|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4 | ||||||||||
ddyment Inner circle Gibsons, BC, Canada 2499 Posts |
Quote:
Rex asked: It's a bit problematic. If you describe the effect as the audience is likely to remember it, you're being unfair to the buyer, as you're leaving out some implementational details that he could rightly complain about. On the other hand, if you include those details, you give a strong clue about the general nature of the secret. In this case, you're being unfair to the inventor, as you're allowing people to just blow off the whole concept without learning about the presentational details that make it so effective in this case. I've posted before that I think the effect as originally described by Andrews is not that strong. But with the improvement suggested by Terri Rogers (which is included with the manuscript), it's a very nice effect. It's a book test... they choose a page and word; you tell them the word. The book(s) are not modified or prepared in any way... use any one(s) you choose. For the modest price, it's a good thing to know. ... Doug
The Deceptionary :: Elegant, Literate, Contemporary Mentalism ... and More :: (order "Calculated Thoughts" from Vanishing Inc.)
|
|||||||||
xersekis Special user 591 Posts |
THanks Doug.
For your money this or RB's version? Is a comparison fair? Enjoy! Rex |
|||||||||
knave New user UK Newcastle 72 Posts |
Both are great but a comparison would come down to personal preference, as the emphasis of the effects are different:
Busch - Pick any book you like Andrews (with Roger's refinement) - pick any page you like. Any body tried either of these two? A combination of Busch and Chan Canasta. Eliminate the really "scary bit" at the beginning of Canastas routine by using Busch' handling. Or Have book set for Andrews and Autome. Most of the time you'll do the Andrews routine straight, but if you get the right call, wow! |
|||||||||
ddyment Inner circle Gibsons, BC, Canada 2499 Posts |
Quote:
Rex asked: My first reaction is that the question is moot... every performing mentalist should have a copy of Peek Performances; it's easily one of the "top ten". That said, there are some differences in the two effects (and my views differ somewhat from those of "knave"). Richard's versions can be done with any available book (thus are great to do in a potential client's office with a book off the shelf). But the performer does all the handling, riffling the pages for a choice of words. [Other related, and very worthwhile, approaches to this style of book test can be found by -- in chronological order -- Irv Weiner, Alain Nu, and Lee Earle. The former two are difficult to find, however.] The Val Andrews test is done completely hands-off (in performance, that is... you need access to the book(s) prior to the demonstration). It can certainly be done with multiple books... Ian Rowland, a big advocate of this test, does it with eight. It makes more use of linguistic deception, whereas Richard's concept is more of a "sleight" (much as I hate to use that word). So they're both worthwhile. In summary, I'll say that Richard's approach will take longer to master, but is more broadly applicable. And there's enough other stuff in his book to keep you busy for a long time! ... Doug
The Deceptionary :: Elegant, Literate, Contemporary Mentalism ... and More :: (order "Calculated Thoughts" from Vanishing Inc.)
|
|||||||||
knave New user UK Newcastle 72 Posts |
Doug
I didn't explain myself very clearly in my previous post. I was trying to put it in a nutshell and failed. I actually couldn't agree with you more. When I said "Busch - Pick any book you like." - I was refering to the fact that it is totally impromptu and can be performed on the spur of the moment with any book, which I think is its strength (certainly in the mind of the subject.) In these circumstances you want to draw attention to fact that it is not your book, get them to choose, change their mind.... whatever, just make sure the point is mentally noted. Make the choice of book the "star" of the effect and not the subsequent handling (which is, I agree, beautiful.) The opposite is true of the Val Andrews test. Once the subject has the book in their hands, the test comes in to its own through the fact that they do the handling and have a "free" choice. Hence my pick "pick any page" comment. I agree that the Richard Busch test is certainly more versatlile - by its nature you will have far more opportunity to use it. The Val Andrews test is very useful when the subjects thinks you have more control (i.e. you provide the book or books)as you can supply (seemingly) more detailed information, turn it into a visual (picture) effect etc. I hope this clarifies my point. Regards Dave |
|||||||||
xersekis Special user 591 Posts |
Doug and Knave thank you. This makes the distinction clearer in my mind. Hands on - hands off (at least during performance). Perhaps a minor point but one worth exploring. Again thank you both.
Enjoy! Rex |
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Penny for your thoughts » » Val Andrews' Unfaked Book Test (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4 |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.02 seconds requiring 5 database queries. |
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic. > Privacy Statement < |