(Close Window)
Topic: Osterlind's Essays
Message: Posted by: Mark Rough (Oct 29, 2004 07:24AM)
Okay, let's try this again and try to stay on topic and not slam eachother. This is too good a book to just let discussion be diverted.

There's a lot of great thinking in this. I think the first essay about love and magic is something that should be required reading for all of us. It's a great reminder of why I became involved in this and why it's so important to keep you love of magic and mentalism, and the audience.

And, if you really hate buying books without at least one effect in them, there's a great drawing duplication effect. I've been working on it for a few days now, practicing on family. It gets great results. I still need to iron out some kinks in my presentation but I can already tell I'll be using it often.

Anyway, for my part in the last debacle that happened around this subject, I do apologize.

Mark
Message: Posted by: david_a_whitehead (Oct 29, 2004 07:55AM)
I'll play devil's advocate here...why use cards for a drawing dupe? Aren't cleaner methods w/o cards more impressive? Worse yet this is a "pick a card". I haven't tried out Osterlind's version so have no real basis for saying this but I just want to engage in some discussion over why people think this drawing dupe is so powerful. Keep it constructive. Thanks.
Message: Posted by: pierredan (Oct 29, 2004 08:07AM)
I was able to purchase a hardcopy verson of his second book of his trilogy with A1 Magical media.

I went to Osterlind's website but he does not offer a hardcopy of Essays. I would prefer to purchase the hardcopy instead of printing my own.

Do you know where I could find one?
Message: Posted by: Mark Rough (Oct 29, 2004 08:14AM)
Actually, he goes into several methods that don't need the cards at all. However, I like his reasoning for using the cards. . .sometimes people have a hard time thinking of something when they are on the spot.

Mark
Message: Posted by: johne (Oct 29, 2004 08:26AM)
Good piont, Mark...

I have had several occassions where the person says...hmmm I don't know what to draw, or I don't know how to draw etc. I can see how the cards would deter this problem for closeup. However, for stage...you could also say, do we have any artistic people or creative individuals which could elimate those shy. However, you might also get a detailed portrait of a dog or cat to duplicate LOL
Message: Posted by: david_a_whitehead (Oct 29, 2004 08:31AM)
Still playing devil's advocate...doesn't cards seem to limit the choice of drawings...at least in the eyes of the audience. It seems to me that it comes across very much like a pick a card trick and audience members wil automatically assume you knew what was on the card (even if you weren't looking). No using this pre-show is a different story altogether, but knowing that Richard is against pre-show let's still discuss why using cards might be more powerful than classic drawing dupe methods out there. Perhaps this should be taken to Inner Thoughts.
Message: Posted by: Mark Rough (Oct 29, 2004 08:35AM)
I do see your point about it seeming like a pick a card trick. That's one reason I haven't made a set on blank cardstock.

I wonder if you treat the deck like Richard does with his BCS, and just peek the bottom card, without directly looking at it, if it will partly alleviate the audiences feeling that I already know what's on the card. Sure the choice is limited to whatever cards there are, but if I'm not going through the cards, what would cause them to think that I know what they chose. Still thinking though.

As for the participants drawing being too detailed, I'm not sure it matters. If you can point out enough similarities I think it will play well. Sure, I think sometimes it's tempting to stretch this beyond the bounds of credibility, but if you stick with reasonable similarites I think your okay.

Thanks for this David and Johne, it's conversations like this that keep me coming back.

Mark

Pierredan, I don't think there's a hardcopy available. Actually, I didn't know the others were. Hey, have you tried his practicing being quiet experiment? I've found it quite interesting.

Mark
Message: Posted by: oxygen (Oct 29, 2004 08:51AM)
[quote]
On 2004-10-29 09:31, david_a_whitehead wrote:
No using this pre-show is a different story altogether, but knowing that Richard is against pre-show let's still discuss why using cards might be more powerful than classic drawing dupe methods out there.
[/quote]

Actually Richard Osterlind uses pre-show for a drawing dupe in his mind mysteries dvds.
Message: Posted by: david_a_whitehead (Oct 29, 2004 08:57AM)
? I didn't say he doesn't use it. I said he is against the use of pre-show. He clearly explains this on conversations with mind readers and if you listen to his explanation of the effect in question on Mind Mysteries he explains why he uses pre-show for this particular effect and also the WAY he uses pre show. Even in the explanation he hinted at his reservations about using pre-show work. Let's get back to the topic now.
Message: Posted by: johne (Oct 29, 2004 08:58AM)
Agreed, David, Mark, and O2...lets resume in Inner Thoughts.

JE
Message: Posted by: Richard Osterlind (Oct 29, 2004 09:10AM)
Gentlemen,

Let me try to elaborate a bit on the points you have been discussing.

As for pre-show work, I have stated many times that in today's performing situations such as clubs, corporate shows, house parties, etc., the audience knows each other and can check up on things later after the show and when the performer is no longer there. So, if everyone who had a "miracle" happen to them later confirms that they were approached pre-show, it greatly takes away from the mystery even if they don't know "how" you got your info. It comes across like you "cheated" a bit and I don't like it. Take it to extremes, like in a TV special where everything is pre-show, and the whole special comes across as "rigged".

In Essays, I discuss the use of cards and other methods. If the cards are handled correctly, and if you stress the similarity of the drawings and all the subleties I have mentioned, then it seems as though "knowing" the name of the object would hardly enable you to accomplish the effect and the cards get cancelled out. Again, I have to stress this is not a pipe-dream (although I love my Cavendish!), but is something I have used since the 1980's.

But again, of course, I have mentioned in the book numerous ways to do it without the cards. It is a "system" and not a single effect!

Richard
Message: Posted by: Mark Rough (Oct 29, 2004 09:47AM)
Richard, et al.

Thanks for your points. I have to say I've been pretty intigued with the card idea and haven't played with the other ways of doing this that are discussed in the book. I agree with Richard, that if the cards are handled right, they won't be an issue. But, I'm really enjoying talking this over. Have any of you guys played with the other methods yet? Richard, I'm pretty sure you have so I guess I'm asking the others.

If you guys want to continue in Inner Thoughts that's fine with me.

Mark
Message: Posted by: Juan D (Oct 29, 2004 10:14AM)
Just wanted to say that I've been performing Annemann's Extra Sensory Perception for a loooong, looong time.

Osterlind's Effect is similar but he adds some marvelous twists in his Essays.

Honestly, I have never, ever had any problem with the selection and in fact this is the DD that I use when I want to include one on my presentations.
It is quite powerful.

Now as to which method is better, I'll give you the same old answer : Stick to what works best for you.

I've performed al sorts of DD, but for me, the better reactions have came from Annemann's Routine. And I know why (but I won't tell here).

My only complain is that Annemann's effect has been included in ETMMM and I'm pretty sure many performers will add it to their repertoires after watching Richard Osterlind's take on it and I wanted to be the only one :bawl:
Message: Posted by: pierredan (Oct 29, 2004 12:34PM)
[quote]
On 2004-10-29 09:40, lastnitesfun wrote:
Pierredan, I don't think there's a hardcopy available. Actually, I didn't know the others were. Hey, have you tried his practicing being quiet experiment? I've found it quite interesting.

Mark
[/quote]

Mark,

My question was on topic. So save your sarcasm.
Message: Posted by: Mark Rough (Oct 29, 2004 12:57PM)
Listen, I wasn't being sarcastic. I was asking you a question. I really liked the chapter out of Richard's second book and was wondering what you thought of that experiment. Don't be an ass.

Mark
Message: Posted by: pierredan (Oct 29, 2004 01:26PM)
[quote]
On 2004-10-29 13:57, lastnitesfun wrote:
Listen, I wasn't being sarcastic. I was asking you a question. I really liked the chapter out of Richard's second book and was wondering what you thought of that experiment. Don't be an ass.

Mark
[/quote]

Mark,

My apologies... I misinterpreted what you meant.

I guess it is time for me to re-read the second book.
Message: Posted by: Mark Rough (Oct 29, 2004 01:41PM)
No problem.

Mark