Ginny and I recently returned from FISM, which was a wonderful convention/vacation/ and reunion with our magical friends around the world. But the most surprising thing – and for us the single most fun – was rather unique. Because there were (at least) four two-person mind reading acts at the convention!

For those of you who aren’t aware, for over 35 years Ginny and I have performed our own two-person mind reading act, “It’s the Thought that Counts.” You can catch an 18-minute sample of that act on Vol. 1 of my DVD series. We performed the act professionally during the 70’s throughout the Midwest, and although it’s long since been retired from professional gigs, we still keep it polished for occasional magic conventions, social events, charity drives, etc. It’s a lot of fun – but as you can imagine, it’s not the kind of magic that you can “brainstorm” with others. How often do you bump into another such team?

Well, FISM was the exception. We renewed our acquaintances with two of our long time friends who performed on the Gala show and saw two more acts in the competitions. Timothy Trust and Julie (from Germany) competed in the close up contest, and Robert and Emiel (from the Netherlands) competed in the stage classification. Both won prizes. But for us, the fun part was sitting together afterwards, trading anecdotes and war stories. It’s not often that you find a sympathetic ear to your sender (or receiver) role, and here we found several. (And Robert and Emiel are also gifted close up magicians as well).

Mentalism has often been cited as the kind of magic that’s the hardest to present, because there’s usually so much talk and procedure building up before the (eventual) climax. The two-person act, however is a major exception. Here, there’s continuous, discrete bits of magic (mind reading) happening all along the way, across the entire audience. If the crowd isn’t too large, you can convey the sense that everyone is part of the act.

Though little has been written on it, believe it or not there are some interesting parallels between naturalness, misdirection and "in transit" actions in close-up AND in two person codes acts. It goes to the essence of what gets noticed, and what doesn't.

As much as I love cards, I'll always have a pet place in my heart for “It’s the Thought that Counts.”

Simon

Hi Simon,
I saw your 2 person mind-reading act on your DVD and I gotta tell you I was amazed. It was the highlite of the DVD for me.
It's so fast and fluid...
Bravo

Hello Simon,

A pleasure to have you here. Would you have any resource recommendations or a place to start learning for someone who is interested in developing a two person act? Is there anything out there that addresses the presentational challenges specific to this kind of act?

Thanks

ps After posting this question, I read your response on another topic in which you note Annemann's influence on your magic. Annemann and Corinda is where I would have started looking into the two person act. Outside of these two, any other maybe not-so-well-known resources to explore?

I’d recommend that you read as much as you can. Here a few sources on two-person code systems that I found worthwhile:

There is good background material, and some specific codes, scattered throughout the writings of Scalbert and Annemann. They were both good thinkers, and there’s a lot of value to be found there. For more specific material, check out:

Ottakar Fischer, Illustrated Magic, Chapter 8
Sam Sharpe, Conjurer’s Psychological Secrets, pp. 113-155
Paul Hadley, How to Develop Mental Magic
David Lustig, Vaudeville Mind Reading
Burling Hull, The Real Secrets of Stage Second Sight Acts
Ralph Read, The Calostro Mind Reading Act
The Tuckers, ESP 2000 course

and, more recently,

Ron and Nancy Spencer, Telepathy Personified
Leo Behnke, Cues: Variations of the Second Sight Act.

You’ll find that some of the above books and manuscripts are somewhat old, and perhaps rare. This is a function of the fact that two person acts were most popular during the vaudeville years, and that few modern teams are willing to put in the time or effort needed to learn this kind of an act; the few that do it seriously nowadays don’t want their systems spread around. You may need to do some research in private magic libraries, or find some magic collectors. (Sorry, but I’m not in a position to help you find the above sources; you’re on your own.)

It’s also worthwhile learning about some of the truly famous teams who performed such acts, like the Piddingtons, or the Sunshines, and others. Their methods aren’t divulged, but it’s fascinating to hear what they supposedly did (or at least what legend says they did). At the very least, they give you ideas for the kinds of tests and experiments you might try to duplicate.

One important caveat. Don’t be in a hurry to create or establish a system. It’s tempting, once you start studying, to want to quickly implement something that seems neat, but later, down the road, you’ll find that it’s harder to change, to “unlearn” something. Pledge to study for a while, and not to jump quickly. This kind of act is only worthwhile if you’ve got a lifetime of doing it ahead of you, so there’s no rush. Be patient, and go for quality. Unless your basic underpinnings are well-structured, you won’t be able to expand and be flexible.

Simon

Hi Simon

First of all, thank you for such a huge contribution to close-up card magic. The memorized deck is one of my favourite weapons and it your stack I choose to use.
The 2 person act is also something that I am interested in but have not yet looked into much.

How do you feel about the male/female dynamic of the 2 person act both in practise/study/learning and performance, versus the same act rehearsed and performed by two people of the same sex?
How is the performance and rehearsal/learning dynamic affeted in your experience and knowledge? What are the pros and cons of either or both combinations in your opininon?
Thanks
Greg

The most critical choice you'll have to make for a 2-person "Second Sight" act does not involve the system or the code or the effects--it is your choice of partner. As Simon says, "This kind of act is only worthwhile if you’ve got a lifetime of doing it ahead of you, so there’s no rush. Be patient, and go for quality." You should apply this advice first and foremost to your choice of partner. (It certainly appears Simon did.)

Good luck!
CM

Simon and Ginny were my highlights of the last Magic Live convention. Awesome, mystifying, and downright entertaining.

Many thanks for sharing,

Paul Green

Here are a few more bits of advice for people who might be interested in this field.

The two person act we perform is something I created over 35 years ago. It, like most things, started with some basic ideas from prior existing systems, and then developed and grew organically (which it can only do when you have two people who are together for a long period of time). It’s obviously important to start with a solid underpinning, a basic structure and basic code words that are comfortable, but many of the details, the quirks, the shortcuts, our special tests, all evolved later, in response to situations that arose in performance. We wished we had a neat way of dealing with those tricky situations – so we added on, and expanded our system, by devising new cues for such circumstances. So, a key point is, make sure your system is expandable later on.

While I think this kind of an act can be exceptionally strong (it’s by far the most memorable piece of magic I’ve ever performed or created) any two person act, if it’s well designed and implemented, will take a long time to learn, practice and implement. It’s not the sort of thing that you can just find ready-made, learn and do in a couple of months. Part of it is simply biological: you’re developing muscle-memory, instinctive responses that enable the code to work almost “automatically” – which means that, lots of the time, there’s little required thinking or calculation. I’m not talking about anything weird here, just the automatic response that comes from repetition.

It’s also not the kind of thing that works well if performed only sporadically; you need to do it often to keep it quick, fresh and spontaneous. So initially you ought to consider how compatible the two of you will be in the future: will you always be working with each other? What if one of you wants time off, or pursues other interests? Will you always have the same time schedules for working together, practicing and performing? Will you both each have the same continued commitment and dedication to the act you’ve developed – forever? As you might imagine, this kind of two person project has within it the potential seeds of creating friction between two people, and for many that’s not a worthwhile side effect or risk. I mention these kinds of factors because I do believe that this kind of act isn’t for everyone.

Assuming you’re seriously interested in looking further, here are a few general comments:

1) First, as I mentioned in my MAGIC interview, I found my study of many, many code acts to be interesting and valuable, but ultimately I did not find any one system to be useable in any wholesale fashion. Language is personal, and someone else’s system may not suit you well. It’s fine to learn general principles, get a few tips and shortcuts, avoid a few obstacles, but in the final analysis you’ll probably want to develop your own, for best results.

2) What do you want to do with the act? Describe objects? Question answering? Tell fortunes? Duplicate designs? Different goals may dictate different priorities in setting up a code.

3) Decide who will be the sender and who will be the receiver; they’re not interchangeable. You want to determine this before you work on establishing a code, because it’s the sender’s language patterns that are most important.

4) How does the sender “normally” speak? Fast or slow? Calm or excited? With or without gestures? In broken phrases, or full grammatical sentences? Does he/she repeat himself? All of this becomes important – because you need to incorporate the cardinal principle of naturalness, which varies from individual to individual.

5) Think about how you’ll present the act, from an “ethical” point of view. Solely as entertainment, with a strong disclaimer? As a demonstration of something “real?” What kind of beliefs do you want your spectators to walk away with? Who are they – sophisticated, gullible, or complete strangers. It makes a difference. Like it or not, it’s scary how gullible people can be, and what they will believe – regardless of what you disclaim or profess.

Simon

I remember seeing you and your wife informally doing your 2 person act at The World Magic Summit many years ago(I was the guy with curly hair and a mustache). Your presentation was everything it should be and after hearing your wife divine the serial numbers of my dollar bill I still say she was clairvoyant. Don't tell me there was a code involved because I won't believe it.

Anyway, I'm still a big fan of yours and in the words of Nate Leipzig (I believe?) I enjoyed being fooled by a gentleman.

Thanks for sharing your ideas.

Steve

Hi Simon,

I was wondering if you and Ginny ever use your code in everyday life, where you want to privately communicate something, when other people are present. For example, you're considering the purchase of an artwork and you want to find out what Ginny thinks of it, without tipping that to the seller.

One time when I was in a grocery store I encountered a couple who were on different aisles and couldn't see each other. They communicated through a series of bird whistles and apparently had some sort of system worked out. It was interesting and amusing, and much more considerate than shouting.

Hey Craig, good to hear from you. It's been a while.

On rare occasions we've used our code for non-performance situations, but it's not a full alternative secret language, so it's utility is limited for circumstances it wasn't planned for. (In very early days I once tried writing love letters to Ginny in code; they became extremely convoluted).

But actually early on our code did prompt us to set up a series of "secret" words, which if either of us uses it in conversation, conveys a special meaning for social circumstances. The one we use most often is our particular designated special word (I won't say what it is) that basically means: "Man, this place (party, meeting, group, etc) is really a drag, let's get the hell out of here as soon as possible."

I heartily recommend that all married couples should have such a word.

Simon

Simon,

Thank you for a very informative discussion. I've always enjoyed code acts and thought Trust and Julie were the highlight of FISM: hilarious and very accomplished.

Actually I often tease mentalism and mentalists (oh, and coin men) on some boards, but it's all in jest. I enjoy good mentalism and have been especially fascinated by the code acts after reading about Eddie Fields.

Thanks again and I'm sorry we didn't get a chance to sit down together for a drink at FISM so you could kick my ass with a deck of cards.

Andrew

Simon

I love your card work, but after seeing Ginny and your performance, there is no doubt that such an act is hard to top.

Would you recommend a system containing both verbal cues, silent counting period cues and physical sound cues, or would that be too difficult to combine?

And beeing from a smaller country, Sweden, once the system is learnt, I asume one could only perform it for a Swedish audience?

By the way, even if you never would perform it regularly, it would still be great brain exersice with the mnemonics and so, right?

Klas

Your time is up already? What a shame. I only just found out you were here...