Volume 2
Conversation As Mentalism 2 "The first ingredient in conversation is truth, the next good sense, the third good humor, and the fourth wit." – Sir William Temple “Three out of four ain’t bad!” – Mark Elsdon 1
Copyright © 2014 by Mark Elsdon. All Rights Reserved. Do not copy it, do not scan it, do not upload it. Thank you. 2
Contents Introduction … p5 Shmagnetless … p6 Tri-mpromptu … p9 Bet On L.A. … p15 Animal Magnetism … p18 Wanted: Ad. … p20 Pre-fingered … p23 (Back) To The Future … p26 Bookless Booktest Know-How … p31 The Red Envelope … p33
3
4
Introduction Many thanks for buying this booklet, the second in the Conversation As Mentalism series. The goal of the effects (referred to as CAMs) contained herein is to allow you the opportunity to perform when you literally “have nothing with you”. That is, no peek wallet, no swami, no loops, in fact no props, gimmicks or gadgets at all. Most of the effects require not much more than just words and language. They are effectively imagination games where physically very little takes place. A couple of them require the use of a piece of paper and a pen, maybe a page torn out of any magazine or perhaps your watch, but these are always completely justified and a natural part of the conversation. Two of these CAMs rely on Equivoque; one of mentalism’s most misunderstood and underrated techniques. If you are new to this subject, don’t be put off by the fact that there is a bit of a script to remember. That’s what Equivoque essentially is – multiple outs done with words. So the script is everything. I can promise you, both effects get a great audience reaction and are well worth putting in the little bit of effort needed to learn them. Remember that when you are performing a CAM it must appear to the participant that it is simply a natural progression of the conversation, not that you have mentioned the book/game/puzzle/whatever just in order to do a trick! So weave these CAMs in to your everyday conversation as you see fit. Maybe sow the seed by mentioning the premise of the effect in passing and then coming back to the actual performance part later. Finally, as well as the effect and method of each CAM I have generally provided you with a presentational hook and an outline of the approach to use, which serves as the ‘conversation’ part of the equation. Other than for specific elements of the two Equivoque effects I have not given a full script, since I have no idea how each reader of this booklet speaks. The very essence of these CAMs is that they should be about your conversation, so having you memorise an entire presentation provided by me would have been completely counter-productive.
5
Shmagnetless Effect: A participant is asked if they know much about the scientific principles of magnetism. After they respond, the performer explains that one of the best detectors of magnetism that we have access to is the compass, and asks the participant to download a compass (from the App Store) onto his mobile phone. As he is doing so, the performer briefly explains that the compass is sensitive to the earth’s magnetic field and in particular the magnetic poles. The compass having been downloaded and installed, it quickly points to north. The performer goes on to explain that most materials are capable of some relationship with magnets, and are either attracted or repulsed, even if it is at a level that we cannot easily detect. However, a few substances are measurably non-magnetic, e.g. copper, aluminium, gases and plastic. The performer and the participant now hold various coins and other objects, including a pen and a credit card over the compass, and sure enough it doesn’t budge. The performer tries his finger – again nothing. So he now proposes a weird PK test. The performer rolls up his sleeves and has the participant examine his arms and hands, to be sure there is no funny business, and then nominate one of the performer’s fingers. The performer writes the letter ‘M’ for ‘Magnet’ on that finger and then holds it near the compass, but definitely not touching the phone in any way. The compass moves! Gingerly at first and then suddenly it spins wildly! The performer removes his finger and the compass returns to normal. The performer tries a different finger – nothing. He tries the ‘M’ finger again and the compass moves again! The performer says that he believes he can pass this psychokinetic ability on to the participant. He touches the ‘M’ finger to one of the participant’s fingers and then directs him to put his finger near the compass. The performer sits well back, out of the way. Hesitantly, the participant complies and the compass moves just a tiny amount! The performer encourages the participant to really concentrate on trying to move the compass. This time it swings impressively.
6
F.Y.I. No magnets! In fact, true to the premise of the CAM series, you don’t need to carry a special gimmick of any kind. This is a great example of how to take an old mentalism effect and bring the methodology bang up to date and in the process get rid of the previously required gimmick.
Method and Performance: The effect of using PK or psychic powers to interrupt magnetic lines and interfere with ability of a compass to point to the magnetic North (or South, if you live in the Southern Hemisphere) is well over a century old, and was first associated with the ‘psychic’ (read: fraudulent medium) Henry Slade in the 1870s. The traditional method of course required a magnet, although for obvious reasons it cannot be hidden in the hand or sleeve since these are suspect and need to be examined as free from guile. Slade’s clever solution was to hide the magnet in his shoe and then cross his leg under the table, bringing the shoe and magnet close to the underside of the table, in the middle of which sat the compass. Ah, but who can be bothered to carry a power magnet around everywhere? No, me neither! However, one thing I DO carry everywhere is my mobile phone. And the great news is that any smartphone is almost as good at interfering with a compass app as a magnet is. It is a simple matter to set your phone on ‘Silent’ mode (nothing will give the game away as quickly as a sudden text message alert beep coming mysteriously from beneath the table!) and tuck it into your sock, with the back of your phone against your inside ankle bone. This can be done quite a few minutes ahead of time. Then sit comfortably at a table, opposite your participant and explain the premise of what you’d like to try. Direct him to download a compass app (anyone will do) from the App Store. As he is downloading and installing it, simply cross your legs to get your phone into position. Tilt your foot down slightly – you don’t want your phone to interfere with the compass too early. A little private practice with your phone and a partner or friend’s phone as soon as you read this booklet will reassure you that this is very easy.
7
Proceed as explained above, under ‘Effect’. You may well decide that having the participant select a finger and then writing the letter ‘M’ on it is too mental-magicky for your liking. You may prefer to use both hands, Osterlind-style, in a power gesture in order to apparently affect the compass with your PK powers. That’s fine – there is no right or wrong way and at the end of the day it all comes down to your performance persona and whatever works best for you. I present it several different ways / levels of seriousness depending on the particular participant. However you decide to present it though, you should definitely make sure that the initial movement of the compass is tiny. It is definitely a case of less is more. Remember this is a mentalism effect, a PK stunt, not a magic trick. When the compass first moves, the participant will be very surprised, so don’t step on the moment by immediately having in spin around with abandon. Only after it has moved a tiny amount, a couple of times, should you raise you ankle fully and have it spin right around. And even then probably just the once. Again, it is a matter for your own personal style whether you allow the participant to be able to move the compass. Several performers I know love this kind of spectatoras-mentalist effect and so for them this effect is a great choice. I’m not usually so convinced by that approach, but in this instance I can assure you from experience that it works a treat.
8
Tri-mpromptu Effect: The performer and the participant discuss the possibilities of knowing someone well enough, either through experience or observation, to predict their actions in a certain set of circumstances. The performer then mentions that he has developed an uncanny ability to accurately predict the outcome of a simple mind-game. The participant lays any 3 objects on the table, e.g. his wallet, his phone and his watch. The performer writes a prediction which is placed in view to one side. The participant freely chooses to put one of the objects in front of himself, another in front of the performer and leaves the final one sat in the middle of the table. The prediction is read and is 100% correct.
F.Y.I. This effect is one of my favourites and has been part of my repertoire since the late 1990s. The particular approach to Equivoque which is illustrated in Tri-impromptu is discussed in much greater detail (along with multiple variations and methodologically-related effects) in my forthcoming book on Equivoque. Everything you need to start using this particular effect straight away is explained in thorough detail right here though. Tricks now, theory later :-) The thing to remember about Equivoque is that it is simply multiple-outs done with words. And as long as you have learnt the script thoroughly, you are in complete control, irrespective of any decisions the participant makes.
Method and Performance: The participant can choose any three objects, although for the sake of explanation we will assume the objects are the aforementioned wallet, watch and phone. What is about to happen is that although he will have a free choice of the order in which to touch the objects, he will not really understand what he is going to do with them until after he has touched them. You will use a technique I call Post Choice Framing to elucidate what he is to do, in a way that (thanks to how this Equivoque is 9
structured) seems entirely free and natural. In reality, the outcome is 100% under your control. More than that, it will appear to him, and anyone else watching, that in fact you told him exactly what he was to do each time before he made his choices. This is a lie they are telling themselves. Back to the action: the participant has placed his wallet, his watch and his phone in the middle of the table, between you both. You now write a prediction which states: “I WILL HAVE THE WALLET, THE PHONE WILL BE IN THE MIDDLE AND YOU WILL HAVE THE WATCH”. As you place this prediction writing-side down off to the side of the table, you say to the participant, “This is a prediction for you; we’ll get back to it later.” Thanks to Deddy Corbuzier’s brilliant Free Will principle (which is used here with permission of Paul Richards of Elmwood Magic, who owns the rights to that effect) the prediction can be read by either the performer or the participant which gives the prediction a different interpretation depending on who reads it. This gives us two of our ‘outs’. We now just need to use the Equivoque procedure to ensure that the phone stays in the middle and the wallet and watch end up on either side of the table. The scripting is going to be quite specific here, so please pay attention to exactly what I say and when I say it. You will also notice that I have switched to first person to explain the Equivoque as it will make it considerably easier for you to understand. And don’t be frightened of the multiple sub-headings; I have simply listed the alternative options this way to speed up your learning.
Intro: I ask the participant, “Please line the three objects up in a straight line, in the middle of the table, between us, in any order you choose.” He does so. I then say to him, “You are going to make two decisions - a conscious decision and a subconscious decision. And they will be entirely up to you. And each time, before you do anything, I will tell you exactly what’s going to happen next so that you know exactly what your actions will mean. There will be no equivocation – every decision will be 100% yours.” I continue, “Here’s what I’d like you to do – decide on any two objects, put your hands on them and push them out of the line over towards me. But keep your hands on them – they are your choice.” 10
Alternative 1: If the participant has pushed the wallet and the watch forwards, I say, “That was your conscious decision. Here is your subconscious decision – without really thinking about it, just allow your mind to continue to push one of the objects all the way over in front of me and pull the other one all the way back in front of you.” 1a: Let’s say he has pushed the watch in front of me and pulled the wallet in front of himself. I recap, “Quite clearly, you have left the phone in the middle of the table, the watch you’ve given to me, and the wallet is in front of you.” At this point I pick up the prediction and say, “I said this was a prediction for you (notice the emphasis), this is all about you, I did nothing. You decided on the objects, you put them exactly where you wanted, and this is for you too (handing him the prediction), so please read your prediction…” The participant reads the prediction out loud and it is correct. 1b: Let’s say he has pushed the wallet in front of me and pulled the watch in front of himself. I recap, “Quite clearly, you have left the phone in the middle of the table, the wallet you’ve given to me, and the watch is in front of you.” At this point I pick up the prediction and say, “I said this was a prediction of what you would do, and this is all about you, I did nothing. You decided on the objects and you put them exactly where you wanted. Here is what I predicted…” This time I read the prediction out and it is correct. Alternative 2: The participant has pushed the phone and the wallet forward. Actually, if one of the objects he pushes forward is the phone, the identity of the other object doesn’t matter as things will play out identically whichever one it is. Of primary importance is the phone, which must be controlled with what you say next. However, for the sake of the explanation we will continue with the phone and the wallet. If the objects he pushes forward are the phone and the watch, the procedure is identical as you will see shortly. The participant’s hands are still on the phone and the wallet and I immediately continue, “And slide one of them back slightly.” 11
2a: If he slides the phone back, I say “But not all the way back into the line, just a little way, so that we can still see what you’ve put where.” I recap, “So basically you left the watch in front of yourself, you’ve pushed the wallet over in front of me, and you’ve pulled the phone back into the middle.” As I say this, I casually line the objects up in more of a column between myself and the participant, so that it is clearer what is where. In this instance, I read the prediction aloud. 2b: If he slides the wallet back, I say “Great, back into line. And leave the phone where it is.” “That was your conscious decision, now comes your subconscious decision, put your hands on the objects that are still in the line, and without really thinking about it, just allow your mind to pull one of the objects all the way back in front of you and push the other one all the way over in front of me.” 2ba: If he pushes the wallet over in front of me and pulls the watch back in front of himself, I say, “So, quite clearly, you have put the phone in the middle of the table, the wallet you’ve put in front of me, and the watch you’ve put in front of yourself.” In this instance, I read the prediction aloud. 2bb: If he pushes the watch over in front of me and pulls the wallet back in front of himself, I say, “So, quite clearly, you have put the phone in the middle of the table, the watch you’ve put in front of me, and the wallet you’ve put in front of yourself.” In this instance, the participant reads the prediction aloud. Alternative 3: The participant has pushed the phone and the watch forward. The following procedure is virtually identical to that just described in Alternative 2. The participant’s hands are still on the phone and the wallet and I immediately continue, “And slide one of them back slightly.”
12
3a: If he slides the phone back, I say “But not all the way back into the line, just a little way, so that we can still see what you’ve put where.” I recap, “So basically you left the wallet in front of yourself, you’ve pushed the watch over in front of me, and you’ve pulled the phone back into the middle.” As I say this, I casually line the objects up in more of a column between myself and the participant, so that it is clearer what is where. In this instance, the participant reads the prediction aloud. 3b: If he slides the watch back, I say “Great, back into line. And leave the phone where it is.” “That was your conscious decision, now comes your subconscious decision, put your hands on the objects that are still in the line, and without really thinking about it, just allow your mind to pull one of the objects all the way back in front of you push the other one all the way over in front of me.” 3ba: If he pushes the wallet over in front of me and pulls the watch back in front of himself, I say, “So, quite clearly, you have put the phone in the middle of the table, the wallet you’ve put in front of me, and the watch you’ve put in front of yourself.” In this instance, I read the prediction aloud. 3bb: If he pushes the watch over in front of me and pulls the wallet back in front of himself, I say, “So, quite clearly, you have put the phone in the middle of the table, the watch you’ve put in front of me, and the wallet you’ve put in front of yourself.” In this instance, the participant reads the prediction aloud. Note: Although this has taken some space to explain thoroughly, a few minutes practice with the props in hand will demonstrate that, as with all Equivoque effects, this is MUCH easier to perform than it reads on the printed page. You’ll have noticed that in some of the Equivoque paths, no mention is made of the previously alluded to ‘subconscious choice’ and the participant will forget all mention of it. Just continue, comfortably, as if the procedure dictated by his choices was always the only possible option. 13
Finally, I also need to mention that this routine has been in my repertoire for well over a decade and was shown to a lot of UK mentalists during that time. I also wrote it up about nine years ago as part of the still-in-progress large book I am writing on Equivoque. In the meantime, the great Jimmy Fingers and the ace Swedish magician Jonas Ljung both released handlings that are similar. I’m sure they were as unaware of my effect as I was of theirs, and although mine was created a long time before either of their effects was published, it would be remiss of me not to acknowledge that both of their routines preceded mine in being released. As noted earlier, I’m also grateful to Paul Richards of Elmwood Magic for permission to explain Deddy’s awesome Free Will principle.
14
Bet On L.A. Effect: After talking about one of his favourite films, The Sting, and the kind of cons and proposition bets featured in the film, the performer proposes a simple bet – but one that simply deals with words, rather than some kind of trick or con. Here is the bet. The performer writes the following down on a piece of paper:
THE _ _ _ _ _ _ _ SURGEON WAS _ _ _ _ _ _ _ TO OPERATE BECAUSE HE HAD _ _ _ _ _ _ _
The participant is told that exactly the same seven letters, in exactly the same order fit in each of the three black spaces. There is no tricky language con – it really is the same letters in the same order in each space. If he solves the puzzle, his prize is that he will have discovered an unusual new ability. Since you are a nice guy, there will be no forfeit if he fails. Or he can buy you a coffee (or a beer, as you prefer!) (By the way, please have a go at solving this puzzle before reading ahead and finding out the solution. It is a tricky, but genuine, word puzzle and it will feel much more satisfying if you work out the answer for yourself.) After the participant gives up (and unless he knows this puzzle, he will!) the performer claims that the participant is struggling because he is focusing his cognitive mind too narrowly on the data he doesn’t have and that if he is willing to try plugging into his subconscious the answer may well present itself. The participant looks sceptical, but agrees to play along and see what happens. The performer takes another piece of paper and tears it into eight pieces, writes a single letter on seven of the pieces and bins the final one. He then mixes up these seven pieces of paper and they are handed writing-side down to the participant. He takes them and deals them in a pile onto the table, randomly switching the order of several pieces as he does so. 15
The performer turns over the pieces of paper that have been mixed and randomly dealt and reveals the following letters: N, O, T, A, B, L and E. The participant’s intuition has somehow revealed the answer: the notable surgeon was not able to operate because he had no table! The exact same seven letters in exactly the same order each time.
F.Y.I. I do hope you had a go at solving this. It is quite a difficult puzzle, so well done if you solved it. I did my best and gave you a clue in the title of the trick! Here is how the completed solution looks after you fill it in on the piece of paper the participant sees: THE NOTABLE SURGEON WAS NOT ABLE TO OPERATE BECAUSE HE HAD NO TABLE. I’ve always enjoyed bar bets and puzzles but too often when you show someone the solution the response is, “Oh. Right. Very clever.” Implying that it’s not actually very clever at all, but REALLY rather annoying! So I wanted to find a way to turn this, one of my favourite word puzzles, into something more interesting and entertaining.
Method and Performance: The first part is easy enough – you simply write the puzzle on a piece of paper (capital letters make it far more legible) as shown on the preceding page. At first they might think that you are tricking them with the conditions somehow (as is usually the case with this kind of bet) but reassure them that you are being honest, that it really is the same seven letters in the same order. If you’re feeling cruel, you can supply them with a couple of additional clues if you like: that all seven letters are different and that whilst it IS the same seven letters in the same order, this doesn’t necessarily mean that it is the same word in each of the three spaces. This will likely just confuse them even more. Once they give up, explain that using their intuition might help. Use another piece of paper and tear it into eight; in half, in half again and then one final time. Bin one of the pieces and then on the other seven pieces write one each of the letters N, O, T, A, B, L and E. Make sure the participant doesn’t see what you write. This second 16
piece of paper should be reasonably sized, so that the torn smaller pieces aren’t too small. I’ve also used small napkins, beer mats and pieces of newspaper in the past. Appear to mix these up (please, don’t use the word ‘Shuffle’) but really just give them a Charlier (false Haymow) shuffle or just a series of sloppy-looking running cuts. At the conclusion cut the ‘E’ paper back to the bottom. You will now have the participant do Paul Curry’s Switchless Switch: he will deal the pieces of paper one at a time into a pile on the table, but at any time he likes he can switch the positions of the next two pieces he’s about to deal and then place them onto the table as a pair. Thanks to Curry’s ingenuity, nothing has really happened. Once he has finished dealing, the sequence isn’t affected, although of course the letters are now in reverse order. Pick them up, casually flashing the bottom letter (the ‘N’) and hand them back to him to deal through once more, again allowing him to switch where he likes. This sets them back in the correct order ready for the reveal. Turn the letters up one at a time, placing them into a row, completing the word ‘NOTABLE’. Now copy the letters onto the other piece of paper containing the puzzle, saying the solution out loud as you do so, “The notable surgeon was not able to operate because he had no table.” If you’re nervous about having the participant perform the dealing, simply do it yourself, fairly allowing him to decide where to switch. The participant will no doubt be amused at the puzzle and amazed by his capability of randomly finding the correct letter order, so congratulate him on his new-found ability to use his subconscious mind for problem solving.
17
Animal Magnetism Effect: The discussion turns to whether anyone has ever been hypnotised, and who is the most suggestible. After a few stories about seeing hypnotists perform live etc. the performer proposes a test using nothing more than some simple suggestion involving a single ‘power word’ that he claims he read about in an online psychology experiment. The performer whispers this ‘power word’ to a strong, fit male participant who then seems to be momentarily robbed of his strength! First he is unable to stand up whilst the performer simply presses a single finger against his forehead and then the participant is unable to pull apart the hands of a woman who is simply touching her fingertips together. Finally, in an act of compassion, he is returned to his normal virile self.
F.Y.I. Much like Thumbthing from the first CAM booklet this effect uses odd physical properties of our human bodies. As mentalists and magicians who have often been reading about these kinds of stunts for most of our lives, it is easy to get blasé about the power these kinds of demonstrations can have. To laymen who have never witnessed them they can be very startling.
Method and Performance: Ideally your participant should be a strong, fit younger guy. I usually choose someone in their early 20s who obviously works out. Let’s call him Tom. Have Tom sit up straight on a chair, back straight, just like he was taught in school, and have him put his hands in his lap. Ask him stand up from his chair, in one movement without using his hands. He should be able to do it. Since his centre of gravity is in front of him, he will have to push down and forwards with his legs to do it, in order to give himself momentum, but it shouldn’t be a problem. Have Tom sit back down. This time you whisper the ‘power word’ in his ear. Any word will do. This is already a bit of an odd thing to do, so feel free to whisper something odd, as it is irrelevant anyway. I often use the word ‘Banana’, but other 18
times tailor it to the person or situation, depending on the circumstances. Use your imagination. Explain that this power word will temporarily rob Tom of his strength. Once you have whispered the word, dramatically extend the forefinger of your right hand and press it lightly against Tom’s forehead. He will be able to feel that you are exerting very little pressure. Countdown from five to one and then ask Tom to stand up. He won’t be able to, and will be shocked. The more he tries, the funnier it gets for anyone else watching. The fact is that physics is against him! As long as he is sat the way you asked, once you’re forefinger is pressing against him, it is impossible for him to stand. Since what he needs is a shift in his centre of gravity, this will require to get his feet further back, under his body, so you must make sure he is sat on a seat that won’t allow that, such as an armchair, couch or similar. People never pay any attention to how they stand up, they just do it. They simply move their body forward and their feet backwards and maybe also use their hands to help push the body up from the chair, all without thinking about it. Take those two things away, and the lightest press on their forehead will render them immobile. For the second phase, you need to enlist the help of a woman, I usually ask someone of a similar age (early 20s) and I think this phase looks better if she doesn’t look like she works out – ideally you want there to be a very obvious difference in size and strength between her and Tom. Let’s call her Geri. Ask Geri to place her hands fingertip-to-fingertip in a steeple. Her arms should be bent and raised so that her elbows are almost at shoulder height, with her hands at the same level in between. Quietly ask her to press her fingertips together as hard as she can. You instruct Tom to grip Geri’s arms at the wrist. Tell him to take hold and try to pull her hands apart. He’s not allowed to jerk them suddenly apart; he must use strength, not surprise to separate her hands. That is the only condition. No matter how hard he tries, he won’t be able to move them in the slightest. Funnily enough, Geri will be even more surprised that Tom, and if you’ve picked two participants who know each other (or are a couple) this can be very entertaining as Geri berates Tom for his sudden ‘weakness’. Finally, ask Tom to stand up straight and breathe in. Snap your fingers in front of him and tell him that he is happily back to normal. 19
Wanted: Ad. Effect: The performer notices a magazine that the participant has finished reading, and asks if he would like to try a simple visualisation exercise. The participant says he would, so the performer flips to the rear of the magazine and tears out a page of adverts. This is torn up several times into a group of smaller pieces and the participant takes the stack of pieces and decides on one. He then looks at a word or picture on that piece and concentrates on it. The performer now reads the participant’s mind and reveals the exact word.
F.Y.I. This effect is one that once learnt will be in your repertoire for the rest of your life. It is absolutely perfect for an impromptu demonstration of mind-reading anytime there is a magazine handy. The secret is that the piece is forced in a very clean way. There is no extraneous action and everything looks just as it should. The clever methodology is the brainchild of Edmund Rowland, who published it in the Pentagram (November, 1952). Good to know that possibly the best trick you’ll learn this year is over 50 years old, eh? Many thanks to Martin Breese for allowing me to describe it here, and to Russell Hall for arranging the permission. Subsequent variations were published by Fred Lowe (New Pentagram, 1972), Al Koran (Legacy, 1972), Cicardi (Magick 218, 1978) and Ray Grismer (Lecture Special, Undated). David Harkey and Eric Anderson have a related idea, which is very clever and based on pure bluff (Ah-ha!, 1997). I have adopted the binary method of counting from the Grismer handling. And don’t worry, it’s easy!
Method and Performance: The effect is traditionally done with a newspaper, but I find the slick pages of a glossy magazine are so much easier to facilitate the counting the participant will do. Also, as of this writing (2014) newspapers are very much on the way out, with most 20
people now reading the news on their phone or tablet. Magazines, for now, are still very popular though. Before you tear it, you need to imagine the magazine page is divided into 16 squares. Depending on how you tear the page, any one of these rectangles can be made to appear at any position. However, we will concern ourselves with just one rectangle, the one indicated by the ‘X’ in the following diagram:
X
The rules for working out the placement of that particular rectangle to the selected number are easily learnt: 1. Whatever number is named, you mentally subtract one from it to get your ‘target’ number. 2. The four tears you will make correspond to the binary numbers 1, 2, 4, and 8. In other words, 1 corresponds to the 1st tear you make, 2 to the 2nd, 4 to the 3rd, and 8 to the 4th tear. 3. Whichever of these numbers are used to make up your target number (e.g. if your target number is 13, then you will use 1, 4 and 8) when you make those tears (the 1st, 3rd and 4th for our example number of 13) you will place the right hand pieces UNDER the left. 4. If the tear you are making does not correspond to any of the binary numbers needed make up your target number then (the 2nd tear, corresponding to 2, in our example of 13) then you place the right hand pieces ON TOP of the left ones. 21
5. After every tear, once you have placed the pieces together they are all given a ¼ turn in a clockwise direction. To practice, just tear several sheets of paper out of a magazine and put a bold ‘X’ to mark your force spot. A few trials with a piece of paper in hand will be sufficient to show you that this handling is far easier in practice than it reads on the page. Here is another example: the participant says 8. Subtracting 1 from 8 gives a target number of 7. The binary numbers which make up 7 are 1, 2 and 4. So I know that when I tear the paper, after the 1st, 2nd and 3rd tears the right hand’s pieces will go under the left hand’s pieces. On the 4th tear the right hand’s pieces will go on top. The time to perform this CAM is when you are with someone who is carrying a magazine they’ve been reading or there is a free mag or brochure where you are. Simply ask them if they would like to take part in a visualisation exercise. This is delightfully vague, but will intrigue them nevertheless. Pick up the magazine and flip towards the rear. There should be several (often many more!) pages of ads. Pick one and tear it out, asking the participant’s permission if it’s their magazine. Quickly glimpse what is in your force square (the one indicated by the ‘X’ in the illustration above) on both sides of the page. Obviously, it will be on the left hand side of the page you look at on the reverse side. Memorise any words, names, logos or pictures. Then perform the tearing process as described above. As you are starting to make the very first tear, tell them that since you are using a random page, you will also need a random number. Ask them to choose any number between one and sixteen, since that is how many pieces there will be once you’ve finished tearing it up. As soon as they reply, subtract one from their number to get your ‘target’ number. Once you have finished the tearing, cleanly hand the pieces to the participant and ask him to carefully count through the pieces till he gets to his random number. As he counts each piece, have him drop them on the table or floor, stopping when he gets to his number. You should be watchful whilst he does this since if he makes any mistake in the counting, perhaps accidentally counting two pieces together, then the trick is blown. When he gets to his chosen piece, have him discard the others. Turn your head away slightly whilst he finishes the count and only turn back to face him when he has just his chosen piece hidden in his cupped hands. Slowly reveal the information which you couldn’t (shouldn’t?) possibly know. 22
Pre-fingered Effect: The performer says that he recently read a book called The Finger Ratio by John Manning. Manning’s claims are based on the scientific research into the ratio between the lengths of specific fingers. These ratios are calculated based on increments of 5:3:1. Whilst there is still a lot more work to be done on the subject, it seems that Digit Ratios will eventually find a place in modern science in a way that things like Palmistry have singularly failed to do. He continues that he would like to demonstrate another property of the hands, but one for which there is no known scientific basis. The participant now makes some random choices on the fingers of one hand, making (genuinely) random moves between their fingers until all but one are eliminated. The performer opens his hand and shows that on it are the words ‘THIS ONE’ and an arrow pointing to a finger… the exact same finger the participant has chosen.
F.Y.I. The delightful little finger-forcing trick has been in my repertoire for almost as long as I’ve been interested in magic. It was taught to me as a kid by the first magician I ever knew, John Leckie, who was one of the founders of the magic club where I grew up. Whilst it is a clever force, its CAM potential didn’t occur to me until I read two books: Mitox (Self-published, 2007) by Phill Smith and The Finger Ratio (Faber and Faber, 2009) by John Manning. Mitox is the first in a trilogy of excellent books on contemporary mentalism by Phill, and includes an effect he calls ‘Equifinque’, which is where I got the idea for writing the prediction on my hand. Since I am a sucker for tricks where I write on my hand, the adoption of Phill’s clever idea makes this CAM a distant cousin of ‘One For The Road’ from CAM volume 1. I highly recommend all three of Phill’s books by the way. Now all I needed was a presentational hook. Enter The Finger Ratio book. I’ll admit it; I didn’t get even a quarter of the way through. Whilst its initial premise is sound, and scientifically-based, Mr Manning’s extrapolation of the idea was pseudo-science 23
nonsense of the highest order and I had to bail. However, the subject of the Digital Ratio does offer a lovely hook for this effect. One final thing, the numbers 5, 3, and 1, which I reference when I talk about the book and introduce the CAM have nothing whatsoever to do with finger ratios, I mention them solely to make the force seem to make a little more sense.
Method and Performance: There is some brief preparation: write the words ‘THIS ONE’ on the palm of your left hand and draw an arrow from them pointing to your ring finger. Make sure no one sees you do this, or accidentally glimpses it before the climax of the effect. Once you’ve introduced the premise of the effect, hold out your right hand, as you ask the participant to hold out his left. With your left forefinger, point to your right little finger (pinkie for U.S. readers) and tell the participant that this will be their starting point. Since the first ratio in finger science is 5 (you prevaricate pleasantly) they will make 5 moves. A move is simply a jump from the finger they are on to the finger or thumb next to it. Tell them that for the purposes of finger ratios, the thumb is counted as a finger. Demonstrate a jump by moving your left forefinger from your right little finger to your right ring finger and counting ‘One’. Continue by moving it again to your right middle finger and counting ‘Two’. Explain that they can jump in either direction, forwards or backwards. Once they understand, have them start again on the right little finger. Turn away so that you cannot see what they are doing and ask them to make their 5 moves. Tell them that although they made their own moves and could have ended up on any finger, you are sure that they didn’t end up on their thumb or little finger. They will confirm that you are correct. Ask them to close those fingers into their palm (demonstrate with your own right hand by lifting it above your shoulder and closing the thumb and little finger into the palm) and do the next moves on just their three middle fingers. Tell them that the next number in the ratio is 3, so they should make 3 jumps from the finger they are currently on. The reality is, wherever they start, they will end up on the middle finger. Comment that you are pretty sure they aren’t on their forefinger, so to close that one into their palm. Again, you demonstrate with your right hand. They will confirm you are correct and close that finger.
24
Tell them that the final number is 1, so they are to make 1 final jump. This will put them on the ring ringer. Ask them to close the middle finger, as you are sure they are not on it. Tell them that you predicted which finger they would finish on and as you turn back towards them hold out your left hand, palm up, but with all the fingers except the ring finger tightly closed, which will hide the writing. Since they will assume that you just held that finger up right now, they will think it is a joke. Slowly open your fingers so that they can see the prediction, letting them know that pseudo-science really is no laughing matter.
25
(Back) To The Future Once confined to fantasy and science fiction, time travel is now simply an engineering problem. - Michio Kaku
Effect: In a casual environment (perhaps a coffee shop or a friend’s home) the performer proposes a small experiment in time-travel. He and a participant synchronise watches and then the participant decides on a number between 5 and 10. He merely closes his eyes for a moment and when he opens them the performer proves that they both have indeed travelled forward in time by that exact number of minutes. The both check their watches and they have indeed jumped forward the exact number of minutes requested. And as further proof, the steaming hot cup of coffee the performer was drinking is now (9 minutes later) quite cold. And there is a missed text message on his phone from 7 minutes ago… And when they check with anyone else, that person will confirm it is indeed the time the performer claims it to be, proving that everyone else has travelled forwards in time too!
F.Y.I. This is a strange one! The crux of it is Banachek’s PK Time (Steve Shaw, Psychokinetic Time, Magic Inspirations, 1992) and the fact that your watch was always set 9 minutes ahead. Also, you use Banachek’s brilliant method twice: the first time to set the participant’s watch back 9 minutes, to apparently establish that as the correct current time and then once more to set it back to ‘now’, i.e. the real time, albeit 9 minutes later than they think it is. This sets up the denouement. If you don’t already know Banachek’s brilliant effect, then please go and track it down and learn it immediately. You will use it forever. Since this is performed as a CAM and not as a test-conditions experiment, you want the whole thing to be nice and relaxed. So you need an environment where there are no other clocks visible and their mobile phone is either in their pocket (e.g. you are in a coffee shop or bar) or in another room (e.g. you are at their house). A couple of convincers can really strengthen the effect and make people start to question their perception of what actually happened. Firstly, I always have a hot 26
drink go cold. There are several ways to accomplish this. Here are the ones I use most often: In a coffee shop I tell my friend to go and grab a seat whilst I get the drinks in. I then order an iced coffee or tea and ask the server to remove the ice and fill it up with hot water. This provides a cool drink, exactly like one that is 10 minutes old. When I sit down I gently take a sip and mime that it is too hot, and maybe mumble something about “too much steamed milk”. I want the concept of the hotness of my drink to enter their consciousness without it properly registering, or me making too big a deal of it. At their house, or indeed my own, organising a hot drink to actually be cold is even easier. Find any excuse to be on your own in the kitchen (more sugar or milk?) and tip some of the drink away and top it up with cold water. Or if it’s your house then simply have a duplicate mug with already cold coffee in it and switch mugs as you head to the sitting room. There is no ‘right’ moment, as each circumstance will be different. Just seize whatever opportunity presents itself. Remember, they are not expecting you to perform and have no reason to suspect that you are doctoring your own drink, so are not looking for it. With regards to the ‘missed message’ on your mobile (cell) phone, this is again simplicity itself. Set-up a contact in your phonebook with the name “Mr Jackson” and put your own mobile phone number as the number for that contact. If you now send a text message to “Mr Jackson” you will receive the message on your own phone, but it will tell you that it is from “Mr Jackson”! So you pre-type a message (“Hi Mark, sorry I ran out of time yesterday, hopefully we can catch up later in the week?” or whatever) and have it ready to send as soon as you hit the button. Or if you have a smartphone (iPhone or Android) which has a delayed-text-messagesending app then set it to send the message 1 minute after you begin the effect. Either way, make sure your phone is turned to ‘Silent Mode’ so that it will not be apparent when the message arrives.
Method and Performance: So, to perform, have your watch, drink and phone set-up as already discussed. Borrow their watch, but make sure you take it off them, face-down, so that they cannot see the time. Explain that you don’t want them to see the time just yet, as you’d like them to guess what time they think it is, just to see how “in-tune they are 27
with the temporal flow”. This, of course, means absolutely nothing, but sounds interesting and covers the moment! Whatever time they guess, use the PK Time method to shift their watch back 9 minutes and then show them how close their guess actually was. Glance at your watch and confirm the exact time, to the minute. So, for example, if they guess 10 minutes to 3 and their watch shows just before quarter to 3, show them that the time is actually ‘about’ quarter to and then still holding their watch, pull back your sleeve, look at your own watch and miscall the time saying something like, “Or 2:44 if we want to be precise”. Of course your watch will actually show 2:53, since your watch is 9 minutes ahead of theirs (i.e. at the correct time). Use Banachek’s method again to move their watch 9 minutes forward (back to the right time – and you must be certain that it is the exact same time as your watch) and place it down on the table, face-side downwards. Claim that you will try and jump several minutes forward in time. Say that you just need to make sure that they have their eyes closed for a few moments and extend the first fingers of both hands explaining that you will simply touch their eyelids for 5 seconds. As they close their eyes you of course use the first and second fingertips of just your left hand to touch both their eyelids thus freeing up your right hand for the dirty work! (This technique was first published in Walter B. Gibson’s article ‘The Tricks of the Ghost Hunters’ in the December 1927 issue of Popular Mechanics.) Now you accomplish several things in this 5-second time frame. Firstly, you ask them to pick a number between 5 and 10. Whatever they say, you claim that you are now travelling that number of minutes forward in time. At the same time you use your free right hand to move a couple of things around on the table, including their watch. Maybe you undo your necktie. Maybe you take a drink out of your cold cup of tea (I have on several occasions had opportunity to pour the whole thing either in a plant pot or on the floor, leaving behind just a cold empty mug!) Maybe you take something off the table and hide it in your pocket (a biscuit? a salt cellar? the sugar bowl?) Either way, what you want to accomplish is that when your friend opens their eyes it is obvious that some things have changed during the 5 seconds their eyes were closed and your hands were apparently touching them. All that remains is to point out your temporal relocation by looking at their watch and then yours. And then anyone else they care to ask. Depending on which number they chose, 6, 7, 8 or 9 minutes all fit since you can either start the count from when they looked at their watch or when you started talking about the experiment. Whichever way, it fits. 28
Then as further ‘proof’ you point out your cold or finished drink. And your eaten biscuit. And the text message from several minutes ago… etc. As I mentioned at the beginning, this is not a blockbuster mystery for a whole audience, but true to the CAM ideal it can provide a genuinely disconcerting experience for the person you perform it on. Thanks to Banachek for creating the mechanics which make it possible.
29
Bookless Booktest Know-How Effect: Exactly what it says on the tin: the ability to perform a book-test, without a book.
F.Y.I. & Method: This isn’t really a CAM, but a way for you to devise a new CAM (or several) for yourself. It is essentially a follow up chapter to ‘This Year’s Book’ from the first CAM booklet. That trick was the one I got the most emails about, both in terms of appreciative comments for the trick and requests for more information on the alternative word lists I mentioned and how to go about devising them. The list I gave in that write up was for Jon Ronson’s The Psychopath Test (Picador, 2011) and I mentioned that I also have lists for 50 Shades of Grey, Tom Cruise films and Star Wars, amongst others. If you remember, the effect of ‘This Year’s Book’ was that of a book-test with just an imaginary book. (I also mentioned Lee Earle’s excellent point that the term ‘booktest’ is very much a misnomer. It would be appropriate if we were trying to identify which book someone has chosen, but we aren’t – we’re trying to identify a word! So it should be more accurately called a ‘word-test’.) The method used was a progressive anagram and some pumping, and I gave this website as being indispensible in helping to devise progressive anagrams: http://www.litscape.com/word_tools/contains_minimally.php However, as you will quickly discover if you try to devise one, coming up with progressive anagrams is hard, especially if you are working with a narrow subject range such as Tom Cruise films, Star Wars characters and the like. So the best method is a slightly different type of anagram – a branching anagram. This is a word list where you pump for various letters in turn, calling out each capital letter in the anagram list until you hear a ‘No’ answer and then proceed on to the lowercase letters. If the letter (capital or lowercase) has a word next to it, then 30
when you hear a ‘No’ answer then that word is the chosen word. If you never receive any ‘No’ answers then the chosen word is the last one on the list. If you want to refresh your memory about using branching anagrams, the effect ‘Seven’ from CAM vol. 1 uses one. That write up also includes important advice and tips from myself, Chuck Hickok and Banachek on how to present this kind of effect most successfully. The idea of using an anagram as the method for a trick (progressive, branching, interlocking or otherwise) is the brainchild of Stanley Collins, first published in 1920 (see also Stanley Collins: Conjuror, Collector, and Iconoclast by Edwin A. Dawes, p196). So in order to help you devise your own branching anagrams, I am providing links to two tools which will prove invaluable to you: 1. Peter Lipp’s great little Windows anagram generator which is freeware and distributed here with his permission: https://www.dropbox.com/s/8o2ser9w419ltyb/ANAGRAMMARE.rar 2. Kevin M. Dunn’s excellent on-line anagram program: http://www.cavemanchemistry.com/anagram/ With these two tools you’ll be able to devise branching anagrams for any subject you choose. Enjoy!
31
The Red Envelope Effect: After placing a piece of paper on the table, the performer invites a participant to play an imagination game which the performer says will leave him with an impossible object as a souvenir. The game involves three invisible objects - three invisible envelopes actually, a red one, a green one, and a blue one. The participant chooses the red. Next he decides whether to open the invisible envelope with a pair of invisible scissors, an invisible penknife, or an invisible letter-opener. He decides on the scissors. Picking up the piece of paper from the table, the performer mimes tipping it out of the invisible red envelope! He tells the participant that this is obviously just part of the imagination game, since the paper was obviously on the table before any choices were made. Except… the participant is invited to unfold the piece of paper and read what’s written there. It says ‘You will choose to cut open the RED envelope with the SCISSORS!’
F.Y.I. This is another very odd little performance piece, but one that I absolutely love using. Think for a moment about the premise – an imagination game using invisible props produces an impossible object! What’s not to love?! Once again it uses my good friend Equivoque, but in a very simplified form. Oh, and sometimes a very simple billet switch, done at a psychologically invisible moment. I say sometimes, as at least 50% of the time you don’t have to do anything. The starting point for ‘The Red Envelope’ was an effect by George Laing called ‘Just Imagine’ (Apocalypse magazine, June 1993). It too featured Equivoque, but unfortunately the approach was rather transparent and obvious. Anytime I read something along the lines of “This just uses the standard ‘magician’s choice’ force”, my heart sinks. That has been remedied here, with a multi-layered, streamlined and motivated use of Equivoque.
Method and Performance: You need two billet-sized(-ish) pieces of paper. You could use actual billets (made of card) if you wanted, but I think a laymen might think it a bit strange that you are 32
carrying items of stationery around for no discernible reason, other than maybe to show them a trick. That kind of goes against the whole ethos of the CAM mentality, so I simply use two pieces of paper. The size isn’t critical, but you do need to be able to fold it up into quarters so that it ends up a size that you are comfortable fingerpalming, should the billet switch become necessary. On one piece write: ‘You will choose to cut open the RED envelope with the SCISSORS!’ This piece goes into your left jacket or pants pocket. On the other piece write: ‘You will choose to cut open the RED envelope with the PENKNIFE!’ This piece goes into your right jacket or pants pocket, anywhere you can comfortably palm it from later if you need to, after you have apparently taken the invisible scissors and penknife out of that same pocket. All the writing should be done with a pencil or fine pen. It is vital that no one can see that the folded up piece of paper has any writing inside of it. Just so we’re clear, the ‘invisible’ envelopes which I mime using I imagine to be the same size as a pay envelope, i.e. one that is only slightly larger than a playing card. I will never mention the size during the performance, but it is part of my silent script and I always mime handling them as if they were that size. To perform, begin by inviting the participant to play the imagination game, and then take the piece of paper from your left pocket and place it casually off to the lefthand side of the table, saying, “I’ll use this later.” Don’t make a big deal about it, and definitely don’t refer to it as a prediction. Say to him, “This imagination game uses invisible objects, so for it to work you need to, erm… suspend your disbelief a little bit! In other words, don’t think about it too much, just follow what I say and go with the flow…” Part 1: Then from the same left pocket, mime pulling out an envelope as you say, “This is a small red envelope, if is made of very thick red card. Mime placing it down on the table to the left of centre. Again from the same pocket, mime pulling out an envelope as you say, “And this is a small blue envelope. It is made of very shiny blue foil.” Mime placing it down on the table to the right of centre. Finally, mime pulling a third envelope out of the same pocket as you say “And this is a small green envelope. It is made of dark green recycled paper.” Mime placing it down in the centre, between the first two. 33
Point at the invisible envelopes from left to right, recapping, “Red, green, blue”, making sure that they are not too close to one another, so everyone is crystal clear which envelope is where. Alternative 1: Ask the participant to pick up any two envelopes and hand them to you, naming the colours as he does so. If he hands you the green and the blue, then simply say “Fair enough” and mime tearing the green and blue envelopes (at the same time) into small pieces, mime dropping them back in your pocket and say “The red envelope however, you are going to open”, with slight emphasis on the “open”. Alternative 2: Ask the participant to pick up any two envelopes and hand them to you, naming the colours as he does so. If he hands you the red and one of the other envelopes (we’ll say he hands you the red and the green for the purposes of explanation) say to him “Pick up the blue one and tear it up, obviously we don’t need it.” Mime holding an envelope in each hand and then ask him, “Take either one from me…” with slight emphasis on the “from”. If he takes the red one, you mime tearing up the green one (which is only fair, as he has already torn one up) and say “OK. The red envelope however, you are going to open”, with emphasis on the “open”. If however, he takes the green one, you say “And you know what to do, tear it up.” (Which is consistent, as he has already torn the first one up.) Continue, “This red envelope however, you are going to open”, with emphasis on the “open”. Obviously, it would be the same procedure if he handed you the red and the blue. Either alternative ends with him holding the invisible red envelope. Part 2: You now reach into your right hand pocket and mime bringing out the invisible scissors, which you place on the table left of centre, saying “A pair of scissors”. You again reach into the same pocket and mime bringing out the invisible penknife, which you place on the table right of centre, saying “A penknife”. 34
Reach into the pocket a third time and as you start to bring out the invisible letter opener look over at the participant’s hands and say, “You’ve got the red envelope haven’t you? It’s thick card, there is no way the letter opener will open that…” And place the invisible letter opener back in the pocket. Say, “So your final decision – do you want to open the envelope with the scissors or the penknife?” Alternative 1: If he says the scissors, there is no need for the billet switch. Simply hand him the invisible scissors and mime putting away the invisible penknife, saying, “OK, you take the scissors and I’ll keep the penknife”. Ask him to cut open the envelope, reminding him that it is made of thick card. Pick up the piece of paper (prediction) with your left hand and take the invisible envelope from him with your right. Mime squeezing the envelope open and tipping something onto your left hand. Say, “And this is the final act of the imagination game. I want you to imagine that this piece of paper really was inside the envelope all along.” Place the piece of paper onto one of his hands. Continue, “I know it’s crazy, since we both know two things: that we’ve only been using imaginary, invisible objects for this game and that we could both see that the paper was there on the table the whole time. But there is something you need to see. Please open up the piece of paper and read aloud what is written inside…” When he reads it out stunned silence will follow. Alternative 2: If he says the penknife, you will need to do the billet switch. The good news is that it is totally covered by what he is doing. Simply hand him the invisible penknife and mime putting away the invisible scissors, saying, “OK, you take the penknife and I’ll keep the scissors”. Whilst your right hand is in the pocket, finger-palm the ‘PENKNIFE’ piece of paper. Ask him to cut open the envelope, reminding him that it is made of thick card. As he is doing so, pick up the piece of paper from the table with your left hand and shuttle 35
pass it into your right hand. There is no heat on this for two reasons: all attention is on the participant and no one knows what the piece of paper is for anyway. Drop the paper from your right hand onto whichever one of the participant’s hands is obviously(!) not holding the invisible envelope and pick up that ‘envelope’ with your same right hand. Mime squeezing the envelope open and tipping something onto his hand, right on top of the paper. During this action, depending on your performance situation, there may be time to ditch the finger-palmed paper into your pocket. If not though don’t worry, you can do it in a moment when he reads out what the paper he is holding says. Say, “And this is the final act of the imagination game. I want you to imagine that this piece of paper really was inside the envelope all along. I know it’s crazy, since we both know two things: that we’ve only been using imaginary, invisible objects and that we could both see that the paper was there on the table the whole time. But there is something you need to see. Please open up the piece of paper and read what is written inside…” When he reads it out stunned silence will follow.
36
