Lately I've been working on seeing what is presented in my show in a less compartmentalized manner.

Let me explain: magicians often theme their shows, meaning that all of the effects they do are built around one central idea. They see the show in terms of "opener" "effects in the middle" and "closer." Yes...the effects may be linked thematically -- but in putting the show together -- planning the "storyboard" -- these effects are individual entities that follow one another in a logical manner.

Mentalists talk in terms of "openers" and "closers" as well. (We also consider the "stuff in the middle." )

But the more I perform, the more I become aware of the vast and even profound difference that still exists between mentalism and magic processes.

I was a magician for 20 years. I knew -- and the audience knew -- that I was presenting entertaining puzzles. How did the blade pass through a human wrist without severing the hand? There was no real question in anyone's mind that they were being "tricked." After all -- they literally SAW the hand fall into a basket. The real REAL question was "HOW is the performer tricking me?"

My point: it didn't really matter whether I was doing a blade effect, escaping from thumbcuffs or causing a handkerchief to disappear and re-appear inside an audience member's pocket. Tricks are tricks -- and there was a vast menu to choose from.

Is mentalism the same thing? At the core of this question: is it reasonable for me to present myself drawing a freely chosen word from the mind of an audience member, THEN causing metal to bend and THEN make a two-way prediction about a time chosen by an audience member? (You can't say that this has no possibility of being a winning combination. Who can argue with the success of someone like Osterlind?)

But I'm not Osterlind.

The more I think about it, the more I realize that, for ME, my show HAS to be built around the presentation of one ability ONLY -- with perhaps a different application of that ability to create a related-but-fundamentally-the-same talent. That's something I can buy into...and if I buy into it...so will my audience.

Well...they'll buy into it as long as it makes SENSE. This demands that I start thinking in terms of the HOW. HOW does my character "get" a word or a phrase? What steps does his "talent" go through as it searches out the information? How, EXACTLY, does it happen? Is it an answer that unveils itself as I get into "synch" with another mind? Is it a sudden stroke of inspiration? A hunch?

For that matter...is it reasonable that I could read EVERY mind? Or should that question be rephrased to be "Is it reasonable that I could read every mind with the same ease?" Hmmm.

Synch.

I started working with the whole idea of "synch" recently. I had a woman on-stage, thinking about one recurring dream she has. I was "having trouble" getting the sense of this. So I asked her to visualize a white candle, glowing in a darkened room. I paused for a second. Then I asked her to imagine a black horse, galloping along a beach. I waited for her to "see" this vision. I suggested to her that the horse was very close to the water in her vision. She agreed. I then said "He's actually running through the water, isn't he?" She agreed again.

I instantly "got" her word. Why? Because I'd taken the time to put our minds in synch. According to the conversations I had with people after the show, this made perfect sense to them. One person actually picked up on my metaphor of "reading minds being like tuning a radio station."

It became something of a shared visualization -- which is something I plan to work on.

But back to my initial question: could that have been presented by me with the same authority by me if I were also presenting metal bending, predictions and confabulation effects? I'm not seeing it.

I'm also no longer seeing my show as a series of effects and demonstrations presented in a predetermined order. I'm seeing it as ONE effect, one talent, presented in a number of different ways. What I'm saying is that the show is evolving into ONE talent being demonstrated in a series of different applications.

I hope that makes sense to someone.

David

It makes perfect sense. As I've repeatedly written over the years, the more abilities you claim, the less believable you will be.

Today I put the same concentration into "how to read a mind" (no power, nothing : just the actual me trying to do it for real) that I usualy put into "how to design a method for that effect" and it felt not only good (with a bit of practice I am convinced that I will be able to read mind) but useful (I finaly know how it feels to read a mind)

It makes sense : the less power and the less powerful you are, the more believable you end up. You just need to find your optimal mix for entertainment and believability...

Some of what you say David, to me, illustrates the difference between what I consider a Mind Reader and a Mentalist. Many talk about the differences between magician and mentalist, but as far as Mind Reader and Mentalist it is usually only discussed in terms of "what do I prefer", "what do I want to be called", etc., more in the terms of a title.

To me a Mind Reader reads Minds. Everything they do and perform is based on this. A Mentalists can showcase a variety of mental abilities including memory, lighting match calculations, mind reading, predictions, ESP, influence and other "mental-related" abilities.

Once magic is completely removed from the equation, it becomes this. A Mind Reader may only utilize one ability - to read minds, and perhaps anything that could go along under that same premise. Whereas a mentalist can demonstrate a showcase of unique abilities - as long as they don't resemble magic (again that is already off of the table). To me both require a stellar personality first, then the demonstrated abilities second. Also to me they should be positioned differently and marketed differently, because the perception is different. In many ways, to whichever you prefer, can have many advantages.

Remember either (Mind Reader or Mentalist) way the audience doesn't know or truly understand what it is and how you do it. This gives you latitude with whichever you decide. Yes it's possible to only read some minds (not necessarily everyone's), or be in sync with some people better than others. You should be able to make better connections with some than others. That makes perfect sense and most can relate and understand this as it pertains to themselves as well.

I've also believe that as one (pros) becomes comfortable and established as a mentalist they begin to go deeper into their understanding and the perception and understanding of the audience - only through their live performing experience. It happens, and it does make a notable difference. This is one key and crucial thing that is missing from magicians turned mentalists in their first few years, as they haven't delved deep enough to the level at which this is experienced. Also likely their beliefs aren't there either. Some never get there and will only continue to do mentialsm effects as a "mentalist" when their beliefs and approach is really closer related still to that of a magician.

Also those that actually do not perform, or not perform regularly and consistently enough often are not able to understand this. Certainly not the armchair theorists.

When you do get to this level you quickly realize much of what you have collected on your shelves or in your library can not and will not work with your performance or persona at this depth. We also tend to look at believability at this level. While I love metal bending and the way it looks, I couldn't imagine it in a million years working for me, my markets or audiences. Sure I could find a way to present it, but organically and realistically it just wouldn't and you have to be willing to walk away from such.

This is often quickly discarded by those that do not understand this or have not reached such levels by stating "it's all entertainment" or "as long as the audience is being entertained, that is the most important thing." It's not, but this is only realized once one achieves this level of experience and obtains such levels.

When this does occur, your show, mentality and approach to your show and performing persona evolve differently and much more congruently and naturally. It is really a beautiful thing.

This makes perfect sense to me.

I use different "skills" such as Memory skills, mentally influencing choices, psychological persuasion,...
These are different skills but al together they are at the same level of credibility to the audience.
Therefore I feel confidend to mix and mingle these skills.

Even though I am older than you guys, I am still developing as a mentalist. So let me ask for your honest feedback.

In my last several local performances, I have confined myself to the related themes of receiving AND sending of thoughts (including influence) without primary reliance on the five widely recognized senses. I plan to also do Paul Rohmany's Dream Prediction Elite--but (presumably) as an exercise in mind to mind influence rather than as a prediction.

I am asking those of you in the Cassidy school if that is sufficiently focused or if, in your judgement, one (say) ought only to be perceived as receiving thoughts. Also, is one effect that edges into (apparent) clairvoyance, too much of a credibility stretch?

David, thinks for getting this discussion started.

George

David, great post as usual.

Do you openly claim any "special power" during your shows, or do you "just do it" as Richard Osterlind says?

George-

I have always limited myself primarily to demonstrations involving the ability to send AND receive thoughts. I am able to include my card memory demonstration because I use it to illustrate the visualization skills that are required in the "mind reading" demonstrations.

Holy crap, I was thinking of this all day only to read the great Cassidy post about it. Coincidence?

Actually the more I think of it the more I recall reading about something similar years back but I couldn't place where. Reading this I think it was the Fundamentals ebook.

I think I'll re-read it in the weekend. I'll take this as a sign of omen

Bob I know you get this alot, but you've been a huge influence on my work. Kinda cool being able to tell you that directly.

- Feras

Thanks, Feras.

Yes, I discuss this at length in Fundamentals, which is also included in my last hardcover release, "The Artful Mentalism of Bob Cassidy, Volume 2: Fundamentals."

I use the hobby side to perform those effects that I love but do not fit my on stage character. Even then that's largely limited to a few coin bends and a spoon bend, maybe a little psychometry. In my actual act I read minds, and send thoughts. The only thing I do that doesn't quite fit this is Eric Samuels Thought slicing but I present mind reading as an advanced form of intuition and thought slicing is used to demonstrate how intuition works.

Mark

David, your journey from magician to mentalist is a fascinating one with a lot to be learned from. You ALWAYS make perfect sense. Thank you for sharing and making the café a better place.

Great post as usual David, you always have interesting topics.

Very kind of you guys to say these things. I appreciate them.

Steve: I just do it. I tell a (mostly) true story about my grandmother telling me to listen to people with my heart and my mind as well as my ears...but in the end I just do it. I confine WHAT I do to the reading and transmission of thoughts, though.

David

Bob, how do you relate the name and place routine to your subscript? Essentially, in that routine you're demonstrating both clairvoyance and mind reading, and I'm curious about how your character can "do" the clairvoyance part. Is that part of your subscript?