A.P.F.Y.T.

Peter Turner

Copyright © 2017, Peter Turner and Jose Prager

All rights reserved under all applicable law, including the Berne Convention. No part of this
publication may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means,
including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods, without the
prior written permission of the publisher, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in
critical reviews and certain other non-commercial uses permitted by copyright law. For
permission requests, email or write the publisher at the address below.

Jose Prager, www.e-mentalism.com, castilloprager@gmail.com

The Hangman Effect 3

Two Person Telepathy 11

Guess Who? 18
Variant 1 18
Variant 2 25
Variant 3 27
Additional Thoughts 27

The Book of the Fallen 30

2
 THE HANGMAN EFFECT
The performer proposes to play a game of hangman with the participant – wherein,
the participant tries to guess what the performer is thinking of.
EFFECT

The performer draws a hangman game and asks the participant to look at the chart
and try to get a feel for what words the performer might have used.

The performer directs the participant to merely think of what letter they might play
first.

The performer then asks the participant if he is confident that he knows the words that the
performer is thinking of... To which the participant replies, that he is not.

The performer states that he might have been somewhat hasty and asks the participant to
think of a country (it could be anything) starting with the letter that they are thinking of.

The participant confirms that they can.

The performer asks the participant to imagine that there is a giant blackboard between them
and is handed a piece of imaginary chalk, directing him to draw the game out on the
imaginary board.

The performer asks how many attempts he can have at getting it right - The participant says,
one...

The performer looks at the participant, then the imaginary board and correctly guesses the
exact country, with no fishing!

Maybe a year ago or so, I read on a forum, that most modern mentalism felt like a
BREAKDOWN

game of hangman. The comment, was of course aimed to bring modern mentalism
down but instead it got me thinking.

Wouldn't hangman, make for an interesting concept?

I could have somebody write a word down, peek it and then play hangman – but,
where's the fun in that?

One thing that struck me as interesting, was that in hangman, the player gives you the
number of letters naturally (in a none contrived sense) and you get multiple chances at hitting
the word, again without it seeming contrived.

Because of this, I thought it would be an interesting idea to tie it in conjunction, with a

3
I played with the concept for some time and had limited success to start with but, after
tinkering, I think I've come up with an interesting, subtle dual reality, that cleans itself up in
such a way that there is nothing to talk about.

There is a small amount of preparation the first time you perform the effect but, you are good
to go every time after that.

In the spirit of showing you how effective this is and how this works, look at this hangman
grid/game/board (whatever you want to call it). When you look, try to work out what words
you think I might be thinking of, I will give you a clue, it's a film title.

Now you have looked, think about what letter you would play first, if we were playing a
game of hangman.

Got one in mind?

Are you thinking of an 'A' or an 'I'?

4
If so - that is the core principle used in this effect. Of course, the method is hidden more than
this. After forcing the letter, you can then use this information to piggy back to force the
participant a larger piece of information.

Prepare, by taking a business card and drawing this hangman grid -

Place this on the top of a stack of business cards face up and then place a card on top of this
card.

In performance, you are going to draw this grid -

On the top business card.

The participant to who you want to force the letter, is on your right-hand side and the rest of
the group, on the left.
NOTES

I will also outline a way to do this undercover, should you not be able to control the
situation like this.

5
In performance, you will draw the grid - double lift, so that you are holding two cards up as
one, show the card to the participant on your right and then apply the force line (outlined after
this switch), then drop the cards face down on the stack, picking up the prepared card and
show this card to the rest of the group.

They of course, are seeing an entirely different grid but both the group and the participant
you forced the letter on, think it is the same grid.

Apply the 'force line' on the group - of course, as the grid is different, the group will think of
random letters and therefore, if also asked to think of a piece of information off the back of
the letter they are thinking of, it will be different to the participants that you have forced -
Killing the fact that it could be a force!

Force line

Performer: "I want you to look at this hangman grid and imagine what the words could be. I'll
give you a clue, this is a film. In-fact, don't say anything out loud but, think about what letter
you would play if we were to play this game".

When the participant has selected a letter, follow up -

Performer: "you've selected a letter at complete random, there is no way any of us could
know what letter you are thinking of, right?"

This is where the switch would happen.

• When showing the second grid, you can streamline this script and ensure the other
members of the group don't pick the same letter.

Performer: "I want you to do the same, choose a letter you would play, make it completely
random so that no one could predict what letter you are thinking of".

This obviously leads them to go more random than they usually would.

The purpose for the spectators creating a word from a random letter, is to prove how vast and
different the words are from the participants - in the outline of the performance, you will see
how this is presented as an afterthought.

Full performance

Participant: "How long have you been doing this type of thing?"

Performer: "In all honesty, for as long as I can remember. Now that you mention it, I
remember when I started to notice I was getting good at it.

At about the age of ten, I used to use it to win sweets by betting my friends at school, at
games such as noughts and crosses and hangman. (The performer starts to smile) you'd think
they wouldn't want to keep playing when they had lost so many times but, I think their
persistence was entirely fuelled by the fact that they considered me the trophy player.

6
Who here, considers their self pretty good at hangman?

Participant: "I wasn't bad".

Performer: "Purely for nostalgic reasons, would you be willing to humour me for a few
seconds?"

Participant: "Of course".

The performer draws up a hangman grid.

Performer: "I’d love to learn about how you think, take a look at this grid and think for a few
seconds, not saying anything out loud about what the words in this grid might be.

Think about what letter you would play first.

Have you got a random letter in mind?"

Participant: "yes".

Performer: "Obviously, there is no way I should be able to predict what letter you are
thinking of".

(The performer switches the grids and faces the rest of the group).

Performer: "You do the same, think of a random letter from somewhere in here, that you
might play. Again, make it one you don't think I could predict".

Performer: "You are all thinking of a random letter, let's take this up a gear, think of a
country that begins with the letter that you are thinking of".

Everyone one at the table confirms that they have done that.

Performer: "I said, I was going to attempt to play you, just to show you how fair the word is
that you are thinking of (the performer looks towards another member of the group).

What country are you thinking of?"

Spectator: "Turkey".

The performer turns back to the participant, who he proposes to play,

Performer: "That's not the same country as the one that you are thinking of?"

Participant: "no".

Performer: "I think that goes to show how random and impossible it is to guess what
someone is thinking of.

7
I'm intrigued to see if any of you guessed what I was thinking of, it was one of my favourite
childhood films 'Three ninjas kick back'.

Did anyone get that?”

Participants in unison: "No".

This is a very, very clever moment in the performance (if I do say so myself) as the
first participant saw a hangman grid with just one dash to start with.
NOTES

They will assume the grid started with the number '3'

The rest of the group saw a grid that started with five letters –

They will assume that grid started with the word 'Three'.

This will further solidify in the participant's minds, that the grids were one in the same, not
that they will ever assume that the grids would be different. This little subtlety just wraps
everything up beautifully.

8
Performer: "I want you to imagine, that there is a large invisible pad between us.

Imagine I had handed you a pen and we were going to play a game of hangman, where I
guessed whatever country it is you are thinking of right now. I want you to draw the grid on
the invisible pad, like you would if we were to play a physical game, and I will try to read
you and guess the country".

The participant draws the lines in the air and the game is set to begin.

Performer: "How many chances do I get?"

Normally, the participants will say one or two, if you have a generous participant,
NOTES

maybe three.

I found that it is mostly one chance, and I think the reasoning is because, you only
gave the participant one chance to guess at your words and they want to return the
favour.

Count the number of dashes the participant draws, it is imperative to the method. The
participant should be thinking of the letter 'A' and in some cases the letter 'I' (which I've found
rarely happens). Here is a list of countries and the number of letters –

America = 7
Australia = 9
Ireland = 7
Iceland = 7
Indonesia = 9
India = 5

9
 As soon as you know the number of letters, you are down to a very small number of
places (remember that ‘A’ is the most frequently chosen).
NOTES CONTINUED

Let's propose, that the participant drew out nine dashes. That tells us, that the
participant is more than likely thinking of Australia or Indonesia.

Write the word 'Indonesia' on a piece of card and tuck it into your breast pocket (or
face-down on the table), then say, "You're thinking of... Australia, right?"

If the participant says yes, you have your hit.

If they say "no", then ask the participant the country, when they say Indonesia, ask
them to turn the card around and the routine comes to a crescendo.

I know what you are thinking, what if the participant thinks of a place with seven letters?
There's three of them.

Write Iceland, on a piece of card across the centre and cross it out and write Ireland, above it.
Put the card in your breast pocket or face-down and just as above, throw out America, if it
hits, awesome. If not, ask the country.

Out of; Ireland and Iceland, Ireland is the most popular, and that's why I cross out Iceland and
leave Ireland above it. If, the participant says Ireland, you have a solid hit. However, if the
participant says Iceland, simply ask them to open the piece of card and say "Is the country
you chose, on that piece of card?"

The participant must say, yes.

You have brought the routine to a strong finish.

Participant: "You get two chances".

Performer: "Ok, look at me - imagine telling me the country, say it to me in your mind. I'm
going to make some notes".

The performer writes something down.

Performer: "The place you are thinking of, is... Australia".

The participants freak out!

10
 TWO PERSON TELEPATHY
Two participants sit with the performer, one is asked to think of a random image, the
EFFECT

other is asked to think of a random name.

With no fishing and neither participant writing anything down, the performer is
instantly able to reveal the information.

This is an any place, anytime, type of effect. It relies on a mixture of traditional and
BREAKDOWN

psychological/cerebral methodology.

This effect, relies on a simple principle that I have found to be very, very reliable. In-
fact, it is so much fun, that when I performed this effect this afternoon, I was beaming
from ear to ear afterwards, thinking about not only how quickly the effect came to an
astounding conclusion but, how easy it was to perform.

This effect, is an update to an idea that I have kept to myself for a long time, never
finding the right moment to share it, and I feel it fits perfectly here.

I was thinking this evening how far we have progressed, it's astounding to think that the
chances of guessing words, pin codes and other pieces of information, using nothing more
than cerebral methodology was largely unheard of even a decade ago.

I'd like to start, by sharing the core method of this effect and then how it is dressed up and
plays out in performance.

Let's start, by playing a game of 'free association' - The idea is, that I will provide you with a
random letter and you think of the first image that pops into your head, starting with that
letter.

Let's test this... The letter E?

The letter H?

The letter C?

The letter A?

The last image that you should have in your head... is it an Apple?

If it is, great!

If not, then don't be disheartened, that doesn't mean this won't work, it means that you should
find a different letter that is more definitive, like a 'z' - which will lead to 'Zebra'. I have, to
this day, not had a fail on Apple.

11
The reason that this works is, because there are certain images imbedded in our subconscious
that we have stored away from when we first learnt the letters of the alphabet. Apple, Ball,
Cat (or car) etc.

So, how do we hide this in plain sight because, in its simplest form it is not earth shattering.

Let me outline the full performance and show you how well hidden this becomes.

Full performance/Breakdown
NOTES

We will assume, that the performer is acquainted with the participants - For the sake
of demonstration, we will assume that the participants are, Theodore and Zachary.

Performer: "I instantly feel (the performer looks to his left) that you Zachary, are mentally
stimulated visually, and you (the performer looks to his right) Theodore, your brain ticks
when thinking analytically.

I would like to further explore this by playing a game of free association. The idea is, that I
will call out a random letter and you are both going to say, out loud, something that starts
with that letter but this is where it gets interesting.

Zachary, you are going to think of images when I call out letters. Theodore, you are going to
think of names.

If I said the letter F, take a few seconds to think.

What comes into your head, Zachary?"

Zachary: "A frog".

Performer: "How about you, Theodore?"

Theodore: "I thought of Fred".

Performer: "Perfect, now we are accustomed, each time I say a letter, do this inside your
head, without saying anything.

The letter d? ...

The letter h? ...

The letter a? ...

Good, now when I snap my fingers, jump in your minds to a random letter and do this".

12
Both, Zachary and Theodore, confirm that they have done this.

The performer looks at Zachary, and addresses him.

Performer: "Don't say anything out loud and keep a poker face, as you will give me clues. I
feel with you, that you were torn between two images. Instead of thinking of the image you
are on now, go back to the image before this. That way, it's definitive.
NOTES

This paragraph is crucial; I’ll explain more in a moment.

Theodore, (the performer turns towards Theodore) when you thought of a random letter, a
name instantly popped into your mind, right?"

Theodore: "Yes".

Performer: "Good, so we are all definitive, there is no way I could know the image inside
your mind Zachary, as you made it up at random. Theodore, likewise, there is no way I could
know the name you are thinking of as you just made it up, at random".

Let's look at the crucial paragraph and break it down.

Performer: "Don't say anything out loud and keep a poker face, as you will give me
clues. I feel with you, that you were torn between two images. Instead of thinking of
the image you are on now, go back to the image before this. That way, it's
definitive.

• By telling the participant thinking of the image to keep a poker face and not say
anything for fear of it giving you clues, you restrict them from being able to confirm
or deny the next line that you are about to utilise.
• You then say that they were torn between two images, when in reality, you have
trained the participant at this point to think of the first image that pops into their
mind when they think of a letter. So, why is this crucial?
• You then say "instead of thinking of the image you are on now, go back to the
image before this. That way, it's definitive." To the participant, the image before this
was an Apple (which they don't know you know). To the audience, it sounds like
you are telling them to go back to the first of the two images that they were torn
between when they selected a new letter, it's a very beautiful and simple dual
reality.
• You then proceed to re-cap that each of them are thinking of something selected at
random. Of course, this is true for both participants, as the one thinking of the image
made a random image, and the one thinking of the name thought of a random letter
and then a random name. What we will apply next, will completely sell how random
and impossible this is.

We are at the point in the routine, where each participant has a thought in mind, which the
performer could not possibly know.
•
13
Performer: "Theodore, we will start with your thought. Look at me, again keeping a poker
face, never saying anything out loud unless I physically ask.

Imagine telling me this name, imagine this was my name and you were casually saying it to
me... I think I've got yours".
NOTES

By asking the participant to keep a poker face and not say anything out loud, you
create a consistency".

The performer writes his impressions on a piece of card and hands it to Theodore.

Performer: "I cannot change my mind. So that you cannot change yours, what name are you
thinking of?"

Theodore: "George".
NOTES

We are applying a one-ahead, on the billet you write the word 'apple' and hand that
to Theodore. By expressing that you cannot change your mind, it makes logical
sense for him to say the name he is thinking of out loud, so that he cannot change
his.

Performer: "Focus on the image for me. Ok, I'm struggling... I can't seem to lock onto what
you are focusing on. See the colour of this thing in your mind and the shape. Imagine handing
me whatever it is you are thinking of, even if this is something you couldn't possibly hand
me.

Ok, I think I know what you have done here!"

The performer writes down his thoughts and hands it to Theodore.

This time, we would of course be writing down whatever name the participant just
NOTES

called out. In this case, it is George.

The participants both think that you are writing whatever the image is.

Performer: "I've committed to it, I'm hoping we are thinking of the same thing, what is the
image that you are thinking of?"

Zachary: "An Apple".

Performer: "Ok, Theodore, drop the pieces of card on the centre of the table".

14
Theodore, does this.

Performer: "There is never any guarantees when it comes to any of this, I'm sorry if I'm a lot
further away than you expected to be".
NOTES

It's always great to create an air of drama that suggests you have failed, even when
you know everything has come to fruition.

The performer invites the participants to open the pieces of card.

Both Zachary and Theodore, freak out.

Performer: "You both did incredibly".

Additional Thoughts

• One thing to quickly remember is, that the audience should never remember the fact
that the participant thought of something beginning with the letter 'A', as so much is
going on in the routine. And, the audience will remember that the participant did have
a completely free choice of image.

What if, the participant doesn't select Apple? Instead, they say another image starting with a
different letter. In that situation, simply say "That's the image I thought you had changed to,
what was the image before this one?"

They should go back to, an Apple.

If they go to anything else, you have still hit the name and that will be super bad ass!

In this situation, follow by saying,

Performer: "I knew that you were going to be difficult to read, let's try this one more time -
take this (hand them a billet), write a meaningful thought down, the name of somebody that
means a lot to you or, a place.

Some people are better at transmitting information that has more of an emotional connection.

Then, from this point move into a billet peek and reveal the information.

If you wanted to end on the revelation of a drawing instead of a word for the image, you can
apply an interesting subtlety. Have a pre-drawn 'Apple' on a piece of card (keeping it
hidden).

When you come to pretending to read Theodore, and pick up on the name, write the word
'Apple' underneath the drawing of the Apple.

15
The audience will only see you writing and nothing more. Fold this up and hand it to one of
the participants.

They will say the name.

Now, you pretend to read the second participant to guess the image. This time, run your nail
in a circular shape (like you are drawing an Apple) around the card, so that it looks like you
are drawing something, when in reality you have drawn nothing.

Write whatever the name is, that the first participant said out loud.

To the audience, they have just seen you draw something and write something down
underneath the drawing. When the billets are opened, there is no doubt in the participant’s
minds, that everything happened in the order you said they did, making the entire thing
impossible to backtrack.

Another little subtlety, is to mark the back of the 'drawing billet' with a faint pencil mark in
the centre of each quadrants as thus -

I have over accentuated the dots. When the billet is folded now, you will see a dot on either
side. Remember, these are supposed to be faint dots made with pencil.

16
This means, that when the billets are dropped on the table, you can identify instantly which
one of the billets is the drawing so that you can control the order of the revelations.

17
 NOTES GUESS WHO?

I am going to share three variations utilising the same method. I have done my
utmost to ensure that this is as streamlined as possible, and I have road tested this
extensively. When you know the method, this might seem simple, but I promise you
in practice you would not believe how amazingly this plays out.

On the second pass through this volume, I also added a series of techniques to further the
deception of this simple name divination.

The performer proposes to divine a merely thought of name from the mind of his
EFFECT

participant.

The performer does not however, want the participant to think of someone they know,
but instead, create a random name in their mind. The only rule, is that the name must
not be unisex, so that he (the performer), doesn't get confused and thrown off by
something as irrelevant as getting caught up on the gender of the person the participant is
thinking of.

Within ten seconds of the participant thinking of a name, the performer can reveal it.

Variant #2

The performer asks the participant to think of a playing card and a name at random.

The performer is able to successfully deduce both.

Variant #3

The participant asks three people to generate a name at random, in their mind. The
performer looks at the three participants and calls out what he believes the names to
be.
BREAKDOWN

Each participant confirms that the performer was correct!

I think you will be pleasantly surprised at how simple this is. This was born off the
back of not wanting too much process, while making the process easy to understand
for the participant and, as sure fire as possible.

The best way to show you how great this is, is to perform an interactive-esque effect
for you, the reader.

18
In a moment, when you think of a name, see the name in its simplest form. So, for example,
Edward would be, Ed. Also, don't pick a unisex name as it will confuse
things. This is the only stipulation you must stick to when creating a name.

Clear your mind, in this experiment we will utilise numerology to generate a name at random.

Think of two digits from your pin code, largely in the air in front of you. For example, if you
picked a 9 and an 8, you would see a big 9 in the air and a big number 8, but for obvious
reasons don't go for the same numbers as me, it needs to be your own thoughts, not mine.
Imagine, whatever two digits you are thinking of as a two-digit number and now, instead of
seeing these digits in the air as numbers, imagine them as words written in the air, like
‘ninety-eight’.

Now that you have done that, in your mind gravitate toward the first letter in the words and
think of the first male name that pops into your head that starts with whatever letter it is you
are thinking of. Again, please don’t go for a unisex name and see this name in its simplest
form, Peter would be, Pete.

Have you got a random name in mind?

If you are thinking of someone you know with the same name, it is only by chance that you
are thinking of this person, see this name at the forefront of your mind.

Think of the number of letters in this name -

Ok, as there are a few people reading this simultaneously, I will try to guess the names you
are thinking of - here goes.

One of you is thinking of, Frank or Fred (you were changing your mind between the two); I
see the names, Tom and Steve?

Was I close?

If I wasn’t close, you were likely thinking of Sean/Shaun. I rarely get those names come up,
and when I explain the method, you will understand why.

The method, if you haven't already figured, is 'restricting without seeming restrictive'.

Let's look at the restrictions.

First, as no unisex names are used in this presentation, it drastically reduces the number of
names that the participant can think of. I kill the number 9, which means all the names that
begin with N are also killed, and I kill the number 8, which means all the names beginning
with ‘E’ are also killed.

Let's look at the numbers and the names that could relate to those numbers, then we will look
at how to instantly get down to one name.

1 would be 'O' - (doesn't apply, as there is no way the participant can choose the word 'one'
the way that we have framed the set up).

19
2 and 3 - start with 'T' - (After killing all the unisex names, we are left with Tom/Tim, I
always throw out Tom, I don't mind missing by just a slight miss-pronunciation) one thing to
pay attention to is, if you are in another country outside of England and there are names more
popular than Tom, then change the name you use in your presentation to whatever name the
participant is likely to think of. Take note of the fact that I ask the participant to think of the
first name that pops into their head and again, this drastically reduces the amount of
possibilities.

4 and 5 - Begin with 'F' - (Fred/Frank, are the only names I can think of).

6 and 7 - Begin with an 'S' - (Steve/Sean, I have found Steve, to be a hell of a lot more
consistent than Sean, but it is good to bear in mind that Sean, might come up).

8 and 9 are dismissed at the start of the routine and therefore the names starting with these
letters are dismissed also. The reason I chose to dismiss those letters is, because there are a
lot of names that could be created using the letter 'N'. I dismiss the letter 'E' because that letter
has mostly four letter names and for the instant reduction process (outlined later), I chose to
eliminate it. You could decide to eliminate any numbers – I have personally found these to be
the best numbers to eliminate.

These names work perfectly here, if however, you find that Sean/Shaun, is occurring
NOTES

more than Steve, simply swap it in place of Steve. I can honestly say, I have never
had Shaun, come up. But, talking to my American friends, they said that Sean, may
come up more frequently than Steve.

The principle is still the same, and if you were under any worry about the participant going
for that name in the performance, simply add this line of scripting - "If, for example, you
ended up thinking of the name Shaun, imagine what you feel Shaun, might look like. For
obvious reasons, now I have said Shaun, don't go for that".

The thing I found interesting about getting people to think of a name this way is, that it seems
so random and yet it's very restrictive. Pay close attention to the way I paint this red in the
performance (I do not frame it up as numerology).

You will notice, that I asked (when performing the effect on you, the reader) to think of a
male name. There are ways to ensure the participant picks a male name that is not so
transparent, and if you wanted your participant to pick either sex, I will also cover that a little
later, also.

By simply knowing the number of letters in the name, you are instantly down to one or two
names.

If there is a name that keeps cropping up, simply add it to the list of names and utilise it as
part of your performance (I know I have repeated this point several times, but I feel it is
important to note).

Try to keep the formula as simple as possible, you will find that this is very reliable and it is
startling just how quick the routine is over and how great the reactions are.

20
Now that we have the basic structure of the routine outlined, let's put it all together and break
it down, piece by piece.

Full performance/breakdown of subtleties Variation #1

Performing to one participant (for a group or one on one)

We will assume, that the performer is acquainted with the participant.

Performer: "If I asked you to think of a name, the likeliness is that you will think of
somebody you know. I really don't mind you thinking of someone you know; the problem is
that the more sceptical people watching, will always assume that I somehow found out from
Facebook or some other social platform".

- One thing I always strive for is, to make the fairest seeming moment in a performance, the
moment that the method occurs. As mentioned in the introduction, I always try to appease the
participant's logic. This frame work allows me to implement the method, whilst having the
participants agree that it is fairer than simply thinking of a name.

Performer: "let's create a name in the strangest, yet fairest way I can think of. Imagine, say...
two digits from your pin code and see those numbers as a two-digit number, like 98. But, for
obvious reasons, don't go for those numbers as I have mentioned them".

- What we have achieved here is to eliminate a 9 and an 8, which drastically reduces the
number of names. Notice, that this happens before I even mention anything about using the
numbers to generate a name and therefore doesn't seem suspect or restrictive. Notice also, I
ask the participant to think of two numbers, this subtly makes the entire thing seem a little bit
more impossible, when the second digit is little more than fluff to make the effect seem
larger.

The participant could think of one number and this would still work, OR, they could think of
a random number from something such as 'the life equation' or any other force that guarantees
an outcome and again this would subtly restrict the participant to a small number of names.
One thing that aids this routine in flying seamlessly, is to make it seem like you are inventing
the process off the top of your head. If it seems that you made the process up on the spot, the
process is no longer a strange process, it is random and random is good.

I think it's important at this point, to talk about 'Painting something red'. If you point out that
a process is going to be strange and random, it doesn't seem out of place, instead it becomes a
natural part of the process. One rule I always stick to is, if a routine has a flaw, paint it red
and try to make the flaw seem like it is the fairest part of the process. The use of a pin code
again, is I feel, a great solution because you can say something like “let’s take something
more impossible than a name, let’s say two digits from your pin code”. Let’s continue from
the point of the participant seeing two numbers in the air.

21
Performer: "Instead of seeing these numbers as digits, imagine seeing the numbers written in
the air as words".

Participant: "Ok".

Performer: " In your mind gravitate toward the first letter (pause for a second) and let the first
male name starting with whatever letter you are thinking of, pop into your head but, please
don't go for a unisex name, I need you to be definitive".

- This is a simple set of instructions; this paragraph is the most important paragraph of all, as
it completely leads the participant to one of the restricted outcomes.

Performer: "The name you are thinking of right now, you may coincidentally know someone
with the same name but you've arrived at this name by chance, not choice. Concentrate on the
name".

- This is just to press the point that the name was arrived at by chance, not choice.

Performer: "Imagine the name in its simplest form for me, so for example, Peter would be,
Pete".

- This is the only area where we must apply any real work - Figuring out the number of
letters. I personally use, Michael Murray's CUPs principle, as I think it is the most elegant
tool for the job. With Michael Murray's permission, here is how we utilise his, CUPs
principle.

Performer: "Think of the exact number of letters in this name".

- If the participant responds instantly that they have thought of the number of letters, it is a
good bet the name is 3 or 4 letters long, once you get good at this technique you will be able
to differentiate between 3 and 4 letters. If they struggle slightly, then the name is likely to be
5 letters long - This hesitation, in a nutshell, is the CUPs principle.
It enables you to roughly know the number of letters in a word. Please look toward Michael's
work to see all his wonderful uses for this principle.

Utilising the CUPs principle with a hanging statement, will instantly give you the number of
letters.

First, work out if you think it is 3/4 letters or 4/5 letters, using CUPs and then address the
participant, for the sake of example we will imagine that the participant is thinking of 3
letters.

Performer: "This is three... (Pause)".

- The participant will say you are correct. Let's look at the same statement if the participant
was thinking of a four-letter name.

Performer: "This is three... (pause) no, four letters long, right?"

22
- Notice how I finished the statement this time, before the confirmation from the participant
halted me in the middle of my statement.

This same thinking applies to 4/5 letter names also.

I often feel that mentalism lacks an air of drama/tension. Everything seems to flow
NOTES

all too smoothly and it is easy for the participant to feel like you know their thought,
before it comes to the revelation - that is something I believe we should aim to
avoid.

As mentalists, we should be predicting of others, not predictable.

Let's imagine for a moment that we were watching a show like; Holby City or
E.R (for those outside the U.K. these are television shows about hospitals). Imagine a
patient being brought into the hospital, that is in a critical condition and needs an operation
and the surgeon says "There's a 100% chance of success", before the operation has taken
place. After witnessing the surgery, another story unfolds where the doctor claims that the
patient needs to take a tablet and their condition will be resolved within 24 hours. People
checking in and out of the hospital with injuries like paper-cuts or a sore throat, can
guarantee that the shows would become boring, rather quickly.

In-fact, thinking about it, the most perfect show I can think of to represent my point are
animal hospital based shows. 98% of the time, on those types of
shows, the animal survives BUT the show’s producers have a way of editing the show so
that there is an air of suspense, each moment is dynamic, from the voice over to the
conversation between 'the professionals' about the animal. Each moment is carefully
constructed to point toward the chance of failure on the vets part and suggests the possible
demise of the animal.

It isn't until the very end of the show, that we realise the outcome of each case. The show’s
creators have a way of painting an image in our mind, that suggests that the animal is either
going to make it or not, keeping us gripped.

When an animal doesn't make it, it is instantly upsetting for us, the viewer - The reason for
this, is not only because an animal has lost its life (which is upsetting), but because they hit
us with the sad stories the moment we start to become comfortable with the fact that the
animals are surviving. Haven't you ever noticed that the saddest stories air during our most
comfortable moments of viewing? - That is no coincidence.

This kind of thinking should be applied to mentalism. It will add an air of drama and
impossibility. If the participant thinks that you know the number of letters in the name they
are thinking and you seemingly guess the number of letters with ease, then it suggests that
you are somewhat close to guessing the name they are thinking of.

If, however, you wrongly guess the number of letters in the name and you are not remotely
close, it will lead the participant to think you are completely off track and then when you do
reveal the name, you will completely knock the participant and audience for six. Of course,
it isn't as cut and shut as think of the name, here it is - there has to be byplay but you get my
point.

23
 This routine does require you to know the number of letters in the name to bring the
NOTES effect to a conclusion. Once you are entirely comfortable with the CUPs principle,
miscalling the number of letters to create this drama is a simple, yet elegant
principle, that I feel if one dismissed it, would be a shame.

For fullness of explanation, here are a couple of alternative methods to being able to deduce
the number of letters if you have used the CUPs principle previously in your performance and
for whatever reason, you are not wanting to use the same principle for fear of the participants
catching onto you using it (which shouldn't happen but there is nothing wrong with playing
safe).

One method is fishing for the appropriate number of digits, this method is simple, as it's a one
in three chance of being right by guessing - the name can only be 3, 4 or 5 letters long.

By addressing the participant and saying,

Performer: "Ok, so how many letters do I think are in this name...hmm I'd say 4 (pause
slightly as to wait for the reaction) or 5"

If the participant reacts by nodding or affirming on either of these, then you know the length
of the name, if not, then you are instantly down to one name, 'Tom'. If the participant says no
when you deliver the above script, simply say,

Performer: "I wasn't asking, don't give me any clues, I was speaking out loud".

This kind of quick sentence is something I have always adored, very simple yet elegant and
makes the participant feel that they have accidentally tipped something that they shouldn't
have.

Another way, is to reduce the number of letters via proxy. This is something I love to utilise
in performance, as it completely gives me the ability without missing, to either know the
exact number of letters or reduce the number of letters (objects, words or whatever you are
using this for). We are going to utilise a second participant for this, addressing the second
participant -

Performer: "Dave, I would like you to try and guess the number of letters in the name, do you
feel it is three, four or five?".

Dave: "Three?"

If participant one says Dave is correct, then take credit for the fact that you chose Dave,
knowing he could guess. If Dave misses, look at him and say, "you were not too far out, this
proves just how much of a feat it is to even guess the number of letters in the name". The
most important thing to remember here, is to say "you were not too far out" as it makes it
seem like you know the number of letters in the name.

24
You must listen carefully to what Dave and the participant say. If Dave guesses correctly,
move into revealing the information.

If, however he does not, which is a more likely occurrence, you are down to two numbers.

If he eliminates four, then you know that it is three or five letters long. If he eliminates five,
you know that it is three or four letters long and if he eliminates three, you know it is four or
five letters long. This may seem like a given, but the number of emails/ messages I receive
each week because I do not describe things like this in its entirety, is ridiculous.

Let's look at each scenario, in turn.

Dave eliminates three letters, leaving the four letter and five letter names. Meaning; Fred,
Frank and Steve are remaining.

The interesting thing here is that; Fred/Frank are not worlds apart and can be thrown out
together - After first eliminating, Steve.

By far the easiest way to do this is using Derren's, repeat it ploy. Address the participant,
"Keep saying the name to yourself over and over again like Steve, Steve, Steve - If it's Steve,
the participant should react and your job is done. If, however the participant doesn't react,
you know that you are down to the last two names.

I simply push the blame onto the participant for now, throwing out two names -

Performer: "Stare at me, imagine saying this name and imagine saying it to me... ok, I
wouldn't usually find it this difficult. I think it's because you thought of one name and then
changed your mind. Or, were torn between two names, anyway that doesn't matter, I'm going
to tell you the two names, let's see how close I get...Fred or Frank?"

This should be a hit, one thing that is very important to remember here is, the moment I
mention that the participant thought of two names, I quickly stop them from saying that they
haven't thought of two names, by saying "Anyway, that doesn't matter" quite quickly and
then continuing to talk so that the participant has to listen. The reason that this is an
interesting technique is that the audience will assume this to be true, and therefore will
assume that you not only pegged the name that the participant is thinking of but the one that
they changed their mind from, also.

Once you have determined the number of letters in the name, you instantly know the name or
are down to two names. Using any reductive process (discussed many times in these volumes,
you will swiftly be down to one). The great thing about this effect is that as soon as you know
the number of letters, you pretty much know the name.

Variant#2 -Psychological Playing card variant

This utilises the same method, but instead of asking the participant to think of two digits from
their pin code, this time it will be a playing card. The way that you frame this is entirely
down to you as a performer, I am only offering a guideline of what I have found works
nicely.

25
Performer: "One thing that I frequently get asked is - can I use my powers for nefarious
means? Whilst the honest answer is yes, I don't tend to use what I do outside of the context
you are seeing here.

I often try to think of a range of scenarios where my skills might come in handy. One such
arena would be in a card game. Obviously, I have gotten to know a few of you somewhat so I
need this to be random. We are going to create a fake gambling scenario wherein we make up
a random playing card and opponent. I think I will attempt this with you".

The performer points towards a gentleman sat at the table.

Performer: "I want you to think of a random playing card, for obvious reasons don't go for a
card you feel everyone else might. See the card in the air, largely... like the nine of hearts".

- This gives you the first opportunity for a hit, if they went for the nine of hearts you have a
miracle! If not, you are using this card as an example.

Performer: "obviously, now I've mentioned the number nine don't go for that, but do you
have a card in mind? Good, now imagine the name of the card written in the air as words. In
your mind gravitate towards the first letter in those words and think of the first male name
that pops into your head but, please don't go for a unisex name, it has to be definitive".

- Of course, this reduces us to roughly the same number of names outlined in the first
variation.

Performer: "You have now created a random playing card and a random adversary for me to
attempt to play a game of psychological warfare with".

- By asking the participant to think of the number of letters in the name and knowing the
exact amount, you will now be down to one of two values when it comes to the playing cards
and will know the name!

Fishing for the suit is easy and is outlined in the psychological playing cards volume in this
series.

One thing to remember is that certain values are chosen more than others -

I have found that

3 is chosen more so than 2.

4 is chosen more so than 5.

7 is chosen more so than 6 (unless it's a magician you are performing to, then its 6 more so
than 7).

You can guess the name and the playing card in one.

If you place an invisible deck on the table before the effect, you have an out for any situation
that arises. Should you fail to name the card out loud for whatever reason (if you are off by

26
one etc.) you always have classic methodology to rely on as the perfect out for any situation.
This again, expresses the point I have tried to weave throughout this entire volume,
traditional methodology and prop-less methodology work so well, hand in hand.

Variant #3 -The Hoy variant

This variation is very similar to the interactive effect I performed on you at the start of this
effect, except with an audience.

If you perform this effect on three participants simultaneously, you can simply say,

Performer: "Keep a straight face and don't give anything away. Even if I say your exact
thought, please don't react.

Close your eyes for me and remember to keep a poker face. I feel (point towards one of the
participants) Frank or Fred, (point to someone else) Tom, and (point to the last participant)
Steve.

Open your eyes for me, just yes or no - Did I get your thought?" First participant: "Yes".
Performer: "Yours?"
Second participant: "Yes".

Performer: "And, yours?" Third participant: "Yes".

- By pointing at the participants (while their eyes are closed) the audience will assume that
you are guessing each person's individual thoughts. The participants of course, cannot see this
so never know you have pointed at them. When they confirm that you hit on the name, that's
all the confirmation the audience need. If one participant says no, ask them what name they
are thinking about and say "two out of three isn’t bad".

This is a simple variation but is so powerful, imagine sitting at a table and nailing three
thought of names without using billet peeks or the use of a one ahead!

Additional Thoughts

If you wanted to apply this same logic to all names, you would have to make a list of the
female names that crop up the most frequently in your area.

Again, I would recommend eliminating unisex names.

Female names are a lot more difficult to get a hit from, than male names. 2/3 might be Tina
or Teresa
4/5 might be Fiona or Faye
6/7 might be Sarah or Stacey

These are the names that I can think of from the top of my head. Being honest, I have always
performed this routine using male names. I did experiment with female names but it wasn’t
sure fire, and I quickly reverted to using male names.

27
I did however, think of a clever way to get the participant to tell you the sex of the person
they are thinking of, without them ever knowing they have.

The performance would have to be slightly longer; this adds a slight amount
of process to the routine but this is entertaining and therefore, doesn’t detract from the overall
performance.

Performer: “I don’t know if you know this but, someone’s characteristics and traits can
completely lead you to someone’s name. Don’t believe me? How many people called Herbert
or Percy, do you know that are cool?

Jokes aside, the person you are thinking of, are they tall or small? Let the participant answer.
What colour hair?
Let the participant answer.

What are this person’s hobbies?

This is the answer that is important; the person’s hobby will usually lead you to the sex of the
person! When you get the participant’s answer, you will find that they are overly obvious,
which should lead you to the sex.

As an additional thought, you can also get extra hits from the characteristics.

I have found that if you wanted to add the characteristics phase to the routine while
performing this and asking the participant to think of a male name, the usual description
selected by the participant is –

Tall
Dark hair (brown, black etc.)
Medium build

The way to approach this is simple,

Performer: “I want you to think of this person, in a moment you are going to make up some
characteristics about this person”.

Write down the word ‘tall’ and keep it towards yourself. Performer: “Is this person tall or
small?”

If the participant says tall, then turn it around and show the participant that you were correct.
Write the words ‘dark hair’, the reason that I use dark hair is, it covers a range of colours.

Performer: “What colour hair does this person have?” Participant: “Brown”.

Again, turn your piece of paper around to show that you hit. Write down the word ‘Medium’.

Performer: “Is this person thin, heavy set or medium?” Participant: “Medium”.

If you were feeling particularly bold, you could write the word sport and ask for the hobby of
the person and if that hits, BOOM! Miracle.

28
If none of the above hit (which can be the case), simply say,

Performer: “I am going to make some notes as you go along”

Simply write down what the participant says and then finish by saying,

Performer: “You said the person was XX and their hair colour was XX and their hobby XX,
there is only one name I have in my mind right now – XX”

This wraps up the routine in such a way that makes the participant believe that by the
description that they have given you, you have somehow deduced the thought of name!

29
 THE BOOK OF THE FALLEN
The performer becomes acquainted with the audience and proposes that he tries a
EFFECT

simple experiment. He points to a table upon which sits an old dusty book.

(This could be borrowed)

Without saying a word, the performer reaches for a paper ball and throws the paper
ball into the audience to nominate someone at random.

The person who catches the ball is asked to join the performer on the stage. The performer
and participant become acquainted –

Performer: “Zach, you will notice upon the table is a book; there is also a pad and a pen, I
would like you to approach the book for me.

You will notice when you reach the table, the pad has two post-it notes stuck upon it.

One post-it is stuck on the top half of the page and the other post-it, on the bottom. Can you
raise each one and confirm they have nothing written underneath them?”

Zach: “They are clean”.

Performer: “Your job is very simple; you are going to turn to any page inside the book, when
you arrive at a page mentally select any word. When you have that word in mind, I would
like you pick up the pen, write the word underneath the top post-it note and then fold the
post-it note back down, so the word is not visible”.
The participant chooses any page; they then choose any word and then write the word down,
folding the post-it down so it cannot be seen by the performer or anyone else.

Performer: “I would now like you to randomly select another member of the audience”.

The participant points to a member of the audience.

Performer: “Please pass the book, the pad and the pen to that member of the audience”.

The random member of the audience receives the book, is instructed to select any page, any
word and write it under the bottom post-it note. When he has done this, close the pad.

Performer: “I would now like you to point to a member of the audience to be the Judge, and
final decision maker”.
He points to a female at the other side of the room, she is handed the pad. (Neither the
performer or participant know this audience member).

Performer: “Please open the pad, decide upon one of the two chosen words and give me a nod
when you have got one in your mind”.

After a few seconds, she nods.

30
The performer picks up a drawing pad, waits a few seconds and starts to write. He gives the
pad to the Judge, facedown and asks her to state out loud, the word she has chosen.

Judge: “Ambidextrous”.

The performer looks stunned.

Performer: “You weren’t thinking of liquid?”

Judge: “No”

Performer: “Turn the pad around”.

The pad is turned to reveal the word, Ambidextrous! The performer has correctly divined the
word.

Notes* this works 100% of the time, the subjects are never prompted, no pre-show, no
stooges, no gimmicked books (it can be borrowed with no prep needed) and they have a free
choice of any page and any word.

No peeks, no impressions and they don’t have to choose the word from the same book! OH,
AND IF YOU REALLY WANTED, THEY COULD JUST MAKE UP A WORD!

This routine is straight forward, simple and very powerful. This routine came about
BREAKDOWN

after toying with an older routine of mine ‘Simon says’, from a previous book ‘Dare
to be bold’. Simon says, was an incredibly simple effect that had an extremely strange
variation of Dual Reality.

The reason it was so strange is that, the entire audience were the ones that saw the
effect that the participant would usually see. Because all of them saw the effect from
that perception, there was no reason to talk after the effect had taken place. This
would mean that the routine wrapped itself up with little to no work needed.

This type of routine is completely versatile - drawing duplications, name reveals, bookless
tests. You are only limited by your own imagination, and I hope you experiment with this
routine.
To prepare, take two notepads; ensure the pad is spiral bound at the top (not on the side).
Remove the front cover off one of the note pads and the back cover off the other. Take the
back cover and put it on the pad that still has its own back cover on, in essence, you have now
got a pad with two back covers.

Take the loose front and place it onto the pad with the front cover still on, this essentially
means you have 2 pads now with identical covers on both pads, one with two backs and one
with two fronts.

Notepads with identical covers can be purchased to save you time having to make your own,
it is essential that the pads look the same no matter which way they are orientated. Open the
pad, take a post-it note and cut it in half. Stick half of it on the top half of the page and the
other half of the post-it on the bottom half of the page.

31
To serve as an extra convincer, you could use two different coloured post-it notes (you will
understand why this serves as a convincer, later). Underneath each of the post it
notes, a word. Ensure it is a short word under the top post-it and a longer word under the
bottom one (in different hand writing). You may have to put a kink into the post-it notes, to
keep them facedown. This is what the pad will look like -
I would also recommend marking the force side of the pad, this ensures that you always know
the side of the pad that contains your ‘prepared post-its’ we will call this the FORCE side of
the pad. Close the pad after you have prepared it, flip it over and apply a post-it to the top and
the bottom of this page (so it looks identical to the page you prepared just a moment ago),
you will see how the different colours make all the difference later.

When the Judge chooses a word later, it will be from one of our two words – The ones the
participants choose are really irrelevant. You will see after the next section, how this plays
out and how it works in performance.

NOTE*** In England, when you go to the Dentist or Doctors, they give children stickers for
being well behaved, these types of stickers can be used in place of the post-it notes. Ensure
they are not too sticky, as they will tear the page when they are being unstuck. The way to
desensitize the stickers, is to stick them to your clothing a couple of times. That way, when
they are stuck over the top of the words that you have written, they will stick to the page but
won’t take too much effort to peel them off.

I recommend you get these types of stickers from a stationary store - pick up coloured plain
ones. Place a blue sticker at the top of the page (over your prepared word) and a red sticker
over the bottom prepared word.

There is a small subtlety you could apply, so it seems that the participant had a free choice of
sticker and when the pad is opened on your force side, it looks the same, no one will ever
question anything.

Remember that you placed the blue sticker on the top and the red on the bottom. When you
are in performance, ask the first participant whether they would like a red sticker or a blue
sticker, dependant on your character you could ham this moment up to be almost comedy-
esque – Being the most non-comical performer on the planet, I probably couldn’t pull this
off.

If they select the RED sticker, when you hand the pad to the participant all you need to do is,
point to the bottom line on the pad as you say “I want you to pick a word from the book, it is
completely your choice. When you have mentally selected a word, write it on here”.

As you say “ON HERE”, the audience will assume that you mean the pad, but what the
audience don’t see is you are tapping the BOTTOM line with your finger. This, ensures that
the participant will write a word on the bottom line and when you tell them to stick the sticker
over the top of their word, it will ensure that the red sticker goes on the bottom of the page.

If the participant picks the BLUE sticker, naturally you would tap on the top line on the pad.
This, will ensure that they stick the blue sticker over the top of the word they select. This is
beautiful, as it adds a little layer of deception. The key here, is to look at the simple yet

32
beautiful scripting – “ON HERE”, I think it’s so simple, proving the power a couple of words
can have in the construction of a routine.

“On here” to the audience, means on the pad, as you are tapping the line. “On here” to the
participant, means on the line.

If you wanted to go overkill, you could have the participants each sign the back of their
sticker, this is very Tervil-esque, in the sense that the Judge doesn’t know the participant’s
signatures...So, when they open the force side and see two signatures, they will assume they
are the participant’s signatures. I personally think this is overkill but, again it all depends how
comfortable you feel. Remember, every small moment like this sews a seed into the
participant’s mind.

Take note how I prepared the force side with one short word and one long word; I will
usually make one word very simple and small, like “Car”. This is also a word that is an
everyday word, so psychologically it seems not that interesting. This is important, as later
when the Judge opens our side of the pad, and I ask them to pick the more interesting word of
the two, they will always go for the longer, more interesting word.

It’s always better to be over prepared! I said earlier, I also make this fail safe by marking the
force side of the pad – so, at a glance, you know where the force side is the entire time. A
simple x written on the pad will suffice; it doesn’t have to be anything fancy, in-fact the
subtler it is, the better.

Open the pad, so that the clean unprepared side, is the side that the participants see.

You are ready to begin –

The justification for asking the participants to place a post-it or a sticker over the top of their
word is, so that if I opened the pad, I would not be able to see either of the participant’s
words and at the same time, they cannot see each other’s. This, ensures it is completely
hidden in all respects.

The participants are each going to write a word and then place the post-its or stickers over the
top of their words.
When this is complete, the pad is to be closed and an elastic band wrapped around the pad so
it cannot simply be opened.

After the pad has the elastic band wrapped around it, collect the pad from participant number
two and walk toward the selected Judge, hand them the pad. To bring this effect to fruition,
simply flip over the pad so that the Judge will open the force side and hand them it that way
up.
When the Judge opens the pad, direct the Judge to peel off the stickers and decide which
word they deem to be the more interesting of the two, then close the pad and remember the
word.

All that is left to do, is fish for which of the two words the Judge is thinking. Remember, the
likeliness is that they are thinking of the longer of the two words and with a little bit of verbal
probing, you can get them to confirm your suspicions.

33
Performer: “The first thing I am instantly feeling is, that the word you are thinking of is the
longer word of the two, correct?”

The participant will give you a yes, then you are free to reveal the information in any way
that you desire. If the person says no (which will not happen), you know they are thinking of
the shorter of the two words.

Another subtlety you can use, is to select two words for the force page that control the way
the participant is thinking. For example, if you placed the word ‘elephant’, underneath the top
sticker and the word ‘because’, under the bottom, by simply saying to the participant “I want
you to think of the word that you find easiest to visualize as an image, then we are ready to
begin”.

This ensures that the participant must think of the word ‘elephant’, as it is impossible to see
the word ‘because’, as an image.

Now you have forced the Judge towards one word, you move into revealing the word in any
manner you choose.
Look at this from the participant’s perspective, they do not know what word the other
participant has chosen– This ensures that when the word the Judge selected is revealed by
you, both participants will just assume that it was the other person’s word that was selected,
and not theirs.

To the audience something impossible has just occurred - two people selected two words at
random, one of the two words is then selected by a Judge as the more impossible word to
guess, and you somehow managed to correctly identify the word!

In a close-up scenario, this routine can play out just as strong with a few tweaks... This is
completely new, fun and interesting, and shows just how bold you can be in a
close-up situation, without ever worrying about the participants talking after the effect.

Instead of preparing a book like in this routine, we are just going to be using a stack of billets
and a simple technique to swap out the words.

To prepare, take two billets and write a random word on them – I advise using the words –
Plain and day.
I will explain why, then you can try changing the words to other words, as it’s easy to think
up words that work in a similar way.

I would advise asking two other people to write down the words, using the pen you will use
in performance. Failing that, write one with your dominant hand and the other with your non-
dominant hand, just so the writing on the two cards looks entirely different, we will be
swapping these cards in, later.

Place these, face down on a stack of identical cards. This is where you need to focus, to make
the effect work. If the stack of cards is blank, just flip the entire stack of cards over so that the
two prepared cards are on the bottom of the stack, writing side up, be careful NOT to flash
these cards. If the stack has designs on (my preferred option), cut the stack in half and turn
half of the cards inwards, so that no matter which way you orientate the cards they will look
the same (back design with the contact information on facing outwards on the top of the stack

34
and the bottom). Take the two cards with the writing on and place them on the top of the
stack, face down (again, so the contact information is facing towards us) and then turn the
entire stack over so that the two cards with writing on, are on the bottom.

In performance, we are going to use a ‘flop switch’ – anyone who has read the billet
document in this series, will be aware of what the flop switch is, in detail. For those who do
not, it is essentially rotating the entire stack of cards over, under the guise of a bigger
movement.

In performance, you will have two of the audience members write a word on the face of the
business cards and then place them face down on top of the stack of cards. The stack is then
going to be handed to a Judge, this is where you will apply the ‘flop switch’, the two cards
we prepared earlier will now be on the top of the stack and will be the ones that the
participant looks at when they turn over the top two cards.

The Judge will look at the word PLAIN and the word DAY.

From this point, we are about to create another layer of, Dual Reality. I have, since updating
this, been performing this close-up variation, non-stop. The reactions that I am getting have
been crazy, for such little work!

The ‘Judge’, will take the two billets with the writing on and keep them facing toward
themselves, being careful not to let us see the writing. The real reason is obvious; we don’t
want the participants that have created the two original words to see these and realise that
they are not the words they wrote down.

This is where the fun starts, and this is the bit I am most proud of in this entire document
(granted it is small but, it’s the little things in life that please me).

The performer addresses the Judge:

Performer: “I want you to look at the longer of the two words; obviously, none of us other
than you, know which is the longer of the two words. I want you to keep saying this word to
yourself in your head and think of the first image that it generates in your mind”.

(This is where I wait for the participant to acknowledge they have done this, it should be very
quick. They will be saying the word, PLAIN, PLAIN, PLAIN over again and obviously, it’s
going to generate the image of an Aeroplane, in their mind. When you have seen them
acknowledge the image in their mind, proceed).

Performer: “It is essential, that the image you chose is one that your mind generated. For
example, if the word was ‘woman’, your mind might have generated the image of a house or
something you would associate with a woman, like shoes or a child.

Look at the other word; with that word, let’s play word association. If there is an exact
opposite for the word you are looking at, think of the opposite word. So, for example, ‘cold’
would be ‘hot’. If there is no opposite word, go with a word you can associate with the word
you are looking at.

35
When you have done that, whatever word you are thinking of now, think of an image that you
can associate with this new word. So, essentially you are now thinking of two brand new
images that have nothing to do with the words you saw originally, as you changed each word
and thought of brand new images. Forget the original words, as they are irrelevant”.

(We know the second word they saw was the word, DAY. They will change it to the word,
NIGHT and therefore the images that they will see are, MOON/STARS).

Performer: “Do you want me to guess the first image you thought of or the one you just
created? You choose which you feel is the most impossible of the two”.

If they say the first one, you know it is an aeroplane. If they go with the second, you know to
draw a moon with a few stars.

Look at what we have created!

The original words are now dismissed, the images created are brand new yet we have
controlled them to think of the image that we want them to think of! The participants will
never feel the need to talk about the original words as we have dismissed them as irrelevant,
and the only thoughts we are aiming to guess, are the new ones that the ‘Judge’ created
themselves!

NOT ONLY THAT...

When we successfully guessed the image, what else have we also achieved?

We have successfully got the audience to dismiss the image we didn’t guess. If you are
wondering why that is important, think about this –

Later in the performance, during another routine with another participant, look in the air as
though you have just had a thought hit you (an epiphany) and turn back towards the person
who was the Judge in this earlier routine. Address that participant –

Performer: “I have, I think, just had a thought that I don’t quite know the relevance of. This is
something that you have never told another living soul and kept to yourself for some time.
Because of this, I am going to treat this with the upmost delicacy”.

The performer beckons for the participant to lean in close, so he can whisper in the Judge’s
ear.

Performer: (Whispering) “I don’t know what this is or what it means but, I am clearly seeing
the image of XXX (this is where you whisper whatever image you didn’t name earlier. If you
duped the aeroplane, you whisper the moon and stars and, vice versa)”.

The participant will react.

Performer: “Sometimes it’s nice to have thoughts that no one quite understands, let’s keep
that thought to ourselves”.

36
(I will often get the participant to pinkie promise that we will keep it to ourselves. That is a
tale for another time but gives you an insight into some of the small nuances I add into my
performances).

The audience will always wonder what you whispered and that in itself, is a beautiful thing.

You have also made the most of the information in a routine and let none of it go to waste.
The principle I have just briefly outlined, is a principle I call ‘The bob principle’. Throughout
other areas of my literature, I have gone into greater detail about this principle.

You are not limited to using the words that I use, as long as you can find words that have
binary opposites that easily conjure up images and a word that is easy to create an image
from- you can substitute those words for the words in this performance.

Another thing that you can use this kind of principle for is, book tests of the classic kind. Go
through a book and find two pages a good distance from each other (one from the beginning
to middle of the book. The other from the middle to back of the book) Look on those two
pages for a long interesting word that instantly stands out from the rest of the page. Look at
the page numbers; remember which word belongs to which page. Write these page numbers
on business cards (instead of words like described in the close-up variation of ‘The book of
the fallen’), prepare the stack as previously described.

Instead of asking two participants to write down random words, ask them each to write down
a random page number on a business card. Perform the flop switch and swap in your page
numbers, then hand the stack to the Judge and ask them to look at those pages.

By directing the participant to look for a long interesting word on the page they selected, you
will know by looking whereabouts in the book they are looking, which word the participant is
thinking of. If they are looking closer to the front cover, you will know it is the smaller page
number of the two (of which you know the word) and if the page they are looking at is closer
to the back cover, you will know it is the larger number (again, knowing the word).

The audience don’t know what words are located on what pages from within the book and the
Judge gets a ‘free choice’ of word from that page (I inverted the free choice, as we direct
them towards the longest interesting word that they can find on the entire page). The page
number is not relevant once a word is selected and therefore, there is no logical reason for
anyone to talk about it.

Think about every book test you have ever performed, how many times have people cared
about the page number when you are revealing the word they are thinking of?
It is often simple solutions like this, that make effects seem so impossible.

Now you are accustomed with this routine, let’s look at how I created it. I never think to
myself “I am going to use Dual Reality in this routine”, I remember thinking to myself when
creating the routine that, I wanted a routine where several people thought of random words,
one person would pick a word and somehow I would know what it was.

At first, I wanted to use a Billet peek when the Judge chose the one word out of the two, the
problem was that the heat was on the billets once I had nominated a Judge, and I didn’t want
to touch the billets at all. I ended up going back to the drawing board.

37
I tried forcing words, didn’t work... Back to the drawing board I went.

I thought awhile to myself, and remembered I had created a routine called ‘Simon says’, in
which I switch a drawing out for one I had prepared earlier. This got me thinking, I could do
this with a couple of participants. The problem was, that with two drawings, it was a lot of
switching to dupe both like I duplicated the drawing in ‘Simon says’. I then decided that, if I
implemented a Judge (like in my ‘inside intuition’ routine – which wasn’t very good), I could
have the Judge select one of the words.

Sometimes, you create routines that you look at later and think “wow that was terrible”, then
take the best elements of those routines and employ them in routines that are much better.
After implementing the use of a ‘Judge’, it occurred to me, that the participants never get to
know each other’s words and therefore, the Judge could make up a word if they were going to
act like an arse and the participants that selected the words would always just assume it was
the other participant’s anyway. This got me thinking, why don’t I just completely swap the
words out and no one will ever be any the wiser.

At first, I wanted to use an ‘add a no pad’ (which works) but the problem was that, I never
found one that I liked with a cover design that people were used to seeing. So, I created a
switching pad (the one outlined earlier) and then it was a case of just getting the Judge, to
select the word that I wanted them to select. It was a very easy series of bullet points then.

. Two participants write a word

. A Judge selects one of the two words

. I reveal the words

It gets from the start of where I want to be, to the end very quickly. And, there are no
suspicious actions on my part in anyway. It was a logical fit; I will often try lots of methods
and paths when backtracking a routine. My biggest secret is to pretend that the routine is
someone else’s and that the routine has completely fooled me. I then play the performance
out in my head repeatedly, and pretend I am figuring out the secret to that person’s routine.

I then start to break it down, like I would if I were figuring out a routine, thinking maybe this
could work here, maybe that could work there. If it totally doesn’t fit with the performance
that I have seen in my mind, then obviously the method is not the right method for the
performance I have envisioned.
That is why, it is so important not to create a routine around a method you think is clever. I
am not saying I haven’t come up with methods in the past and thought, this
is clever. I am saying that when I create a method that is clever, I write it down and shelf it. I
will then, when creating a routine, look at all the methods available to me for that
performance and if the method fits, great. If not, it doesn’t matter as it will sit there until I am
ready to use it.

I look at it like those toys you give to children - a cube shaped box with slots for shapes cut
into it, the ones where the child pushes the square shape through the square hole and the
circular shape through the circle hole. If you try to push the star shape through the square it is

38
obviously not going to fit, and I feel it is the same with presentations and methods that fit
presentations.

The performance is the cube shape, with the holes cut into it – the more important and larger
part of the puzzle. The methods are the pieces that slot into the holes, the smaller parts to the
puzzle. Each must work in harmony to get the pieces back inside the cube.

I feel this is a very simple way to look at how performances and methods, should fit together.

Think of how each participant sees each part of the routine, if you can do that and look at
things from their perspective, you will find it very easy to create and construct Dual Reality
routines.

39
For more secret products for mentalists
visit:
www.e-mentalism.com

40