talkmagic.co.uk

SamGurney wrote:This is getting silly. Nobody else is subject to this much scrutiny. You have decided that Tom's fake psych. force is silly, but nobody here has seen him perform it. If You have, by all means complain- but I have a sneaky suspicion nobody else would get this much of a fuss made about their decision.
Debate is very healthy... but sometimes...

Thank you Sam.

And for anyone who wishes to see the psychological proceedure I use, just look at the video demo of On the Mark by Mark Elsdon. Very great effect.


Tom
xx

I know I said I'd finished with this thread, but I thought I'd come out of retirement for one last post!!

Eshly, that's not a bad bit of patter at all actually (I'm assuming you don't do it word for word right?:wink: ).

It's not an 'obvious' fake force as I previously assumed and should apologise for that assumption.

Much love.

Van_der_Belt wrote:I know I said I'd finished with this thread, but I thought I'd come out of retirement for one last post!!

Eshly, that's not a bad bit of patter at all actually (I'm assuming you don't do it word for word right?:wink: ).

It's not an 'obvious' fake force as I previously assumed and should apologise for that assumption.

Much love.

Yay! Friends again



*hugs*

The difference is that Mark uses ONE card and not an entire deck, so it looks like more impossible and a lot more skilled.

Randy wrote:The difference is that Mark uses ONE card and not an entire deck, so it looks like more impossible and a lot more skilled.

What happened to 'id does the job'?

EDIT: All deleted...

Oops. Answered a post about two pages ago. I lost track of this thread's size and did not realise how popular it had become

Didn't say there was anything wrong with it, just that his effect is a lot more stunning, and really if you are making them think you made them think of a reversed card in the deck, rather than a single card in your wallet, in an envelope. One looks less impressive than the other.

But to each his own I guess. I still don't see the good idea in having to where they have to see and handle the deck, or see the bottom of the deck. I mean honestly, I doubt they go home and say "I didn't see the bottom of the deck, that man was an epic failure."

Eshly wrote:

SamGurney wrote:This is getting silly. Nobody else is subject to this much scrutiny. You have decided that Tom's fake psych. force is silly, but nobody here has seen him perform it. If You have, by all means complain- but I have a sneaky suspicion nobody else would get this much of a fuss made about their decision.
Debate is very healthy... but sometimes...

Thank you Sam.

And for anyone who wishes to see the psychological proceedure I use, just look at the video demo of On the Mark by Mark Elsdon. Very great effect.


Tom
xx

Why, are you in the demo?
If not, then lets see a video of YOU doing it perhaps? Or is this not possible?

Eshly wrote:Ofcourse it can, but I love the selection process they go through. It allows for subtle nuonces and conversation and doesn't resort to the tired old "Name any card" line.
.

you know, Ive been using the deck for more years than you have been around Tom, and not once have i ever said Name any card.

but I have never felt the need to dress it up with a false force either, because when you do this, you give the spectators a possible solution. And if you give them this possible soultion, the over all power of the effect is competely lost.

If you are looking at the effect you should do yourself a huge favor and go back to Vernons original handling for the Brainwave deck.

The Psychology used in his routine, is the right way to go.

It is published in several places, but I found it in Paul Clives card magic without skill.

Going back quite a lot of pages (wow, this thread has grown since yesterday!)...

Eshly wrote:The problem is I was a loud, autistic person who didn't understand that you wern't meant to reveal the tricks.

One of the classic symptoms of the autistic spectrum is spotting details. The autistic eye is instantly drawn to words, marks, tiny imperfections, slight misalignments, irregular shades of colour. Things that would pass unnoticed to most people will be picked up clearly by Eshly (and often by me).

Since nobody can inhabit the mental space of others, our immediate natural assumption is: what we find obvious, the audience will too. Which leads to worrying about slight details like flashing the bottom of a deck. YOU think "an imperceptible glimpse"; WE think "waving it in their faces".

Similarly, I would never think of using a cross-cut force, despite all the voices raised in its praise. It's just far too obvious in my eyes. You might as well stick numbered Post-Its on each half of the deck. I suspect Eshly would say the same.

It takes decades of living and working with "normal" people, and pondering their behaviour, to begin to be able to understand what they perceive and how they think. I'm not as autistic as Eshly, and I've got about 35 years extra experience over him, and it's only just becoming possible for me to manage this feat.

So, Eshly, be aware of this and realise that most people really don't notice all the detail. And, everyone else, well, just understand a bit.

i think if tom wants a role-model, as in someone to model his behaviour on - it should be our own Robbie...just as a person, not cos of anything else...

i do try and remember that tom is both a normal irritating teenager, and also autistic...

though a bit of give and take on both sides is what it should be about ultimately...

and the occasional kick up the @rse...

its been an interesting thread (for once) rather than a complete battle...we all have to remember that we all perform differently - and i've come to the conclusion that if tom really wants to over prove everything, and worry about the things others know not to...well, thats just up to him...

maybe in the future, he could remember that, and so could we?

could we start a new acronymical (is that even a word) parlance?

YBAT?

stands for "you're being a tw@t..."

no, not the young buddhists association, before anyone with google suggests it

I think some of you may be right. I am "explaining" just a bit too much when I do the On the Mark force. Its becoming less magical and a bit too much intellectual.

I think I'll explain a little less in future.

IAIN wrote:i think if tom wants a role-model, as in someone to model his behaviour on - it should be our own Robbie...just as a person, not cos of anything else...

Awww... spare my blushes, please. I don't recommend myself as a role model for anyone! Not even for myself.

So tom, will it take 12pages to get you to listen to some well meant advice in the future, or will you listen and try to calm down?