talkmagic.co.uk

As a mentalist you will often be in the situation where you know a piece of information (name, star sign, random word, number, drawing, etc) even though it seems impossible for you to do so. We know there are many methods that can be used to get this information and (hopefully!) the spec(s) will be oblivious. You now come to the key moment and reveal what you know to gasps of amazement.

I think it would be very interesting to discuss the different ways that people present this moment. Do you just blurt it out ("You're thinking of the number 58"), do you get all NLP/body language with it ("I think it's a drawing of a cat, and seeing your pupil dilation as I say that I think I'm right - it's a cat!"), do you get all mysterious ("Picture it in your head, send it to me, use your ESP to transmit it to me, yes it's coming through, the name's Brad isn't it!"), etc etc etc.

My presentation usually has a (pseudo-)hypno angle based around influencing them in some way, even though their choice seemed to be made of their own freewill - but how do you do it? We often discuss technical issues on TM but arguably this sort of presentational area is even more important in terms of creating real magic, so hopefully this will get a good discussion going. Cheers!

I've been playing on the facial twitches angle lately.

It seems completely possible as the spec starts to question themselves and often you probably could read them like that.

"Start thinking of the colour... now say yes to the next two questions... Is it black? [Yes], Is it red? [Yes]... okay you gave that away too easily... this time I just want you to answer the question in your head...Is it a diamond?" etc.

This is kind of weird, but of late I am listening to my imaginary friends, and talking back to them. It makes for a more entertaining presentation, and the audience can read of it what they will. I did it as a bit of a joke and liked it, so will keep doing it until I get bored of it.

I am considering throwing in a bit of vent, so that some people can hear an occasional one of the voices in my head.

I never really warmed to the psychological approach. It's not for me, though with the right audience I will occasionally do that. I prefer to offer no explanation, pseudo or otherwise.

TonyB wrote:This is kind of weird, but of late I am listening to my imaginary friends, and talking back to them. It makes for a more entertaining presentation, and the audience can read of it what they will. I did it as a bit of a joke and liked it, so will keep doing it until I get bored of it.

I am considering throwing in a bit of vent, so that some people can hear an occasional one of the voices in my head.

I never really warmed to the psychological approach. It's not for me, though with the right audience I will occasionally do that. I prefer to offer no explanation, pseudo or otherwise.

That sounds like great fun Tony! They must think you are a mad man!

I get the odd person thinking I am acting oddly, and I see the looks of confusion crossing their faces. I say: "You're confused - imagine what it's like for me," and it gets a great laugh.

The Great Cthulhu speaks to me but, as he is dreams, trapped so far down in the watery depths, instead of commanding me to his horrific bidding, all he can manage is tell me what number someone is thinking of. Although he never actually demands it, I always sacrifice a small kitten afterwards as a gesture of appreciation. It only takes a couple of seconds to say thank you and politness never hurt anybody.

You might think I'm kidding but I am seriously considering this as presentation at the moment (without the kitten bit, obviously). People will probably think I'm insane but they can't argue with the results!My hope is that people will dismiss my ridiculous psuedo-explanation but then jump to something like 'he must be using psychology or body language like that Derren Whatsit off of the telly'. By giving an outlandish explanation, audience members will have to come to their own conclusions without me having to say something pretentious like 'Was it real or not? You decide!' Also, by slipping various red herrings into the performance (acting as if I'm reading their facial tics, waving my hands cosmically about their head, etc) I'm hoping to really give out confusing, mixed signals.

I'm well aware that this is probably a really bad idea but the Old Ones told me to do it and I really don't want to get on the wrong side of them.

I usually tell people that the power comes from Jesus and proceed to read from the Bible to them.

A J Irving wrote:I'm well aware that this is probably a really bad idea but the Old Ones told me to do it and I really don't want to get on the wrong side of them.

IA! IA! CTHULHU F'HTAGN!

My thinking at present on this can be summed up as follows:

It's called a subtext for a reason. If you're explicitly explaining what you do, then it's not subtext, it's text. So f___ explanations.

To add to that, if you follow what other writers have said (Banachek, Osterlind, Brown etc.) you'll know that the real power is not to say, as an example "I saw a slight dilation of the pupil there, which tells me...", but to stare intently at their eyes as you are talking, perhaps going so far as to reposition them (for better lighting). You will say, "I don't know why, but I'm getting the impression you've drawn an ANIMAL of some kind... yes an ANIMAL like a cat or a dog... a cat... or a dog... Yes, I can see now that it is a cat you drew... please, show everyone your drawing...". There will be, hidden amongst your audience, analytical people. They will want to know how you do what you do. It is not enough, in order to fool these people, to hide your actual method; you need also to hide your apparent method. This is because it is much better to have them analyse what you said, how you said it, where you were looking, than why you had the participant draw anything in the first place, why you had them hand you the pad immediately after they had torn the paper, etc. It's something that I like to call the smart-arse factor.

And lastly, if you do not give explanations, there will be those hidden amongst your audience who believe that you genuinely can read minds. Why dissuade them of this possibility by talking about micro-expressions?

A J Irving wrote:...like that Darren Whatsit off of the telly'...

Derren.

Mr_Grue wrote:

A J Irving wrote:...like that Darren Whatsit off of the telly'...

Derren.

*Dagon*

A J Irving wrote:

Mr_Grue wrote:

A J Irving wrote:...like that Darren Whatsit off of the telly'...

Derren.

*Dagon*

Dogon.

But let's be sirius.

Mr_Grue wrote:Dogon.

But let's be sirius.

Something unspeakable is going to devour you for that terrible punnage and I mean that in all possible interpretations.

"If I knew how I did it, I'd be rich!" seems a good enough cover story to me.

Just have fun with it, I try and make up a 'Sherlock Scan' on the fly, tests you quite a lot, but that'shalf the fun.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYlVBhwfvL4 - For those who wondered what I'm on about :p