talkmagic.co.uk

copyright wrote:The attitude that there are gifted demi-gods of mentalism shining their brilliance down on the rest of us, is the main contributing factor in the over-dependence on others in mentalism.

I agree completely. It's all about finding your own way. There's no reason to re-invent the wheel unless it's a better wheel.

Lord Freddie wrote:Thanks Craig, I am very interested in language structure and the power of phrasing and from the description this book looks like it could be worth a read.

Ironically enough, Richard sort of 'suggests' the method than explains it clearly. Rather confusingly, he tries to represent things as formulae, but if you see through that, there's some interesting stuff there.

I'm not sure that it's anything so amazing that you couldn't come up with it yourself, given time and some thought.

However, by that yardstick, why would anyone ever buy a book of card effects? Given time, you could probably come up with some of Vernon's stuff. The trouble is, it's already been done, so why not take advantage of someone else's work?

Just don't take anyone's word as essential. No one has all the answers and certainly not all the answers for you.

I will say that I have tried the effects detailed. This is not a book of tricks; there are only a couple of effects, in fact. Both have gone extremely well. One clearly left the participant amazed.

Some people will undoubtedly be disappointed. The book is short (it is, in truth, a booklet), it has few effects and the way the ideas are expressed is not always clear.

I found it useful, but not amazing, perhaps because I already owned Wonder Words, which covers some similar ground.

Part-Timer wrote:However, by that yardstick, why would anyone ever buy a book of card effects? Given time, you could probably come up with some of Vernon's stuff. The trouble is, it's already been done, so why not take advantage of someone else's work?

That's true and I can't see the point of buying a book on card effects. Most spectators are as impressed by a well-excuted and entertainingly performed trick using methods learn from the Collins pocket guide to card tricks as they are to effects learn from $$$ DVDs. The only methods I use are a false shuffle, classic force, Si Stebbins or BCS, and key cards. There are now thousands of effects achievable all which appear totally different.

Anyway, I agree with you that there is no point refusing to get certain techniques from a book. But once you have these simple tools, it is your presentation which counts.

If you read Max Maven's PRISM, for example, all you'll get is his use of nw, ct, psw, stooging, magician's choice. He doesn't teach these techniques but shows his use of them.

Bob Cassidy's Artful Mentalism also assumes you know these basic techniques (although he does offer some insights you may not have considered) and he talks about his ideas, routines etc. Interesting but nothing you don't know already if you have attempted to put together an act.

Luke Jermay, again, puts basic principles into action in his own way.

Reading their material for ideas is like listening to comedians for ideas. Whenever I hear people say things like... I'll start off with the easy-opener from the Osterlind DVD, then I'll do Tossed out Tech from Max Maven's DVD, probably followed by Luke Jermay's pulse-stopping thing... it's just depressing. It's like hearing a comedian saying... I'll start with a Jack Dee joke, throw in a few Carlin one-liners and end on a Eddie Izzard number.

Performing your own variation of Banachek effect is as original and creative as telling your own variation of an Eddie Izzard joke.

Copyright:
These books are meant to be read so you are inspired by different ways of thinking.
So EVERYTHING you have EVER performed is from your own fertile head?
The more different techniques and ideas you read, the more you have to build your own routines.
I would not sit in criticism of what anyone here chooses to be interested in or wish to explore. I am not arrogrant enough to believe my skills in mentalism are so good that I never have to read another book.
The more you can learn from different sources, the more diverse your way of thinking will be. I am interested in the power of language and psychology and always interested in reading new approaches and ideas.
Some of it may be common sense, some may be treading ground you have read before, but there is always a chance there are some thoughts in there which could inspire you and help to improve your act.

So EVERYTHING you have EVER performed is from your own fertile head?

In a word, yes.

When I started, I didn't know that people published methods. It didn't even occur to me to look for magic on the internet until just over a year ago. When I decided I wanted to do mentalism, although I called it mind-reading then, I assumed I'd have to sit down an create all my own methods. So I did.

My first act was a double act. A polish guy from my university was presented as a psychic from Eastern Europe. I would collect folded billets with questions written on them by members of the audience and tape the billet to a board with the questioner's name written above it. Once 5 questions were on the board, I turn to Pavel and say it a loud voice, "What is the answer to Steve's question?" He would think and then give the answer. I'd take Steve's billet from the board and had it to a spectator who would open it and read out the question.

Going into the audience I'd hand a spectator a piece of paper and a pen, with a book to lean on and ask them to draw any animal or object while I looked away. They then screwed up the paper into a ball and held it tight in their fist. I would go back on stage and ask Pavel to concentrate on the image. He would and then draw something on a piece of paper. The spectator would then be asked to throw the ball of paper to anyone in the audience. Whoever caught the paper, opened it up and when Pavel turned his drawing around, confirmed they were the same.

A spectator who considered themselves good at scrabble was invited on stage while I went into the audience. Going up to various people I got them to write any letter onto the pad. After seven spectators had each put down a letter, I ripped of the sheet of paper and threw it to the guy on stage. He then made the highest scoring word he could with the letters. The audience were then told that before the show Pavel had mentally reached into a bag of scrabble tiles and selected seven. He then came up with the highest scoring word he could.

I would ask Pavel if he had the same word as the spectator (who up until now has not revealed his word to anyone) and he would reply "NO! He has chosen ___________ but _____________ is a highest scoring word with those letters."

Since that act, which was pretty crude, I have read Annemann and Corinda and obviously learnt some new techniques. For instance, a better way of forcing the letters for the scrabble routine. I've also read Max Maven, Bob Cassidy, Larry Becker, Banachek, Ted Lesley, Luke Jermay, Derren Brown, Andy Nyman and others. What I've learnt is that mentalism involves a handful of simple techniques and a interesting idea. Although I enjoy reading the work of others, I don't ever perform other people's material - but with two exceptions. If someone asks me what Cassidy effects I like, or what effects I like from Max Maven, etc. etc. I will peform that effect for someone. And I do some card tricks for fun based on one's I've read in books bought from Waterstones.

i would say then if you have created methods by yourself purely, then why not make yourself some money and publish some of your older ones?

though i must say, if certain things come easy to us, we do on occasion run the risk of sounding overly pious when talking about it

abraxus wrote:i would say then if you have created methods by yourself purely, then why not make yourself some money and publish some of your older ones?

though i must say, if certain things come easy to us, we do on occasion run the risk of sounding overly pious when talking about it

I know it reads like that but it's not meant to

With regards to publishing my own material, I think I'm just too sensitive. Being ripped to shreds on various fora for a few hundred dollars doesn't seem worth it to me. If you like, I'll PM you the details of my first act for free. The techniques are simple but the concept goes over pretty strong. If I didn't have work commitments and a deep-hatred of university tours, I'd take this out tomorrow.

ah but there's the bind! i'd feel rotten not rewarding your work with some filthy lucre...

plus with reviews, its all subjective isnt it...i think you should reconsider in releasing some stuff, what if you inspire someone somewhere who goes onto creating their own and contributing to magic and progression of it?

its not often people can discover unique and original methods

copyright wrote:With regards to publishing my own material, I think I'm just too sensitive. Being ripped to shreds on various fora for a few hundred dollars doesn't seem worth it to me.

Feel the fear and do it anyway! As long as you believe 100% in what you're doing, the reviews don't matter. I was absolutely bricking it waiting for a review of m'lovely book to come out. Then I realised that even if no one else bought a copy, I'd still know I'd done something worthwhile because I know I've road tested every word.

copyright wrote:The only methods I use are a false shuffle, classic force, Si Stebbins or BCS, and key cards.

Oddly enough, that's pretty much the same as me!

Performing your own variation of Banachek effect is as original and creative as telling your own variation of an Eddie Izzard joke.

I don't think it's quite the same, but I get where you are coming from. What would you say of, say, Bob Hope, who took gags from many different writers over the years? Was he somehow a lesser comic because he didn't come up with his own jokes?

I'd have said magic was more closely analogous to music. It's all just a collection of notes, but people put things together in different ways. Lots of performers write their own songs, but there are plenty of singers who couldn't come up with a tune to save their lives. It doesn't make them necessarily inferior to singer-songwriters.

As you said, many of these effects are simply a particular way of using certain common techniques. I've come up with my own effects and also put my own spin on many other ones. Some I've liked enough to do them almost as written, while others change a lot. Many simply aren't for me.

By the way, I'd love to hear details of that first act you did. It sounds extremely good. I recognise some of the concepts, but it's impressive that you came up with them independently.

I often think I should spend more time developing my own ideas, as these are often the things people seem to like best.

Lord Freddie - when Steve Shaw started out, he was entirely self taught. That was one of the reasons Randi chose him.

As to Copyright's concepts and publishing I'd have to say he is worthy of applause for holding to his present position vs. being like all the other magic whores that think they need to publish every brainfart that comes along and sell it for $20.00.

The LEGENDS of magic rarely published until they'd been on stage and working for well over 15 - 20 years or better. People like Shimada were 30 year veterans before they tipped their deeper, more protected secrets. It is a "tradition" I think worthy of reprise given the truck loads of garbage we are bombarded with each and every month... far more material than is practical and most of it way over priced for what it is.

I came up with a little ditty today, a way to cop the read of a serial number on a dollar bill that was amazingly clean as well as bold... it blew my mind that I'd never seen anything even remotely close to it in any of the books I've read over the years. Admittedly, there are similarities to it that stem from something an old friend of mine developed years ago, but the similarities are very remote. But to get to the point, I could go out and write up a booklet on how to do it, set it on line with a PayPal & auto-responder and steal your hard earned cash (and the gods know, I could use the money right now) BUT, in my mind there is greater value in holding on to the concept for a while and seeing where I can take it and too, either save it for publication in a magazine or as part of one of my own up-coming books... the latter being a device (if you've not noticed them before) where, for a single nominal investment you end up with dozens of effects vs. one very overpriced idea.

I think the serious students of magic are awakening to some of the older ways. Even if that's not the case, I think Copyright should sit on his creations for a few years until he's ready to do a lecture or DVD or some other creative actions... as I've learned (the hard way) it's nice to have material saved up that you can fall back on when those rainy days arrive.

I like the idea of presenting the effects via the Polish bloke. I presume that takes a lot of the heat of you. Did you present this on stage or as a genuine demonstration, I think the latter.

The bit I like best was the scrabble word. If you did what I think you did, then well done.

I've sent a PM.

Craig Browning wrote:As to Copyright's concepts and publishing I'd have to say he is worthy of applause for holding to his present position vs. being like all the other magic whores that think they need to publish every brainfart that comes along and sell it for $20.00.

No offence, Craig, but that comes across as a very bitter and deliberately inflammatory thing to say. The fact is that there are some astonishing magical thinkers publishing today and they're far from both middle age and being inexperienced.

So, copyright, you have read Corinda, etc for inspiration. We have all read books, so why do you object so much to the fact I was interested in this one.
There are some great people in magic, who continue to inspire each other and offer support and there are the pedantic types who seem to want to put anyone down who asks an honest question. I have thankfully only come across two of the latter on this forum.
Having an opinion on an effect, book, etc is one thing but condemning people who are interested in learning all they can is just snidey.

Mentalism, for me, requires thinking of a routine which suits your own personality or character. If you perform something which you don't have the presence to pull off, it just looks false. And convincing people is a big part of it.

Lord Freddie I'm sorry if you feel that my comments were some kind of personal attack on you. I have no objections to you buying any book.

Tomo Joesph Dunninger was born in 1892 and was 26 when he published Dunninger's Tricks De Luxe in 1918. Annemann was born in 1907 and published his first tricks in 1924 making him just 17 at the time of publishing. Max Maven was born in 1950 and published The Blue Book of Mentalism in 1976. That would make him 26 when he published it. Bob Cassidy was born in 1949 and published Pseudo-mentally Yours in 1977, making him 28 at the time of publishing. Luke Jermay was born in 1985 making him 21 and under at the time of publishing all works.

I agree that being middle-aged isn't a prerequisite to publishing magic and mentalism. The routine outlined above is called and was invented 14 years ago. The reason I'm not still performing it is that I wanted a PhD and an academic career and Pavel wanted to work as an Electrical Engineer in the US. If someone wants an act that works, The Russian Man will do it.

S. Lea it was performed as a Genuine demo and yes you were right about the scrabble effect