talkmagic.co.uk

Lenoir wrote:Before even attempting to learn it, ask yourself why you need it? As sacrilege as it is, I think it's a redundant concept now. Ever since the banning of smoking in...well, pretty much everywhere, is has lost its use and since the invention of some very devious peeks, it just isn't justified.

Lenior, I would love if you can tell me where to find a peek where the writing is in the center of the card, folded into quarters. I know of a few switching methods that can do this... but no peeks, can you PM me?

I agree, a peek would be nicer, but in the meantime I want to practise the PCT, as it allows my hands to be empty.

Eshly wrote:I suspect there is a link between those who love Magic and those who love Doctor Who...

Not in my case

Matthius88 wrote:

Eshly wrote:I suspect there is a link between those who love Magic and those who love Doctor Who...

Not in my case

Why don't you love magic?

Lenoir wrote:Before even attempting to learn it, ask yourself why you need it? As sacrilege as it is, I think it's a redundant concept now. Ever since the banning of smoking in...well, pretty much everywhere, is has lost its use and since the invention of some very devious peeks, it just isn't justified.

Osterlind's PCT provides a real-time peek during the tearing process. There's no burning required. The spectator ends up with all the pieces in their hand, and you end up clean.

For sure, but I haven't yet ever found a good reason for ripping the paper up, without burning it. I just don't think it is ever justified.

I can't remember who it was (I'm gonna kick myself), but this is the best excuse I have ever come across for the ct:
They are apparently writing it down so that they can show their friend the word they are thinking of, after that, the mind reader obviously doesn't want anything that could compromise the legitimacy of the test and destroys the paper.
Obviously this doesn't work one on one.. otherwise I cannot follow for the life of me the 'logic' of tearing the paper up?!

i think that centre-tears are too out in the open, they are in the hands too long, and too fiddly...and, as said - there's not many options to be had as to why - though there are some...

if you're doing it "cos the victorian derren brown" does it, then i'd want a further explanation of "why"...just telling me "oh its what they all did in the 1860s" or whatever, so what?

i like a switch or peek personally, cos that can all happen very quickly indeed...and doesnt really look like you handle it for any length of time...

personal opinion only...

Someone agreed with me in regards to Mentalism. It's doomed.

Personally one of my best tricks involves the C.T, but then I don't do 'psychological' mind reading. I just do a small ritual to allow people to ask a question to Eris the goddess of discord. When you do magick rituals you can excuse any odd actions.

Docc Hilford's New Cinderella Act gives perfect justification for the tear.

Personally, I think it's easier to justify than a peek wallet, and gives more of a sense of drama, because destruction of anything is cool.

But I agree that a simple switch and peek is the most elegant solution.

Pete

For sure, a Peek Wallet is low down on the justifiability list. A normal billet peek, with or without a switch is what I'd try and use.

In fact, In general I think the justification for writing anything down is pretty poor.
I see all the god damn time, NO explanation given... 'Oh yes, never mind the insignificant, 'incidental' billet don't draw attention to it' (and everyone nods) and then they go off and draw every possible bit of attention to it by giving NO reason for it. None.
I know that if I was doing it for real, sometimes I would have it written down. But if we are working by this 'magic if' then I know I would at least provide some reason for doing so and that I would have no need to touch the billet.
But therein is what we do, we find excuses for why we need to touch the billet perhaps the spectator needs to do something with their hands, perhaps you want to show everyone that there are no cuts or hole is the paper to see through.. But what is happening when there isn't even any excuse provided? Well the actions loose logic, and when they loose logic they arouse suspicion and they stop being 'incidental'.
Perhaps no 'visual compromise' as the term would be is impractical, but certainly worth aiming for. When we can't we are already taking liberties and straying from what we should be doing- this is very simple logic, in fact it is in Corinda, right from the very start of our mentalism education we know:

You are a mind reader and you 'should' be able to to say to somebody 'think of a name!' and three seconds later blurt out 'dr livingstone' and the victim nods his head in reply. Any deviation from this theme is a stride away from what you would do if you were the real thing.

Corinda

Therefore, once we start 'deviating from that theme' then the onus is on us to not only keep it as clean as possible, but to justify any deviations. Preferably, we shouldn't even touch the billet if we have to deviate enough from the theme that they have had to even write anything down. Why are we putting things in wallets and envelopes and tearing things up? God only knows, and the spectator certainly doesn't.
I am sure there are cases where it can be justified- like I said before, I think a real mind reader might just tear up the bit of paper under the given circumstances for the Bill Bernstein (Aha.. remember the name now) centre tear. But our job is to create those 'given circumstances' to justify the deviation.
There is no justification for no justification. It's the very basics.
Sorry.. I've written another essay, but it's my plea against dodgy mentalism.

How come when other people say it its ok, but as soon as I suggest that a CT is a bad idea people hate me for it?

Eshly wrote:How come when other people say it its ok, but as soon as I suggest that a CT is a bad idea people hate me for it?

I'm not sure if that's happened, but nonetheless, double standards are unfair if that has gone on.
I do not think the CT is either good or bad- but it IS bad (and bad is normally a subjective word whereas here it is FACT) when there is no explanation for it. I do not do the centre tear, but if I did I would probably nick that idea of having it written down to show their friend what they're thinking in case they are not a good subject, and then disposing of the paper once it's function has been served so that I cannot possibly cheat.. apparently.. That way it's logical. Everyone bangs on about presentation making it all, but when put like that it is all a bit abstract. Nonetheless, I'd rather switch than CT.

Eshly wrote:How come when other people say it its ok, but as soon as I suggest that a CT is a bad idea people hate me for it?

It's not quite the emoticon I was after but it will do.
I still say we need more emoticons, where's my :: oh dear :: ? I've been asking for years. Something has to be done!