Kenton Knepper's
"Krystal Visions"

Peter Marucci's
"Bizarre Bazaar"

Craig Browning's
"Cranial Consternations"

Michael Matson's
"My Magic - My Way"

Michael Jay's
"Thoughts on the
Passing Scene"

Rich Tenace's
"Stage Stuff"

Scott Guinn's
"Pro-Files"

Jon Thompson's
"Thinking Allowed"

Shane's
"One Eye, Inward"

Dan Paulus's
"Real Magic"

Michelangelo's
"Stages of Illusions"

Andi Gladwin's
"Close-Minded"

Andy Leviss's
"Shared Thoughts"

Tyler Wilson's
"More Than Words"

"At The Shop" Reviews

"In Your Hands" Effects

"Proving the Impossible"
 Challenge

"Other Visions"
Guest Contributors

Free Visions

Visions Store

Visions Links

Contacting Visions

Submitting an Article

Privacy Statement

Administration Info

I'm baaaaaaack! It's been a little while since I last wrote a new "Shared Thoughts" column; most of the last few months have been spent pouring my time into the project that became Ramblings & Revelations. While I originally just planned that book to be a compilation of past essays from this column, by the time I was done it had taken on a life of its own. Alas, after many hours slaving in front of the monitor and a couple of late night runs to the print shop (yes, I actually did drive to the print shop at 1:30 in the morning to give them an updated version of the book the day before it was set to start printing), it's all done, and I ended up spending the last couple of months curled up in my bedroom mumbling incoherently about writing and word processors and page layout software. Now that I've finally recovered, it's time to get back to business here at Visions.

Over the time that I've been writing this column, occasionally a little thought will pop into mind that, while definitely worthy of sharing with you, just isn't enough to dedicate an entire article to in and of itself. This month, though, it's all about those little things. Enough of them have piled up as sticky notes all over my desk, and as memos in my Palm®, that figured I'd put them all together in a sort of medley of mentalism morsels.

If you'll remember back to one of my earliest columns, we talked about different claims that a mentalist can make while performing. One that I mentioned being somewhat fond of was Ned Rutledge's idea of "using the five senses to create an illusion of a sixth". This keeps those of us who aren't comfortable claiming true psychic powers covered, but it has a flaw that I was never entirely comfortable with. It outright says that what we're doing is an illusion; we're standing up here and doing tricks. This flies right in the face of what we've said that mentalism is, though, doesn't it?

A few weeks ago, I hit upon a presentational gambit that takes off from Rutledge's and keeps us from claiming supernatural powers, yet also keeps us from saying that we're doing tricks. Originally, I was going to keep this to a small group of select friends, but generosity has gotten the better of me and I'll share it with my extended family here at Visions, too. I hope it will suit some of you as well as it suits me. What is this holy grail of presentational premises? One word: gestalt. No, not Gestalt as in the branch of psychology, but the word gestalt itself. Basically, gestalt refers to a system wherein the parts work together to produce something that is more than just the sum of the individual parts put together. A classic example of this is a pile of wood and a pile of screws. Individually, they're not much. Put together in the right way, though, and they can make a bookshelf, a table, or any of dozens of other incredibly useful objects.

How does this apply to mentalism? Think about this: what if we were to suggest (or even outright state) that what we're doing isn't really a sixth sense, but it's the sum of all five senses working together to create a whole that's greater than the sum of its parts? We explain that we've learned to use our senses together to create a perceptual tool that reaches beyond what any one or two senses could achieve on their own. It's not a sixth sense, per se, but in a way it almost is-just not a supernatural one. We're providing a believable explanation for what we do; one that avoids claims of supernatural abilities, yet still is rather amazing to an audience. It also helps to sell effects where you help the audience to perform feats of mentalism, because now you're helping to show them how to start learning to use all of their senses together more efficiently. I can even see a great potential for corporate training seminars here, for those interested in that market. Think about it, and let me know what your feelings on it are.

In fact, this opens things up a bit more to let the audience in on the process. While you're drawing, you can let them see bits of the drawing forming together, and then show them the completed drawing; after that the participant's drawing is revealed. If you were to do this while showing the participant's drawing first, a lot of suspense is lost, since the audience has already seen part of your drawing. On the subject of suspense, this also lets you build up the "sell" while the participant unseals her drawing from whatever envelope(s) it may be hidden in. You can go on and on about how incredible it would be if your drawings match, while the audience anxiously watches the participant opening her drawing. I would suggest being careful that you don't let the participant herself see your drawing until she reveals hers, though. This way she reacts at the same time as the audience. Otherwise, her reaction will give it away before she opens her drawing up, and the suspense is lost. These are minor points, but important ones nonetheless.

Finally, a subject that is somewhat dear to my heart: progressive (or branching) anagram effects. In a number of mailing lists and discussion groups I'm a member of, there's been much debate over the worthiness of this sort of effect (Max Maven's "Contimental" being the most well known example). In these discussions, a few common mistakes in how many people perform these effects became apparent to me, and I wanted to share with you what I feel is the right way to effectively present them.

There are two problems that most folks complain about with regards to these effects. The first complaint is that you have to "pump" the participant to determine the correct word. These folks complain that the effect is weak because you have to ask a string of questions: "Is there an 'A' in the word? Yes, good. Is there a 'T'? No? How about a 'D'?...." This is WRONG!!!!! This is not how this type of effect is meant to be presented, and if you present it this way, it is a laughably weak effect. You are not supposed to ask questions, you are supposed to state facts. Don't ask if there's a "B", state that there is one. The idea is that you're receiving the thought-of word letter-by-letter. If the participant says you're wrong, you should be as surprised as the audience is (and the audience should be surprised that you made a mistake). Recover quickly, brush off the mistake, and state the next letter in the sequence (or a letter in the chosen word if that "no" has determined the word-don't immediately name the word!). Gain confidence as you add letters, until you form the entire word. Once you get really good at this, you'll usually be able to sense a "no" before the participant even has a chance to actually say it, by watching his body language. If you can do that, even better. You can say, "I'm seeing an 'A'...no, wait, that's wrong, it's a 'T'" and the effect's even cleaner. Either way, as long as you state instead of asking, you have a strong effect. This all presumes, of course, that you're a mentalist. Progressive anagram effects aren't mental magic, and in my opinion shouldn't be attempted by a magician. A magician just can't get away with selling a mistake like a mentalist can. But you knew that already, didn't you?

The second complaint many performers have is that naming letters one at a time isn't as strong as naming the word at once. "If you could really read minds," they say, "why not just name the whole word?" To these misguided performers, I say that this is absolute horse poop (okay, I use stronger words than that, but we'll keep it somewhat clean for the sake of publication). As Derren Brown so eloquently puts it in his book Pure Effect, "you're supposed to be reading minds!" You need to show the audience the process you go through. Try this presentation the next time you do a progressive anagram effect (this example uses Aaron Fisher's effect using the presidents/dignitaries pictured on US paper currency, which as appeared alternately as "Dead Presidents" and "Play Dough"):

"I want you to remove a bill from your pocket...any denomination of US currency, just don't tell me what it is. Now I want you to look at the person pictured on it. Scan down, and the person's name is printed under his portrait. I want you to focus your attention on that name. Let it become the center of your attention. I want it to almost 'super-focus' in your vision, so that you see it clearly and everything around it starts to blur. Burn the image of that word into your mind. Focus on each letter. Center on them. Say the letters to yourself over and over,
spell it in your mind. Good, it's starting to become clear...I'm seeing an 'N'..., etc." Start slowly, and let the rhythm build as you become more confident. Again, when you state a letter and he says that you're wrong, act as shocked as he is-"It's not? I was sure I saw a 'T'...no, no, okay, it's getting a bit clearer, it's not a 'T', it's a...." Regain speed and confidence after the small bump in the road, and things are clear sailing.

In a way, it becomes a sort of remote viewing experiment, where you're seeing what he's seeing, even though you're standing apart from him (or even in a completely different location-these effects are great on the telephone or over the radio). This way of presenting it completely changes the focus of it, and it works much more deceptively in my experience. In fact, to me it feels more like what the "real thing" would be like, rather than just a game of "concentrate on the word...I've got it, you're thinking of 'beyond'!"-it's that whole idea that I mentioned a couple paragraphs back, that there should be some sort of process, visible or not, to what you're doing. When you do it this way, it becomes more believable. When you just guess the word, it's a puzzle or a trick. When the audience actually sees you determine the word letter-by-letter, bit-by-bit, it's real.

Finally, these effects shouldn't be presented as the participant choosing one out of a limited list of words to think of. The words should be a logical grouping of some sort. Fisher's effect is a great example, as is Maven's (although this has many downfalls that you'll come across if your audience isn't familiar with geography, or is too familiar and picks a more obscure choice that isn't a part of the sequence). I have one in the pending Visions book that uses a number of popular bands and singers. The effect has also been built into a number of book tests. All of these have a justified reason for using a limited list. My personal favorite is Michael Weber's version from his book Lifesavers, which I won't share here...if you don't have the book, get it and look for the effect, I think you'll like it!

Before I leave you for this month, I want to share one last thought with you. This is something I mention in Ramblings & Revelations, but it's important enough that I want to mention it here as well, for the sake of those who haven't read it yet (shame on you ;o) You'll notice that throughout my writing, I consistently refer to the people who come up to take part in one of my effects as participants. It's common practice in magic and mentalism to use the word spectator. I detest this word, and encourage you to get in the habit of calling your helpers participants-what you refer to them as in your mind will manifest itself in how you act towards them. Spectator comes from the Latin word spectare, meaning "to watch". Participant comes from the word participatus, "a sharing; partnership". One is passive, the other active. Think about it. Do you perform (or do you want to perform) for a group of passive spectators, or a group of active participants?

Until next time,

Andy

P.S. - Elmwood Magic has just re-released an improved version of my effect "It's a Match". You will be able to purchase it starting next week on my website (http://www.asquaredproductions.com)-for those who haven't yet purchased Ramblings & Revelations, I'll be offering a limited time deal if you buy both at the same time. If you already own "It's a Match", e-mail me and I'll make arrangements with you to trade your set in for the improved set (see site for details on the improvements) for just the cost of shipping.