The Magic Café
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Penny for your thoughts » » Book test reveal question (0 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2
Taliesin
View Profile
New user
Virginia
52 Posts

Profile of Taliesin
Dick,

If you're familiar with Osterlind's Seafire Sequence, would you consider it to be a "single book test" because only one book is ultimately chosen, or would it fit your criteria. I think I see what you're getting at, but I'm trying to get a clearer idea.

-Rick
Dick Christian
View Profile
Inner circle
Northern Virginia (Metro DC)
2620 Posts

Profile of Dick Christian
Rick,

I know of, but do not have Osterlind's "Seafire." It is one of a couple of dozen still on my "book tests to get" list. Since I don't have it and am not familiar with it, I can't fully address your question. However, having said that, I still think that if the test revolves around the use of a single book, even if it is chosen from an assortment of books and even if there are several revelations, the book itself becomes suspect. There are certainly steps one can take as part of the presentation to reduce/minimize the suspicion but I fear that the thought that the book is somehow "special" and therefor is, itself, crucial to the test remains. The use of a single book is (IMO) least apt to arouse suspicion if an assortment of several books is available and the participating audience member is given a TOTALLY FREE CHOICE of any one of them -- as in "Here is a stack of books, take one" (i.e., no equivoque, P.A.T.E.O., or other method of forcing the choice of book no matter how fair it may APPEAR to be).

Please note that I didn't say -- or mean to suggest -- that a test using a single book couldn't or shouldn't ever be presented, only that IMO it is inherently weaker than a presentation in which several books, multiple methods and varied reveals are emloyed. Certainly the strength of any presentation is far more dependent on the performer that the items used.
Dick Christian
pearljamjeff
View Profile
Inner circle
Ann Arbor
1245 Posts

Profile of pearljamjeff
Quote:
On 2009-11-16 10:09, Daren James wrote:
Like Jermays bubble burst suggestion works great, it's never let me down Smile

Daren


Killer. I use imagery/memory associations to paint pictures in their mind that I try to perceive. Finally, I nail the word with the bubble burst.

This is my preference for a random-word test, but for a name test, I prefer to start with Banachek's Brain Game then move onto a light reading of the person to be named, followed finally with the name reveal without the aide of the bubble burst.
Jeff Travilla - I own an advertising agency to help finance my magic addiction.
pearljamjeff
View Profile
Inner circle
Ann Arbor
1245 Posts

Profile of pearljamjeff
Oh, also... a while back I read a very interesting take on a book test reveal called "Erratus" by Osterlind. It was in his Perfected Center Tear booklet, hiding away at the very back. I've never tried it, but it pops into my head now and then as a very unique idea.
Jeff Travilla - I own an advertising agency to help finance my magic addiction.
Stuart Cumberland
View Profile
Loyal user
289 Posts

Profile of Stuart Cumberland
To answer your question, I think you'll get votes for each you offer.

Some like the one-letter-at-a-time gambit. I dare say that's certainly the most "popular".

Then there are some old school who do the Dunninger approach: "Choose a word. Got it? Concentrate... ... ... BANANA! :-O

Assuming you are asking to determine the "best" approach, my advice would be to try out the different ways and see what has the strongest impact on your audience. Whichever THEY like best, is the best... for you.

SC
Stuart Cumberland
kevin carmean
View Profile
Regular user
158 Posts

Profile of kevin carmean
Salem video is great!
I like to have 3 hard back and three paper back, one is forced the other is not forced or gimmicked and do multiple reveals.
Lots of great thinking in this post.

Kevin
The Futurist
View Profile
Veteran user
331 Posts

Profile of The Futurist
Quote:
On 2009-11-19 18:46, Stuart Cumberland wrote:
To answer your question, I think you'll get votes for each you offer.

Some like the one-letter-at-a-time gambit. I dare say that's certainly the most "popular".

Then there are some old school who do the Dunninger approach: "Choose a word. Got it? Concentrate... ... ... BANANA! :-O

Assuming you are asking to determine the "best" approach, my advice would be to try out the different ways and see what has the strongest impact on your audience. Whichever THEY like best, is the best... for you.

SC


Yeah, I wanted a quick and informal 'show of hands' as I am interested in knowing the current state of the art. I would have made this a poll if the forum software had that feature. Once again, thanks to everyone for your kind contributions.

I think the two main approaches are 'equal but different' and both of great merit myself, and of course those two don't by any means exhaust the possibilities.
Tom Cutts
View Profile
Staff
Northern CA
5852 Posts

Profile of Tom Cutts
Dick,

Readers should go back and read your post quoted below in full, but frankly I don't think requoting bad advice, even in dispelling it, is fruitful. I'll focus just on the telltale thoughts. If you consider that twisting your words, well can I suggest you put more thought into construction of your posts.

Here are your basic concerns for a one book test.

Quote:
On 2009-11-19 13:48, Dick Christian wrote:

the book itself becomes suspect.
Fault of the performer in his ability or guilt.
Quote:
no... method of forcing the choice of book no matter how fair it may APPEAR to be).
Fault of the performers ability or guilt
Quote:
a test using a single book... is inherently weaker than a presentation in which several books, multiple methods and varied reveals are emloyed.
Again I'll just say, for you yes, for others doesn't have to be so. If one can condense all the necessities of the multiple tests down into the one single solitary test, one renders repetition unnecessary and even anti-climactic. But that would require not taking the off the shelf (pun intended) presentation and trying to plug it into one's show.
Quote:
Certainly the strength of any presentation is far more dependent on the performer that the items used.
So here you dismiss everything you posted.

Performances can be just as, if not more, powerful with a single booktest and a single revelation. Such allows your audience to concentrate fully and attentively to every aspect.

As to your final comment, I don't mean to threaten you or impune your ego by disagreeing with you. I'm simply pointing out there is more than one way to achieve mystery. Mostly it depends on the performer, which you agreed, but your view above focuses on the method. I see a gross contradiction there.
Dick Christian
View Profile
Inner circle
Northern Virginia (Metro DC)
2620 Posts

Profile of Dick Christian
Yes, my posts did focus on the method as it was a question about the method that started the thread. Thought my posts had made it clear that there are many ways of doing things and which is best depends on a combination of factors. I try to make it plain that there are certainly "different strokes for different folks" and am careful to qualify my comments by noting that they are "IMO" and assume that readers understand that said qualifier at the beginning of a paragraph applies to what follows. The way others choose to do things is their business I only know what works best for me what I observe when watching other performers and the reactions and comments of other audience members on those occasions. When others ask for advice and/or opinions I feel free to offer mine.
Dick Christian
Tom Cutts
View Profile
Staff
Northern CA
5852 Posts

Profile of Tom Cutts
Huh, I thought the question was about how to reveal the known info. Isn't that presentation, Dick?
magicFreak2
View Profile
Inner circle
1220 Posts

Profile of magicFreak2
Quote:
On 2009-11-20 20:45, Tom Cutts wrote:
Huh, I thought the question was about how to reveal the known info. Isn't that presentation, Dick?


I think you got him there Tom. xD

(no offense to Dick ofcourse)
Dick Christian
View Profile
Inner circle
Northern Virginia (Metro DC)
2620 Posts

Profile of Dick Christian
I suppose it is both "method" and "presentation." Certainly, the reveal is an essential part of the presentation; however, as I recall, the question was about the way (i.e., method) by which the reveal was made. Seems to me that "method" and "presentation" are inextricably connected. The "methods" by which the book, page and word are selected as well as the number of books used, etc. are all part of the presentation but are also "methods." I guess I mistakenly thought this was a discussion of the ways (methods) of presenting book tests and didn't realize that it was actually a game of "gotcha."
Dick Christian
Tom Cutts
View Profile
Staff
Northern CA
5852 Posts

Profile of Tom Cutts
A discussion needs to have common understanding. When that fails the discussion can become pointless. I would suggest you revisit the opening post, Dick. My understanding is it is about presentation; how one reveals the info AFTER it has been obtained. That would be AFTER the method was over.

Yes, it is true there are some methods which force part or all of that delivery, but the decision to use that method should be presentation based, not method based, IMHO. Furthermore, the question is "once you have the info..." which would seem to say method over.
The Futurist
View Profile
Veteran user
331 Posts

Profile of The Futurist
AFAIK the method doesn't matter, I should say, because I don't have a collection of book tests like the professionals might. But I believe there are expensive books for pros that, shall we say, are not the sort of books that make for entertaining bedtime reading. However, the spectator can do the job of opening such books at whatever page they like.

If "pumping" is actually required then that might dictate how one can reveal the information. If you have to pump for a letter or two then it makes sense to stay in that vein. I don't know of an equivalent "semantic pump" though there might be one out there!

However I know a couple of the more popular gaffs with a regular book, where the mentalist himself handles the book. Nudge nudge, wink wink, say no more Smile On the face of it, the fact that the mentalist handles the book seems less than ideal, but one could put the work in on the patter and linguistic deception, and thus take the "heat" off the weak point. I like to think that nothing of this sort is insurmountable, after encountering some of the extremely clever people who "turn weak points into strong points".

I should add that the physical mechanics of operating the gaff aren't as easy as all that! Although maybe I spend more time fiddling with cards than fiddling with my little book of Picasso prints (I thought 'select a picture' might be nice... here I have sidestepped the word issue entirely!) and I just need to put the practice in. Although I have done this book test for someone (a scientist! Zoologist to be precise... though it was in the informal context of "doing a trick for my mate" rather than "fooling a scientist") and was convincing Smile
PsiDroid
View Profile
Inner circle
2167 Posts

Profile of PsiDroid
Mr.christian I truly enjoyed your posts but on this one I have to say that you seem to reinterpret the meaning of what you posted as you go ..
Dick Christian
View Profile
Inner circle
Northern Virginia (Metro DC)
2620 Posts

Profile of Dick Christian
To each his own. I only know what works for me and try to express my opinions in ways that others will understand. They can take 'em or leave 'em. How they choose to interpret them is beyond my control. If my intent/meaning isn't clear, I'll try to do better the next time.
Dick Christian
phillsmiff
View Profile
Inner circle
UK
1703 Posts

Profile of phillsmiff
Dick, the points you made contrasted with my own, but I was happy to read them. Not sure why everyone is getting all worked up?
Check out the incredible Neural Miracle playing cards on Kickstarter:
-+: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/phillsmith/incredible-magic-with-the-neural-miracle-playing-cards :+-
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Penny for your thoughts » » Book test reveal question (0 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2021 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.12 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 <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL