Hello this is my first post here. So either be gentle, or savagely disapproving.

I've recently been reading Pure Effect which has given me ideas on improving the subtleties of my tricks in terms of how you can hint at the explanation of the trick in question through your patter and gestures with the cards. I've been attempting to maximise the effect of trick after reading this.

This trick is a simple one. Have a deck thoroughly shuffled by a spectator and then switch it with a deck stacked in Osterlind's BCS. After that I just get them to cut the deck and peek at the top card, and maybe a second spectator peeks the one under that. I then proceed to divine their cards much to their amazement.

As you can see it's simple but effective, however what I am wondering about is some small changes I am considering making and how they will affect the audience and their interpretation of the trick. It is important to note that I often perform to very cynical and analytical people who do not for one second believe in mind reading. The changes are:

(1) spreading the deck face up before they are shuffled and looking at them intently - I am thinking this will give the impression I have somehow memorized the deck and followed the cards in the shuffle.

(2) Or spreading the deck face up after the shuffle and looking at them intently - the end result shows that I have memorized the deck quickly and been able to count the cards in the cut. A less impressive but more believable feat worthy of their applause.

(3) Or instead of all this just going all out and getting them to put their chosen cards into their pockets very quickly and then divining the card by touching them.


As you can see I've looked at this from a few angles. I'm not entirely sure what I'm asking people as this is just something that's been on my mind for a while. I suppose if anyone could direct me to some books on this sort of critical theme? Or just comment on the ideas would be nice.

Also, does anyone else think it's important to kind of 'cash in' on the audience's specific level of credulence rather than going for all out stunners?

thanksxxxxx

Nice thoughts but I prefer his version. It depends on your performance's style !

FLo.

Laura, I'm heading out at the moment. I'll get in touch with you later tonight or tomorrow.

You have more options than you have outlined.

/paul.f

Forgive me for saying so, Laura, but you're using a sledge-hammer to kill a gnat.

The effect you're going for is to have two cards freely chosen from a shuffled pack, and then you tell the participants what their cards are by apparently reading their thoughts. If I have this wrong, please correct me.

To have the cards shuffled and then perform a deck switch under fire in order to have the cards chosen and then returned to the stacked deck is much too much work for the effect.

To the audience, the effect would be the same if you were to take the deck of cards and shuffle them yourself, spread them out and show them well mixed, and then have the cards chosen. In this type of work, it's best to simplify things as much as possible. You can do away with the deck switch completely by using the stacked deck to begin with, and learning a simple false shuffle and mixing the cards yourself. Continue as you had planned, and things will be fine.

As far as presentation, you must remember what your supposed process is: You read their thoughts to determine the cards. In such a case, what difference would it make to memorize the cards, either before or after the effect?

If you want to make it into a card memory effect, where you memorize the spread and then have two cards removed, and when you look back at the spread you can tell which two are missing, that's different. I'd say that's a weaker effect than perhaps having the participants reveal their cards through psychological tells, body language, etc.

One other thought, if you do want to go the memorized spread route, would be to just riffle the end of the pack very quickly after the cards are removed, and tell the participants that you can tell subliminally which cards are missing. That is almost believable and slightly more interesting.

Cheers,

- entity

Dear Entity,

thank you for the advice...you're absolutely right about the sledgehammer/gnat thing. I think I've just seen a few cool things, learned them and put them together. To be honest the idea of a deck switch seems so deliciously crafty that I had to use it just for the satisfaction of pulling it off unnoticed.

I worry that I'm too amateur...I had the impression that the trick would be stronger with an audience shuffled deck rather than one that had been in the hands of the performer. But I do like your suggestion of the riffle and subliminal pickup of the missing cards.

That's the thing, I've been into magic for a while but have only just started getting all the bits and pieces together...so for example I can pretty much do some advanced stuff and tricks but some of my basics are a little off. So I don't really have a strong personal presentational style. I get most of my practice performing for friends and colleagues and with them I'd feel a bit arrogant and silly if the underlying assumption was that I could read their minds. So often I'll announce a routine by saying "would you like to see another trick?". Which instantly presupposes deception. I really don't know how one cultivates a personal style.

Laura:

You say you've been reading PURE EFFECT. I'd suggest you read Derren's other book, ABSOLUTE MAGIC too, as it will help you a great deal in thinking about presentation and developing your own style.

Remember to simplify as much as possible, and try to resist doing extraneous bits for your own amusement, unless it materially adds something worthwhile to the performance.

Re: the audience shuffle... The audience will have no reason to think the cards are in any stacked order if they see you randomly mixing the cards and you show their faces to be apparently well mixed. There's no need to have them mix the cards in this case, unless you are trying to present this effect as if performed "under test conditions". I think it was Al Baker who said: "Don't run if you're not being chased". That might apply here.

Instead of asking if they'd like to see "another trick", perhaps you could ask if they'd like to see something odd or interesting that you've discovered.

- entity

Entity 'nailed the gnat' with his last statement.

When asking someone if they "would like to see a trick," you are in fact asking, "would you like to have me attempt to fool you." This makes you their adversary.

Instead, I would suggest that you find your own phrasing, and offer to be their guide and ally in a remarkable demonstration (this is where you can develop and establish your personality simply through the wording you use).

And don't be dismissive of what you refer to as your weak presentation skills. Your writing is quite articulate, so it's simply a matter of preparation, practice and as much actual performance as possible, to improve in this area.

I would suggest that it's curious that the two performers to whom you have referred in your posts have vastly different persona's and presentational styles. Both Osterlind and Brown are superbly accomplished in the field, but one (Brown), comes across as suave and sophisticated, with a hint of arrogance....while the other (Osterlind), reminds you of your unassuming neighbor from across the road. Both use many of the same principles, but their performances are vastly different. And both are capable of stunning just about anyone!

One final thought...and from my experience as both performer and talent coach, this applies to all aspects of performance. First, take the time to really determine who you are in the eyes of others. There are personality tests available that you can have friends and family complete, in order to help paint a picture of how people see you. Then develop that character by exaggerating characteristics, slightly in performance.

Whatever you do, don't try to copy other's style...there are enough Criss-Blaine-Brown-Maven's out there! Who you are as an original, is what will ultimately make you the best performer you can be.

I would also suggest the books of Eugene Burger. He is a master of creating a magicla experience, and also a master teacher. My first stop would be 'Mastering the Art Of Magic'.

Just a starting point for you, instead of asking, 'would you like to see a trick?', you might ask something along the lines of, 'would you like to see something a bit strange/mysterious/unusual?'.

Thanks Entity, Stan and Psychicturtle for all your fantastic advice. Asking the spectator whether they'd like to see something quirky is very much a better way of doing it. I have much to learn and improve upon in my performance of tricks.

My intial persona was just a more affable, playful verion of myself...although when I switch from legerdemain to mentalism (yes! shockingly I mix the two! ek!) I adopt a slight Oracle of Delphi tone to compliment the proceedings. Although something I've really come to notice, especially when performing to men, is that they never really react to a trick - they just stare blankly at the cards; the conclusion I have come to is that they have trouble expressing any sort of approval. Girls always react! Hehe!

I think my worst experience, and an exception to what I previously said, was when I decided to go out of my comfort zone and take a big risk by attempting the JS mental card force from Pure Effect. To my utter amazement I got it absolutely right and the guy I was forcing it on looked aghast and said he was going to be sick and wouldn't stop asking me how it was done, so I muttered something about subliminal signals and then suddenly he became quite cross (not sure if it was for humorous effect or genuine anger) and started going on about how skills like that shouldn't be under the control of just anyone and demanded to know what signals I had been sending. It was a bit of scene.

I realised that effects like that make people feel manipulated and used and really alter the power balance between performer and participant...so even though Derren Brown's effects are impressive I started seeing them from the participants point of view - essentially these people are just being used and moulded for the entertainment of the people watching on TV....which is, as much as I like his stuff, kind of horrible, really, isn't it?! Even though I had written a few scripts of my own mental forces I decided to scrap them because they're too weird, and I don't like the uncomfortable feeling afterwards. But then again...if I had been more in line with an identifiable performance style that kind of think wouldn't happen!

Laura:

I wouldn't be so quick to scrap the psychological forces, especially if it's just because you feel guilty over the reactions you get.

It's a bit of a balancing act to manipulate people successfully and have them enjoy having been manipulated. It comes down to being aware of the dynamics involved and scripting your presentation to defuse the possibility of negative reactions as you go. One major tool in helping this along is to project a slightly self-effacing persona at times. Use gentle humor that is directed at yourself. Not put-down humor, but small lines or bits of business that let the audience know that you don't take yourself too seriously.

In the end, don't be afraid of strong reactions such as the one you wrote about, but perhaps the strong psychological form of mentalism is not for you.

Remember, it's not about using people so much as it is about guiding people to a wonderful place.

- entity

Derren did the invisible deal on me at the IBM 3 years ago. Eugene asked if it freaked me out, but it didn't. To be honest I was just very impressed, even though I know the routine. I didn't just 'play along' either.

I suggest that I use subliminal suggestion all the time (as I actually do, even when it isn't needed, just to practice) and I have never had a reaction like the one you got. maybe it was because he was a man you are a woman, and he has some kind of ego problem?

The best way to play anything like this is 'the participant is reading your mind'. That way they are less likely to be annoyed, as you are giving them credit for reading your mind, trying to boost their ego, so they go with it, even though they know it was you and what you did...It's the best way to sell any prediction, if you can.

Great post from Entity! I agree. Please allow me to add the following...

After someone has experienced the "push off a cliff" that is a perfectly realized psychological or suggestive force, I always mention how wonderful it is that the human mind has been created as sophisticated as it is. It is the mind's wonderful ability to absorb more information that we can attend to at one time (7 units +/- 2 units) that allows this to work. I explain that this is not something to be feared, but something to be reverenced. The reason it works is more amazing than the effect itself.

That usually helps.

Sean

Psychicturtle,

To be honest I was just as shocked as he was when he turned over the JS to show its face. I asked him what his card was before he turned it over...but I didn't really *hear* him as I was expecting something different like the 5C or something totally off. So when we both looked down at the revealed card, and then looked at each other we transfered our levels of amazement which intensified the effect. I began to shiver and smile simultaneously...it was an odd feeling, like the descent of a rollercoaster, or the butterflies in your stomach that you have just before a final exam.

I'd imagine most performers have landmark moments on which they build their futures on...and I would say that was one of mine, it opened my eyes to something I'd never thought I'd pull off. And quite possibly it went to my head a bit too much (I have tried some similar stuff inbetween then and now in which, disappointingly, I failed to succeed). With the feeling of that success was also a slight feeling that I had manipulated someone, although as Sean says it is, in a way, a sonnet to the human mind.

But, as I mentioned, I sort of destroyed the wonder by hanging around long enough to hint at how it was done subliminally. I often gush a lot when asked questions, and so suddenly, after I hinted, the thing turned from wonder to suspicion and manipulation. A mistake I won't be making in future!

That's great, I know exactly the feeling you are talking about! And you are already learning from the experience so you know that are thinking along the right lines. Check out Eugene's books (they accelerated my learning by years) and also check out the 'wonder words' cd set by Kenton Knepper. Those will all make you better than you thought possible!
Good luck!
T