talkmagic.co.uk

Hello people

Just a thought that I've been thinking about the past little while.We all know that the ultimate effect of a trick certainly has a lot to do with the context it is in.For example,Ten card poker deal would go down a storm with gamblers but may not for people who are not interested in playing cards.Derren performing invisible touch on the pole dancers worked great and kept in the context of the fact that people want and do try to touch them as they perform.

Now my question is this.We know that a book test would suit a school or library scenario ideally but is it too much of an out of the ordinary effect to put in your strolling act.I've been looking to put the book test I do into my strolling set but find it hard to just pull out a book in the middle of my set.I'm trying to come with a way for it to suit the scene a bit more like bringing a book on weddings to a wedding or a book on alcoholic drinks perhaps.There is no way it's plausible to whip out Shakespeare at a wedding reception in my book(Pun intended) but please do correct me if I am wrong.

So who on the forum performs a book test in their strolling set?

Hi Flood,

Great post.
I do perform a book test but I just keep it ready should I find myself near a book shelf or library.
You make a great point about the justification and it's this reasoning that made me feel awkward about using B.I.P 2.0. It just wasn't natural to bring it out and it seemed obvious that there must be something special about the book.

The one i use now is impromptu and can be used if you should happen to see people reading in a coffee shop or somewhere similar. As long as I have a normal book on me then I'm good to go.

What book test do you use?

Alec

If I understand your post correctly, yes I agree completely - context is everything.

The two book tests I favour can use any book so I will bring it up if they have a book/s with them.

Many people carry books with them, especially women I have found in their handbags, men seem increasingly more likely to have a Reader/Kindle so a careful enquiry as to "what they are reading at present" helps to establish if you can use their book.

I was going to mention that the BIP booktest is not really a booktest and more of a prop.I think the idea of a booktest is to have a natural way of revealing a word selected from a natural object i.e. a book.The BIP works against that whole concept entirely and is something that should be avoided in my honest opinion.I think trying to make mentalism an engaging and believable experience is an uphill battle as it is and that is without the inclusion of conspicuous props.If you were to do what you are claiming to do then you should not need that special little book.

I use a normal prepared book with a few pages cut out for a riffle force.It's funny that this is one of the simplest methods of doing a booktest and it is as strong as some of the more expensive booktests on the market.

I use the AREA book test by Looch in my strolling mind reading set.

Hey Stephen.

Could you give me the details on how the routine is structured.Above all how does it go down for you?

Since I was eight I have never gone anyplace without a book in my hand. If I walk out to buy a pint of milk, I'll have a book in my pocket. So for me it is more natural to produce a book than a pack of cards. But I know that's not the situation for my audience!
I think in informal situations it needs to be a book that is lying around. If it is your own book, it is a prop. On a stage you can more easily justify having a book.
A friend of mine has a small book (one of the two inch pocket books of wisdon sort of thimgs) which he pulls out to do book tests in walk-about situations. His justification is that it is a small book that he can bring around easily. Somehow it looks more natural in that context than a full size book.

Ignoring all other posts I'll simply echo something I've said for years. . .

Strolling Mentalism is intended to be a tool more than anything else, why are we cheapening it and actually hurting ourselves when it comes to creating believability, treating it as we would sponge balls, dice and playing cards?

It makes absolutely no sense at all, doing a Book Test at a table. On the other hand, you could get away with a Date Book or Day Runner type routine (though you may be pushing things, given how so much of that now rests in one's phone). How do you justify anything other without it looking as being a set-up?

HOWEVER, if someone at the table or even the table next to you happens to have a book and you do a Book Test with it, then you have something that will play well. Not just due to the improvisational nature of things, but the fact that you are demonstrating what & how book tests were used originally, which should be the whole point behind any such demonstration.

While we can be booked as a Mentalist to do strolling/atmospheric amusements I really believe such is wrong on so many levels; as I said, it cheapens the craft. On the other hand Jon Stetson and several others have shown me through their actions, how strolling Mentalism should be used; as a cover for getting pre-show work in place. Jon works a room for close to an hour setting things up for the stage act while likewise priming the audience as to what to expect. He builds excitement and interest while keeping things in context -- possibly real vs. obvious trickery.

If and when hired for doing strolling work the advantage I found was to show up early, do two or three dynamite bits as the early arrivals filter in so they can talk you up. Then pace yourself with very simple, consistent material. Depending on your claim, we could be talking about handwriting analysis, aura readings or some version of the old Sinner & Saint routine -- do less but do what plays, what people will talk most about (which is themselves e.g. some form of Reading is always your best bet). But please, stop thinking like a bleeding magician and viewing mentalism in that light, they are kindred art forms but not one in the same thing.

A_n_t wrote:Many people carry books with them, especially women I have found in their handbags, men seem increasingly more likely to have a Reader/Kindle so a careful enquiry as to "what they are reading at present" helps to establish if you can use their book.

I carry comics in my bag.
There is now a requirement for Kindle and Comic tests

Thanks for the replies.

Craig thanks for the reply.If you are telling me that bringing a book around table hopping is illogical then would that same illogicality apply to bringing ESP cards,Note pads and pens,envelopes and whatever other mentalism prop.Or is your point that you think it is all illogical and should never be performed at all to begin with while table hopping

The way I see it is that a book is just a means to an end.It doesn't matter what prop,item or gizmo you have.What you are doing is demonstrating your ability in an entertaining way, be it with books,cards,pens,paper it does not matter.

As for getting people to believe....Well I did an Omni deck routine followed by a name revelation for a woman last week and she asked ''Can you actually read minds'' after my demonstration.She was a fully grown woman so she was old enough to make her own decision on things.I'm clearly a trickster yet she was willing to just accept I was a mind reader based on the effect.I think when it's all said and done people will make up their own mind on what is real and what is not.Naturally I had to disclaim and tell her it was something else but not mind reading or trickery either

Flood, maybe you should ask Bob Cassidy next time he does one of his teleseminars (as sadly Bob seems to have stopped coming to the forum). He thinks (or thought) that strolling mentalism is a bad idea too. However, as I recall, his point was that walking around, doing the same "bits" to lots of different people was the exact opposite of the impression a mentalist should try to create.

We're getting back to the issue of belief (that maybe the mentalism is genuine) versus obviously doing tricks, even if they have a mental flavour. You will still get people who think that maybe you really can read minds if you produce a rabbit from a hat as part of the show. You will get sceptics even with the most tightly structured and well performed mentalism act (and quite right too of course, as it is not real!). It is really down to how you can best portray what it is that you do. Maybe you would be better off sticking to magic when doing walk-around, even if you still get good reactions doing the mental stuff, because you could be getting better reactions, more often, by doing mentalism in a more suitable context.

You have obviously identified the incongruity of producing certain books while working tables or small groups at parties. Craig is suggesting that maybe the whole idea of producing any book is incongruous and maybe the whole idea of walk-around mentalism just doesn't work as well as mentalism should.

Then again, Mark Strivings has produced books and a DVD specifically on doing this very thing!

I cannot agree that every single prop you introduce is necessarily the same as any other. Imagine a drawing duplication. You cannot do this (for a drawing the spectator does) without giving the spectator a pen or pencil and something to draw on. Unless you are going to describe the picture, you will need something to draw with yourself. Those pens and paper are props, but are 100% congruent (indeed essential for this type of dupe). Maybe you should give the spectator something to rest on while drawing. This makes plenty of sense on stage, or to a parlour audience sitting round on chairs, but less so if there is a table, although maybe not if the table is cluttered (with cutlery etc.). Maybe it makes sense that the performer should have something to lean on too.

Maybe it doesn't make sense for the board to be an inch thick and for there to be inlaid chinese dragons in faux lacquerwork round the edge.

ESP testing cards are entirely appropriate for testing ESP. Whether they are appropriate for a table-hopping act is less clear.

Don't lose sight of the fact that a book test is really (usually) a word test. As you pointed out, The Complete Works of William Shakespeare would not be congruent in a walk-around setting. So what book, if any, would be appropriate for you, in the circumstances in which you work? What does you producing a book imply? Even if you can come up with a good reason for a particular book, is there really nothing that you could slot into your act that would be better and more appropriate?

Using the Monserrat/(Bob) Cassidy booktest technique, I can see this working in a walkaround situation with a "magicians book of spells", or similar.
IMHO it is congruent to do a "booktest" using the technique in Wilson which uses a book and an envelope; I have used this with a Harry Potter book and children in a restaurant to great effect. To a child, someone doing "magic" at a table carrying a copy of a Harry Potter around with them is COMPLETELY congruent.
Given that most (?) laypeople do not really care if it is "magic" or "mentalism", (in my opinion...), we are back at the "do you have the personal flair and personality to perform" argument again, which I believe is the real reason a lot of people have problems with performing it "walkaround" style.
Bruce.

How about something a bit more appropriate. I have vague memories of a routine using a cocktail menu, deducing the chosen drink. It's possibly a Docc Hilford idea, but maybe someone else can help with that.

Lawrence wrote:There is now a requirement for Kindle and Comic tests

ftopic39627.php is something I have been working on but is the wrong way around!

Although I may have just had an idea...

BrucUK wrote:IMHO it is congruent to do a "booktest" using the technique in Wilson which uses a book and an envelope; I have used this with a Harry Potter book and children in a restaurant to great effect. To a child, someone doing "magic" at a table carrying a copy of a Harry Potter around with them is COMPLETELY congruent.

Agreed.

Given that most (?) laypeople do not really care if it is "magic" or "mentalism", (in my opinion...), we are back at the "do you have the personal flair and personality to perform" argument again, which I believe is the real reason a lot of people have problems with performing it "walkaround" style.

As I said, you can get great reactions doing tricks, and this includes mentalist effects in magic acts. I am not sure anyone has ever suggested that this isn't the case.

The arguments about mixing magic and mentalism seem to have two points. The first is that you may be able to get even better reactions by keeping the two apart (or, more precisely, by not trying to portray yourself as a "true" mentalist right after doing an ACR and the sponge bunnies). I really can't see why it should be so controversial to suggest to people that perhaps they should consider trying to present their mentalism in a way that will get best possible reactions. It might not be right to say that you should not perform mentalism in a way that could be linked to a magic trick, but it's worth considering.

The second point seems to be that you are cheapening the art and/or spoiling mentalism effects that other performers might want to use (or indeed that you might want to use yourself in a full mentalism programme). I suppose this is a similar argument to the one about rubbish performances on YouTube spoiling the tricks when others do them right. It's almost suggesting a form of exposure, but instead of exposing a method, you are revealing that mentalist "effects" are "tricks". I am not entirely sure about this, but on the other hand, when you have clowns at kids' parties doing expensive book tests, I can see how the point arises.

I am not talking about exposing fake psychics and mediums, just undermining the "it might be real" element for which many mentalists strive.