talkmagic.co.uk

Yes.This is indeed true. I remember you performing it in a psychiatric hospital.

Mumbungo wrote:Dye Vernon- Thanks for the reply, if blu-tack doesn't work, I'll try and track some down.

Tomo- What a shame I lost my Vernet writer. But I remember that no matter what I did with the blu-tack, it didn't last long. Nonetheless, I shall give it another go, thanks for that.

Bearfoot Boy- True! Perhaps it's a good thing XD (Although I despise the c. tear, I hate to say. Take it you're a Corinda fan?)

But why do you despise the Centre Tear? I'm curious!

Oi Vey!

I have a good dozen reasons to despise the infernal thing, starting with the fact that every magician that learns it instantly believes they are a Mind Reader But the mere exposure of the method both, deliberate and as result to clumsy/shoddy enthusiasts who don't practice, makes it too well known by the laity. Then we get to the illogic of the thing; write this down and now I'll tear it up. . .

I've seen hundreds of explanations or rather "excuses" all of which aren't just lame but exceptionally obvious B.S. unless you are playing to a group of very naive individuals that are willing to not see such; we can justify it all we won't but if the method does not hold congruency and logic, the presentation will be seen as a trick. In those old charlatan parlors the tear was justified because the question would be burnt, the vibration sent into the spirit world. . . as corny as it may sound, it FIT the method and purpose and so it was "logical" in the mind of the beholder.

I've forced myself to find ways to use this and kindred methods, the only place I've found where it fits best is the Cassidy routine in which two locations are involved and he states clearly, the billet chosen will be destroyed. . . Bob didn't use the tear however. While I came up with this use on my own there is a write-up on it (and for the life of me I can't remember the name of the guy... well known contributor).

I first learned this technique, memory serving me correctly, from a Boy Scout manual for earning a Magic merit badge. I've seen it explained on cereal boxes as well, and then we have the Masked Marvel tipping it on television. So where is there an sound reason to justify its use unless you can obfuscate things? I don't mean some quasi-cunning bit of patter, I mean a blocking and choreography that removes the familiar from what you are demonstrating.

Craig Browning wrote:I've forced myself to find ways to use this and kindred methods, the only place I've found where it fits best is the Cassidy routine in which two locations are involved and he states clearly, the billet chosen will be destroyed. . . Bob didn't use the tear however. While I came up with this use on my own there is a write-up on it (and for the life of me I can't remember the name of the guy... well known contributor). .

Bruce Bernstein?

TonyB wrote: If I could get a good swami with ink, I would be using it all the time.

The Super Sharpie is brilliant. I use it several times in every gig I do

Yes! Bruce (I so miss my brain)

Craig,

As much as I respect you, I disagree about the Tear. I have gotten more powerful reactions from that one single effect than most performers have had hot dinners. Years and years ago, when I first read about it in Step Six, I could clearly understand that Corinda valued this effect almost more than any other in the book. As much as I could sense his enthusiasm, I myself was not convinced until I learned the move and performed it numerous times.

While it may seem odd to us to tear up the scrap of paper, to an audience (or particiapnt) it flies right by them. Truthfully, I actually have MORE of an issue with all the peek wallets around where it is necessary to place the card back into the wallet after it has been written down. But that is a horse of a different colour I suppose.

I am curious though, as to why mentalists tend to avoid using the Swami! I can't wrap my head around that at all! Second to the Tear, the Swami is my favourite secret weapon!

I understand performers such as Banachek prefer to use PW instead of the Swami but again, I suppose it is whatever works for you that matters the most.

Paul, the reason they don't use a Swami is because they don't know how to do it properly or they are too bloody scared to do it. It requires a certain nerve and refined technique. I used to use it all the time at one point.

mark lewis wrote:Paul, the reason they don't use a Swami is because they don't know how to do it properly or they are too bloody scared to do it. It requires a certain nerve and refined technique.

I'm quite certain this may have a lot to do with it.

I use a TT version, I know a lot of people don't like these. I find it is easy to put on, easy to ditch and I can write pretty well with it. If I am going to be using it I use a pencil on an effecdft in advance so that people get used to seeing the pencil and when I put it down they know where it is and tyhat I haven't used it again

mark lewis wrote:Paul, the reason they don't use a Swami is because they don't know how to do it properly or they are too bloody scared to do it. It requires a certain nerve and refined technique. I used to use it all the time at one point.

You've hit on a very important note here Mark -- FEAR OF METHOD.

I don't know how many in magic apply the "Mentalists" label and yet, they want a show that is 100% guaranteed to work -- tricks that deliver a no fail path. I'm not talking about not using a Psychological Force or not using Muscle Reading but not using a Swami or Billets because they don't trust their personal ability to get away with it. The end result being a noob that has a dozen clip-boards in circulation before a show for 30 guests or worse, the schmuck that decides to do a dozen and one card tricks (the same one's he's done for the previous decade in life as a magician) but under the questionable ruse of being something "Mental"

I know of a few that have every possible safety in place when attempting to do TERASABOS for an example, and they still miss. . . then too, I've seen guys take this iconic bit of Mentalism and turn it into a cheap magic trick by using a fluffy bunny or other cute toy under the cup -- kiddie party props rather than grown-up Mentalism.

This is a huge issue to me in that seriously diminishes the potential behind mentalism and its need to feel plausible/real. But when it comes to method and not trusting the tried & true tools of the craft (and no, the CT does not fit that niche, it's a step-child . . . .and ugly step-child to my mind). The Swami being a device that really has started religions. . . but then, you know this, hope your parish is going well

I think I might have posted my method of the centre tear on here before. It is of my own brilliant invention and I don't care if Paul Pacific doesn't like it. If I can find it again I shall post the details.

Here we are:

Here is an idea I worked out for the centre tear. It is a method of reading the tear. Reading the tear is always a bigger problem than the tear itself.

See what you think of it.
It is based on sheer audacity and bluff. Of course a good mentalist needs this quality in abundance.

I use the Al Koran tear. I find this the fastest and most efficient.
Show all the torn pieces in the left hand. Ask the spectator to select one piece. He does. Now you say that you are going to select one.
Your right hand with the torn piece hidden comes over to the left hand and pretends to pick up one of the pieces. Of course it deposits the secret piece and picks that . Simulation I believe it is called. Now you can dump all the torn pieces on the table so you have both hands free.

Ask the spectator to open his piece right out. You do the same in "sympathy". Of course you open it out with the written part face down on the table so that it cannot be seen. Ask the spectator to draw a symbol of some kind on his piece. It can be a triangle, a crystal ball or some kind of ESP symbol. While he is doing this you have ample time and misdirection to pick up your tabled piece and glance at the writing quite openly. Now take the pen from the spectator and draw a similar symbol in sympathy on the unwritten side. Now ask him to tear up his piece and you do the same thus destroying the evidence. Dump all the torn pieces, both yours and his, on the tabled pile. That way if anyone sifts through the rubble later they will find that the written piece is torn up as it should be.

You now know what is written. You use patter and your own ingenuity to give reasons for all the palaver of both of you selecting a piece and writing nonsensical symbols on them. Something about "minds in sympathy" should do it.

I think i like that idea Mark.
though wont they pick up on the fact that your piece is squareish, and 4 times the size of theirs?

No. Luckily people are stupid. I have found this to be a great advantage in life from my point of view. Besides they are concentrating on their own piece rather than mine. The proof is in the pudding. The reaction from the punters is strong and that is the only way I judge these things.