Hey Richard,

I didn't know you were so close! (I'm in WV. Right by Huntington.)

Considering the presentation of a Q&A act-
On the one hand, you receive the thought of questions from the audience. If this is the case, what's the purpose of holding their slips? Could it be that you're using the psychometric vibrations from the slip to locate a specific spectator and then reading their mind? In either case, if you were reading their minds or using psychometry to read their mind, you wouldn't need to ask, "Who question is this, please?" before returning the slips. Having to ask this question especially comes into conflict if you use previous effects, such as Seven Keys, that usually use a psychometric presentation. You should already know whose slip it is.

The only logical presentation is that you're not actually reading their minds but displaying the power of clairvoyance. You're answering their questions without being able to see what they wrote. To me, this seems to be a much weaker effect than direct mind-reading.

So, what do you see as the purpose of, or the best way to perform, a Q&A act. And why do you think it's such an effective closer?


Best...

Hi Michael!

Ok, let me try to tell you my thoughts about all this. First, let me say that I use my ThoughtScan routine mostly, which is not a Q & A routine, but a message reading routine. But - I do a Q & A routine on my new videos and use it quite often also.

I am not sure of the routine you mentioned. I am trying to think if I did anything like that on any of my videos. Still, let me try to address the questions.

I do not believe in trying to explain what "power" I am using when I do any routine. I just do it and let the audience wonder. I will say, however, that I often hold items like folded pieces of paper and I see nothing wrong with that. Clarivoyance is far from a "weak" power. As a matter of fact, in many tv dramas, that is exactly what the psychic must do to "feel" vibrations of the murderer, etc. I also don't think that you need to "separate" your powers! You can hold something, appear to gaze off into the wild blue yonder, even stare at it and then do the divination. Let your audience wonder what the heck all the antics are about. They will come up with some pretty interesting theories!

And, by the way, I never use this kind of act as a closer. I always use it in the 4th place of a 5 part show.

Hope that helps.

Richard

PS Yes, you are very close to me!

Richard,

Thank you for taking the time to respond!

I wasn't asking about any routine in particular; just Q&A routines in general.
I'm a perfectionist, so I try and work out every possible angle my audiences may be seeing. I don't do any type of Q&A because I feel it conflicts with other effects.

[quote]
On 2005-07-11 21:05, Richard Osterlind wrote:

Clarivoyance is far from a "weak" power.

[quote]
I agree, but I see it as weaker than direct mind-reading. Which is why I was concerned with using it as a closer. Which is the usual advice given here on the Café; because it's "so strong."

Thanks again.



Maybe we can meet up sometime!

Michael,

I think that a prediction effect is probably the best way to end a mentalism show. You have something you can show the audience with a dramatic motion on your part. When I say "prediction" I am talking in general terms. For instance, my closer is my magazine test. You could take that as a prediction or possibly mind and body control. I don't label it anything when I perform. The important point is you have something to reveal at the end that you can turn into a big closer.

Presentation has everything to do with how effects play. I don't know if any aspect of mentalism is stronger than another. It just depends what you make of it.

Just my thoughts.

Richard

Hm..This may help us in our responses to the omnipresent question of "How did you DO that?" In one respect, I think this is an involuntary response. Richard, you've long insisted "don't explain it as ESP, PK, or whatever - just DO it." I'm GUESSING this forces a spectator to first determine what type of mystery miracle they just saw. In short, I think your impact is doubled because you have thus "misdirected" their focus from "How did he do that?" to "What happened?" They're not confused - they know what they saw - but they may not have the language to describe to themselves what they think they saw.

I'm going to try this tonight at the restaurant. Previously, I've been telling people what I was going to do and labeling it. ("I'm going to try a little mind-reading" or "I'm going to get you to bend this fork.") I'll report either later tonight or tomorrow morning, as to what the differences might have been.

Hmmmmmm............

*jeep!
--Chet

Yeah I think too that not labelling is a great teaching from richard....it makes the effect less heavy for the mind....I'll try to don't label my effects too, like chet....let's see what will happen

THANKS RICHARD!

OK, I'm ready to report. And what an exhausting night it was!

Evidently, just doing it without undue emphasis makes a difference. It seems (since I can't really read minds, I can only say "it seems") that the audience scripts their own script for what isn't handed to them. (I should have remembered this lesson from old time radio drama.) Reactions were good when I did explain (as in "I'm going to try to pick up your thoughts"); reactions were TWICE or more intense when I just TOLD them what was in their minds -- even when I missed by a little bit.

It's obvious I still need to work hard at this; I'm relatively inexperienced after all. But this is an exciting track to follow.

Thanks for the virtual tutoring! Really, Richard, you give away invaluable advice and publish your best material. Don't you keep anything for yourself?

*jeep!
--Chet

Chet,

Actually, that is in my new book. I think when you label something you are inviting the audience to test you. If you say, "OK, now I'm going to read your mind," and then do it, they are likely to say, "Well then do it THIS way!" But if you just DO it, then they have to think, "What did I just see?" and then, "How did he do it - if what I just saw was this - but how did he do it - if what I just saw was that!?" See. There is a certain RICHNESS that you create when you don't say what you are doing. I try to put myself in this frame of mind. Imagine if you had the "powers", but you didn't want anyone to KNOW you had the powers, but just wanted to show them something and you almost tried to COVER UP the powers that you really had! See?

I know that sounds strange, but I know it works.

Richard

Very clear point Richard (and understandable too!). Makes sense. If the rest of your new book has things like this then it will for sure be killer.

Scott