(Close Window)
Topic: Progressive Anagram Performances On Video?
Message: Posted by: Bennettjc (Jan 21, 2005 09:13AM)
I am currently preoccupied with reading about and eventually performing one of the many well thought of progressive anagram routines.

Given the oft-cited need for such routines to not seem like the performer is simply playing "hang-man" with the subject I was interested in seeing performances of such routines on film.

So far I am aware of:
Max Maven - Contimental on "Videomind"
Dan Harlan - Doing the crossword puzzle thing on one of his tapes.
Lee Earle - Doing Ty Kralin's Whenever-Anywhere Book Test (Based on Sam Schwartz's Hidden Force anagram)op the "Best Of Syzygy II" tape.

Does anyone know of others?

Thanks!
Bennett
Message: Posted by: Fred E. Bert (Jan 21, 2005 09:35AM)
There is a progressive anagram routine on Marc Paul's DVD Min 2 Mind.
Message: Posted by: Nir Dahan (Jan 22, 2005 05:46PM)
I had posted an answer to this thread

why was it erased??
Message: Posted by: Bennettjc (Jan 22, 2005 07:46PM)
Nir:
I too wondered what happened to your post!!!???? There was some quite useful information that I was planning to save second time around. Could you repost?
Thanks!

Fred:
Thanks for that tip. I reviewed the tape. It was a fairly uninspiring "What's My Sign" done over the telephone.

Bennett
Message: Posted by: cfrye (Jan 23, 2005 01:24AM)
Nir,

I don't know for sure, but your post might have been deleted because it exposed the general method behind a published effect.
Message: Posted by: Nir Dahan (Jan 23, 2005 05:58AM)
Hi guys,

I just posted an informative post. I bet if the supervisors read it again they'd be convinced. in any case a small PM with the (supposed) reason for deleting a post is in place. if the "supervisor" had enough time to read through the whole post and decide that it was exposure, then he could put the extra 5 seconds to write a line explaining why. ..that also explains why I stopped visiting and contributing to this forum in the past months...
(I guess this post will be erased as well without explanation)...

anyways I just stated the difference between a branching and a progressive anagram. I gave a small description of both and that basically none of them is really an anagram in the dictionary sense of the word, plus they are both basically the same thing. if you want more details please PM me.

N
Message: Posted by: Manfredo (Jan 23, 2005 11:20AM)
That`s strange what here happened. I can`t understand it. The contribution of Nir was a very useful clarification of concepts, very old concepts, which cannot be owned by any marketed effects.
Message: Posted by: ddyment (Jan 23, 2005 11:27AM)
I don't think it's a question of being related to marketed effects. It's simply one of exposing the workings of a magical illusion in an open-to-the-public forum. Don't forget that [b]anybody[/b] can read this part of the forum, even search engines. The detailed workings of magical secrets are, by Café policy, relegated to the Banquet Room (which is as I think it should be). Nobody's curtailing Nir's right to post his comments... just restricting [b]where[/b] they can be posted.

... Doug
Message: Posted by: PaulEverson (Jan 24, 2005 08:44AM)
I was performing the Zodiac PA for a while and got a mixed reaction - too many people sussing that it was something to do with the combination of letters - maybe I was just doing it badly - what I suggest is forcing the the "catergory" of word using your fave method.

The effect is much stronger in my experience and will be remembered as the spectator having a choice of virtually any word - doing it this way has replaced the CT in my act and plays much stronger as it is not written down.
Message: Posted by: ddyment (Jan 24, 2005 10:59AM)
I've said this before; I'll say it again. With a few rare and notable exceptions, [b]every[/b] performance of this type of effect I have seen by a magician has been poorly done. They seem to think that the method is baffling by itself. It is not. This can be a startling and convincing demonstration, but [b]only if considerable effort is put into the creation and delivery of an associated script[/b]. Much attention must be paid to the three methods of hiding negative responses; failure to do so will result in something that looks for all the world like what it is: guessing letters. Al Koran said it, and generations of future mentalists ignore it at their peril: "It's the words that fool; all else is window dressing,"

... Doug
Message: Posted by: MentaThought (Jan 24, 2005 08:52PM)
[quote]
On 2005-01-24 11:59, ddyment wrote:
I've said this before; I'll say it again. With a few rare and notable exceptions, [b]every[/b] performance of this type of effect I have seen by a magician has been poorly done.
[/quote]

Doug,

As the appreciative owner of your very valuable "Sign Language," I would like to suggest that I, and probably many others, would appreciate it if you (or another performer under your very close direction) produced a DVD devoted to the performance of this type of effect, if not to the use of progressive and branching a******s in mentalism in general.
Message: Posted by: Bennettjc (Jan 24, 2005 10:26PM)
MentaThought And Doug:

I was also contemplating a suggestion to Doug. Mine was for him to consider writing a book (the book?) on progressive anagrams. As I've researched this topic, fairly superficially, I've been fascinated by the history, lineages, theory, etc.