talkmagic.co.uk

Cold Reading For The Magician by Richard Webster
(Note: a search of the forums did not turn up any previous reviews, so my apologies if this is a duplicate.)

The Effect
I'll try to express this as well as someone with my limited skills can: the effect learned in this book teaches the magician and would-be cold reader how to add a new dimension or two to the performer's existing effects.

Cost: $15.00 USD/ 10 or 11 Quid? (includes s/h - p&p) directly from Deceptionary.com


Difficulty
(1=easy to do, 2=No sleights, but not so easy, 3=Some sleights used,
4=Advanced sleights used, 5=Suitable for experienced magicians only)

1 - Extremely smooth read. You may well get through this cover to cover twice in an hour. Most books on cold reading I've read about here on TM usually end up with someone knowledgeable in the subject adding the precautionary phrase "this material is not for the novice." The material presented in "Cold Reading For The Magician" is, which is a refreshing change of pace.


Review

Richard says: "How to incorporate cold reading lines into your magic effects to make your performances more memorable. The information here can increase your income dramatically, as the right cold readings can generate much larger tips. They can also help you get bookings! If you have not done any cold reading, before this provides a wonderful place to start, as you will quickly gain confidence in the art, and ultimately be able to give longer readings if you wish. Improve the entertainment value of your magic, and increase both your popularity and bank account with this material. 24 pages."

I say:
I probably won't be able to describe the book or the subject as well as Richard can, hence why he's the author. I will say that if you've ever thought about dabbling in cold reading or you are a magician with little to no interest in mentalism, then this is a worthy addition to your bookshelf. In fact, if I didn't know better I'd say this book should be one of every magician's first purchases for no other reason than this: it will give you the opportunity to go from being (at the very least) "a performer doing tricks" to "a multidimensional performer doing tricks and then some.

In the very first chapter, Richard starts off by providing a contrast of a simple card routine presented by 2 different performers - one using a cold reading approach, and one who likely couldn't spell "cold reading." Granted, these are extreme examples, although I think they serve their purpose in illustrating the entire point of the book. He then proceeds to present the CRFM approach to a number of classic effects, and I think if your mind is open even a little, you will not have a problem understanding why even a small amount of cold reading will enhance your performances. If you decide you'd like to explore this facet of performance a little further, I'm sure you won't be bored with the obligatory yet helpful list of further reading you'll find at the end.

I think my only 'complaint' with this book is: when I reached the end of the book, I was like "that's it? Now what?!?" Richard's work strikes me a being far deeper than it appears at first glance, and I suspect this work was written and presented to be the key that opens the door to an alternate dimension of sorts. If I'm even partially accurate in this description, then this is one extremely auspicious key for the money.

Overall:
8.5/10

You are talking about Richards' "introduction" as it were, to Cold Reading methods... one of the earlier overviews given by a person that does legit Reading work but likewise understands the psychological/analytical side of the issue.

While it tends to be one of my least favored of Richards' contributions over the years, it is fairly well sound. Especially if you follow it up with the Lee Earle "Classic Reading" and the Bob Cassidy essay "Real Work on Cold Reading".

Do understand however, that Cold Reading isn't a "trick" but rather a "skill" or "tool" that is used either independently as part of an actual Reading or as a way to embellish a Reading styled routine such as Psychometry (NOT giving a person a character analysis based on the card you just did a location on or a dang poker cheat demo.)

I always highly recommend Richard Webster's books to everyone that asks about them. He has written rather a lot and I think I probably have most of them. Money well spent.

I began with Lee Earle's Gentle Art of Cold Reading, then began to explore more. Cold Reading is a very powerful tool for the mentalist or magician, and is a great ice-breaker in social situations. A few years ago Julian Moore brought out the James Bond Classic Reading, which takes all the memory work out of doing readings, and will have you doing them within an evening.
I don't suppose it matters much where you start; just get out and do it. That's how you'll learn.

When I first started in Dublin I was inundated with readings and I had no idea what the hell I was doing. Consequently some of my first readings were very good and some were downright awful. I remember my assistant standing on the roof of a nearby building throwing pebbles at my window to attract my attention. He was trying to warn me by sign language that I had a long queue of disgruntled clients outside my door wanting their money back.

Needless to say they didn't get it. Those were the days......................

Craig Browning wrote:one of the earlier overviews given by a person that does legit Reading work

Pardon my ignorance, but could you explain what a "legit" reading is?

I was under the impression, albeit an incorrect one, that any reading was by definition not legitimate.

Not true. Some readings are not legitimate at all. However some are. And some are a mixture of true and false.

It is a weird business. Some psychics start out crooked and end up being real and others start out real and end up crooked. Many of them meet in the middle.

mark lewis wrote:Not true. Some readings are not legitimate at all. However some are. And some are a mixture of true and false.

It is a weird business. Some psychics start out crooked and end up being real and others start out real and end up crooked. Many of them meet in the middle.

Oh. I was wrong then. I thought there was no proof anyone ever had any real psychic power.

I thought it was just people conning the vulnerable, needy and desperate out of money.

My bad.

A good psychic can HELP the vulnerable, needy and desperate.

As for proof there is just as much proof of psychic ability than there is of God's existence. In fact it is perfectly obvious that not all religions can be correct since they all say different things.

As for payment I wasn't aware that priests and ministers work for no money. They all get paid just as a psychic does. Even the Pope isn't short of the price of a sandwich.

Another thing we have to learn is that payment is part of the therapy. If people pay nothing they will put a nothing value on it. As noted in "Tarotmania" by Jan Woudhuysen "All the best psychiatrists in American agree that charging a high fee has a strong therapeutic effect"

Of course it is unethical to overcharge but you musn't undercharge either.

Ethics you know.

Oh goodie, another cynical schmuck

Let me keep this a bit "generalized" but to the point.

If you have never learned how to do Readings using the actual oracles like the Tarot, Palmistry, etc. then you do no know what you are talking about, nor do you have the justified right to slander it.

If you have not taken that knowledge and worked with it over a period of at least a year or more, doing more than a few hundred Readings a year, then again, you haven't a leg to stand on when it comes to boast-filled claims and negative attitudes. EVERYTHING you are basing your bias on, comes from the myth that magician can't believe in such and the evangelic attitudes being promoted by pop TV personalities and some old Pedophile that heads up a rather dangerous cult (a.k.a. Tax Shelter) which is more akin to a front for the American Atheist Society.

When evidence is produced to the contrary of this sects beliefs, they will demand "more" in way of proof while likewise poo-pooing the researchers that introduce said proof's as being quacks and fools. Even when said researcher is a Nobel Prize winner.

When evidence of data tampering is proven, when it comes to this sort of Cynical group's "testing" (who are manipulating data so it cannot possibly prove valid) then one must likewise consider that they are just as big a fraud and charlatan as those they seek to expose and generally pick on.

When it comes to the bogus Million, the wordage of the challenge leaves no room for anyone to possibly "win" outside the hype and PR one gains by association... Then again, the producers of said challenge have NEVER allowed those that pass the first level of said testing, to move forward... and that alone proves fraud on their part.

Cynics always have an "explanation"... my favorites include "Self-Fulfilling Prophecy" which in itself is a hypocritical statement when you think about it... and then we have their favorite of all line, which proves their intellectual & scientific superiority -- COINCIDENCE!

As to the former, we need to note that the Cynical poo-poo the New Age idea of Self-Creation (see the treatise "As a Man Thinketh" by James Allen and you'll catch a good glimpse as to what this is). It is a concept that dates back at least 6,000 years in human history; one that can be found in most every ancient religious/philosophical & esoteric tradition, being most typically credited to Hermes but hosting ties to most of the other great thinkers in ancient times. Ironically, it is likewise a concept used in present day Psychiatry/psychology and has been prove to be a huge factor when it comes to people changing the course of their lives... of course, that brings in another Hermetic axiom...

A "Legit" Reading is one done by a person who is not being consciously influenced by all the "explanations" and formulas we find in the world of stage magic; someone that has learned a system (or more) based on the original modes of use, application and presentation. Frequently the student that is studied and who develops a sound sense of experience, will couple this intellectual knowledge (how to use the system, the meaning of symbols, etc.) with natural Intuition.

Now here's the rub...
Most critics of the Psychic Reader refuse to distinguish the difference between "Prophecy" and "Divination". They refuse to understand that Divination (Tarot, Palmistry, etc.) is mutable, allowing the patron to retain their freedom of will. It is not something carved in stone but rather, based on probabilities that stem from the information (energy) at the time of said Reading.

Prophecy is quite a bit more dramatic and though it is typically tied to one's natural Intuitive (sub-conscious) senses, it remain the sort of thing that's oft time inexplicable and ALWAYS carved in stone... for the most part. Prophecy can be altered (in that this is its purpose) but it requires a significant amount of focus, determination and effort from those involved. A great example of how this correlates to things is the Black Forest Group used by the Allies during WWII so as to aid in defeating the NAZIs... but few Cynics even know about it let alone being willing to recognize what was done and why.

To Summarize... if you haven't the experience or the audacity to actually LEARN about a given field from either side of the issue at an experiential level, you have no right to be judgmental towards it, nor any sense of foundation upon which to stand when doing so. You are merely being a trained parrot that regurgitates the standard views offered by a biased few vs. the greater demonstration of actual WISDOM and honest fairness around things.

Oh! And too, not everyone that does Readings is out to screw the public.

mark lewis wrote:A good psychic can HELP the vulnerable, needy and desperate.

As for proof there is just as much proof of psychic ability than there is of God's existence. In fact it is perfectly obvious that not all religions can be correct since they all say different things.

As for payment I wasn't aware that priests and ministers work for no money. They all get paid just as a psychic does. Even the Pope isn't short of the price of a sandwich.

Another thing we have to learn is that payment is part of the therapy. If people pay nothing they will put a nothing value on it. As noted in "Tarotmania" by Jan Woudhuysen "All the best psychiatrists in American agree that charging a high fee has a strong therapeutic effect"

Of course it is unethical to overcharge but you musn't undercharge either.

Ethics you know.

Oh, who said religion couldn't be lumped in with the other charlatans. The similarities are awesome. Both expect you to have faith in something that cannot be proven, both pray on the lonely, needy, desperate and vulberable, both extract money for lying, both are steeped in ceremony, etc etc etc.

I believe in Richard Dawkins.

mrgoat wrote:
I believe in Richard Dawkins.

And Richard believes in your money. He's not doing bad out of the business of belief either is he?

Craig Browning wrote:Oh goodie, another cynical schmuck

Name calling already? Awesome start to your point.

Craig Browning wrote:If you have never learned how to do Readings using the actual oracles like the Tarot, Palmistry, etc. then you do no know what you are talking about, nor do you have the justified right to slander it.

Really? I have not learned how to torture someone. Does that mean I can't say I think it's wrong?

Also, for the record, slander is spoken and libel is written.

But the basis of the definition of that word is that an untruth is written/spoken.

I can see no untruths in my posts.

Craig Browning wrote:If you have not taken that knowledge and worked with it over a period of at least a year or more, doing more than a few hundred Readings a year, then again, you haven't a leg to stand on when it comes to boast-filled claims and negative attitudes. EVERYTHING you are basing your bias on, comes from the myth that magician can't believe in such and the evangelic attitudes being promoted by pop TV personalities and some old Pedophile that heads up a rather dangerous cult (a.k.a. Tax Shelter) which is more akin to a front for the American Atheist Society.

Mr Browning. Please do not tell me how I arrived at the fact that god doesn't exist and that people that pretend to have unworldly powers are fraudulant charlatans.

Your argument is facile at best. It seems to be "unless you have studied something you cannot prove for one year you cannot say you don't believe in it".

I can, Sir. And I shall.

It's bunkum. We all know it is. You do not need to study something to know it's morally wrong.

I haven't studied the KKK, but I believe attacking people based on the colour of their skin is wrong.

Craig Browning wrote:When evidence is produced to the contrary of this sects beliefs, they will demand "more" in way of proof while likewise poo-pooing the researchers that introduce said proof's as being quacks and fools. Even when said researcher is a Nobel Prize winner.

So what proof are you talking about? And who cares is the researcher was a nobel prize winner. Conan Doyle believed in fairies.

Craig Browning wrote:When evidence of data tampering is proven, when it comes to this sort of Cynical group's "testing" (who are manipulating data so it cannot possibly prove valid) then one must likewise consider that they are just as big a fraud and charlatan as those they seek to expose and generally pick on.

Again, some citations would be nice to validate your claims.

Craig Browning wrote:When it comes to the bogus Million, the wordage of the challenge leaves no room for anyone to possibly "win" outside the hype and PR one gains by association... Then again, the producers of said challenge have NEVER allowed those that pass the first level of said testing, to move forward... and that alone proves fraud on their part.

Or it proves that no one can meet the challenge.

But that aside, why not offer your amazing powers up for testing by a scientific journal, or the Nobel board? Surely if you really do have powers no one has seen proved it would be a good thing to get them proved?

Assuming you can of course.

Craig Browning wrote:A "Legit" Reading is one done by a person who is not being consciously influenced by all the "explanations" and formulas we find in the world of stage magic; someone that has learned a system (or more) based on the original modes of use, application and presentation. Frequently the student that is studied and who develops a sound sense of experience, will couple this intellectual knowledge (how to use the system, the meaning of symbols, etc.) with natural Intuition.

Ah right. Thanks for your definition. I thought you meant it was someone that actually had some psychic powers.

Craig Browning wrote:To Summarize... if you haven't the experience or the audacity

audacity? I think you got the wrong word there...

Craig Browning wrote: to actually LEARN about a given field from either side of the issue at an experiential level, you have no right to be judgmental towards it, nor any sense of foundation upon which to stand when doing so. You are merely being a trained parrot that regurgitates the standard views offered by a biased few vs. the greater demonstration of actual WISDOM and honest fairness around things.

I have every right to say what I want about anything I want.

And where is this DEMONSTRATION you mention?

But carry on with the name-calling if it makes you feel superior.

Craig Browning wrote: Oh! And too, not everyone that does Readings is out to screw the public.

Of course, that's why they all do it for free, like a charity thing really.

mrgoat wrote:
Of course, that's why they all do it for free, like a charity thing really.

Nobody does anything for free. We don't live in that kind of world. Mr. Dawkins does very well being a professional sceptic - you wouldn't ask him to work for free or for charity would you? Of course not. Any decent reader is going to do it for a living. Whether you believe in psychics or not, you must realise that people have to eat.

And nobody puts a gun to someone's head and says "go for a psychic reading or else.." People choose to go to a reader. They choose to do this because it is something they are either interested in, believe in, or wish to experience. The notion of hordes of grief-stricken people who have lost leave of their senses wandering blindly into a reader's consulting room is just plain silly. Besides, most readers don't talk to dead people. Only mediums do that. Most readers use a technique (eg tarot) which requires no "spirit guidance" at all, but rather relies on intuition, knowledge of the system, and the experience of having conducted many readings before.

But if you don't believe, that's fine. Different strokes, and all that.

mrgoat wrote:I have every right to say what I want about anything I want

Not on here you don't. I wish it were otherwise but bitter experience shows such a feature will be, and certainly has been, misused so that's why we have rules and that's why this thread is now locked.