(Close Window)
Topic: Review: C.B.S. Question Answering Kerrell Fox
Message: Posted by: Stunninger (Jan 20, 2019 09:03AM)
The was one mention, in a very old post from 2004 or 2005, of a Q&A method by Kerrell Fox called "C.B.S. Question Answering" in the book "For My Next Trick..."

After some searching I could not find much on this effect.

Being rather intensely interested in all things Q&A, I decided to pick up a copy of the the book, which was published by The Supreme Magic Company, LTD in 1986.

The book itself is rather charming, with illustrations that remind me of reading Dunninger's Complete Encyclopedia of Magic as a child.

The chapter entitled "C.B.S. Question Answering" is quite short, one and a half pages. C.B.S. stands for "Couldn't Be Simpler". The chapter explains Kerrell's reasoning that the method should indeed be as simple as possible so the mind reader can focus on the performance. There is no discussion about how to answer the questions, only the "why" and "how" the method works.

There is no OA, no b****t s******s, no h**l c***s, no p** s**w, no IDs, no assistants required. Everything needed can be picked up at a dollar store for less than $10.

The audience sees folded slips of paper held up to the mind reader's head, but never opened. Yet the mind reader is able to reveal the contents of 5 or 6 slips.

One of the very nice features of this approach is there are no quick p**ks. There is also no memorization needed, as with a OA.

The method is indeed very simple. But also fairly deceptive and very practical. I have seen other methods similar in some ways, but no method quite like this in its entirety. C.B.S. Question Answering has a very nice advantage over other methods in that the execution of the secrets moves to get the information is virtually fail safe.

Without giving anything away, C.B.S. Question Answering reminds me in some ways of Dunninger's Q&A, but the "steal" is accomplished by a completely different (and much cleaner) means and does not require Dunninger's special board, only a basic clip board. There are other differences as well.

Am I glad I bought the book? Yes. Will I use C.B.S. Question Answering in performance? I'm not sure. I think I'll give it a try and see how it plays. I've thought of adding a time delay in between when the slips are collected and the information revealed, along with another subtlety to add another layer or two of deception.

As anyone who has studied the Q&A extensively knows, there are advantages and disadvantages to every approach. C.B.S. Question Answering is no different in that respect. The primary advantages C.B.S. offers is how easy it is to execute the secret move required to get the information, the method of accessing the information is virtually fail-safe, and you have access to the information in real-time. The main disadvantage from my perspective is there are not multiple layers of deception built in to the method as described in the book. I do think an experienced mentalist will quickly devise one or two ways to resolve this disadvantage.
Message: Posted by: Jerskin (Jan 24, 2019 08:22PM)
Off topic but Karrell performed his Journey To the Center Of The Mind show at my university in 1979.
He played it for real.
His books all have great, simple effects.
Message: Posted by: The_MetalMaster (Jan 29, 2019 07:25PM)
Can the steal be used in other q&a routines such as Thought Scan?
Message: Posted by: Stunninger (Jan 29, 2019 08:56PM)
[quote]On Jan 29, 2019, The_MetalMaster wrote:
Can the steal be used in other q&a routines such as Thought Scan? [/quote]

Not exactly as describe in the book. I can think of at least one way where the TS board could be used, but it would require an additional step.
Message: Posted by: Nestor D (Feb 3, 2019 06:28AM)
I remember reading it described as a "final answer" kind of method in a small Richard Mark manuscript. Is it accurate ?
Message: Posted by: Stunninger (Feb 3, 2019 08:15AM)
I don't want to get into speculation about methods, but to answer your question, no. Not at all similar to final answer.
Message: Posted by: Nestor D (Feb 3, 2019 10:38AM)
Ok, thanks you (I now need to reread Richard Mark and search for this reference...).