talkmagic.co.uk

Hy guys! I just invented a mentalism trick:
You can do the following...
You show ten playing cards to a spectator and you say something to influence the spectator to choose one particular card. ( or so you say)
Before you choose you show him that you have a billet in your hand. After you show the billet you take a magic wand or something and begin to tap the cards and say to the spectator to say stop whenever he wants.
When he says stop you take the card and you ask. Are you sure you don't want to change your mind?
If he wants to change his mind you begin to tap again the cards until he says stop.
When she say stop you take the card and explain what happened until then. Then you show what you wrote on the billet before.
If he didn't change his mind the message will be: You will choose "the card that he choose" and you will not change your mind.
If he changed his mind the message will be: You will choose one card but then you will change your mind and you will choose "the card that he choose"

What do you guys think about it?

i would say that it's more a card trick than a mentalism effect.
Presumably, you have a method.

its the methoid that is going to make this new, or old, so please share it, via pm, so i can verify it's originality.

my thoughts in one area is, that you shouldnt use a wand, or other object to tap the cards, as this small thing comes across more as magic. use your finger. or, if you have the need to go to or from your pocket, as i suspect you do, i would openly write the billet before the effect, and then use this pen, as your cover for what needs to be covered.
in all branches of magic, its often wise to use only what you need, and to avoid using props for the sake of using them.

No matter what color you paint it, it's still a bloody card trick!

Just because you can script such inane things to appear like a Mental effect DOES NOT MAKE THEM MENTALISM! It's just magician's masturbation and little else.

Secondly, even someone that's been around this stuff for decades rarely comes up with what could be considered "original" in way of effect and/or modus operandi... it's not as easy as most assume and the chances of replicating what's already been around for a while is exceptionally high, so be careful when it comes to patting yourself on the back... especially when you are inexperienced and not quite as well studied in the basics as it would seem the case.

Stick with learning what it means to be a magician first and then, once you have the experience performing on that level, give some time to better understanding the nuances of mentalism and its proper modes of execution, what makes it different than magic, etc.

This is surely a more involved version of a 'multiple outs' routine. If so, you can hardly claim to have invented it.

And I'm with Dale - seriously, lose the wand!

A final point for you to ponder, too: a similar thing can be done with the entire deck - 52 borrowed, spectator-shuffled cards - and have the spectator completely freely point to the back of any card, and it will be the card I have previously written on a piece of paper that is not in my hand, but in their pocket. I just don't think what you're working on is particularly earth-shattering.

queen of clubs wrote:This is surely a more involved version of a 'multiple outs' routine. If so, you can hardly claim to have invented it.

And I'm with Dale - seriously, lose the wand!

A final point for you to ponder, too: a similar thing can be done with the entire deck - 52 borrowed, spectator-shuffled cards - and have the spectator completely freely point to the back of any card, and it will be the card I have previously written on a piece of paper that is not in my hand, but in their pocket. I just don't think what you're working on is particularly earth-shattering.

In this effects the spectator points to the face of the card...not the back...

I'd lose the wand, it's a bit Paul Daniels. But otherwise - even if this depends on pre-existing methods, which for all I know it may not - good man for trying to put your own stuff together and not reciting other people's presentations, I respect that.

LoveKey1988 wrote:In this effects the spectator points to the face of the card...not the back...

That makes noooo difference to the spectator's reaction. They're going to tell their friends that the performer somehow influenced them to pick a predicted card whichever way you do it - no layperson will add "... and get this! They were face up, too!!!" That's to think like a magician.

Well then it's a trick to perform for magicians..heh?:))

Magicians make the worst audience though, seriously. Don't think with them in mind, magic shouldn't be designed for other magicians.

I'm with the rest - the wand is a terrible idea.

I'm also with Craig - this is not mentalism.

If we're talking about 1 in 52 (like Queen mentioned) and face up (like you mentioned) - there are effects out there where a spec can choose any face up card in the entire deck they like (they can change their mind over and over) - and it will turn out to be the only card with "You will choose this card" written on the back.

I find that stronger than the introduction of a billet - but if you love billets (who doesn't) you can use one, instead.

If you're serious about honing this routine - ditch the wand. I can't imagine the method being anything brand-new, but who knows? Do you have a video of a performance of the effect?

I think that the point has been made about the wand.

If the routine involves an element of 'influencing' the specatator, or predicting their behaviour based on their character or whatever then it's mentalism as far as I am concerned.

As for whether the effect is actually any good, I can't say. It'll be down to presentation, which will also be what makes the effect magic or mentalism or something else.

Is anyone else bored about the academic discussion about what mentalism is or is not?

Ted wrote:Is anyone else bored about the academic discussion about what mentalism is or is not?

You just read my mind.

queen of clubs wrote:

Ted wrote:Is anyone else bored about the academic discussion about what mentalism is or is not?

You just read my mind.

Not so much bored and annoyed that it crops up time and time again in a new thread. I just wish folks would use the Search function, find the old discussions and add to them .

queen of clubs wrote:You just read my mind.

But, is that mentalism or just a trick? Discuss

Sorry folks, but I will always point out the differences. Stephan Minch did so for decades as do other MENTALISTS out there; just because you and spell the word don't mean you are one.