands [again, say the opposite—or, if you prefer, the same as the spectator].” What this thi s does is dismiss dis miss their guess as unimportant. It seemingly doesn’t help them to guess your object because they were wrong and the answers they gave are therefore thrown away in both their mind and the minds of everyone else who is watching. Tis also means that any 135
Te Book of Angels
potential method is also discarded by anyone trying to backtrack later on. Tere is a weird logic at play that subtly implies that if they are wrong then what you said previously about the drawings potentially matching must also be incorrect; and any set up that may have taken place or connection that may exist with the answers they give is also irrelevant and of no use. Of course, this isn’t the case at all. In fact, the answers they have already given tip the two qualities of their drawing to you. It happens in an indirect way as they try to guess your drawing, so everything flies right past everyone. Tis is the first disconnect which takes place in the routine. Te spectator and everyone watching watching are focusing on the effect of the spectator trying to guess your drawing and you guessing the spectator’s drawing has seemingly not even begun yet, so everything appears fair and as it should. Now, I get the spectator to attempt to divine my drawing using the clues I have just given them Now, about my drawing. Tese are always opposite attributes to whatever attributes they name at first. I may sometimes state they were wrong with only one of the attributes in my drawing and then let them make their guess from this information. “So, just trust your intuition and try to get a sense of what my drawing is. When you have an image built up in your mind, say out loud what you think it is.” Tey settle on a drawing and I always just say s ay whatever they name is wrong and claim I was focusing on a different object that matches the characteristics I have already specified as belonging to my drawing. Here I would say an object that isn’t commonly thought of that is out of the scope of the restricted field of drawings, to help suggest they literally could have thought of anything (as suggested by Peter urner). Te reason I choose to say they are wrong is so that I can say the next line: “ Tat’s okay, it just shows you how difficult it it is to guess the drawing someone else is thinking of, even after being given a couple of clues about that drawing.” Tis line will make the subsequent guess of their drawing appear that much more more difficult and will therefore make the reveal much more powerful. It also suggests that you gave them clues about your drawing and not the other way around. Not only this, but it also sets you up for the following convincer and the second disconnect in the routine. 136
Fraser Parker
“Okay, I am going to try t ry to guess your drawing; but, without you giving me any clues whatsoever.” whatsoever.” Tis line cements the notion that you don don’t’t know anything about their drawing—which, of course, isn’t isn’t the case. Why would you not want them to give you any clues c lues about their drawing, if they already have? You wouldn’t. Terefore, they have to assume you are not aware that their first answers gave you any information. In their mind, you have disregarded any clues they have already given to you. Even if they feel they have given you information, they have to assume you have not taken note of these clues as being important and have instead ignored what they said. Tis also al so helps solidify the notion that your comments about both drawings matching at the start of the routine was simply a curiosity which has already apparently been proven as a false impression. Peter prefers to say that they are correct on their final guess and uses the following script as a convincer: “Tat’s it! You may think that I am just agreeing with whatever you say, but if that was the case I wouldn’t have told told you that you were wrong previously. Te only way I can prove this would be for me to now try to guess your drawing without you giving me any clues whatsoever .” .” Tis wraps everything up beautifully and creates a nice logic that makes everything appear congruent. Now you can use the information secretly obtained—as well as the length of o f the word or name for their drawing—to nail their exact thought of drawing. Here, I simply get them to focus on the drawing as a word (for (fo r example, house) and have them focus on the amount of letters in this word. “I want you to go back and focus on your original drawing. Imagine it is drawn out in f ront of you and in your mind just write whatever this drawing is at the bottom of your drawing.” “Now, focus on this word. Can you count the amount of letters in this word?” Tose who know CUP’s by by Michael Murray can apply the principle here. His ingenious work on divining the amount of letters in a word to know which word a spectator is thinking of can be found in his breakthough book A Piece of My Mind , found on his website www.mindfx. co.uk. If you are not familiar with CUP’s , then simply throw out an amount of letters and get the spectator to tell you the amount of letters if you don don’t’t get a reaction from hitting. Tis is such s uch a small piece of information that asking for it doesn doesn’t’t seem to lessen the impact of the final reveal. 137
Te Book of Angels
In fact, here is where I would apply Ross ayler’s Context Shift principle—first principle—first conceived and used by Peter urner on his Devil in Disguise DVD—and DVD—and throw away the process with the following scripting: “Actually, forget the word, as this is the wrong wron g way to think about a drawing. So instead, just focus on the actual image for me.” It appears as if the amount of letters and the word are irrelevant and are being ignored and this, in turn, cancels out any possible method and the notion that their previous answer helps you to guess their drawing. If you examine the list of possible drawings, you will see that now you are in a very good position to correctly reveal their thought-of drawing 9 times out of 10. Tey are separated into the following categories. If they are focusing on a natural object they cannot hold in their hands, it will likely be one of these objects: MOON. SUN. REE. If it is manmade and too large to hold in their hands (or they can’t hold it in their hands because it is not an actual thing—such as a stick-man): CAR. BOA. AEROPLANE. SICK-MAN. HOUSE. ABLE. CHAIR. Note: If they take a while to think of the amount of letters in their word, you can usually be sure they are thinking of an aeroplane or a stick-man at this point and dismiss the process early without getting an exact amount of letters. Ten it is a simple matter matter of using using a fishing fishing statement statement to to distinguish between the two potential drawings (as described below).
If it is natural and can be held in their hands, it might be one of these th ese objects: FISH. FLOWER. CA. DOG. And for manmade objects that can be held in their hands: GLASS. PEN. PENCIL. BALL. Te only drawings that might cause you problems when you know the exact amount of letters in their word are HOUSE and ABLE, and MOON and REE—with more becoming a problem if you decide to add more outs to each category of potential drawings. A simple way around around this problem is to apply a hanging statement where where you make a statement about one of the two potential drawings you are down to and if you don’t get a reaction then instantly correct yourself (à la Peter urner). urner). 138
Fraser Parker
Tis will simply look as if you are getting a feel for what it is they have drawn and are simply trying to work it out from the impressions i mpressions you are receiving and will in no way look like fishing, if performed perfo rmed correctly. correctly. For example, if you are left with HOUSE and ABLE ABLE as potential drawings, you may say the following statement: “Tis is something you go inside? No, I think this is actually indoors.” Now I would write ABLE/CHAIR as my prediction to cover yet another potentially commonly thought-of drawing. CA/ DOG would also work well for this type of written out. Tis will still seem to be a “hit” “hit ” no matter which item the spectator was focusing on, as these objects would usually be thought of as going together. If they are focusing on the two possibilities of MOON and REE, then a distinguishing statement you might want to use would be: “I feel this is something you would look up at and can touch? No, in fact, it is something you would reach out and touch metaphorically.” I will leave it to you to expand on the amount of potential drawings you want to cover and to combine the basic method with your favourite verbal/physical outs. You could also just apply more than one hanging statement You statement to nail down on the exact drawing, drawing, without using any form of out. I prefer to not complicate the method further, but instead use this as taught and find a 90% chance of success adequate for my needs. One of the drawings since writing up this effect I have added to my list of potential outs is the word APPLE. I find this is commonly thought of o f and is something both natural and that can be held easily in a spectator’s hands. Tis is a good example of how my method allows you to sometimes divine thought-of objects not within your restricted field of choices. Te first time they thought of this drawing, I knew the relevant information as well as the word was 5 letters and could therefore comfortably take a guess at “apple” and and likely be correct—and I was! Tis method can therefore be used us ed for much broader choices without the fear of failure. fail ure. Most of the time, you will be able to nail down on their specific thought or use fishing statements and physical outs to end successfully. successfully. Naturally, you could present this in the classical Naturally, c lassical way and have the spectator actually draw what they are focusing on, then draw it yourself and have both drawings turned around at the same time to show they match. 139
Te Book of Angels
Note: You may also come across the spectator thinking of an AEROPLANE as just the word PLANE. Tis is easily solved with a fishing statement. I usually just assume they will think of the word in its fullest form, as this this seems to be how spectators spectators think of this this object in my culture.
Tis could also be used for Pre-Show or used in a close-up c lose-up environment using my notion of “Now-Show.” Tose of o f you already familiar with my close-up form of Pre-Show will know how to achieve the following results. Let’s say you have already apparently failed at divining their drawing by throwing out the wrong drawing on purpose. You tell the spectator you will try again later on in the show and instruct them to think of the same drawing when asked to “Tink of a completely random drawing.” Now, Now, when that spectator is in front of a different group or much larger audience later on in your show you can perform the drawing duplication as you would classically (with each of you drawing an image). “In order to help me pick up on this drawing it will be helpful if you can visualize it in front of you, so I want you to take take this pad and pen and begin to to draw your image. I will look away.” Now you can reproduce their drawing and show that they both match. I will leave it to you how you decide to perform it and what risks you are willing to take. I hope you get as much out of this prop-less drawing duplication as have I and a few of my close cl ose friends. It really is an intuitive system that takes very little memory work—if any—and opens up the ability to t o use a restricted selection field in a relatively fearless fearl ess way. way.
140
Fraser Parker
Script Change by Kevin Hamdan In my opinion, Fraser Parker’s Parker’s prop-less drawing duplication I duplication I Fall to Pieces is is the best answer to this effect. It is billet-less, prop-less and feels like genuine mind reading. When Fraser Fraser showed showed me me this over Skype, I immediately fell in love with it and I always perform it. Te script is fantastic, but I made a small change to t o it to work better for me. I showed this to Fraser and he loved it. Te script is the same as Fraser’s, but with a few changes. Tis is the script I use: “I want you to imagine that you are back at school around 8–9 years old. You are sat at your desk and you pick up your pen or pencil and you draw a simple drawing on your notebook like a clock with hands, a mountain or a bicycle. Please avoid those, as I have just mentioned them; and also avoid only drawing simple shapes such as hearts or stars, but instead draw something we would recognize as an actual object. [I sometimes don’t add in telling the spectator not to go for the drawings I named. It really depends on the spectator].” “I now want you to imagine that I was sitting at my desk beside you and that I was also drawing a simple drawing. Now chances are the drawings we drew are not the same, but but due to the classroom pressures, feelings and our surroundings, we could have have drawn something similar. similar. So, with that in mind, do you believe my drawing is natural or manmade? Do you believe it i s something I can easily hold in my hands or is much larger?” Once the spectator guesses the drawing I drew, I always tell them they are incorrect. I do this because I believe it helps the next line of the script become stronger. It is up to you though if you want to tell them that they are correct instead. “I actually drew a [name a different drawing], but this shows just how difficult this is even with hints. Now, I want to to try and guess the drawing you drew, but without any hints whatsoever whatsoever.” .” Te rest of the process is the same as Fraser’s. In my opinion, by saying that the drawings we drew are not the same and that chances are they could be similar, it makes it harder for the spectator to backtrack. Just think about it—if you tell the spectator that chances are our drawings are the exact same or different [opposite] it can be easier for fo r the spectator to follow follow.. Te re-frame in telling them that their guess for your drawing is incorrect is stronger when telling them that our drawings are similar. Tis is because by saying it is similar we can erase the process by saying since it was incorrect then our instinct was wrong. Tis can work when saying the drawing is the exact same or different; but when saying sayi ng they could be similar, it doesn’t limit it to one extreme and therefore makes it harder to backtrack. Tis is because by saying “similar” it it is easier to erase the process, because you didn’t didn’t limit it to one extreme—either exactly the same or different. 141
Te Book of Angels
Tat is my take on Fraser’s Fraser’s effect. I hope you like the small adjustment I made to it! Kevin Hamdan
Now that you understand the basic methodology behind my prop-less drawing duplication, I will give you a few of the updates and variations that take this method even further. fur ther. Te next variation is a thing of pure beauty and makes divining a drawing as simple and elegant as can be, in my opinion.
142
I Fall Fall to Pieces— Pieces— Opposite Dwings Instead of mentioning that my drawing and the spectator’s spectator ’s are likely the same, I instead create a polarity and subtly lead the spectator to think in terms of opposites instead of similarities when contemplating my drawing. Tis completely flies past the spectator and everyone watching, as it appears exactly as it would if you were to perform the th e following method for real. It looks exactly as it should; the spectator tries to pick pic k up on your mental drawing and either is correct or fails, and then you are able to instantly reveal their thought-of drawing. Te words and scripting which make this work appear exactly as they would if there was no subterfuge at play, play, whatsoever; yet, you you are able to successfully successfull y divine their drawing. It will be easier to teach you this variant if I show you the differences in scripting and what outcome these specific words create. Everything else is the same in terms of method and the workings of the effect. Te main differences are the spectator will now be directed to think t hink in terms of opposites, as well as never actually actuall y answer your questions out loud. “As you were drawing your image, I couldn’t help thinking of a specific drawing myself. Each of our drawings will likely be completely different, to the point where these drawings will have completely different characteristics and traits to one another.” Tis is the scripting that nudges the spectator to think in terms of opposites and will cause them to answer in a moment with attributes attri butes opposite to their own drawing. However, they never actually answer out loud in this version. Instead, they simply think these answers and then are directed to build an image with these characteristics. Not only is it not necessary for the spectator to answer out loud for the method to work, as you will see—it will also make the proceedings appear much fairer and much more impossible to everyone involved. If you want to be bold so that what you say and do appears exactly the same as if you were to do this for real, then you can simply state that your drawings will “likely be completely different” and leave it at that. Tis may be enough to get the spectator to think th ink in terms of opposites oppo sites all on their own. I prefer to add the following line for safety safet y, to ensure they definitely apply thinking in terms of opposites to both of the questions which will be posed to them in a moment: “ …to the point where my drawing will have completely different characteristics and traits to yours.” In either case, it will appear as if you are simply stating the obvious. Of course, both drawings likely won’t match unless it were truly possible to connect telepathically. What you say is 143
Te Book of Angels
congruent with the overall effect. It is this innocent, self-evident remark that actually allows you to subtly guide their choices with the next scripting: “ So, So, with this in mind, I want you to just think to yourself is my drawing natural or manmade? Tink is it something you can easily hold in your hands or is it much larger? ” ” Tey should now be focusing on attributes different and opposite to their own drawing. “And now allow an image of my drawing, containing these attributes, to slowly form in front of you in your mind. Just give me a nod when you have done this.” Te spectator will do as you ask and will likely now have one of the force images in mind. Now, it is a simple case of drawing one of the force items as the drawing you were supposedly thinking of. Make sure the spectator doesn’t see what you draw. Ten ask the spectator what they feel you were focusing on. Tey will either be correct, close or fail completely at this point. But what is beautiful is they have now indirectly told you the attributes to their original thought-of drawing! Tis is so subtle it will fly right ri ght past everyone. All you have to do is take note of the attributes of the drawing they name out loud that they feel you drew, drew, and reverse these properties. For example, if the spectator names a “tree” for for your drawing, you know instantly that their drawing must be something manmade and something they can easily easil y hold in their hand. It looks as if all you are doing is getting the spectator to try to guess your drawing and nothing else. If they fail, simply say the following as you turn over your drawing to show s how everyone: “I actually went w ent for a [say whatever drawing is drawn on the pad]. But, don’t don’t worry; worr y; this shows how difficult it is for a complete stranger to go up to another complete stranger and—having never met—be able to instantly pull thoughts and images out of their head.” Tis will make what is about to come seem that much more impressive. “With your permission, I would like to now try to guess your drawing, without you giving me any .” clues whatsoever .” Now you use the rest of the method already described above to successfully nail down on their thought-of drawing. 144
Fraser Parker
Here it is important we state that they will not be giving you any clues about their drawing—as per the original handling—in handling—i n order to again imply that any clues they feel they may have given you have been disregarded by by you, and therefore there there is no way for you to guess their drawing. drawing. Of course, you may accidently draw their original origi nal thought-of drawing as your own. Whenever this happens, they will usually tell you and all you will then have to do is take credit for it to bring the routine to a successful conclusion early. “Oh, that explains why I had this particular drawing in my mind— I must have picked up on your drawing by accident.” You You may also prefer to be even bolder in i n this version versi on and only state “My state “My drawing will likely be completely different to yours, so with this in mind…” and and leave out the additional instructions instr uctions that its attributes will also be completely different. I don’t feel doing so is necessary, but now you know how I was able to completely fool other magicians who were versed in my work with this effect. When performed this way, there really is nothing to backtrack—as everything appears exactly as it would if you were to do this for real. Some of you may also prefer to state that each of the characteristics of your drawing will be “opposite” to their drawing’s attributes. Although this is safer, I feel it is a little too direct and does not provide enough of a disconnect (and is harder to re-frame later on). Other adjustments that can be made to the scripting without compromising on the deceptiveness of the routine would be emphasizing that each drawing will wil l be definitively different by omitting the word “likely” when when giving your instructions; as well as stating that “each” attribute will both be completely different to the attributes of their drawing. “Terefore, each of the characteristics of my drawing will be different to yours.” Tanks should go to Luis Montenegro for f or helping me realize that th at this indirect way to obtain the attributes of their thought-of drawing was possible. I performed a variation for him on Skype and I think it dawned on us both at the same time that this was possible. He thought that is what I was doing, and I realized in the moment that I should be doing that—even though it was unintentional at the time!
145
I Fall Fall to Pieces— Pieces— Two for the Price of One Te final variant I wish to discuss is a way to get two hits instead of just one. I realized that due to the polarity involved you had a good chance of the spectator hitting whatever drawing you think of if you commit this to paper and draw it as a prediction. For example, if the spectator says they feel your drawing is a natural object and something they cannot hold in their hands, once you have adjusted the spectator to say a manmade object and something you cannot hold in your hands, you you will have a good chance of getting the spectator to hit your drawing. All you have to do is draw something commonly thought of from the field of restrictions that fits the attributes they are now focusing on, place it face down and have them call out o ut what they feel your drawing is. Ten continue as planned. If you wanted to nail down on this further, you could get the spectator to tell you if they feel the word for this object is a long or short word and then simply agree with the spectator. Ten act as if you forgot to draw your image. “Sorry, I should have drawn what this is before asking you specifics about it.” Draw,, sight unseen, whatever image will likely fit with their thoughts. Ten ask: Draw “What drawing do you have in mind, for me?” Here, you can use Michael Murray’s CUP’s to to simply get the spectator to focus on the amount of letters in the word that would describe their thought-of thought-o f drawing and draw something based on the response you get. Tis way the nailing down procedure will not be obvious. If you want to be really cheeky, cheeky, you you can simply tell the spectator how many letters the name of your thought-of drawing has, making making it practically impossible for fo r them to now get it wrong. Tat’s it! I hope you like my various handlings for the prop-less drawing duplication. I am extremely proud of this piece and feel it is a culmination of many principles and a standout routine that shows you the power of the modern prop-less approach being pioneered by myself and a few of my close friends and peers.
146
MOOL What follows is a way to perform a billet-less name guess with complete accuracy accuracy.. Tis is something I have had in my notebooks for quite a while as a solution and is something I will use whenever I feel I need the guess to be nailed on but don’t want to use a billet. bi llet. It uses a deck of o f cards, but what is beautiful about this method is the cards become dissociated from the effect during the performance. Tey are used indirectly and in a way that suggests to the audience a more metaphysical process is being utilized, as opposed to the mechanical way in which they will be seen to be used by the spectator s pectator.. It will appear as if you simply get the spectator to focus on a card in order to give them a reading and then using a different, unrelated process are also able to read and guess the name of a person they are thinking of. o f. Actually, the name guess appears to be completely unrelated to the cards in terms of direct Actually, process and is therefore seen to be a standalone trick or effect to the audience. Te participant, having a slightly different view of what takes place, will still be fooled and have no idea how you were able to guess the thought-of name. Te first thing I do when introducing a deck of cards into a performance perfor mance is to justify their use u se by setting the correct context for their use. I say something along the lines of: “I’m not very good at shuffling or handling cards. I use them similar to how a psychic would, as a way of carrying around fifty-two symbols that allow me to more easily get inside people’s heads and more easily give readings.” Tis scripting lets the audience members know that you are not planning on performing card tricks, something they will usually associate with a deck of cards and a performer right away if you don’t don’t address address this issue. It is the perfect way to justify the use of a deck of cards within realistic performances of Mentalism. Tis is my go-to line which has even caused spectators to defend the notion I am not using trickery in my performances when a sceptic has come over and started to watch my performance later on in the show. It also sets up the idea that what you are going to do is similar to that of a psychic or may be real in some way and re-frames a deck of cards as an esoteric tool too l for giving readings. I now use a line from my mentor Kenton. “ Te playing cards people take out of the deck tell us specific things about their personality characteristics and traits.” t raits.” 147
Te Book of Angels
Tis is one of the ways ways Kenton approaches using playing cards to give readings. readings. Tis allows me to force a specific playing card and number to use later on in the name guess process without it ever becoming apparent to the audience that this is what I am doing. It will appear I simply have the spectator focus on a card in order for me to better read them as a person when giving the reading that goes along with the name guess. Here I use the Drop Force by by Eddie Fetcher as a way to force a specific playing card on the participant. It doesn’t doesn’t matter which force you use here, as long as it appears as “hands off ” as possible. I will teach this force for a second time, as a way of re-capping all of the nuances that go into making this appear as hands-off and free as possible. Te following f ollowing force is a “timing force” which fits this requirement perfectly. It is a very ver y open force and feels to the participant very fair—as if they truly had a completely free choice as to which card they the y stopped on. o o perform this force, simply have the th e force card c ard on top of the deck. Cut one third of the deck to the bottom of the deck and hold a break with your little finger. Now take off packets of cards from the larger block of cards above the break and place these either on the table or the hand of the spectator while asking the spectator to call out “Stop!” at at some point. Cut this larger block of cards three times, timing it so that you will be cutting off the last of the block of cards above the break at the same time in which the spectator will feel compelled to call out “Stop!” Tis Tis is the classic class ic “timing force.” If you practice and get used to the timing that works for you then you will find you will hardly ever miss this force. If they don’t stop you on the third cut then continue in a smooth fashion and cut off half of the remaining deck. Tis is placed on the table or hand of the spectator using the same timing ti ming and “beat” “beat ” used for the other cuts. Tey will now feel inclined to stop you due to the timing of the force and the fact you are nearly at the end of the deck and are running out of cards to cut to. Now, it is a simple case of having the spectator take the top card from the tabled packet as opposed to the card just cut to, in order to ensure the force card comes into play. play. Have the spectator take the card c ard they cut to and focus on it. It feels to the spectator as if they had complete control over where the deck was cut and therefore which card was chosen. Tis coupled with the fact the performer doesn’t need to touch the cards any longer will convince the spectator the selection was completely fair. “ ake the card and focus on it. I will look away. Now place the card face down do wn in the deck and shuffle the cards as you allow this card to sink back into your subconscious mind.” Tis scripting scri pting indirectly tells the spectator to remember their card without actually having hav ing to 148
Fraser Parker
say it. It also fits the premise of having the spectator take out a card from the deck in order for you to better read them. Tey are now directed to place their card back and shuffle it into the deck. It is important everyone knows there is no way for you to know which card was taken out of the deck. o o make sure this is clear, I always make an effort to look away during the selection process as well as when the spectator is placing the card back in the deck. Te spectator will now be focusing on the force card they apparently had a free choice of taking from the deck. I use the 2 of Hearts as my force card. Te reason for this will become clear in a moment. “We can forget about the cards for now. I only got you to take a card for my benefit, really—just to help “We me read you better.” Tis line is said as you place the deck in its card box and put them away in your pocket. It will create the appearance that the cards and the selection are no longer important, in terms of any process which follows, other than the fact the thought-of card is now in the subconscious of the participant and could be being used in some metaphysical way for you to more accurately read the spectator. You are now free to perform the name guess and it will appear to be unrelated to any of what You has come before; it will appear as if what comes next is entirely prop-less and devoid of any mechanical process. I begin with the reading of the spectator. I will not give you my exact approach to giving readings, as this is out of the scope of this book. However, one of the tools I always plan on using when giving a reading is Completely Cold by by Kenton. I may say something along the lines of: “I feel you have doubted yourself when it has come to making certain decisions recently.” I usually open my reading with a “stock line” or a statement that is likely likel y to fit most people; then I move into the “whisper” technique which makes the name guess work. Tis is an idea from Peter urner and is known as his Bob Bob principle. principle. I use this in a very direct manner here without worrying too much about tying t ying up the subsequent “Dual Reality” and differing perspectives my application of it creates. Peter has more work on this principle that makes this even more beautiful in its application. He has ways to tie up the “whisper” in such a way that no one will ever want to ask what was whispered to the participant. Again, I don’t don’t feel this is entirely necessary in this routine. 149
Te Book of Angels
“Tis is personal and just for you. It wouldn’t make much sense to anyone else anyway, so don’t feel obliged to tell them if they ask.” Tis covers the use of the whisper theatrically and makes it seem what you are about to tell the spectator is only meant for their ears, which it is. Te only difference is this is not something personal relating to their life but is instead an instruction given only to them. Tey will usually not want to say whatever you whisper, which will usually usuall y be enough for them to not reveal what was whispered later on. If they were to reveal what was said after afterwards wards then it still won won’t’t matter, matter, as the few people they tell will still stil l perceive the effect from the perspective of the th e spectator—which is good enough. We just give ourselves the chance of a greater effect to be perceived using a whisper as cover to We deliver the following instructions. Here I lean in and whisper: “Focus on the value of the card you just looked at. I want you to jump forward for ward this amount of letters in the alphabet when I ask you to jump to a different letter, in a moment. Nod if you understand.” Lean out and check that they nod showing they understand the instruction, then continue by saying: “So, this makes sense to you?” It will appear to everyone ever yone else you are referring to whatever personal information you have just delivered to the spectator, whereas it is really a simple check they are following foll owing along with your instructions. Tey will think back to their playing card value and and think of it in terms of its number. number. Tis will make it easy for the spectator to process your instructions to mean jump that number of letters whilst at the same time not tipping the force. If you said number instead of value they might begin to sense you already know the card they are thinking of. If you notice any doubt in your spectator or they begin to speak then simply cut them off and lean in and give your instructions again. What these instructions do is set up a situation akin to “Pre-Show” but with the “dirty” “dirty ” work being done in “real time” right in front of everyone. Tis is different to my “Now-Show” “Now-Show ” principle and is a kind of real-time Pre-Show or secret coaxing. Tey will understand your instruction instr uction to mean they are to jump forwards for wards in the alphabet the same amount of letters as the value of the card they took out of the deck previously. Tey will also know to do this whenever you tell them to “jump to a completely different letter of the alphabet.” 150
Fraser Parker
Tat is all they know at this point. Tey don’t don’t understand the full ins and outs of what is going to take place, but should understand your instructions enough for them to give you a nod of the t he head as confirmation. Tis will help create the illusion the spectator will jump though the letters of the alphabet in a completely random fashion, as opposed to jumping a few letters forwards from whatever letter they will be focusing focusi ng on. Te reason I use the 2 of Hearts as my force card is so they will only need to jump ju mp forwards for wards two letters. I considered using the Ace so that the spectator only needs to jump forwards one letter but due to the fact the Ace can be considered as a high or o r low card I decided to take out any potential confusion that could arise from its use and go with a two as the force card instead. If you still want to use the Ace of Spades as your force card because you feel it will be more easily remembered by your participant—due to the fact it is a psychologically appealing card— then you can still do so. Simply state that aces are equivalent to the value of 1 before a card is selected out of the deck. Te fact the spectator is only jumping forwards two letters will also help you to divine the correct letters as you perform perfor m the subsequent name guess. Tis will become clearer in a moment. I now use an aspect of Peter urner’s Confirmation Confirmation principle to subtly lead the spectator to think of a name. Instead of just asking the spectator to think of a name, I claim to know there is someone who has been prevalent on their mind recently. Tis allows me to specify the sex of this person. It therefore takes out the extra step of having to also guess whether it is a male or female name they are thinking of. It is also a much more natural way to introduce a thought and allows for a smooth transition from reading the spectator to reading the thought-of name. Tey will usually find someone who fits the criteria cri teria you set and who has been on their mind more than anyone else recently. recently. If not, then just push them to think of o f someone close to them who is of whatever sex you prefer to use. I prefer to guess male names as I find them easier to “peg” in my culture. I therefore lead the spectator to a male name in the following way. “I feel with you there is a male person who has been on your mind quite a lot recently.” Tis usually works well with female spectators, as the person they will think of will often be someone who they are involved in a relationship with in some way. For this reason, you may want to switch to guessing female names when working with a male spectator. I prefer to perform intuitive effects of this kind for female spectators so will usually be going for a male name at this point. “Can you think of who this is without saying their name?” 151
Te Book of Angels
Tey will respond with a “yes.” By asking the spectator who this person is in relation to their own life, you will further get the spectator to confirm all of what you have stated has come from their mind and is relevant. “Who is this? Your friend or a family member?” Spectator: Spectat or: “My boyfriend.” boyf riend.” “Is there any way I could know this person’s name?” Spectator: “No.” It also establishes an impossibility for what it is you are about to do, which helps to build the impact of the revelation of the thought of name, yet to come. “Of course, using playing cards to give a reading is only one type of oracle. I want to use a metaphysical oracle that only exists in our minds.” Tis line creates the idea a completely unrelated process is now at work that is disconnected from the earlier playing card selection. “I want you to focus on the name of this person. Imagine it written in front of you and focus on the first letter of the name.” name.” I now pause for a second or two as I touch the spectator and make sure I gain eye e ye contact with them before giving my next instruction. It is important they are properly focusing f ocusing on what you say at this point, so that they don’t don’t miss the meaning of your words. “And now... [touch the spectator on their hand as you look them in the eye] jump to a completely different letter of the alphabet.” Tanks to the previously whispered instructions, the spectator will understand these words to mean they are to jump forwards the amount of letters dictated by whatever card they looked at previously. Of course, this will be two letters l etters due to the fact the force card they took out of the deck before was the 2 of Hearts. “Whatever letter you are on now. Can you give me a positive characteristic or trait of the person you are thinking of that begins with this letter or just the first word that pops into your head that begins with this letter?” Tis is a way of essentially getting the spectator to tell you the letter they are now on; but instead of simply asking aski ng for the letter, we do this indirectly by hiding it i t within the context of a “Metaphysical Oracle” (à la my prop-less name guess Rose ). ). 152
Fraser Parker
Te line, “…or just the first word that pops into your head that begins with this letter?” ensures letter?” ensures the spectator will be able to easily name a word even if they get stuck and can’t think of a characteristic or personality trait. It appears you are using this process of jumping through letters of the alphabet to help the spectator better think of associations, characteristics and traits of the person pers on they have in mind. o the spectator o spectator you have used a random selection of a playing card in order to shift them away from the letters in the name an amount of letters you could not follow, whereas to the audience this jumping through letters is completely random and unrelated to the previous card selection. In either case, it appears there is no way you could backtrack from whatever letter the spectator ends up on to any of the letters in the thought-of name. Naturally, when the spectator names out loud the characteristic or trait of this person it secretly cues you into the first letter of the name. Say they name the following characteristic and personality trait: “Veracious.” Tis Tis tells us that the first letter of the name has to be the letter due to the fact the personality trait they name begins with a letter two forwards from in the alphabet. It is now a simple case for us to mentally mentall y backtrack two letters of the alphabet, to arrive at what has to be the first letter of the thought of name, the letter . We now have the first letter of the name and can proceed to get as many of the letters of the name as we wish using the same process. I prefer to only do this one more time as it allows me to get both a positive and negative personality characteristic or trait; I can usually guess the name from just the first two letters of the name when combining this information with the other standard tools we have at our disposal when guessing names prop-less (e.g., Michael Murray’s CUP’s principle, prin ciple, Peter urner urner’s ’s Abbreviation Ploy , Derren Brown’ B rown’ss Repeat It Ploy ). ). If you plan on going through the entire name this way, then just ask for different personality characteristics and traits and don’t specify whether they have to be positive or negative. “Now focus on the second letter in the name and just do the exact same thing again. [Look the spectator in the eye and touch them on the hand) Jump to a completely different letter of the alphabet and this time give me a negative characteristic characteristic or trait that begins with this letter.” letter.” Te important line here is “just do the exact same thing again.” It It will remind the spectator they are to jump forwards for wards in the alphabet the same way they did for the first letter and ensures they don’t’t just jump randomly to a completely unrelated letter but instead jump forwards don for wards two letters. Say they name the following personality characteristic or trait: “Quirky.” “Quirky.” W Wee now know the second letter of the name is an O. Now all we have to do is add a little time misdirection and deliver a reading based on the positive/negative traits they give to us and then move onto the name guess. 153
Te Book of Angels
Tis is where a few of the other ploys usually used when guessing names prop-less come in handy. Te first principle I use when going for the name guess is Peter urner’s urner’s Abbreviation Abbreviation Ploy . I simply state, “If you can abbreviate the name or think of it in its simplest form then do so.” Here, Here, you can easily see when the spectator either thinks of the shorter name or struggles to do so and from this you know whether or not they are thinking of a longer or abbreviated version of the thought-of name. Tis helps to narrow down any multiple names they could be thinking of, which share the same first two letters. I always use Michael Murray’s wonderful CUP’s principle principle to “peg” the amount of letters in the thought-of name. I will not be tipping this technique in this effect as it is not mine to teach. However, if you read any of my other name guesses or invest in a copy of Michael’s book A Piece of My Mind then you will be able to learn this principle if you don’t already know it. It is important to perform CUP’s after after the previous Abbreviation previous Abbreviation Ploy ; otherwise the amount of letters would be thrown out. If you don’t know CUP’s then then you can just guess an amount of letters after having the spectator focus on the amount of letters in the name; if you are incorrect, simply ask for the amount from the spectator. You will often be close and asking for this smaller piece of information will not negatively impact the effectiveness of the effect in any way. Tis is because it is such a small part of the routine as a whole and would not really help you very much given that you apparently don’t’t know any of the letters which make up the thought-of name anyway. don anyway. [A basic version of CUP’ CUP ’s will be taught in my prop-less name guess Rose, which follows this effect]. You will You will now usually only be down to a couple of possible names the spectator spectator could be thinking of, if you haven’t haven’t already narrowed it down to just jus t one possible po ssible name. For example, we would know that the first and second letters were and O respectively and that this is an abbreviated male name three letters l etters in length. We We would now instantly know that the name they are thinking of is likely be OM. If we were down to two possible names, I would simply use a two-way out of some kind. One out I always have in i n the back of my mind that works effectively effectivel y is the Repeat It Ploy I I first learnt from Derren Brown in his book Pure Effect . What you do is essentially ess entially throw one of the names out and see if it i t hits. If they react on the name, then you take the hit; otherwise you continue to repeat the name as an example of how you want them to focus on the name. Say the following words: “I want you to repeat the name to yourself in your mind over and over. So, this would be Josh.” And Josh.” And pause slightly after af ter revealing one of the two possible names. If they react to the na na me me then take 154
Fraser Parker
the “hit” “hit ” and end the presentation there. If they don’t react then simply continue on as if you meant to provide the spectator with an example of how they are to focus on the name: “Josh... Josh, for example .” Obviouslyy, you Obviousl you now know the spectator would be thinking of the name JOHN. Ross ayler says that perhaps for a name guess it would be better to employ the Repeat It Ploy with a letter from a specific position in each of o f the names that would tip to you which of the two possible names they are thinking of, as opposed to repeating the entire name. Tis way if you “miss” on the letter then the reveal will not be diluted (as you haven’t haven’t already revealed a similar name to the one they are thinking of but have only mentioned a specific letter). Terefore, the name reveal will appear to come out of nowhere and will have more impact. I tend to agree with Ross here. So, there there you have it. A simple and easy way to perform a billet-less name guess with complete accuracy.. I would like to just add that if you want to perform accuracy per form this in a set with other ot her effects then you can disguise the use of a card c ard force even further by having the spectator select a card early earl y on during the course of another effect with cards c ards and have them dismiss it in the following way: way : “ake a card out of the deck, remember it and show it to everyone while I look away. In fact, I want to keep this personal between just us. Put that card back in the deck and take another one, so that only you see what this is. Place it back and shuffle the deck.” You would now perform the effect with the second selection and call back to the first card they You looked at during the whisper later on when performing the name guess, using words as follows: “…whatever number card you looked at first and showed everyone else at the very start of the performance...” I would typically use the Ace of Spades as the first force card when using this variation, as this is a more memorable card and it will be less easily forgotten by the spectator during the course of another effect. Here it is important to tell the spectator right at the beginning of your performance that aces are considered as having a value of 1. Te idea of forcing one card and dismissing it only to call back to it later is that of Peter Peter urner and this ruse first appeared in my book Memoria book Memoria . Of course, this method could be used to divine a star sign as well as any word! I hope you enjoy using this effect as much as myself and a few close friends have and that you actually go out and try it. Much of what is achieved here can be achieved entirely prop-less, without the need for a deck of cards. What follows is i s just one way to do such a thing! 155
Rose—A Rose by Any Other Name Prop-less Name Guess Performance I will first outline the script for a typical performance of the prop-less name guess which follows, so the reader can get a feeling for how this effect and method is structured in terms of its premise, as well as get to grips with how h ow 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 will remember using those random letters to give you random characteristic traits of this person they are thinking of, so you can then give a reading about this person using the traits and characteristics as a basis your reading. Tanks to the ingenious method which follows, the above is all the spectator and audience members will remember having taken place! I prefer to perform this effect and the star sign divination variant [taught later] to a group of people in a more intimate, close-up setting. Tis suits the aesthetic I wish to create—that of the old gypsy fortune teller or psychic reader. Not only does this make it appear that much more real to everyone ever yone watching, I feel it makes the performance perf ormance much more personal. I usually sit with the spectator while others are free to look on. However, However, there is no reason why this couldn’t 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. Te presentation and premise created by your script will still fit routines which utilize billets and props perfectly! I begin by introducing myself to the group and choosing someone from the group to be my participant. Let’s say I have just picked a beautiful beautifu l 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. One of the ways I do this is by trusting tr usting my feelings and going with whatever impressions I pick up on from f rom those who I meet.” “So, before we begin I would like to ask you a question. Do you believe it’s possible for people in tune with such things, to walk up to a complete stranger and having never met that person before be able to 156
Fraser Parker
reveal specific personal details about their life there’s no way they should know?” Spectator: Spectat or: “ Yes.” Performer: “Excellent. With your permission this is exactly what I would like to try with you.” If they respond with a “no” then then change your script to the following: Performer: “Would “Would you be willing willi ng to try tr y 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 that one of these thoughts stands out to me more than the rest. Tere 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?” n ame?” Spectator: Spectat or: “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.” Te performer breaks the process of having the spectator focus on each of the letters of the name, as if they need to change tracks and try a different approach to reading the spectator’s mind. Performer: “In fact, have you ever seen psychics who would bring out a deck of arot cards and have you take a card or cards cards out of the deck and would use these cards to to give you a reading?” Spectator: Spectat or: “ Yes.” Performer: “Tis is what’s known as an oracle. Instead of using a physical oracle such as a deck of arot arot 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.” “Whatever letter you are now focusing on. I want you to jump, mentally, to a completely different, random letter of the alphabet [snap fingers].” Spectator: Spectat or: “Okay.” Performer: “Whatever letter you are now on, can you give me a positive characteristic or trait that begins with this letter that you believe would best sum up the personality of the person you are thinking of?” “If you can’ can’tt then just give me the first word w ord that pops into your head that begins with this letter. letter. Say 157
Te Book of Angels
this word out loud.” Spectator: Spectat or: “Loving.” “ Loving.” Performer: “Okay, just jump back to the very first letter you thought of—the first letter in the name. It is essential you don’t say anything out loud unless I ask you a direct question, because I don’t want to know your thought processes. So, just focus on the first letter of the name and now just jump to the next letter of the alphabet [snap fingers].” “So, you now have a completely different, random letter in mind? Spectator: “Err... yes!” Performer: “Don’t “Don’t change your mind; I want you to use whatever letter you just thought of.” Spectator: Spectat or: “Okay.” Performer: “Can you give me a negative characteristic trait this time? If not, then just the first word that pops into your head that begins with wi th this letter.” letter.” Spectator: Spectat or: “Mischievous.” Performer: “Okay, just to re-cap, you focused on specific letters from f rom the name and each time jumped to a completely different, random letter of the alphabet.” Spectator: Spectat or: “ Yes.” Performer: “Good. Tere’s no way on Earth that these characteristics and traits could tell me anything about the person you are thinking of, o f, correct? Tey can’t really be summed up in just a couple of words?” Spectator: “No.” Te performer now gives a reading reading describing the person whose name 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. If you can abbreviate the name, then abbreviate it.” Te 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.” 158
Fraser Parker
Performer: “Okay, just repeat the name in your mind, over and over. So, this would be... Luke... Luke... Luke?” Spectator: Spectat or: “YES! “ YES! Oh my God, how?” It’s that simple! Usually with very ver y little additional work, you will be able to more often than not divine the exact name your spectator is thinking of—completely prop-less, using nothing but your words and how your words can shift perception as your method. As the following method exists exists within the script itself, I feel the best way way to teach it is to break the script down into its constituent parts and explain each part as we go. Method What follows is the cleanest and easiest way ever devised to divine divi ne a thought-of name or star sign prop-less and is the most elegant and stream-lined version of this plot that exists to date [at least it was at the time of writing. Tere is one other prop-less name guess I can think of hidden within the pages of this book that may just be the cleanest]. It is similar in aspects to the name guess in my limited work False Messiah, Messiah, as it also utilizes the re-frame principle created by my Ross ayler. However, it is not the same. It is improved to the point where method and effect are so interwoven that any notion of a trick method is completely disregarded, the workings of which go by completely unnoticed to those who witness your performance. Te fact the method exists exist s in words and how these th ese words change what is i s perceived is going on during the course of the performance itself means that there is no discernible method to be found by the end of the performance—all that’s left over is the illusion of what appears to have taken place, and yet you are still able to most of the time accurately reveal the name or star sign the participant is thinking of. Tanks to the method consisting of words words and the very nature of words words is to disappear as soon as they are spoken, it becomes impossible for those tho se present to backtrack what really occurred— meaning they are left with a beautiful lie and the illusion of the impossible becoming possible. Te illusion comes full circle and any sense of inconsistency of method disappears from the mind of the spectator as well as everyone who witness your performance. Tis is why my approach is so beautiful and different to what most other performers are doing. Tese methods create create a false reality and illusion of real magic and this is all that is remembered remembered as having taken place. Te spectator and audience members leave with the notion that th at real mind reading has taken 159
Te Book of Angels
place. Tey feel what you do is real and have no way of unravelling what has taken place due to the fact they themselves agree with the false reality and illusion you have presented in front of them. Everyone Everyone is fooled fo oled and feels that they the y have experienced something unexplainable, period! Performer: “So, one of the things I do is try to pick up on specific information from others. One of the ways I do this is by trusting tr usting my feelings and going with whatever impressions I pick up on from f rom those who I meet.” “So, before we begin I would like to ask you a question. Do you believe it’s possible for people in tune with such things, to walk up to a complete stranger and having never met that person before be able to reveal specific personal details about their life there’s no way they should know?” Tis line gets the spectator involved in the process by asking them a direct question. It also sets up a beautiful expectancy for f or what is about to happen. Tey will start to wonder if this is what you are going to start to attempt to do. Spectator: Spectat or: “ Yes.” If they reply with a “yes” then then you know they are less sceptical about such things as psychics and intuitive people being able to know others just by trusting their intuition and can up play to this! Performer: “Excellent. With your permission this is exactly what I would like to try with you.” If they respond with a “no” then then change your script to the following: Performer: “Would “Would you be willing willi ng to try tr y something along these lines to see if you will, perhaps, have a change of mind?” Tey will now usually respond favourably, and if they still show a sceptical resistance then simply move on to someone else in the group. Tis is a creative way to build rapport with your spectator at the beginning of a set or routine. Te two-way out used as an introduction to the effect 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 You will also be able to better handle and adjust their expectations throughout the performance, per formance, as as either a believer or sceptic, respectively 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 that one of these thoughts stands out to me more than the rest. Tere 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?” n ame?” Tis previous scripting is an aspect as pect of o f Peter urner’s urner’s Confirmation Confirmation principle principle and allows us to essentially force what it is the spectator focuses on in a routine, while at the same time making 160
Fraser Parker
it seem a natural part of the process. It fits much better theatrically, and its use means the presentation will be 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 boyfriend or someone of the opposite sex who is close to this person, when when performing for a female. I personally prefer to go for male names as these are easier to guess in my culture. Tere seem to be a lot more different spellings and many less likely or common names thought of when going for a female name. However, However, it is still sti ll possible to guess female names using the following fo llowing method and additional subtleties needed to nail down on the spectator’s thought-of name. I also prefer to perform for the opposite sex anyway, as I find it easier to do so. Perhaps this is due to the seductive and playful nature of mind reading. Terefore, I will usually usu ally be going goi ng for a male name when using this routine. Spectator: Spectat or: “Okay.” You Y ou now touch the spectator on their hand. Tis is done for theatrical reasons to help establish a connection connection with the spectator and is used as a subtext for how I am able to do what I do. ouching the spectator must do something; else, why would you touch them? Te spectator, as well as those watching, will have to assume it helps in some way. Tis is the Old Witch Doctor ploy ploy from Psychological Subtleties 1 by 1 by Banachek at work. It will also serve as a way to ensure you have the full attention of the spectator later on in the routine when it comes to delivering the line that makes the entire routine possible. By already establishing you will be touching the spectator early ear ly on, it means you you can touch them again and look the spectator in the eye—at the point in the routine where it is essential they follow along perfectly—in order to regain their full attention, so they don’t don’t miss your instructions. Performer: “Just focus on the first letter of this person’s name [slight pause] and now focus on the second letter.” At this point in the routine, we we appear to be simply guiding the spectator s pectator to focus f ocus on each of the letters in the thought-of name in turn as we attempt to directly read the spectator’s mind. It is only after we have them focus fo cus on both the first and then the second letter in the name that we seemingly decide to change our process, as if we have become temporarily confused and need to jump tracks and change tact. Tis is i s where we set the premise of using a “menta “mentall oracle” o racle” 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. 161
Te Book of Angels
Performer: “In fact, have you ever seen psychics who would bring out a deck of arot cards and have you take a card or cards cards out of the deck and would use these cards to to give you a reading?” Spectator: Spectat or: “ Yes.” Performer: “Tis is what’s known as an oracle. Instead of using a physical oracle such as a deck of arot arot 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.” Tis was one of the things Peter urner urner added to my basic idea for this routine when soundboarding with him over Skype. It ties the method to 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. Having the spectator generate characteristics and traits based on letters to be able to subtly know the thought-of letter is something both myself and Ross ayler have played with in the past, so applying this way of thinking to my original concept for Rose was was a no-brainer. Te original idea for this method was to simply get the spectator to jump to random letters and back to a letter in the name. Another thing Peter helped with was with the problem of needing the spectator s pectator 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 led to this part of the process needing to appear as separate from the process which follows. Because we get the spectator to focus f ocus 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, the spectator will now be naturally focusing on the letter we need—the second letter. Tis eradicated the need to direct the spectator to focus on the second letter first (which would have appeared unnatural) and, in fact, the need for specific letters to be named at all. Tis is beautiful! Having the spectator focus on the second letter first no longer stands out as an odd thing for them to do. Tey now do what they the y would do naturally naturall y anyway when focusing on a name. Tey would focus on the subsequent letters in the name, from start star t to finish. Now when they are interrupted while focusing on the second letter of the name, they will of course be left thinking of the letter we need them to. Performer: “Whatever letter you are now focusing on. I want you to jump, mentally, to a completely different, random letter of the alphabet [snap fingers].” 162
Fraser Parker
Tis line instructs the spectator to jump from the letter they the y 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: Spectat or: “Okay.” Tis process is entirely unrestricted u nrestricted and will later help in creating the false memory that the spectator was always instructed to jump through the letters of the alphabet at random [more on this in a moment]. Performer: “Whatever letter you are now on, can you give me a positive characteristic or trait that begins with this letter that you believe would best sum up the personality of the person you are thinking of?” Tey will now give you you a positive characteristic trait of the person person whose whose name 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 that begins with this letter.. Say this word out loud.” letter Tis ensures they can give you a word word and in the process of the spectator saying a word out loud they will, automatically and subtly, also give you the letter they jumped to [it will be the first letter of the word they say]. You don’t You don’t need need to remember remember this letter, letter, as it is in fact an irrelevant and entirely random letter at this point and is unrelated 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: Spectat or: “Loving.” “ Loving.” Note: Te 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, which follows). Te process which now follows is, in fact, not random at all. Te slight change in scripting of the following instructions—dealing this time with the first letter of the name—allows us to easily backtrack to the first letter of the thought-of name. name.
Performer: “Okay, just jump back to the very first letter you thought of—the first letter in the name. It is essential you don’t say anything out loud unless I ask you a direct question, because I don’t want to know your thought processes. So, just focus on the first letter of the name and now [touch the spectator on their hand again and lock eye contact] just contact] just jump to the next letter of the alphabet [snap fingers of other hand].” 163
Te Book of Angels
You now instruct You instruct the spectator to go back to the first letter they thought of during the previous process where they thought of each of the letters in the name. Tis will be the first letter of the thought-of name. If you feel the need, then you can remind them of this; this ; however, 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. If you want to be safe, then simply remind the spectator the relevant letter you want them to now focus on is the first letter in the thought-of name. Tey are then instructed to jump to the “next” “next” letter of the alphabet. Tis instruction could not be any clearer from the point of view vi ew of a spectator—who is under u nder pressure anyway to follow fol low along with your instructions correctly. Te spectator will be listening for your instruction and will go along with the most direct and logical meaning of your words. Tis psychology ensures they will simply jump to the letter that follows their thought-of letter sequentially in the alphabet. If you are worried and wish to be a little more direct then you can add in the word “now” before before giving your instructions, with a slight pause after the word “now” to to indicate you mean that the process this time will be slightly different to before. In fact, I always say the word “now” followed followed by a slight pause while at the same time touching their other hand and gaining eye contact with the spectator. Tese are all safety measures to ensure they understand and follow my instructions correctly. I also snap my fingers, to suggest they do this quickly—which helps to not give the spectator enough time to wander off and change their mind to a truly tr uly random letter. I always mute the spectator before giving this instruction. Tis is important with any routine that uses this obscurity obscurit y of instruction instr uction and ambiguity of language. You You don’t don’t want the spectator to question these instructions and potentially blow the illusion in the process. If they are not allowed to speak, they will usually just go along with the most obvious meaning and interpretation of your instructions and follow along correctly. If at any point you see the spectator about to speak, it is important you immediately “cut them off ” and interrupt them, reaffirming that they are to stay silent as you don’t don’t want to know their thought processes. I then allow the re-frame which occurs in a moment to adjust the meaning of this instruction for me. Tis re-frame allows you to ultimately get away with this bold ploy and will bring it back in line to mean the exact same as your previous less direct instruction for the spectator to jump at random to a different letter in the alphabet. Tis line is ambiguous enough to also mean that we meant for the spectator to again jump to another completely different, random letter of the alphabet. It is this ambiguity that will come full circle after the re-frame portion of this effect and bring everything in line with the overall illusion we are creating with the performance of the effect itself; 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. 164
Fraser Parker
Again, if you see that they are becoming confused and will blow the illusion by asking for clarification on the instruction, instr uction, then simply “cut them off ” and stop them from speaking by 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. I have also started to add the following line: Performer: “So, you now have a completely different, random letter in mind? Spectator: “Err... yes!” Performer: “Don’t “Don’t change your mind; I want you to use whatever letter you just thought of.” Tese lines help to imply the spectator should now have a completely random letter in mind but also stops them from changing their mind again from the restricted choice they have just made, while jumping to the next letter of the alphabet. Te fact they are now thinking of the very ver y next letter in the alphabet to the th e first letter of their though-of name means that we can easily backtrack to this letter by jumping back one letter of the alphabet, 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 that begins with wi th this letter.” letter.” Te reason we ask for a negative trait tr ait this time, is to provide polarity po larity in order to make giving the reading later on easier eas ier and to also als o make sense theatrically. theatr ically. We seemingly want to know two very opposite sides to the th e spectator’s thought-of person’s person’s personality. personality. 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. Terefore, built into the effect is an oppurtunity to give a kind of “hot” reading. Spectator: Spectat or: “Mischievous.” All we have to do now is take note of whatever letter the word word they say begins with, in order to backtrack from there what the first letter of the thought-of name is. Te characteristic they give in the example begins with the letter M, meaning that the first 165
Te Book of Angels
letter of the name must be whatever whate ver letter proceeds this letter in the alphabet—L. It’s as simple as that! All we really need to be able to guess a name or star sign the spectator is thinking of, completely billet-less, is the first letter which in turn allow us to obtain the length of word [how many letters it has], determine if it can be abbreviated and provide us with another distinguishing letter from the name). Below is a list of mnemonics I use to quickly qui ckly “find” the correct letter during performance. You may want to build You bui ld your own set of mnemonics using the following fol lowing system that allow you to jump back two letters through the alphabet. Ten you will only need to memorize memoriz e one crib to be able to use with the previous name guess MOOL guess MOOL as as well as with this effect. You You will simply jump back two letters and then jump forwards one letter to arrive at the correct letter when using the crib with the Rose name name guess. What follows is my crib to jump back only one letter letter,, as a means of o f explaining my memory memor y system. Another option is to simply memorize memorize the alphabet backwards, so that jumping back an amount of letters from a specific letter in the alphabet becomes child’s play. I have also just counted up through the alphabet silently in my head whilst apparently reading the thoughts of my spectator and arrived at the correct letter this way. way. Note: 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” “miss” if and when such obscure names happen to come up].
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. Tis will cause confusion to appear on their face; as soon as you notice this, stop them and say: “Just jump to any random letter of the alphabet.” Now you know they were likely thinking of the letter Z and can guess the name ZACH for a male name or ZARA for fo r a female, after following through with the rest of the process. Tis is great, as the process will now seem exactly as it should and everything will appear entirely fair. Here are the words you will need to memorize to perform this name guess: BRA CRAB DEC END FREE 166
Fraser Parker
GOLF HAG ICH JEDI KY JELLY LOOK MOOL NOM OWN PO QUIP ROYAL QUEEN SEER OSS UH VALUE UNDERPANS WA W AV X WIFE YELLOW YELL OW XYLOPHONE ZANY Te rules to remember are as follows: each of the words words begins with the same letter as the first letter of the characteristic or trait they name and ends with the letter which proceeds it in the alphabet (which is the letter you need to know to immediately know the first letter of the name they are thinking of ). Te only exception to this rule, is when two words are present in the crib. Ten 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. Naturally, words are easier to remember if they are visually interesting and are therefore more easily recalled as soon as you hear the named characteristic or trait and have the “key” letter in mind. It then becomes self-evident what letter the spectator is focusing on from the name. It is simply a case of taking note of the first letter of the word they give you, 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 look at it while using the notebook to write down the reveal of the thought-of name. You You can also learn the alphabet backwards as a way to easily jump back one letter from whatever their characteristic 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 instantly i nstantly work out the correct letter when under the pressure of performing. Here is how I would use the crib with the previous performance scripting. Say the spectator names the following characteristic trait: 167
Te Book of Angels
Spectator: Spectat or: “Mischievous.” As this characteristic trait begins with the letter M, I would now consult my my crib mentally and arrive at the following fo llowing word: MOOL Tis tells me that the first letter of o f the name is L. I now know the first letter of the name they are thinking of and proceed with the routine, as follows. Tis is where the re-frame comes in, which allows everything every thing 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 f rom the name and each time jumped to a completely different, random letter of the alphabet.” Tis is the re-frame and is what essentially allows al lows 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 each time randomly jump to a different letter of the alphabet, instead of simply jumping to the very next letter of the alphabet. Te second instruction will now be viewed in hindsight to mean the spectator should have jumped to whatever their next random letter choice would be and not not simply to the next letter in the alphabet. o recap: Te first time they jump to a letter to give us a positive characteristic trait, they o 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 one letter 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 You name, so it doesn’t matter that the first letter jumping sequence is entirely random and you cannot back-track to the second letter of the name. Tis openly free choice of letter will blend over the other restricted choice that follows this process, once the re-frame is applied. Everything will appear as it should after the fact, when viewed from the perspective of the illusion brought about by the re-frame. Te entire script and performance perfor mance will now be seen from this shifted perspective and all will appear congruent. Not one word will be inconsistent with the overall appearance of the effect. Tat is how subtle this approach is! Everything looks as it should. shoul d. Te only thing that changes is how what you have done is viewed by the spectator and audience members. 168
Fraser Parker
Tis second, unfair process process is now readjusted by the re-frame re-frame in the minds 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 supposedl y took place, once once it is too late. Te spectator will now feel as if you always meant for f or 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’t follow your previous instructions well enough. didn Tis 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 doesn’t really really matter. matter. Tis is what they will effectively believe belie ve your words to mean and is what they will wil l take away from these words and the performance itself. Tis causes the spectator s pectator to doubt you know they only onl y jumped one place away in the alphabet from the first letter of the name and they will therefore believe you couldn’t’t possibly backtrack from the letter they are now on and, in turn, couldn’t couldn couldn’t know the first letter of the name they are thinking of. Tey will feel that because you don don’t’t know how they jumped through the alphabet, the letter they jumped to may as well be random and they will therefore agree with you and confirm that they genuinely did jump to a random letter each time. Tis brings the effect full circle and cements cements the illusion for the spectator as well well as for everyone else watching. Everything will seem completely fair and as it should. If you think of this in a conceptual way, way, you you have effectively shifted perception temporarily temporaril y away from the effect and illusion you wish to create in order to get a mental “peek” of information, and then shifted it back in line with the overall illusion you wish to create, leaving nothing to be found in the process. Everything appears as it should, and everyone is fooled. Tis is beautiful! 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. Tis, in turn, leaves nothing behind that is out of place; all that remains is the pure effect. Te illusion has truly become a closed clos ed circle. Te fact that it is words and perception perception which enable this to work makes what you do seem and feel very real! Even to the performer, due to the fact that you are using as close to real magic principles as possible. 169
Te Book of Angels
As soon as the spectator agrees with your statement, the re-frame goes to work in their minds and ensures no one—not even the spectator themselves—can themsel ves—can backtrack and work out what has happened. Te illusion is watertight, due to their fooling themselves with their own faulty f aulty perception of what has taken place, thanks to the words and the psychology of the re-frame and how the overall performance itself appears outwardly. When delivering the re-frame, you should state it as fact (as if it is already 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 after wards yourself. Tey should then follow fo llow along in kind and say “yes” back back to you. Note: Te re-frame was first devised by Ross ayler, when we were creating our first method for guessing a name completely prop-less, Ouija. O uija. I have since taken the basic idea and pushed it to even greater heights with the name guesses which subsequently followed that release.
Te 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 backtrack to find out the first letter of the thought-of name. Terefore, there is no way for you to know the first letter in the name name or indeed their thoughtof name and everything appears fair. I would now give a reading based on the characteristics and traits the spectator has given me. Tis is essentially a hot reading similar si milar in approach to the name reading systems created by Richard Webster and Ken de Courcy. Tey would generate readings readings from words words which they would associate with specific letters that appeared in the name of the sitters who came to them for a reading. What this system created was an oracle which enabled the reader reader to easily generate associations which, in turn, made giving a reading much easier. Tis ensured 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. befo re. Where my system differs is not only will the reading be random each time, ti me, but the spectator will also give you information about the thought-of person just by giving you positive and negative traits of the person person’s ’s personality. personality. As already stated, all you have to do is give a reading which lies somewhere between the two 170
Fraser Parker
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 thoughtof name, but also at the same time essentially gives you a “hot” reading for free. In fact, I actually just trust my instincts and follow my genuine impressions i mpressions to read the spectator; in addition, I use certain stock readings lines I have come up with and generally generall y tend to ignore the characteristics and traits the spectator gives. Te reason for this is that a lot of the time the spectator will struggle to find perfectly matching characteristics and traits, and will therefore usually compromise and name traits which may or may not fit the person they are thinking of well. However, it is worth noting that sometimes they will indicate the truthfulness However, tr uthfulness of the characteristic they state by laughing or some other such sign and it is in those situations I use the word they say as additional information to help h elp me form my reading. If you so choose, you can forego the readings part of the presentation and instead state the following as a sort of shortcut to reading. “Okay, based on these characteristics and traits—as well as those I am picking up on concerning this person—I feel I have got to know kno w them a little better. Would you mind if I tried to guess the name of this person?” Tis allows you to create the notion in the minds of everyone watching that you have effectively given a reading and picked pic ked up on personal details surrounding this person person’s ’s life; you just haven’t haven’t verbalized it, that’s all. I feel actually giving a reading helps to disconnect the method from the name guess and provides essential time misdirection between the information-gathering portion of the trick and the subsequent name guess, and it should therefore not be taken out of the performance. What is beautiful about the way this effect and method is structured is the fact fact you are not only just going for the name but are instead divining much more about the personality 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 You enables you to nail the exact name of this person, also. Te 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 i t should when performed this way. And again, it also provides time misdirection 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 pre fers to use to do so is a very subjective thing. No two tw o performers perf ormers will give g ive readings the 171
Te Book of Angels
same way. I feel it is important to find your own way of delivering effective readings when you find the tools which fit you best. 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 experience you will need to be able to give the impression you know about the person in f ront of you or the person they are focusing on is essential. It is for this reason I am hesitant to give you any further tips on giving readings and will not be tipping my approach within this book. One system I always have in the back of my mind is Kenton’s Complety Cold; in my opinion, this and your natural intuitive abilities are all you need. Simply dare to speak out loud your real impressions about the person in front of you. Naturally, you should frame anything negative in a way that will help the spectator better help themselves. NEVER give advice [especially medical advice or advice on anything you are not properly trained in or equipped to do so] and always put the responsibility back on the spectator to find the answers to life questions themselves. Also, reminding the spectator that sometimes seeking help in others including proffesionals when needed, is also them them helping themselves. I also prefer not to ELL the spectat spectator or what decisions they should make regarding their future or indeed what will happen in the future; instead, I like to remind the spectators that if they want to know how they got to their current life situation they should examine their past thoughts, attitude and actions—as everything first starts as a thought then becomes speech and action. Terefore, the quality of their consciousness as well as their thoughts and actions in the moment and how they respond to current circumstances, is what will ultimately dictate their experience of the present moment as well as their future. What I will give you is this following suggestion passed on from my mentor, Kenton: 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, as well as the similar life e xperiences and concerns we all share, in order to relate to the person in front of you. Ten it is simply a case of speaking out loud the impressions you have about this person and sharing an experience. We are simply talking to the person in front of us as we would one of friends the only difference is, we make a show of it in performance. What makes mind reading seem impossible is our fear of where we are different as opposed to us focusing on where we are all similar. similar. Now, back to the explanation. Performer: “Okay, just focus on the name, for me. If you can abbreviate the name, then abbreviate it.” 172
Fraser Parker
You are now in the perfect You perf ect position positi on 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 You this could only be so many names. Te following additional additional ploys and subtleties are used in the order they appear here, to give you you even more information for you to base your guess on. You will essentially be guessing the thought-of name; You name; but with all of these ploys, subtleties and what has come before, just knowing the first letter of the name and sex of the person being thought of will enable you—most of the time—to entirely accurate with your guess and nail the exact name being thought of! If you don’t get the name exactly right, you will at least appear to be very close due to the fact that you will have the first letter correct. Te spectator will then usually usuall y give you credit for being close, even if you miss. A few of these ploys and subtleties were were included in the name name guess above this method. Please read though these again as it won’t hurt to re-cap. I also teach the use of CUP’s in in this thi s section, in as far as it applies to prop-less name guesses.
Abbreviation Ploy Te first principle we use before guessing the name name involves getting the spectator spectator to abbreviate the name they are thinking of, if this is possible. Tis principle is used in the Billet-less Name Guess from Bigger Fish 2 by 2 by Peter urner. 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. Tis works by asking the following question of the spectator: “Okay, if you can abbreviate the name or make it shorter, shorter, please do that now.” Tis 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 (e.g., “Did you get one?” ). ). In either case, you you now know whether they are thinking of a shorter version of the name or not 173
Te Book of Angels
and this gives you a further clue to use in a moment when guessing the name. Te next ploy we use straight after this one is the following principle from my good friend and ingenious thinker Michael Murray. Murray.
CUP’s—Comparative CUP’s—Com parative Uncertainty Principle Te basic idea behind CUP’s in its i ts simplest form, which Michael has very ver y kindly allowed me to explain here, 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 many letters are in the thought of word based on how long it takes the spectator to complete this task. Tis 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 by Michael Murray. You will not be disappointed! Wee use CUP’s by asking the following question of our spectator: W “Can you think of how many letters there are in this name?” Asking this question will cause the spectator s pectator to mentally count the letters in their head. Te fact you word this instruction as a question ensures they will respond verbally when they have completed this task. Teir answer is what cues you into when they are finished counting, which in turn allows for you to make 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 saf ely assume in most cases that they the y 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, 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. Tis 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. 174
Fraser Parker
Tese 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 as k 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 We and not the other way around; otherwise it would throw out the amount of letters for which we are fishing. Te answer of how many letters they are thinking of will be invaluable when it comes to guessing the name, so remember this amount.
Repeat It Ploy It is rare that you will find yourself in this position but sometimes s ometimes even after obtaining the first letter of the name, getting the spectator to abbreviate the name if possible and using CUP’s to to know the amount of letters, you will be left with two possible names to choose between. Tis is where I would employ a method I first read in Pure Effect by 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 thi s could be. For example: “Okay, just repeat this name to yourself over and over over... ... so this would w ould be... Emily... Emily... Emily.” If they are thinking of EMILY, EMILY, they will freak out ou t 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 to be an example of how you want them to concentrate on the name. Tis then gives you another chance at guessing the name. Either way, way, once once you know you were only close c lose you can guess the exact name they are thinking of with complete accuracy. accuracy. Tis ploy can also be used to distinguish distinguis h between whether their thought-of 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. Tis 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 Ross ayler ayler and apply the Repeat It Ploy to to one of the letters of both names that will allow you to distinguish which of the names the spectator 175
Te Book of Angels
is thinking of. Ten you can use any of the other two-way outs already discussed in this book, as applied to star signs. Now it is easy to discern which name out of 2 or 3 the spectator could be thinking of. Using the Repeat It Ploy to to guess specific letters is much nicer than applying it to the entire name due to the fact that it appears nothing has been guessed gues sed already, already, leaving you to reveal the thought-of name on its own. Te following script is an example of how I would handle all of this thi s in performance. Let’s say I am down to 4 possible names the spectator could be thinking of: JOSH JOHN JACK JA CK JAKE Tis really is a worst case and you will often only be down to 1 or o r 2 potential names, at the most. I would first fish for the second letter using the Repeat It Ploy . “Okay, just focus on the first letter in the name and imagine repeating it over and over. Now focus on the second letter. Imagine repeating this letter, over and over. So, this would be... A... A... A... for example.” In this example, I didn’t get a reaction on the letter A from the spectator; so, I can now safely assume they are not thinking of either JACK or JAKE and can apply any two-way out I wish using the names left over: JOSH or JOHN. I would write down one of the possible names and place this writing wr iting side down and then throw out the other name. If I get a hit, then great; I would just casually place the billet back into my pocket, leaving it sight unseen. If I miss I would say: “What name were you focusing on? Good. I’m glad I committed to [say the other name].” I would now turn over the billet, revealing I have successfully divined the thought-of name. In fact, if I had got a hit on the letter A, I would not need to apply a two-way out to nail down on the names JACK or JAKE—as JAKE—as JACK JACK is a name that is already in its short form and does not have a longer way of spelling it. Terefore, I would be able to discern which of the two names was the correct name based on the Abbreviation the Abbreviation Ploy previously previously applied. 176
Fraser Parker
So, there there you have it! i t! Please remember as you perform this that it is the overall illusion created by the performance itself, and and the power of your words to shift shi ft 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. Actually Te above method can, of course, be used to guess a star sign. si gn. Having the spectator generate characteristics and traits surrounding their own life based on letters from their actual star sign makes complete sense and will fit the theatrics of diving a star sign perfectly! Not only is this method perfectly suited to guessing star signs, it also makes practicing this method much less daunting, as there really are only two outs ever in play when applying this method to the 12 star signs of the zodiac. You may wish You wis h to start with this as your way into performing the much harder name guess, gues s, as there are less outs to deal with. As this is essentially es sentially a 1-in-12 naturally naturall y occurring cap, you you will be able to get this to “hit” every time with very ver y little work. Tis will help you to build bui ld confidence, as well as concentrate on your performance in order to make what you do believable. It will help you practice delivering the script smoothly, as well as help you perform the effect without any worry whatsoever whatsoe ver.. As already mentioned, 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 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 AQU ARIUS
CANCER CAPRICORN
LEO LIBRA
SCORPIO SAGIARIUS
VIRGO
GEMINI
PISCES
AURUS
177
Te Book of Angels
Tis will allow you to use an alternative method to the anagram when guessing a star sign that fits the aesthetic of a psychic reader, which is conversational and will ultimately feel real to those who witness your performances. It looks and feels like the real thing, with very little li ttle compromise; in fact, any and all compromise is now rendered invisible, thanks thanks to the psychology psycholog y of the re-frame. If you are still worried about being able to hit their thought-of name, you can practice the routine using a billet as a safety net. Get the spectator to write down their thought-of name as they would do normally, obtain your peek and then apply the previous prop-less method as a way of checking your work. Also, if you feel you may not be quick enough at working working out the potential names the spectator could be thinking of, you can familiarize yourself with the most common names for whatever demographic you mostly perform for—and indeed research all demographics—by looking at the most popular baby names for specific decades online. Tis method can also be used to obtain the first letter of the spectator’s thought-of word word in the MOAB MOAB book test, as well as be used to divine a thought-of country countr y or object. Te possibilities are endless. All you would need to do is substitute the characteristics and traits for something less personal and more relevant to the effect you are performing. Suffice it 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 that 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 continue with the effect as you normally would ignoring the fact there is a slight inconsistency. If you don’t don’t worry about it or bring any attention to it, neither will the spectator. Tey will still remember something impossible took place they cannot explain, even if what took place doesn’t doesn’t entirely fit the premise of the effect. Tis works for the readings part of the routine also. 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 everythi ng is connected in thought and this is how you were able to still get to specific details about the person’s life they were thinking of.
Please keep all of these secrets within this book safe and away from those who do not own this book or belong to that circle of magicians who wish to do what others deem impossible.
178
Rose 2—Exa Thoughts on Fser Parker’s Rose by Adrien Lochon Fraser Parker’s Rose is one of the best prop-less name divinations ever conceived. Te idea behind it is so simple and beautiful that it’s hard to imagine a better way to do it. What a lot of people don’t don’t seem to realize is that it was never meant to be used us ed as a standalone effect. You can’t go, “Hey, I’m gonna read your mind, baby!” and go into Rose . Te purpose is to give g ive a reading of some sort and add the name divination as a kicker—that’s why you ask for words that start with this or that letter. For that, you need to be able to deliver a reading, even if it’s a very, very simple one. If you can’t do a proper reading, let me suggest you do a zodiac divination instead: do Rose ’s ’s dirty work and, when you’re done, go into a zodiac progressive anagram or any other method, then finish by revealing the name. Tat’s a strong routine! Tat being said, there were a few things that I felt were not right for me in Rose ’s ’s original method, so I kept tweaking the script until I was happy with it. Tese are the subtleties I came up with. Tey’re minor changes, but I feel they the y make a big difference. Let me just refresh your memory of Rose ’s ’s original script: you have a participant focus on the second letter of the name, jump to a random letter of the alphabet and give you a trait or characteristic that starts with that letter. Tey tell you that word out loud. Ten you propose to do the same on the first letter of the name, but this time you tell them to jump to the next letter in the alphabet [instead of a random one] and give you a trait of characteristic that starts with that new letter. Tey tell you that word out loud. You Y ou give a brief reading and reveal the name. Te first thing I didn didn’t’t really like was the way Fraser starts with the second letter, then goes back to the first. I decided to start with the first letter letter,, do the “dirty “dirty job” of having them jump to the next letter in the alphabet, then clean up on the second letter by having them jump to a random letter and imply that they were supposed to do that for both letters. It seems a bit more logical in my mind and I feel hides the method better. Te other thing that kept bothering me was people watching were following along. 179
Te Book of Angels
When I asked what the word was, the participant said “Funny” and and everyone thought, “Okay, the name starts with an E.” Even if I reframed perfectly, when the time came and I revealed the name was “Edward,” everyone that followed fol lowed along thought, “I knew it started with an E!” and the reveal lost impact. perf orms Rose by getting the spectator to whisper the characteristics characteristics and traits t raits back Note: Fraser now performs to him. Tis gets around the problem just mentioned. Te way he justifies this theatrically is with the following script, delivered just before the spectator is instructed to say each of their thought-of characteristics charact eristics and traits. “o protect this person’s anonymity, I want you to whisper this characteristic to me and I promise I won’t reveal information too personal about the person you are thinking of.” Tis also creates the notion that Fraser will also be picking up on much more private information about the thought-of person during the course of the reading that he will not be sharing out of respect for that person’s privacy.
Te Basic Idea So, to avoid these problems, the basic idea is to have them think of the first letter, jump to the next letter in the alphabet and think of any word that starts with this letter. Tey just think of the word and don’t tell you what it is yet. Ten you go to the second s econd letter in the name and ask them to jump to a random letter—thus reframing the process—and ask them to think of any word that starts with this random letter. letter. Tey are now just thinking of two random words words that no one knows, but the dirty work is done. You are so far ahead, and they haven’t spoken a word yet. Ask them for the words, do a reading and reveal the name.
Full Script So, let’s put it all together. Tis is a very ver y simplified version of the script I use: “Focus on the first letter of the name... jump to the next letter in the alphabet... and think of a word that starts with that letter.” So, at this point the participant par ticipant is only thinking of a word that starts with the next letter. Notice the pauses. I give him time to focus on the first letter and then I pause paus e again when I ask him to jump to the next letter l etter.. Tis might not be an obvious thing to do, so give them time to figure out what the next letter is. Only then do I ask him to think of a word that starts with that letter. Tese little pauses make it much easier for the participant to follow foll ow along. “Done? Great. Don’t forget this word and don’t change your mind! Let’s do the same with the second letter: focus on that letter... and jump to a completely random letter in the alphabet, but please don’t jump to the same letter letter you jumped to before, ok? And think of a word that starts with that letter.” letter.” Tis is where the magic happens. You tell him to do the same thing, then ask him to jump to to 180
Fraser Parker
a random letter. Tis implies that he was supposed to jump randomly both times. Ten you further imply this by asking him not to jump to the same letter, as if he had the chance to jump wherever he wanted to, before. I also make sure to tell him to remember his first word because he will do some more thinking before he tells me what it is and, by the time I ask what the word was, he might have forgotten f orgotten it. I also tell him not to change his mind, to prevent him from doing so after he realizes he could have jumped to any letter. “Ok, so you have two words in mind. Don’t forget them. Can you count, in your mind, how many letters are in this name, please?” After I make sure that he remembers both words (again!), I apply the CUP’s principle principle here because I can justify its use with the next line: “So, that’s... that’s... 5, right? Perfect. I would normally do this with all the letters in the name, but we’ll do it with just the first 2 letters in the name. What are the 2 words you have in mind?” So now it seems the CUP’s CUP’s was was just to decide if we were going use more letters from the name to generate characteristics or not. And only now, now, after the re-frame, I ask for the words. In this way, way, no one will feel the need to go back a letter, since they believe the participant par ticipant jumped randomly both times. After the participant tells me his words, I throw one more little extra subtlety subtlety.. Let’s Let ’s say the participant just told me the words are “Funny” and and “Bus.” “Ok... so... Bus... and Funny... don’t tell me which is which...” Basically, I repeat the words in the wrong order and add “don’t tell me which is which,” as as if he could have said the words in any order, order, when he obviously repeats them in the th e order he thought of them. I feel this might be a bit too much, but it’s such a short line and I like to stack the psychological gambits in my favour! I normally throw it into the proceedings. At this point I know how many letters are in the name and I know the first letter. If I need to, I use the Repeat It Ploy with with the second or third letter to further narrow the possibilities or, if I’m inclined, use any two-way out. I would then usually go into a reading or, as I suggested previously, reveal this person’s zodiac sign and then reveal the name.
Outro And that’s it! Hope you enjoy these little twists. I think that, if you likeRose like Rose , you will like these ideas. If, by any chance, you like these ideas but didn’t like Rose when when you first read it, I think there’s a lesson to be learned: don’t dismiss a method just because it didn’t work for you out of the box. Put some thought and some work into it and sometimes you might come up with something that works much, much better for you. Mentalism is a beautiful thing, especially 181
Te Book of Angels
when you take the time to make it your own. Let me finish by taking a quick moment to thank Fraser Parker for creating Rose and and for being such an inspiration every ever y time we talk and for being an all-around good guy. guy. You Y ou rock, bro! Adrien, 2017
182
Credit Card Revee Pin Te following fo llowing is i s my take on an idea from Robert Watkins I first published publi shed in his and Lance Sinclair’s first release to the magic community FOBW FOBW and and later published in Watkin’s first hardback book, Jhana book, Jhana . His idea was to take a property not commonly known about credit and debit cards and use it as a number force that would allow him to seemingly seemingl y guess the pin code to his audience member’s member’s bank accounts. So, what is this commonality? It is a little-known fact that all types of credit/debit cards start with the same number and share the same prefix on the long number on the front of the card, depending on what type of card it is. Tis is true even with different brands of bank and credit agencies. In fact, this was first discussed by John Tompson in his Naked Credit Card est and was independently discovered later on by Watkins—so Watkins—so credit must also go to t o John for this idea. Although these vary across different regions around the world, with a little bit of online online research research you will be able to easily easil y find which cards are local to you and the audience’s you perform for. f or. For instance, practically all debit cards in the United Kingdom use the prefix of a number 4. I have hardly had a problem forcing this number at the start of my routine, and it is so reliable it’s now my go-to reverse pin guess gues s when I’m performing. Here are a list of the common prefixes found on debit and credit cards around the world. Issuer Prefix (Starting no.) Visa 4 Mastercard 51-, 52-, 53-, 54-, 55 Diners Club 36-, 38 Discover 6011-, 65 JCB 35 American Express 34-, 37 Tese prefixes should be the same all over the world, but it is i s important to check within your own country first before going out and performing my routine. I will now show you how I have used these force numbers to create a beautifully beautifull y justified reverse 183
Te Book of Angels
pin guess, where the spectator successfully guesses the pin number to my bank account. My routine uses the Springboard technique technique by Michael Murray. He is a genius and much of what myself and my friends now create would not be possible without his thinking. Peter urner urner was the first to apply the Springboard technique technique to pin numbers. As he has already expressed in his effect Your Pin, Pin, it is much better to use the Springboard as as it was intended to be used, within the context of an effect that has been flipped on its head—where the spectator guesses information about the performer such as their pin number. Te reason for this is due to the nature of the Springboard . Essentially, Essentially, it involves the spectator trusting their intuition to guess how much higher or lower they think something is compared to something else. Terefore, it works perfectly within the context of a reverse pin guess due to the fact it is theatrically sound and is entirely justified as the spectator using their intuition. Tis will make more sense as I teach my routine and you learn what the Springboard is—for is—for those who don’t already have an understanding of its workings. I wanted a way to use the force of the number 4—found on debit cards in the country where I perform the most, the United Kingdom—to enable the spectator to use their intuition to guess my pin number and realised I could create this effect by shifting the premise of the effect halfway through the performance. My solution was to set up the premise of the effect I was about to perform as trying to guess the first four digits on the spectator’s debit/credit card and then seamlessly transition into the effect of the spectator guessing guessi ng my actual bank pin number. I feel this is the first time a shift in premise has been utilized as a method. In this way, way, I would ensure their anonymity was left intact and there would be no security risks r isks by revealing such a private and personal piece of information as their actual pin code to their bank account, while at the same time not lessening the effect. By revealing the four digits on their card I would be proving that I could guess four random digits from out of the mind of the spectator and could therefore also guess their actual pin number if I wished to do so. Here is the script I use: “I used to guess the pin number to people’s people’s bank accounts and quickly stopped doing so because I realised what a potential security issue this could be—someone could note down the numbers I reveal and then steal that person’s card later on and have full access to that person’s bank account.” “Another reason I stopped doing it that way was because often they would lie to me because they didn’ didn’tt want everyone knowing knowi ng their pin number number,, so no one would know if I was correct. So, instead, instead, I decided to use the numbers on their bank card.” “So, do you have a debit card on you? Yes? Good.” 184
Fraser Parker
“In a moment, I want you to take out your card and remember the first four digits on the long number on the front of the card. I will look away as you do this [look away and pause while they follow your instructions]. Now place it away, so there’s no way I can see these numbers.” Tey take it out and remember the first four digits on their card. Because I have asked them if they have a debit card, this is usually enough to ensure the card they bring out is a debit card— which also ensures we get a hit on the correct force force number. number. I would usually only mention this once and then refer to the card as just j ust “the card card ” but but if you want to be certain they will take out their debit card then you can mention it a second time, right before they are asked to take it i t out. I now express how impossible guessing these numbers would be and at the same time equate doing so with being able to also guess their actual bank pin number. “So, the numbers you are now focusing on are random. I’m guessing when you use your card you keep it hidden and it is not something you just hand out to anyone. You keep this hidden away and safe in a wallet, so there is no way I could know what numbers are on the front of your card and therefore couldn’t guess the numbers you are now thinking of?” Tey will agree with you. “So, for all intents and purposes, this may as well be your actual pin number?” Again, they will agree with you as these numbers really do appear as private and random as their actual pin number number,, due to the way you have contextualized the effect. Te ploy of referring to random numbers from a credit credit or debit card as the spectator’s actual pin number comes from Peter urner urner and can be found on his first Devil in Disguise DVD. DVD. “Good. So just focus on the first digit for me.” Tis is where we now now shift the premise in such a clever way you you can use the force number number they are now focusing on as the first number in your pin number—using it to then unlock the rest of the numbers utilizing the Springboard technique. technique. “Okay. I feel this number you are focusing on is actually the first digit to my actual bank pin number number.. So, I feel it would be more interesting if we were to reverse the process and you were to guess my bank pin number. number. You You have got the first digit of mine; just write write it down so you don’t forget it, but don’t don’t let me see what you write.” What is beautiful about this is you are getting a seeming moment of mind reading for free. Tis is how far f ar back the spectator will be able abl e to backtrack the effect later l ater on and the effect will still seem impossible; usually, they will just jus t believe they were able to use their t heir intuition to successfully guess each of the remaining digits to your pin number. I always get the spectator to write this first digit and the subsequent thought-of digits down, 185
Te Book of Angels
so they don’t don’t forget. It also allows for a nice reveal at the end when the piece of paper is turned around to confirm they did, in fact, successfully guess your pin number. Now I use Springboard in in the following way: “Okay, just trust your intuition. Do you feel the second digit dig it to my pin number is higher or lower than this first digit you just wrote down?” Let’s Let ’s say they say it is higher. I would then ask, “By how many?” Spectator: “2.” “Okay, think what is two higher than the first digit and write that number down next to it.” I then repeat this process with the remaining 2 digits until the spectator has written all 4 digits of what they believe my pin number to be. All I have to do is remember the answers they the y give and follow along in my own head silently to construct what pin number they are writing down. For example, if I know my force card is a debit card from the United Kingdom and it starts with a 4 then I know the first number is 4. If they say the second digit is higher than the first by 2 then I know the second digit is 6, and and so on and so forth. f orth. I always get the spectator to compare this new number to the preceding number or number they just wrote down and always get them th em to write the newer number down after that number, number, to essentially build my pin number. Now it is a simple matter of miscalling what my actual pin number is as the one I have followed in my head and know they have written down, to create the illusion they have actually read my mind and successfully used their intuition to guess my actual bank pin number. number.
Additional Toughts o speed up the process of Springboard , when the spectator is on the last digit I will sometimes o just say: “Te fourth and third digits are actually the same, so just write the same number down again.” Or I might say: “ wo digits are actually the same. Which ones do you feel these are?” Now, they have to answer the fourth Now, four th and another one of the numbers they have already written down, as they have yet to fill out the fourth digit. 186
Fraser Parker
Again, all you have to do is listen to what they say to know which of these numbers they will repeat in the last position. If they don’t include the fourth digit, then you can simply reiterate the other number they mention and say: “Actually, it is the [other number they say] and fourth digit which w hich are the same. So just write [the other number] down as the fourth digit.” Tis ensures they don’t don’t start to change any of the numbers they have already written down. Ross ayler has a nice idea he has allowed me to include in this book that allows the spectator to seemingly unlock your phone using the pin unlock code. He tells his spectator that each of the digits are one higher than the previous digit. If you were to place this into a whisper earlier on in a set or you mention it off the cuff to one of the spectators in an offbeat moment when no one is paying attention, you can then use them later on and have them unlock your phone. You would perform the effect as written and when you You you reach the point in the routine where you shift the premise say: “In fact, I feel that the number n umber you are focusing on now is the first digit to my phone unlock code. rust rust your feelings and go with what you know my code is. Just type it in.” Once they have typed in the correct code, simply say: “Great! Don’t tell them how you did it!” Tis is a line li ne from Kenton that ensures they won won’t’t tip what it is you have secretly told to ld them. Tey won’t won’t want to take away from what they were seemingly able to do and will usually keep it a secret that you essentially gave them all of the information! Of course, the spectator will still be impressed that you knew they were thinking of the correct first digit. o the audience, it will just o j ust seem like you are jokingly saying, “Don’t tell them how you did it!” and that the spectator still doesn doesn’t’t actually know how they did it. If you want to use a whisper whisper,, then you can simply start to give a reading and then say: “Tis is personal and just for you, so please keep this to yourself. Also, because it is personal, please no one ask her what it is I say to her.” Lean in and whisper: 187
Te Book of Angels
“Each digit of my phone unlock code is higher than the previous one. Tis will be important later on. Remember it and I will make you look like a genius. If anyone asks, just tell them I have whispered something personal and just for you. Nod if you want to play along.” Tey will usually nod at this point and it will look to the audience they are confirming confirming you have whispered a correct piece of personal information i nformation that you didn’t feel was right for everyone else to hear. Of course, this is Peter urner’s brilliant Bob Bob principle—of principle—of which there are many variants and justifications for the whisper you should check out if you want to go this route. Te line about making them look like a genius is again from Kenton and helps ensure they play along and don’t don’t want to expose what has happened after the fact. Who would want to take away from from themselves and ruin looking like a genius to everyone else? No one would, and and this is why they usually keep your secret safe. I have since added the following fo llowing additional scripting in with the original origi nal whisper. I lean out and get the nod and confirmation from the spectator that they want to be involved and then lean in again and whisper the following: “Okay. Before typing in each of the digits, I want you to pause and look up and imagine the number slowly forming in your imagination. When you can see it clearly, punch that number into the phone.” I then lean out and say: “Just “yes” or “no,” “no,” does this make sense to you?” Tey will now now,, most of the time, respond with a “yes” and and this will look as if they are simply confirming whatever personal information you have apparently just given them during the course of the reading. Notice how you only give them the choice to respond with a “yes” or “no” answer. answer. Doing so in this situation is important, as it stops the spectator asking a question in a form that will tip to the rest of the audience what has been whispered. Tis gambit is a Peter Peter urner idea which is a useful tool to remember whenever whenever you don’t don’t want want a spectator’s reality to be exposed during the course of a routine that has an element of Dual Reality. If they respond with a “no” then then simply lean in and apply the whisper again making sure you are clear with your instructions instr uctions and then lean back out saying: “How about now?” Tey should now respond with a “yes” and in the process confirm that whatever personal 188
Fraser Parker
information you just gave to them is also correct. What this additional additional instruction does is creates a nice time delay delay when it comes comes to the spectator typing in the 4 digits digi ts to your phone unlock code. Tey cause the spectator to pause paus e slightly and look up in the air before befo re typing each digit into the phone. Tis will help bolster the illusion that they are coming up with these numbers on the spot. It will seem as if the spectator is struggling str uggling slightly to think of each of the numbers and have to perform “eye-accessing” cues in order to do so and are visualizing each of the numbers in real time—as opposed to simply visualizing vis ualizing numbers they can easily formulate for mulate based on the pattern you have already whispered in their ear. ear. Now all you have to do when it comes to the performance of this piece is tell the spectator the number they are focusing on is the first firs t digit to your phone unlock code and direct them to type t ype this number into your phone, keeping keeping the phone and number pad towards themselves. Ten say: “I want you to allow the second digit to slowly form in your mind. When you can see this number clearly, type it in.” Do this with each of the digits—ensuring they don’t show anyone else the code—until you reach the last number. Ten instruct the spectator to place the phone on the table so that everyone else can see them type in what they think the last digit is. Te reason we don’t don’t let anyone else see the rest of the digits of the code is supposedly because we don’t don’t want anyone anyone to know our pin number; number; but in reality, reality, it actually stops anyone realizing there is a simple pattern to it and that each digit is simply one higher than the last. When we direct the spectator spectator to place the phone phone on on the table and and type in the last digit, everyone can see the phone visibly unlock and we get our big reveal. Tat’s Ross’s reverse phone unlock, unlock, in a nutshell. We hope you like it! If you are worried it will be obvious that all of a certain card type starts with the same number then something I have done is take out a different type of card (such as my PayPal card) and say: “You can see my card starts with a 5.” I feel this is overproving o verproving and may get you into more trouble by raising suspicion and prompting others to take out their cards and compare them. You may want to ask if You i f anyone in the group you are performing perfo rming for fo r works in a bank or is an accountant before beginning the effect. If so, just talk a little about security securit y and avoid performing this routine; just use a traditional method to guess a made-up pin number at that point. 189
Te Book of Angels
Tis will ensure anyone familiar with this little-known piece of information i nformation about credit and debit cards will not tip the method or work it out.
190
Memoria 2 What follows is an update and entirely new method and structuring for my critically acclaimed memory revelation Memoria revelation Memoria . I always wanted to eliminate the need for a deck of cards to be in play—as was the case in the original —and it was only recently, while writing in my notebook and discussing certain ideas with Adrien Lochon, that we realized realized we could do just that. First of all, I would like to briefly explain the basic idea and method behind Memoria before before getting into the changes we made and why I feel this t his second version is better. Memoria worked by having the spectator take a card from out of a deck of playing cards (forced) and from this selection—the King of Hearts, seemingly unknown by the performer— the spectator was guided to think of a specific memory based on the suit of the card they had just taken out of the deck. Tis was performed within the context of the routine and the exact thought the spectator would be instructed to think of—namely of—namely,, their first kiss—was hidden with a whisper, which was only heard by the spectator and not the audience at large. What was nice about the way this was handled was was the fact each of the suits were also labelled as representing different and more general types of memories; for example, if the spectator was thinking of a Spade they were instructed out loud to think of a memory involving work or their career; a Diamond, something to do with money; and a Club was left wide open for the spectator to think of literally any memory (with a Heart having already been attributed to the specific memory of their first kiss, which fell under the category of relationships). Tis created the feeling f eeling in the mind of the spectator (as well as everyone else watching) that they truly could be thinking of any memory based on their apparently free choice of card and suit. All of this was covered by the theatrical appearance of the effect and the scripting of the routine, in and of itself. Te performer was then in the perfect position to reveal this seemingly freely thoughtof memory and, as a kicker, also reveal the exact card they had taken from the deck at the beginning of the routine—with both revelations bolstering each other à la Kenton’s and Peter urner’s urner’s Confirmation principle. Of course, you could force literally any memory this way by simply changing the memory you direct the spectator to think of—as is the case with the prop-less version which follows. 191
Te Book of Angels
As already mentioned, mentioned, we were able to eliminate the need need for a deck of cards cards to be in play; and by doing so, in our opinion, made the effect more logical from a theatrical point of view vie w. No longer do we have to make associations between playing card suits and memories—which can at sometimes feel odd to our spectators—or have to justify the use of a physical prop (such as cards). We can now make entirely mental associations within the mind of the spectator in a much We subtler way that not only feels right but is also much more logical than us needing to employ the use of playing cards. So how does this newer version work? Adrien and I were working on yet another star sign divination and playing around with different methods that will perhaps one day see print—if I ever decide to release my working notebook. We Skype regularly, We regularly, bouncing ideas back and forth, and go away and work on ideas on our own and then present our findings to each other o ther.. One of the ideas we were playing with involved my use u se of labelling colours as specific thoughts and the various methods for knowing which colour the spectator is focusing on to, in turn, divine the spectator’s specific thought. Again, most of these thoughts have never been published. And it was was only only when Adrien decided to combine certain less-known methods of mine that he hit upon what we feel is one of the most elegant ways to know and subsequently s ubsequently divine a thought-of colour. He discovered he could know which of the primary primar y colours—red, yellow or blue—the spectator was focusing on without them ever having to say anything out loud. Tey literally focus on their colour in a specific way and this allows us to know k now with 100 percent accuracy what this is. Adrien instantly applied this to the structure we already had for linking these colours to star s tar signs, and in doing so we both realized we now had one of the most direct star sign divinations currently available to us. What is beautiful about this particular method is its naturalness, as well well as the fact fact it is modular: the core method can be used to divine many different categories and thoughts, depending on how you link the colours to these thoughts. I always thought that using colour and having a spectator focus on and visualize their specific thought-of colour would be something a psychic or intuitive type t ype would do, which is why I feel this approach is perfect when applied to my preferred theatrical approach to the performance of Mentalism—that of playing what you do as real. Te way I justify their use in performance is with the following script: 192
Fraser Parker
“Te different hues of each of the visible colours of the spectrum are created by their wavelength or frequency and, in turn, these have a corresponding mental vibration. It is this vibration I am going to try to tune into.” Te reason we we use primary colours is because it ensures the method stays simple and is easy for the spectator to follow, as there are only three colours for them to focus on; in addition, it allows for the colours to be mixed to create entirely new colours—which gives us different options (not explored in this book) from a methodological point of view view.. I will first explain the structure we use when applying the primary colours to star signs and will then discuss the breakthrough combination of methods Adrien uses to always know which colour and subsequent star sign the spectator is thinking of. of. Later, we will move into my Memoria routine routine utilizing these principles.
193
Quiet by Adrien Lochon We begin by finding out if the spectator was born in the first or second half of the year We year.. Tis narrows down the potential star signs they could be to six signs—depending on which half of the year we are working with. I will give you yet another way to do this by my good friend om om Bennet, after again teaching the closed question/hanging statement variant that has served me well. I feel narrowing down at this early stage is useful, because it allows for the star signs to fit neatly as pairs into each of the three primary colours (more on this in a moment). Te way we do this is to use what is known as a “closed question” question” or “hanging statement.” Essentially, we ask the spectator s pectator if they were born in the first or second half of the year; but, we we do this in such su ch a way that no matter how they respond, it will always appear that we knew kne w the answer beforehand and were simply asking as a way of checking our impressions. “ You weren’t weren’t born towards the first half of the year, were you?” By asking this question ques tion in the negative, it allows us to always answer as if we know the correct answer all along and re-frame the meaning of our statement in the process. “I thought so/didn’t think so, as right away I sense you are someone who is very loyal to others—especially once these people have shown to be loyal themselves. You You also have a large amount of associates, but only a very small friendship fr iendship group. I would go so far as to say you only have one or perhaps two people who you would actually confide in and share your inner most secrets with. And this would be indicative of someone born towards the first/latter half of the year.” year.” We also tie this up with a statement We statement about them which which there is no way they will want to dispute, at least not publicly—that of them being loyal and trustworthy. As they must agree with this part of the statement, it means they must also agree with the rest of the statement and in doing so they also confirm the fact you knew which half of the year they were born. Tis is Peter urner’s idea to throw out a character trait they will likely not want to go against, as well as his use of his and Kenton’s Confirmation principle. If you wanted to perform this routine where the spectator stays entirely silent throughout the process, then you could simply throw out which half of the year you feel they were born in and if you get no indication of a hit (nod of the head) then immediately change your mind—as if you are correcting yourself. 194
Fraser Parker
I don’t feel this is necessary, as the closed question and bind is so beautiful and already takes care of you always appearing appeari ng to know. know. Adrien prefers prefers to provide the spectator with specific dates and delineate delineate for the spectator where each half of the year falls—so they can compare these dates with their birthday—to avoid any confusion. Here is om Bennet’s way of handling which half of the year his spectator was born in (in his own words): What follows is only the very first thoughts on an idea I still have to fully work out but feel it has a lot of merit, which is why I am now no w giving it to you—so that you can test different variations on the script and find out what works best for you. You explain to the spectator how some people believe that certain personality types are born in the first half of the year and different personality types are born in the second half. Te people in the first half of the year tend to be “ generally open and relaxed about life, when they need to be.” Whereas the second half tend to be people who are “more self-centred and selfish, to the point where their actions are always at the expense of those closest to them.” By simply asking if they think the statement is accurate for them, you will instantly know which half of the year they were born! Te first statement describing the first half of the year personality type is a standard Barnum statement that everyone should always say “yes” to. to. Te second is something I call an “anti-reading.” Tis is a phrase everybody would say “no” to but believe some would agree to. You may need to play with what statement you choose to use here to get the best results. I find that that using certain certain qualifying words such as “generally” and “always” tend to to ensure the spectat spectators ors will either agree to the first statement or completely disagree with the second. Tey will likely go along with and accept the first statement when it is prefixed with w ith the word “generally,” as what you say will seem to fit them in a more “general “general ” sense. Tis word takes the definitiveness of what you say out of o f the personality trait and will therefore fit the spectator more often than not, whereas the word “always” implies a definitiveness of the character trait for the negative statement. Now, even if the spectator thinks of themselves as sometimes acting in a self-serving manner they won’t likely agree that they are always this way. Terefore, the use of these two words will in most cases give you the desired outcome you need for the principle to work. Another option is to make a statement that could potentially potentially be true for f or them, but even if it was they would probably deny it anyway; for example, “People born in the second half of the year tend to have a very passionate side that makes them more prone to violent outbursts” or “People born in the second half of the year can sometimes be self-centred to the point where they purposefully go out of their way 195
Te Book of Angels
to make sure the needs of those closest to them are always placed second to their own.” Personally, I change the two readings up depending on the person I am per forming for. I will first describe the person in front of me from a third-person point of view, then describe the exact opposite of what I perceive!! By doing this when you ask if they agree with the statement that would belong to them, if they say “yes” then they were born between January and June; and if they say “no” they were born between July and December. For those of you still fooled by the clean outward appearance of this effect, if they answer with a “yes” then you will know that they agree to the first statement by default—due to its Barnum-esque relatability to all personality types—as well agree to the statement in terms of it also relating to the half of the year they were born. You can therefore deduce that they were born in the first half of the year from this answer. If they respond with a “no” “no” then, then, logically speaking, speaking, they must have have been born in the second half of the year; otherwise, they would have responded with a “yes” due to the first statement always fitting any spectator’s spectator’s personality type. Not only this, but they will usually respond with a “no” whenever they are born in the second half of the year, year, as they will most of the time disagree with the negative statement statement attached with this half of the year’s personality type. Tey will usually not want to admit that this is how they are, even if this trait does in fact fit their own personality (especially when asked in front of others). Tis is the basic idea that, as I said before, is still unfinished. Naturally, the spectator spectator may some of the time agree that the negative statement fits their personality type or life circumstance, and this causes a potential problem with the method. Terefore, I leave this idea with you and invite you to play with your own ow n statements to see which ones work best for you and are “watertight.” You can always just take your best guess based on o n their answer and get confirmation from f rom the spectator that you are right or wrong either way, then simply move on with whatever routine you are using this principle for. Obviously, being able to force somebody to say “yes” and “no” to to certain categories can be used in lots of different ways! I’m currently playing with a way to do this with three star signs. Hope you like it! Tom Bennett
So, let’s say they were born in the first half of the year (for example). We now know the signs we are working with are Aquarius, Pisces, Aries, aurus, Gemini and We Cancer. I now deliver the following script as justification for why we are going to label each of the colours as different star signs. 196
Fraser Parker
“You won’t know this about me, but when I hear specific star signs I get a burst of colour in my imagination.” I then list the star signs in order and attribute each pair to one of the primary colours. “I’m going to list the star signs and their corresponding colours, and I want you to focus on whichever colour I personally associate with your star sign.” I always give the colours in the same order—no matter which star signs and half of the year I am working with—to ensure I don’t don’t confuse myself at any point during the performance. “Aquarius and Pisces would be Red. Aries and aurus would be Yellow. And Gemini and Cancer would be Blue.” If we are dealing with the second half of the year, it is a simple matter of substituting each of the signs in their rective orders with the signs from the second s econd half of the year. Tere is a small chance chance they will not be be able to focus on a colour due to the fact Cancer crosses crosses over between the first and second half of the year, as well as Capricorn crossing over o ver the months December and January when dealing with the second half of the year. Tis will be easy to spot and fix during performance. Whenever you see your spectator struggling to associate a colour with their sign, it will be because you haven haven’t’t listed it. You now instantly know their star sign. If they say they were born in the first half of the year, You then you know they must be a Capricorn; and if they were born in the second half of the year year,, then they must be a Cancer. I would then say: “Okay, just allow whatever colour you feel should go with your star sign to come to mind, and visualize this colour painted brightly and vividly in front of you.” I would then give the spectator a reading and reveal their star sign. If you want to use this star sign divination alongside the Memoria the Memoria 2 routine 2 routine (taught later) then simply re-list the star signs and colours but substitute one of the star signs for the star sign you now know belongs to the spectator. “Okay, I will repeat the star signs and the colours I personally associate with each sign.” [Tis will make more sense once you have learnt how to combine this effect with Memoria with Memoria 2]. 2]. Now we are in the perfect perf ect position to apply the main method and Adrien’s beautiful combination 197
Te Book of Angels
of principles to effortlessly and silently work out the colour the spectator is thinking of and their subsequent star sign. o do o do this, we apply an old ruse of mine—namely mine—namely,, the use of eye eye close cues. Tese were originally designed for nailing down on binary information, where there would be two possible options the spectator could be thinking of. What is great about Adrien’s application of my principle is how he uses this narrowing down between two possibilities within a seemingly larger selection field—in this case, between each of the three primary colours. Applying this binary cue to a larger selection field is something I have played with myself, in the past. I have used these to nail down on a specific playing card suit within the context of a thought-of card routine. My work on this will appear in Ben Seward’s thought-of card routine in COG 2, 2, whenever he gets around to eventually eventuall y finishing it! I will first show you the eye cues working within the context of a thought-of playing card routine and then will show you how we apply it to colours. Let’s say I secretly know the colour of their thought-of card. I can now apply the eye cues to work out which of the two possible suits they are thinking of, as follows. “If you are thinking of a Heart, I want you to just close your eyes for me now [pause] and focus on a time when you felt passionately towards someone or something. If this is a Spade, then focus on a memory when X … If this is a Diamond then focus on Y... And finally, if this is a Club then focus on Z... Now, open your eyes.” What this scripting does is allows us to know with complete complete accuracy accuracy which of the two possible suits they are thinking of. If we already know they are thinking of one of the red suits and we place one of these at the front of our instructions then it becomes an easy matter to work out which of these they are thinking of, while at the same time making the selection field look much larger. larger. What is clever about the scripting is how it allows us to nail down and eliminate one of these possible thoughts. Wee give the following instruction followed by a slight pause: W “If you are thinking of a Heart I want you to just close your eyes for me now [pause]…” Because we pause for a second or two, the spectator will understand what you say to be a direct instruction and will therefore close their eyes at this point if they are indeed thinking of a Heart. If they are not thinking of a Heart, then they will keep their eyes open and we then automatically know they must be thinking of the opposite suit sui t of the same colour—Diamonds. Tis would be obvious if it were not for the fact that we simply continue on with our scripting no matter how the spectator responds, and we do this without seeming to be interested or 198
Fraser Parker
taking any real notice. It will appear to the spectator that we were always going to list all of the possibilities while they had their eyes closed and this will cause them to feel that they simply missed our instruction for them to close their eyes from the start. Tis is a slight re-frame that occurs naturally: our actions and how what we do appears outwardly is what changes the meaning of our words and our seeming intentions, as well as shifts the perception of the spectator in line with the illusion we wish to create. If the spectator closes their eyes from the start, then great! Everything will look as it should. If they don’t close their eyes, then all we need to do is remind them to close their eyes after we have given them all of the different options—it’s as easy as that! Tanks to the shift in meaning that takes place, everyone e veryone will be none the wiser that any subterfuge has taken place. As you can see, labelling each suit with a different memory memory or category allows you you to essentially get two thoughts for one—if you know the suit then you also know the memory. In order to apply this to the primary colours, we need to first eliminate one of the colour options so we can then apply appl y the binary cues to further narrow down to only onl y one colour. Again, this is something I have played with when dealing with colours in the past and something I have only really shown a few people. I knew I could apply Michael Murray’s CUP’s principle principle to narrow down between the colour Yellow Y ellow and the two colour options of Blue and Red; but distinguishing between Red and Blue using his wonderful method would be tricky, due to the relative shortness of both of these words. I was also not happy with using CUP’s —in —in terms of process—when dealing with the use of colours. I feel the correct way to think about colours would be in a visual sense, with the spectator imagining it painted brightly and vividly in front of them, as opposed to focusing on letters and the length of the word for the colour. Terefore, I decided to use CUP’s to to discern whether or not the spectator was focusing on the colour Yellow Yellow or one of the other primary colours (Red or Blue) and then use Peter urner and Ross ayler’s Context Shift to to throw away the process I had h ad just used. Tis makes the use of CUP’s incredibly incredibly easy easy,, within this context. As soon as you see the spectator taking their time or o r struggling to count the amount of letters in their colour, you you can instantly disregard the process and change the way they focus on their colour. Here is how we handle this part of the script: 199
Te Book of Angels
“So, think of one of the colours Red, Yellow or Blue and just in your mind count the amount of letters in this colour colour.” .” “In fact, this is the wrong way to think about colour within this context, so instead just imagine the colour painted brightly and vividly in front of you.” What is nice about throwing away the process in this way is it also throws out any notion that any previous cue you may or may have not gotten from the spectator previously prev iously is useful us eful to you. Because you dismiss the process and appear to discard it and move on to a different process, the spectator will also disregard it and will not feel it gives you any information. i nformation. Terefore, this previous part of the method is entirely eliminated and remains completely imperceptible to the minds of everyone watching. Next, we apply the eye cues in order to discern which of the primary colours the spectator is focusing on. “If you are focusing on the colour Red I want you to close your eyes for me now [pause] and imagine it painted brightly and vividly in front of you. If it is Blue, then imagine a vast ocean in front of you and if it is Yellow then imagine a desert vista stretching out before you.” If you follow the rules from the previous example using the eye close cues, you will see how combining this ploy with the previous use of CUP’s on on the colour Yellow gives you the exact colour they are thinking of with no further work being bei ng necessary. I will briefly break down the different scenarios, scenario s, to make this easy to follow. If they took longer to count the amount of letters in the word for their colour, then we know they must be on the colour Yellow and we don’t need to make use of the eye cues. We can simply have them change the way they focus on the colour as usual from focusing on letters to visualizing their colour in front of them—either with or without their eyes closed clo sed in this case. If they take a short amount of time to count the letters in their thei r colour, then we now know they are thinking of either Red or Blue and can use the eye cue to nail down on the exact colour. If they close their t heir eyes to start with, then we know it has to be the first colour mentioned when delivering our instructions—Red; and if they leave their eyes open and need reminding to close clo se their eyes after we have given our instructions, we know they must be thinking of the colour Blue. “So, close your eyes for me as you visualize your colour in front of you.” We now know their thought-of colour and are therefore down to two star signs they could be. We Wee can proceed to give a brief reading and W and then use one of the two-way outs we would usually employ when nailing down their exact sign. Now that you have the basic tools to always know which colour the spectator is focusing on, 200
Fraser Parker
I will show you how I have applied these techniques to fit within the context of my updated memory revelation Memoria revelation Memoria 2. 2. What follows is similar in structure to the first first Memoria Memoria —with —with a few important changes. Tose who own my original original Memoria Memoria routine routine will instantly see the benefits this updated version has over the older one. If not, then don’t don’t worry as you will still be able to perform this newer version without having to know the original method. Te use of a deck of cards has been eliminated. eliminated. No longer are memories memories associated with with playing card suits but are instead associated with the primary colours. Te whisper is now justified and fits within the context created by the performance itself. Te kicker of the star sign reveal is a solid reveal and does not rely on Dual Reality and and therefore does not run the risk of being exposed after the fact (the original method used a whisper to make it appear you were revealing a name, when in fact you were revealing their thought-of card à la Peter urner’s Bob Bob principle). principle). Te memory the spectator will eventually be focusing on will always be the forced memory of their first kiss (as was the case with the original). However, thanks to the updated structure and lack of restriction, you can now freely change this force to any memory you wish between performances with very little effort. I will first explain and break down the main Memoria main Memoria 2 routine, 2 routine, and then explain how to add on the kicker ending if this is something you wish to do. So, to start off with we introduce the premise of the routine and at the same time instruct the spectator to focus on a random colour of their choice. “Colours influence our brain waves, automatic nervous system and hormonal activity. For instance, if you sat in an entirely red room, your pulse and blood pressure would increase. Conversely, your blood pressure and pulse would decline—and you would feel a lot calmer—in an entirely blue room.” room.” “So, you can see how colours can have an effect on our everyday lives as well as being intrinsically in trinsically tied to certain emotions, memories and life experiences.” Tis line links colours to memories in a way that makes sense logically to the spectator and those watching your performance. “So, think of one of the colours Red, Yellow or Blue and just in your mind count the amount of letters in this colour colour.” .” Here is where we get the th e read on whether or not the spectator is thinking of the colour Yellow Yellow.. “In fact, this is the wrong way to think about colour within this context, so instead just imagine the colour painted brightly and vividly in front of you.” 201
Te Book of Angels
After throwing away the CUP’s method, method, we we now go straight into i nto the eye cue scripting. “If this is the colour Red I want you to just close your eyes for me now [pause] and allow a memory involving love, relationships or a time when you felt passionately about someone or something to come to mind.” “If this is Blue, then focus on a memory when you were calm and relaxed or helped someone else to be this way.” “If this is Yellow, then focus on a vacation or time when you were able to get away and take a break from all of the stresses and strains surrounding sur rounding your everyday ever yday life… or feel free f ree to focus on any other memories these colours remind you of.” What is nice about this scripting is we we not only get the specific colour the spectator is focusing on, but we also label each of the colours as representing different types of memories out in the open and right in front of the audience. Te last line, “…or feel free to focus on any other memories these colours remind you of,” makes of,” makes it appear they literally could be thinking of any memory at this point in the routine—which, of course, is true! So just to re-cap: o the spectator and audience at large, they are thinking of a completely free choice of colour o and memory and we apparently don’t know either. However, we do in fact know which colour they are focusing on. What is beautiful about this set-up is everything appears entirely fair. Tey really do seem to have completely free reign to think of any memory they wish from their life experience. But how do we force the memory of their first kiss? Tis is where the next next beautiful ruse comes into play—namely play—namely,, my Tought Conversion principle. Conversion principle. What this principle pr inciple allows us to do is to take a piece of information we seemingly don’t don’t know, know, and instead of revealing this information right away we use this information in a sideways manner to set-up for a different reveal—essentially converting one hit into another in the process. Tis allows us to change their freely thought-of memory to a force memory memory,, without it ever seeming as if we know the memory they are focusing on. Te way we cover this is with a whisper. whisper. I must say this thi s specific use for Peter urner’s urner’s whisper technique—the Bob Bob principle—is principle—is a thing of absolute beauty! 202
Fraser Parker
First of all, I state that I feel the memory I am receiving from my spectator is too personal to share with the rest of the th e group. “Right away, there are specific details in this memory I feel are too personal and you would rather I didn’tt share with everyone else. So, just to check didn’ check I am on the right lines, come here.” Whether or not this is true, it doesn’t doesn’t matter (as you will now see). I lean in i n and whisper the following script: “Te memory you are focusing on is bringing up details of one of my memories that is personal to me and I would rather not speak about in front f ront of everyone. So, when I ask you if you want to change the memory in a moment, just do us all a favour and answer with a ‘yes.’ Nod if you understand.” Tis scripting does a couple of things. It changes the meaning of your previous words concerning revealing certain personal details about their memory from being because you want to protect their privacy to that of protecting yours. Tey will feel they are simply si mply helping you out of a bad situation and will now willingly willingl y go along with your request for them to change the memory memor y. Because you have stated their going along with the change will be beneficial to everyone, they will be much more inclined to agree to change. Tey don don’t’t want to be held responsible for f or a bad show. show. Terefore, they will likely likel y play along with the context you set and go along with the th e notion that you will be protecting the details of your own personal memory memor y. You don You don’t’t say that their memory is negative in any sense, only that certain details contained within it are reminding you of specific details about a different memory memor y of yours which you would rather not express in front of everyone. e veryone. Tey are helping you out ou t of a bad situation and most will be compassionate enough to do so as long as you are a likeable performer. per former. Tis scripting s cripting also suggests to the spectator that perhaps you actually know their memory memory,, as you appear to know specific details about it that are similar to your own. Instructing the spectator to nod to show they understand what you are saying will also make it appear to the rest of the group that you are whispering personal details regarding the spectator’s memory and are, in fact, correct. Here I lean back out to get the confirmation from the nod and then lean back in and continue to whisper: “So, when I ask you to think of a different memory, if you are focusing on the colour Red change the memory to that of your first kiss. If you are on the colour Blue, think of a memory to do with your career or work. And if this is Yellow then feel free to think of absolutely anything , as long as you stay away from your original memory.” Lean back out and get confirmation. “Yes or no, does this make sense to you?” 203
Te Book of Angels
Of course, it will make perfect sense to the spectator and their confirmation will also confirm to everyone watching that your impressions about this memory are accurate. Tese secondary instructions direct the spectator to focus on the force memory when it comes to them changing the memory memor y in a moment, without it feeling forced to the spectator. Tey will feel they have a completely free choice of memory—or as good as—thanks to the scripting and the fact you still sti ll seemingly don’t don’t know the colour they were focusing on to begin with. It will appear you are giving a few more specific options of what to think, to ensure they focus on a memory you can safely reveal in front of everyone else—namely, one that will not bring up your own bad life experiences. Again, you give them the seemingly free choice to think of literally any any memory, memory, if they happen to be focusing f ocusing on the colour Yellow Yellow.. Tis, of course, is a safe bet as we have already eliminated the colour Yellow Yellow as a possible thought-of colour. Naturally Naturally,, this serves to create the illusion in the spectator’s mind that they literally could be thinking of any memory and that their choice is much broader than it really is. What is beautiful about these instructions being delivered in a whisper is the audience at large will not know k now you have directed their choice in any way and their affirmative response on the end will be further confirmation that you are indeed picking up on specific personal details from the spectator’s first thought-of tho ught-of memory. Naturally, all you have to do to ensure the force works is to place their thought-of colour first and associate the force memory with the colour you know they are focusing on, when giving your instructions. You Y ou are now in a beautiful situation. You have seemingly revealed specific personal details of a memory You memor y within a whisper—in order to protect the privacy of your spectator—and have also gotten confirmation you are correct from their various responses. You can now ask if they want to change their memory You memory,, if they feel it is too personal to be revealed, and and they will respond with a “yes” and and this will, in turn, bolster the appearance of o f the illusion and also confirm you were previously previousl y correct about the nature of their memory memory.. Tey will definitely change to your force memory memor y, while feeling this is still a completely free choice (based on their first free choice of colour). Tey will feel f eel they are helping you out of a bad situation and will therefore go along with the alternative reality the audience perceive as being the true situation. Performer: “So, do you want to change this memory?” 204
Fraser Parker
Spectator: Spectat or: “ Yes.” Performer: “Okay, so just change to a different memory memor y and imagine what you would be seeing, hearing and feeling in this memory.” Tey will now change to your force memory and be thinking of their first kiss, while at the same time feeling this a free choice and there is no way you could know what they the y are thinking. I then say the following short piece of scripting out loud, lou d, as a way to quickly tie up the whisper for the audience members watching: “If anyone asks you what your first memory was feel free not to tell them or just say I told you it was one of my memories.” Tis acts as a double bind where no matter what the spectator says to the th e audience after the fact, even if they state the true situation, it will appear as if they are following the performer’s instructions and do not want to tell others the details of the memory, due to it having details that are too personal to share with everyone. I then say the following line to wrap up the experience for everyone concerned and, in the process, create create a context for the reveal which makes what you are about to do seem impossible. Performer: “Is there any way on earth I could know the memory you are now thinking of?” Spectator: “No. I guess not.” Tat’s it! You are now in the position to reveal their thought-of memory and everyone will be as amazed You amazed and fooled as everyone else. Hopefully,, you Hopefully you can see just how beautifully this plays out. It looks exactly as it should. sho uld. I get the spectator to focus on their memory as if it is happening again for the first time and get them to imagine what sights they would see, what sounds they would hear and to focus on the emotions they would be feeling. Tis makes the experience that much stronger for the participant and the subsequent reveal stronger for everyone else watching. Tanks must go to Luke Jermay for this presentational ploy I first saw s aw him use in one of his book tests on stage. Below is the scripting I use when revealing the memory of their first kiss. It is important to be vague to begin with and slowly build up to the reveal. Tis will allow you to reveal their star sign as a kicker ending to the routine, without any loss of impact to either reveal, if this is the route you decide to take (more on this thi s in a moment). 205
Te Book of Angels
I would typically hold hands with the spectator at this point in the routine, to seemingly establish a psychic connection with them. If nothing else, this will create a nice aesthetic and framing for the reveal. “Straight away, what is obvious to me is this isn’t a childhood memory.” “I feel this was early on in the teenage years and that this is a very exciting memory. One of those memories which at the time was fairly awkward but when you look back at it now, you smile.” Tey should smile in kind here, which is further confirmation that you are correct. “Tis memory—even though it may not seem it now—was very important back then and rethinking it now has probably made you realize just how monumental a memory this was because had it not happened you would not be the same person you are today.” “Tere is a real air of nervousness. You became more and more nervous. Even though there was a lot of things going on around you, for a moment when you and someone else in this memory made a connection, everything else around you became irrelevant and for a short moment time stood still. It makes you smile thinking back on this memory.” Smile yourself here, as you look at the participant to get a smile from them also. “o make this crystal clear for everyone else present—this was your very first kiss, correct?” Tey will respond with amazement and confirm that you are correct. correct. If you want to add in the kicker reveal of their star sign, all you have to do is tack the colour association scripting from the previous standalone star sign divination onto the front of this routine and then get the spectator to choose their first memory based on whatever colour they will now be focusing on (as dictated by their star sign). Ten, just before you you reveal their exact memory, memory, simply throw out one of the signs this could be from the two outs as a closed question in the negative form. “ You You’re ’re not a Gemini, are you?” You Y ou can now either take the hit, if they react: “Good. I thought so.” Or continue along with the script and re-frame your statement as follows, throwing out the other sign and getting a definite hit on their sign in the process: “No. I didn’t think so. I feel this might be the other person’s sign, who you were with. You are a Cancer, correct?” 206
Fraser Parker
Tey will now give you a “yes” which which will also confirm you were correct about the t he other person’s person’s sign, even if you were not. Most of the time t ime they won’t won’t even remember the correct sign for the person they were with. Now you can close clos e with the actual revelation of the memory, as usual: “ o make this crystal cry stal clear for everyone else here, this was your very first kiss, correct?” And bring the routine to its successful conclusion. Te reason we reveal the star sign and then instantly reveal the exact thought-of memory is to ensure that neither of the revelations weaken each other due to the fact they are both dependent on each other and come from the same piece of information. It is important there th ere is no time delay between the two reveals and they appear to come at once as part of the same revelation; otherwise, it may appear we easily worked out their star sign by backtracking from the memory and vice versa. Tis is often the problem that crops crops up when “piggy-backing” off one hit to create create another and this is the way to solve this potential issue. If we perform it in the way outlined, o utlined, then the star sign reveal will seem to be an additional hit, and everyone will go away entirely dumbfounded. Tose who perform in different languages should be able to take the basic framework outlined in this effect and create whatever adjustments are needed to get it to work, in their own language; for example, different different colours may need to be utilized when performing per forming in a different language to ensure one of the colours used is longer in length than the others and can be identified easily with the CUP’s principle. principle. Naturally, you could just employ one of the other ways to know what colour the spectator is focusing on taught within the th e pages of this book, book , to side-step any language restriction issues. What is important impor tant is how this routine feels to those who witness it. It feels real and not like a trick at all, due to the fact it is performed in a conversational style and is devoid of any need for physical trickery. Before moving on I should also mention that Devin Knight has used eye close cues to know what spectators are thinking. I feel the correct way to now perform these cues is with my linguistic additions. My use of language and structure stops these types of cue from potentially becoming obvious to your audience members and spectator.
207
E Menl Sound Rding While studying the various applications for f or the well-known—yet still underused—technique of sound reading, it occurred to me that in certain situations the need for anything to be written down or drawn by the participant could be eliminated altogether. Tis Tis would allow for a completely prop-less and wholly mental variation of the technique where the participant merely thinks of the information. Te example I shall give is one use for this updated principle only; others will occur to the reader during their own trials. I have updated the symbols used in traditional sound reading as taught on page 38 of 13 Steps to Mentalism to Mentalism to the more common ESP symbols used today by the modern Mentalist. Tese symbols are as follows: Circle Cross Wavy W avy Lines Square Star Each of these symbols has a unique way of being identified, which makes them perfect for traditional sound s ound reading. raditionally,, the performer would have the participant draw on a chalk board in chalk and raditionally the clear sound this medium would create would betray the type of symbol drawn by the participant. Tis has been updated for the modern performer by Peter urner urner with the use of a specially prepared business card and standard marker pen. As far as I know k now,, he is yet to release his hi s thoughts in full ful l on this. However, However, suffice it to say that when the spectator draws either a number number,, letter or shape on the business card either with Peter’ss method or the classic Peter’ c lassic method utilizing a black board, the marks the spectator makes will create an audible sound that will give away what type t ype of markings they are making on whatever medium they are drawing onto. If the participant were to draw a Circle for example, the performer would hear the participant draw one continuous line and this would be the cue (using traditional sound reading) that the participant had drawn a Circle. Te Cross would cause the participant to draw using two separate and broken movements of of their marker, creating a distinct gap in both the drawing and sound created by their markings. Te Wavy Lines would create three distinct instances of o f when the marking pen contacts the 208
Fraser Parker
medium being drawn on. Te Square would create four breaks in rhythm, as the participant draws each line making up the shape of a Square. And finally finally,, the Star would would be distinguished from the other shapes by a larger amount of breaks in rhythm and as well as the longer time it takes the participant to draw it. Tis is much easier to perform than it sounds in print. With a little practice, distinguishing between each of the symbols becomes second nature; all you have to do is listen. My update on this classic technique is to make this prop-less and a completely mental act in terms of method. If you direct the participant to draw their thought of symbol mentally mentall y line for line, you eliminate the need for anything to be drawn physically or the t he need for you to listen list en for anything. Tis works due to another underused underused principle made popular by Michael Michael Murray—namely, Murray—namely, his wonderful Comparative Uncertainty Principle or o r CUP’s . Tis principle actually has its roots in much older material; one effect which springs to mind is where the performer would direct the spectator to add up an amount of money. Due to the fact that one amount was more difficult to total and the other was a much more intuitive calculation for the spectator to carry out, the spectator would perform the easy task right away and this would tip you into which of the two amounts they were focusing on. Te basic idea is to use the time delay it takes for the participant to process process a specific instruction as the cue for distinguishing which thought out of a choice of different options the participant is thinking of. Tis principle can also be applied to words of different length à la one of Michael’s many uses for it. Tis works beautifully for the different different ESP symbols due to the way they naturally differentiate themselves from one another: each shape consists of a different amount of lines. o be able to divine which symbol the participant is thinking of out of the five ESP symbols, do the following. Have the participant think of one of the different symbols. Ten direct them to draw the symbol mentally, using the following f ollowing scripting: “I want you to imagine a blank screen in front of you. In a moment, I want you to draw whatever symbol you are thinking of. o f. But, take take your time and draw it line for line, exactly like this…” Here I mime drawing a large square in front of me, timing it so that I draw each of the lines on a one-second beat. Tis acts as a visual cue as to how I want the spectator to act in a moment. Tey will understand they are to take t ake their time and draw their thought-of tho ught-of shape at the same pace I set out for them, due due to the example given and the fact you tell them to do “exactly” the same as you. 209
Te Book of Angels
It is important you set the correct pacing—as well as instruct instr uct the spectator to draw their symbol line for line—as it ensure you will be able to get an accurate read of their drawing in a moment. After demonstrating how I want the spectator to draw their symbol mentally mentally,, I then t hen add on the line: “Tis is just so that your symbol is clear to you.” Tis re-frames your previous instructions and provides an alternative alter native meaning as to why you need the spectator to focus on their symbol in this specific way. It appears to be for their thei r benefit and not yours. “Start when I snap my fingers, and when you are finished give me a clear ‘yes.’” Te wording is very important here. If If you are not clear that you want the participant to draw the symbol one line at a time then this method will be doomed to failure from the outset. Snap your fingers and count along at whatever tempo you have already set with your previous example. You will find with practice you can determine how many lines the participant must You must have drawn before stopping and saying “yes” and and you can therefore know which symbol they were merely thinking of. ry ry it before dismissing it. Note: I suggest changing the Wavy Lines to the traditional shape of the riangle when utilizing the above method. Te reason for this is to ensure you get a definite cue on three beats and do not get a potentially inaccurate reading from the spectator taking a longer amount of time to draw each of the Wavy Lines.
You may also want to throw out the Circle as being an obvious obviou s choice at the beginning of the routine, to eliminate it being chosen. Tis Tis will help you distance the Cross from the Circle—due to the beats being similar—which will help you to not confuse the two. If you are worried about missing with this method, the following routine can be used as a safety net—where missing on the first symbol is no longer a problem due to the fact you will have the card matching routine to fall back on to always appear to end successfully.
210
Geing One Ahd with Marked Marked E Cards Cards Te previous application of mental sound reading with each of the different ESP symbols can c an be used as the perfect way to get one ahead in a routine that uses ESP cards which are marked on their backs. For example, suppose you have two sets of marked cards containing each of the five ESP symbols and you hand one set to the participant while holding onto the other set. You You propose an experiment in intuition, each time placing one of your symbol cards face down first then having the participant use their intuition to place the matching symbol face down. In this scenario, the obvious solution would be to use a one ahead. Te cards would be shuffled before beginning the effect. effect. You would put any symbol down down first, then read the marking on the back of the card the participant puts down and place this card down next on your pile. Te first card would then be brought to the top of your pile secretly before each of the cards were dealt face up proving they match. However, this presents a problem. Tere is a chance the card you place down first will not be the last card the participant places down in their pile. Tis would mess up the one ahead and cause you to have to perform the reveal early with less cards or leave you in a position where you would would have to locate where in the stack the cards need need cutting to ensure every card matches the spectator’s. Tis is where the following application for mental sound reading comes in. Hand one of the marked sets of five ESP cards to the participant and ask them to shuffle the cards as you shuffle s huffle your own set. “Look at each of the different symbols AND think of one. NO anything obvious like the Circle.” Tis line eliminates the Circle Circ le as a likely choice. Te reason for this restriction is to make the subsequent mental sound reading easier easi er.. Te only symbol you may have trouble distinguishing distinguis hing from the rest when using the mental sound reading technique would be the Circle because it consists of only one line. Tis could be confused with instances where the participant has not followed along and has drawn the symbol s ymbol all at once, as opposed to drawing it line for f or line. You now perform the mental sound reading, You reading, getting the participant to mentally draw whichever symbol they are now thinking of, using the technique already taught. You would now take a guess at what symbol the participant is thinking of. You will be correct You more often than not. If you are wrong, then simply ask them what symbol they were focusing on. 211
Te Book of Angels
In either case, you would then say: say : “Okay, this is now too much of a conscious thought, so leave the card with this symbol on it until last.” Tis line is beautiful because it allows you to now place the symbol they name down down first as part of your one ahead, while also ensuring this card will be the last one the participant parti cipant places down on the table. Ten it is simply a case of picking up your set of cards and moving the bottom card of the stack to the top before each of you deal your cards face up one at a time to prove they match. Tis happens naturally naturall y with the misdirection of directing the participant par ticipant to gather their cards together. You may find picking up all of the cards of your stack except the bottom card and then apparently You realising you have left one card and picking up this card and adding it on top of your stack is the way you want to go with this. Tere you go! I would advise not repeating this type ty pe of mental sound reading, but instead using the above one ahead to create the illusion you can c an pick up on multiple ESP symbol cards. However, Ben Seward ensures me that he has got paid gigs from performing However, perf orming my mental sound reading and successfully guessing the ESP symbol thought of by his booker, multiple times in a row,, over the phone. I will leave it up to you how you personally decide to use this ploy row ploy..
212
Fraser Parker
Chan of Belis Tis is a truly frightening and powerful effect. Perhaps it is legitimately too powerful for some performers or situations. I know that even if you do not feel that this presentation is for you, at the t he very least you will be fascinated thinking thi nking about the concept. Te mere concept is transforming. Te performer asks a participant about their beliefs towards God, to which they reply (for example) with the following: “I am an atheist and don’t believe believe in God.” Te performer talks a little about control through suggestion suggesti on and then touches the participant on the forehead. Te performer asks the participant par ticipant what they truly believe now now,, to which they reply with the opposite of what they said originally or iginally.. Te participant has apparently changed their beliefs due to the influence of the performer. Te participant genuinely believes this second belief and will often swear that they have always had this belief. Tey will usually keep k eep to this newly formed for med belief for quite some time, even after the performer has gone. Te truth is no belief is actually reversed in the participant. It is only the illusion of this reversal which takes place. I call this the “reversal technique.” It uses Wonder Words , as well as Kenton’s Dual Reality principle, to make it work. Tis is placed in the book here as it follows what has come before in terms of method. I have updated the effect and changed it slightly from how it appeared when first published. Te effect may now be performed on the fly fly,, without the need for any secret setup of the participant (as was the case with the original). Te whole of the secret work is now done out in the open and is hidden in plain sight. Tis allows for an impromptu miracle. Te principle used makes makes what is considered considered impossible to be seen as possible. Tere is a subtle difference here however, however, not at all like what is found within the standard fare of magical effects. Te effect is real in terms of outcome. In fact, what is thought of as magic by the audience is true. I will break it down for you, so you can grasp this readily readily.. Te result of the magic having worked is already the true situation. Terefore, nothing is changed in mundane reality. reality. It is the illusion of change only onl y that is created in the minds of the 213
Te Book of Angels
audience. Tis is achieved by the performer causing what is already true to be perceived as an impossible outcome of the magic having worked. Trough illusion, the performer causes what is true and what is considered impossible impossi ble to be seen as the reverse of each other, and in so doing doi ng creates the effect. Stay with me. It will all make perfectly good goo d sense soon. In the effect, we we make what is the true belief of the participant seem to be a newly formed belief by having the participant state a different belief from f rom their own first. In this way way,, the performer convinces everyone watching that what the participant says first is i s their true belief. It is not. What is first stated s tated is the opposite of their true belief. It is then simply a matter of having the person state their actual belief after af ter you have seemingly made an attempt to convert their beliefs, to have them act and talk in a very convincing way that supports the illusion i llusion of a change of beliefs. beli efs. Tis new belief will seem very ver y real indeed, as it was their actual belief all along. It is all a matter of perception. Te first false belief and the second true belief are perceived in reverse. Terefore, an impossible effect is created in the minds of the audience. Te participant seemingly changes their beliefs and really believes the opposite of what they say first. I start by quietly asking someone from the audience what their true beliefs are towards God, away from the group. Tis is to make sure I know ahead of time what their t heir actual beliefs are, so that I am able to know if the effect is going to work or not during the performance. I also do this to make sure I have someone helping in the effect who believes in God. I feel that an apparent conversion of beliefs from atheism to a belief in God is better theatrically. Tis quick asking before the effect is begun is the easiest way of making sure of a proper presentation. I usually do this quietly as I position the participant in front of the group. I am then ready to start the effect. If you are not particularly concerned about either outcome occurring—either a change from atheism to a belief in God or vice versa—then you can forego this secret asking of their true beliefs before beginning the performance and go right into the effect as taught below. Some of you may, in fact, prefer the change from a belief in God to atheism theatrically. If this is the way you want to go then having the spectator state their beliefs away from those watching is the way to ensure you will get the change you desire in either case. 214
Fraser Parker
I say the following words as a means of introduction. Tese words are directions for how I want the participant to act and ensure the participant responds in the way I need to create the effect. Tese words will be heard as suggestions to everyone else. “In a moment—NO yet—you are going to say the opposite of what it is you truly believe. Tis is NO hypnosis, BU is instead a subtle form of suggestion. I want you to simply state the opposite of whatever your true beliefs are, when I ask you in a moment. Okay?” Tis wording wording will make it seem that you you do not mean to perform the effect effect right away away.. However However,, the participant will understand that they are to respond with the opposite of their beliefs as soon as they are asked about their beliefs. o make sure the participant knows to follow along right away I say: “I will try this...” Saying such a thing sounds to the audience as if I am going to start the effect. Te words also cue the participant to get ready to do as I have previously directed. I now ask them the following: “Do you believe in God?” Tey will respond with something along the lines of: Spectator: Spectat or: “NO! Definitely NO!” N O!” Tis should be the opposite of what they truly trul y believe. Te audience at large will perceive this response from the participant as their true belief. Tis is due to the words that follow, which serve to create the impression in the minds of everyone watching that this first question was asked to ascertain the true beliefs of the participant before the effect is begun. “I always ask what the person helping truly believes before doing this, to be sure of their beliefs before we start. You You see, I can make others say the opposite of what they believe with ease using suggestion. I simply ask them to do so and they are seen to follow follo w along BU what is really interesting is when you can get the person helping to truly believe the opposite of what they say at the start.” Te first line stated will be accepted accepted by the participant, as they have already been asked what it is they believe before the performance. If you forget this part of the process, this line will still fly right past everyone. Te second part of this script seems to describe what it is the performer is about to attempt. attempt. o the participant however, what the performer says seems to be exposing what they have done already! 215
Te Book of Angels
Te participant will assume that what the performer means to show is that they are able to cause the participant to say the opposite of what they truly believe. Tis will be the effect from the point of o f view of the participant. However, However, to the audience the effect has not yet been accomplished. Naturally, a true believer in God will Naturally, wil l feel a little l ittle awkward having been made to say s ay something against their real beliefs, as this is something often taken seriously s eriously by believers with the th e thought that doing so can be considered blasphemous. Tis will make your apparent suggestion to get the spectator to effectively act against their beliefs seem that much more powerful from the spectator’s perspective. Te last line sets the premise and gets the audience ready for the effect about to take place. You Y ou now slowly touch the participant on their forehead and state: “NOW... “NOW ... really... what are your real beliefs? You can say them now!” Te participant will now respond with the opposite of what they first said was their real belief, and will actually believe belie ve this second belief. Tis is because it is their true tr ue belief, which they have had all along. Spectator: Spectat or: “I believe in God. I always have.” Te performer has seemingly changed the beliefs of the participant from an atheist to a belief in God, with a touch. “Now, you believe this truly, tru ly, rather than what you said previously, isn’t that right? Tis is your actual belief now, isn’t it?” Spectator: Spectat or: “Yes. “ Yes. You just had me say the opposite first.” “Excellent. Tank Tank you for doing this. Your beliefs are now your own as they have always been, free to change whenever you want them to do so.” Te last few lines are spoken to ensure that the participant understands that they are left with their original beliefs. Tis is done as a precaution. I do not want to leave any suggestion in the mind of the person helping that their beliefs might change against their will later on due to my performance. Tere is a chance that they the y might think that this is possible. poss ible. I always use this type of closing line. It is a secure way of wrapping up the effect and making sure there are no possible side effects to what may or may not be suggested by my words and the overall performance. Te worst case possible then would be if the participant par ticipant thinks that you were not successful in getting them to change their beliefs belief s to what they say first. o o the audience, however however,, the trick did work. Tis will not matter, as whatever the participant says after the fact will confirm the 216
Fraser Parker
effect from the perspective of the audience. Te only thing that can go wrong with this presentation is if the participant follows along so well that they respond with the opposite of their true beliefs the second time too. If this happens or if you think that they may have actually changed their beliefs or imagine this to be so, simply snap your fingers saying something such as: “Really, you can say your actual beliefs now. Everything is back to normal now.” Tis will still look strange str ange to the audience at large. In any case, make sure the participant is left with the same beliefs they had at the start of the presentation—before any of your words took effect. Most of the time the participant will take what you do as a demonstration of how you are able to influence someone with words to follow along and say they believe something entirely different from what they truly believe. From here you may perform any other effect, leaving the audience wondering if the participant will ever go back to their old beliefs again on their own. Kenton once performed a version of o f this when famed illusionist, ill usionist, creator creator and gospel performer perf ormer Andre Kole was in the audience. Andre Andre was not sure what to make of an effect in i n which one converted an atheist into a believer with a touch to uch or magical use of will. wil l. He He knew of course that it had to be an effect, but just the thought of such a thing made the famous Mr. Kole a bit nervous. It turns out Andre wanted nothing to do with people being forced f orced to believe something—even if it were his own beliefs. You never know how you might impact people in the audience with this illusion. Kenton often explains such things to the audience using his closing c losing lines from Kentonism Kentonism.. Tat makes everyone entirely unable to explain anything like this away. See Kentonism Kentonism for for more on all of that. th at. Tat’s too much to get into here, but you should look that th at up and have Kentonism Kentonism in in your toolkit too.
Water-ight W ater-ight Wrap Wrap Up Although this effect is designed to create differing realities between how what happens is perceived by the spectator and audience at large—where whatever the spectator says after the fact usually helps to bolster the illusion illu sion from the point of view of the audience—one line I have been using at the conclusion conclus ion of this effect helps to ensure the illusion doesn does n’t unravel as well as enables the Dual Reality to be held up to closer scrutiny. After seemingly s eemingly changing the beliefs of my spectator and stating that they are free f ree to change their beliefs to whatever they wish, whenever they wish to do so, I put them into the following 217
Te Book of Angels
bind by simply stating: “Of course, if you really believe what you say now then you will swear I just made you say a false belief first.” Now, no matter how much the spectator tries to expose what really took place this will be further proof to the audience members that they truly did change their beliefs.
218
Final Thoughts Tank you for purchasing this very special book and for your continued support of my work. I hope you find the many principles and pieces of gold hidden within its pages and actually go out and perform the effects taught. Enjoy only ever needing words or a deck of cards on you to be able to always create the feeling f eeling that real Mind Reading and magic has taken place. Until next time, Fraser
Performances of all of the work contained in this work will be posted here: www.fraserparker www.fraserparker.. co.uk/tboa-performances.htm Password: OpenSesame OpenSesame
219
