Interesting discussion. My following thoughts are based purely from the standpoint of the method. I do not know Dennis and have nothing to gain or lose in regard to what I am stating.

I understand the importance of "mystery," but is this about entertainment or about trying to convince the audience that we also have "supernatural" power?

I used the concept hundreds of times during a run at a theme park. It is a fooler - but one of the other reasons I enjoyed it was because it was so bold. Also, as has been stated, stage management can put the spectator on your side and keep him there as they become a "star." Believe it or not, some people won't even believe the explanation if it is given, especially if the person being given the explanation has participated in one of the other "legit" (as some of you might contend) demonstrations.

During that theme park run I tripped up once, but I did not ruin my reputation (obviously the venue had much to do with me not being hurt by the situation). I made the best of what could have been a bad situation. So can it happen? Well, it happened to me. But I think most of us have had something go wrong with something at one time or another, whether it be mentalism or "straight" magic.

Is it possible that many of us have had this ruse pulled on us by others and have not even realized it? On the other side of the coin, I hear many magicians saying that the only explanation for effects they can't explain must be this principle to one degree or another.

If we don't realize that successful professionals can and do use the concept, then we have been fooled by it. If we think everyone is using it, we have more to learn.

And as a side note, some of you would have really enjoyed buying effects in the 50 and 60's based on the ad copy! Anyone remember "Richard Himber's Newsweek Production"?

Terry

To justify a book (if you really have to) doesn't take toom muc thinking. The top pros have their own ways of doing it. I have a way if needed, but why do you have to justify it?

Steve Dela

Once again, Mr Joglar has answered all your questions regarding this booktest.
http://www.magicbackstage.blogspot.com/

But did he answer too much? Is it really ethical to explain the workings of another person's creation as he has on his blog?

Terry

Spinatto,
What makes you think that the audience will still be around after you're gone? Not all shows work like that. If fact, most don't. When I perform a public stage show or following a banquet, my performance is the last event and because I have some packing up to do, the audience is usually gone before I get my van loaded and hit the road. The relevance of the Headline was a clue that this is designed for Platform, Banquet, and Stage shows, just like it says. It is not intended to be a walk around close up kind of thing. While you are entitled to your opinion, I can point to hundreds of successful performances in which the problems you suggest are going to befall the performer, just were non-issues. Didn't happen. Not once. Just as U.F. Grant and John Murray originally stated in their instructions for Dyna. I've not hear any reports that these difficulties befell performers that used Tony Raven's Necromantic Grimoire Book test, which also uses the same principle. And Al Mann, a pretty savy mentalist also marketed a book test based on the same principle. I don't think he was the kind of guy that want to try to rip off magicians by selling them something that doesn't work. Your comment about magicians is a very poor example. All magicians react very differently than lay people.

I repeat: I have personal experience with the principle. So Does Tony Chaudhuri, although not as much. So did Tony Raven, Al Mann, and John Murray. Bill Palmer and David Alexander are working performers that have used book tests for years. David bought mine, knowing exactly what he was getting. Bill's review is at the top of this thread. You simply claim that they are ALL wrong... that you know better.

Your opinion is based on just what you speculate is going to happen. Nothing more. You are so absolutely sure that you are right that you simply write off the opinions of those that have actually done it!

In the right venue, for the right audience, this is one of the strongest things that I do. And, in the wrong venue, for the wrong audience, I have enough sense not to do it. This is true of many magical effects. Many good tricks can only be performed when the angles are correct, or for the right age group, or for more intelligent audiences. A part of being a good performer is knowing what effect to do in a particular venue. That's why this is not the only book test in my repertoire. This thread is not the place for that discussion, but the ad points you away from doing this in intimate and close-up situations by telling you that my book test designed for that kind of work is on the way. And, it is.
Denny Loomis

Terry,
Magicians ethics? What's that? I used to think that they existed. But, over the years, that idea has been really hard to believe in. I was one of a small group (relatively) world wide that obtained the rights to perform Robert Harbin's Zig Zag Girl Illusion. If ever anyone tried to protect his body of work, it was Harbin. He put all the good stuff into a book and sold it for what was back then a large sum of money. ONLY the purchasers of the book could make and perform the illusions and smaller magic. We had to sign a secrecy agreement. I believe that I was the third magician to perform the Zig Zag on the North American Continent. The second one was Doug Henning, and we were good friends and he helped with the construction of mine! Amazingly, the first guy, whose name I will not mention publicy, did not have the rights! He saw a TV performance by Harbin and built it. He did not even know the full secret and built it incorrectly!

Today, all of the "ethical" magic companies build Zig Zags. I've seen them sitting in the showrooms of many of the illusion builders. I quit doing it years ago because for a time it was in almost every magic show. This is just one sad story of the disregard for ethics in the magic community. There are dozens and dozens more just like it. We virtually lost the creative genius of Steve Dusheck because so many of his ideas were ripped off that he just stopped trying to create and sell magic. What a shame. Thank Goodness that Jim Steinmeyer has hung in there. He has been deprived of hundreds of legitimate royalties for his wonderful Origami Box illusions because so many builders have just helped themselves to it.

Ah, but it's time to get off the soap box and get back to work on the new book test.

Denny Loomis

Denny;

You're confusing my comments with those of someone else. I made no mention of walk around or misleading advertising. My b.itch is simply about the method, your use of an instant stooge and the violation of SAM's #1 Code of Ethics which states, and I quote:

"Oppose the willful exposure to the public of any principles of the Art of Magic, or the methods employed in any magic effect or illusion."

And that's exactly what happens when you pass this book out to a complete stranger. I again refer you to Mr Joglar's review which IMHO is 1000% accurate. It can be found here: http://www.magicbackstage.blogspot.com/

And please don't preach to me about spectator management. That's simply BS and a poor excuse to justify the method used.

In regard to U.F. Grant and Mr Murray: they performed in the 40's. IT'S 2005! Audiences are much more sophisticated today. Hell, back then you could actually convince an audience that you were REALLY pulling off your finger when in reality it was your thumb.

Again, your effect is not for real world performers. Just try this trick in a comedy club setting and let me know how long it takes before some smartasss yells out the method. Then what? That's why I'll stick with Flashback, MOAB or ANY other booktest that can easily be handled.

It is certainly for real world performers, based on the fact that real world performers have used it, and from their comments, will continue to use it.

As to the setting issue you mention (a comedy club setting), Denny addressed that in his post:



I am thinking twice, however, re: your exposure comments.

Re: Exposure. Many, many performers use stooges and feel that letting in a single person to fool many is an acceptable technique. Annemann said that he would use several stooges to fool one person. But that's a judgement call. If you don't feel that way, you are entitled to your opinion.

What about the balls over the head as popularized by Slydini and done by hundreds of others. In the name of entertainment, this simple technique is exposed to the entire audience except for the one person on stage. How do you feel about that?

The Dyna principle is pretty much unique. The person that finds out how it is done will not be able to figure out other tricks because of that knowledge. The "exposure" of this simple contrivance to ONE person in order to fool hundreds is an extremely small price to pay. I don't think that even for the person involved it means anything like undermining the rest of my show. I find that suggestion to be insulting. If this person had a good time, he's not going to forget that. He has one magic secret, sure, but so does anyone that opens up a magic book in a library or bookstore. He knows that you use gimmicks, but then 99% of the audience assumes that anyway. And, I am not of the school that attempts to create the impression that Mentalism is REAL and I have supernatural powers of some kind. In fact, I consider that to be highly unethical. David Hoy had it right... he labeled himself a fraud right at the beginning. Copperfield and Blaine and Chris Angel use the word "Illusion" all the time. So, if you do the Dynamite Book test, ONE spectator finds out that yes, magicians do use gimmicks. So What? Your continuing suggestions that this somehow undermines and destroys the entire performance is laughable. On several occasions when I was performing Dyna, I used the guy that hired me. And, most of them hired me again. Does that sound like my credibility was destroyed?

Laymen know a lot more that we give them credit for. The term "palming" is used by lay people and they have a general understanding that card sharps and magicians hide things in their hands. And still, most of us fool them anew using the principle they are aware of.

Spinnato, I am sorry that we cannot see eye to eye. You continue to insist that the thing is just not doable while many of us have done it and are continuing to. What does that say about your credibility?


Denny Loomis

Denny;

For some unknown reason I just can't seem to let this go. I've purchased many items over the years that haven't met with my approval but for some reason this Dynamite Book Test of yours is just a thorn in my side. It's exposure in the clearest form and it WILL undermine the rest of your performance inspite of what you may think. Also, I totally disagree with your opinion of the spectator being quiet about the method simply because he had a good time. Bull!

That's it. I'm done with this topic.

Best wishes-

It may be a "circle of pros"

John

Recently I was reading about cargo cults.
It's weird, somehow they convinced themselves that if they kept making those bamboo planes, more cargo would arrive.
People can convince themselves about a lot of things especially if they can't stop doing them.


A.

Can I jump in here for a second?

How many here, work primarly in the mentalist arena, as opposed to the mental magic area?

I would be interested in hearing from someone who works soly in the land of the nail writer/billet.

I use book tests, While I own MOAB, and Double Vision, the ones I use are three idential books with two different covers. Took me about an hour to make up.

That said, I am wondering if those who have had success with this sort of gaffed book work primarly in the mentalist arena.

The comments of Earle, or Maven for example, would, for me at least, carry far more weight than a magician, pro or other wise, who incorporates some mental magic into his/her performances.

Does this make sense?

To Mindguy,
I just got very tired of this thread and have not visited it in months. And so I have not commented on your post of 6+ months ago.

I find the distinction between Mentalism and Mental Magic to be very arbitrary. There are some mentalists (I'm not talking about you) that are quite condescending towards magicians and contend that magicians just don't "get" mentalism. They feel that what they do is somehow superior and requires more refined thinking, etc.

I disagree very much. Mentalism is a branch of magic. A magician, after all, is someone that performs illusions as a form of entertainment. When I do my show, I make a rabbit appear. I can't really materialize a rabbit or anything else... I perform the illusion of materialization. At other times I perform an illusion of violating gravity (levitation), passing solid objects thru each other (penetration), or I create the illusion of destroying something and bringing it back. (restoration) The principles have been around for thousands of years.

I also may create the illusion that I am telepathic, clairvoyant, or able to move or bend objects through a sheer force of will. The principles are the same ones that are employed in the creation of physical illusions, in many cases. I see no important distinction between Mental Magic and Mentalism. Some performers are perfectly willing to admit that what they are doing is not real. Most magicians would not claim that they can actually materialize a living breathing rabbit. Mentalists find that many audiences want to believe in their abilities and prefer to be very vague about this. David Hoy felt this was unethical. I do too, but do not criticise those performers that want to keep the waters muddy. I am critical of the ones that claim actual supernatural powers. (Uri Geller, for instance.)

While I respect Max Maven very much (he's a genius in my opinion) I do not value his opinion more in the field of Mental Magic or Mentalism because he primarilly performs that. He has vast knowledge in many other areas of magic and magic history and that fact is partly why I respect him so much.

For those that are interested, the 2nd book test in my series is now at the printers. (Titled the Wicked Stepmother's Book Test.) But don't expect to see it on the market for a while because as soon as the books arrive, a group of beta testers will be doing it in the real world for the purpose of helping me to write the directions. We do hope to make these instructions as thorough as possible. As has been planned all along, one of the books in the new effect matches exactly (as far as the size and cover) one of the books in the Dynamite effect. That allows switching the books for a variety of nefarious reasons. One of which is to leave what appears to be the book used in Dynamite laying around after the show for anyone that want to pick it up and look at it. They won't find anything in a casual inspection, of course.

Dennis Loomis

Well said, Dennis. Mentalism is just magic for 'grown-ups' - simple as that. And as a sub-class of 'magic', any 'magician' can (and should) take part.

When was the last time you saw a Pro Mentalist doing card tricks? Well, actually, it was Max Maven. On TV, no less. So there seems to be no broblem with these people performing magic then.

Is there really anybody out there that 'jumped' straight into mentalism, without going through magic? I doubt it very much, because mentalism is embedded in magic.

I bought the 'Dynamite Book Test' last week (3 book version) - as long as the included 4th book is read properly, and then read again, people should have no problems with the effect. Just remember, it's not a 'freinds-and-family' type thing.


Dr. Zordas

On 2006-07-05 05:58, Dr. Zordas wrote:


I have to disagree to a certain extent.

A "sub class"?

Really?

This gives me the impression that you might consider mentalism to be easier to master than "magic". Technically perhaps, but a good mentalist will project far more character than a "magician" will. A friend at the Coventry Magic Circle proceeded to show me how to do a peek using a paper back book. Technically it was acceptable, but he gave the whole thing away with the glimpse he gave, it's a pity his eye sockets and head couldn't swivel just a bit more over his shoulder...It gave the game away.

He knows the moves, but doesn't have the persona to carry it above the arena of magican doing a mentalist "trick".

This is different from a mentalist doing a book/word test with the believeability of someone who knows how the human mind works.

There's less for me to unlearn. The term Magicians's guilt is a real worry. Lee Earle mentions this a bit in his Syzygy lectures. "Magic for grown ups"? Don't think so.

You left out Richard Osterlind. Keep in mind that these two from what I've seen, use cards as the exception rather than the rule.



Mentalism is different than magic. I know as I speak from experience. I avoided sponge balls, Elmsley counts etc. Mentalism is different thatn magic, e.g., when you cut a woman in half, or put someone in a zig zag cabient, you know that no matter how Copperfield stages things for example, the blood is fake and the woman or even himself is gonna be all right.

Mentalism is wire walking without a net, or in some cases, without a wire. Too many things can go wrong, there's no "run rabbit run" to fall back on if 4th Dimensional Telepathy, or Banknight falls flat on its face, for example. The element of chance and uncertainty is greater IMO than most things that magicians have to deal with, with the possible of a couple of Las Vegas tigers.

There is certainly a very different dynamic in mentalism vs. magic in the general sense of the word. There are striking differences in how they are performed and the methodology employed in effects. I would agree that using “cards” is the exception rather than the rule in mentalism, but that does not mean it doesn’t work—obviously.

There is also a very different mind-set when you work in mentalism and herein is part of the problem that I have with this particular book test. Frankly, I don’t like it at all; to me, it is as far removed from mentalism as you can get with a book test.

Yes, done properly, it will look good. But you’d be hard pressed to get away with it for very long. It isn’t, in my opinion, a reputation builder; to the contrary, it could very easily jeopardize your reputation.

My goal here isn’t to be rude to you Mr. Loomis; this isn’t a personal attack against you or your particular take on creativity. But, when a client ordered this book test I made the mistake of not being more informed about it ahead of time. When it arrived he returned it immediately stating that it, well, was… I’ll not repeat what he said.

I gave him a refund without hesitation and will not carry the product for obvious reasons. I honestly feel that this book test is nothing of the sort; the process of making someone an instant stooge is a horrific example of myopic thinking at its finest; I am truly disappointed that so many “pros” would give it their endorsement Mr. Loomis, because, with as much respect as I can give a dissenting view like this, it is a product that will do more damage than good.

When friends will not tell you the truth, objective and ****ytically verifiable proof that can be qualitatively discovered through investigation of audience members and the general public’s view of our art, they are doing you (and the rest of us) a massive disservice.

What I love about some of the other working pros out there is that they will not hesitate to tell me if our book tests are not being done properly; we have great ideas for book tests all the time, but quite frankly, only a handful of them are worth releasing and it is quite possible we can even screw that up.

The key is not getting upset about it and not taking constructive criticism personally and then doing the right thing.

If it were a product that we had put out, I personally would have it pulled and would never sell it again. As a producer of book tests, I honestly feel you are hurting people with this product Mr. Loomis.

That may seem harsh, but it is very true to me and countless others.

Respectfully,

James

-----------------------------------------------
James L. Clark, Snr.
MBA, MSc., PhD Candidate
President, Blacks Magic Group, Inc.
http://www.blacksmagicgroup.com
Toll Free: 877-877-7878
Beverly Hills: 310-728-6042
New York: 646-290-8442
London: 0207 101 9339
Duns No: 613016760
EIN: 74-3170865
Sales Permit No: 853572

To Doiron,
The phrase "The Ultimate Platform, Banquet, and Stage Book Test" was not an endorsement, but one of three hints I put into the ad to try to tell informed magicians and mentalists exactly what the method was. If I had it to do over again, I would have just stated outright that the method was an impromptu stooge. Let me mention the other two hints. There is a mentalism principle called the "Dyna" principle which was created by UF Grant and used in his effect: Dyna. I perfomed this many, many times in an act I created in 1961 called the Powers of the Mind. In the Grant effect, it was a single page which you pasted into a Reader's Digest Magazine. And so the title of my book test was a hint: Dynamite... Dyna. But Grant and I were not the only ones to use this method. It was included in an Al Mann Book test and also in one marketed by Tony Raven. All three of these were on the market and used by many long before I put out Dynamite. It was my idea to expand the effect to three books, so that you had a free choice of the book and a free choice of any page.
And so, the title, and the section you did not quote in your review were the first two hints. In retrospect, it becomes clear that I was too subtle. People did not pick up on these things, although Max Maven, (who got an advance copy) did know about the Dyna principle.

Before I explain the third hint, I have to mention a little something about English Grammar. Because upon this understanding is based the fact that many people, such as yourself, Danny, misread my wording. I intended one thing, and have been accused of the exact opposite. So here goes: it's called Klaver's Law and it states that "It is unnecessary and therefore improper to use an adjective to modify a noun if no other comparable adjectives apply." It was posited by Dr. Peter Klaver, and I was fortunate to study English Composition under him at the University of Michigan. The old, classic example was that you should not say RED FIRE TRUCK, because all Fire Trucks are red. Some of you may recall a little patter piece that both Blackstone Sr and Jr did based on the fact that all fire trucks are red. Of course, in todays world we have yellow and red fire trucks so the old example is no longer valid. But the rule still stands. But many examples still exist. You would not say "big Semi Truck" because all Semi Trucks are big.

How does this apply to the ad for Dynamite? When "we" (yes I had an ad writer, but I'm not hiding behind him... I accept the responsibility because it was my product and I approved and paid for the ad,) penned the phrase "prearranged stooge" it was intended as a hint. If we had said the effect does not use a stooge, it would have been blatantly dishonest. Because of Klaver's law, the inclusion of the word "prearranged" as an adjective means, inherently, there do exist other adjectives that could apply. And, of course, the one that does is "impromptu." Without stating it outright, I was trying to say that an impromptu stooge was involved.

You can say that taking out the phrase referring to a Platform, Banquet, or Stage effect is irrelevent. But your main point was that if another spectator looked over the assisting spectators shoulder and saw the book, they would see the method. And that's exactly why the ad was intended to suggest that this was not intended for intimate situations. On a platform or state, your spectator will not be alongside of other spectators. When you took that out, you undercut an important part of the ad, and that was particularly grevious because you stated in your review that you included the entire ad.

I performed Dyna dozens and dozens of times, always using it when it was appropriate and it was the strongest thing in my act and I never had any trouble. That's the truth. Many of you that have not studied the instructions and have never done it condem it. In the face of empirical evidence from those that have used it, this is just silly. You also stated in your ad that I did not give refunds. I have no idea how you got that impression and I have refunded the money of the customers that contacted me, asked for the refund, and send the product back.

I would have done so for you, had you asked.

In January or February my new book test will be released. It has been 2 years in the making and will contain a lot of new work combined with tried and true methods of mentalism and magic. It was in the planning even while I was finishing Dynamite and is designed to be used in intimate situations, although it certainly can be used on stage as well. The book will pass "performance" inspection meaning that a spectator can leaf through it a lot. The ads will tell you the methods and also have a link to my web site where the entire instructions will be on a password protected page (to keep out lay people) so that potential buyers can find out exactly what they are getting before hand.

Finally, I will quote Former Senator Patrick Moynihan: You are most certainly entitled to your opinion. You are not entitled to your own facts. The fact is, Danny that you left out an important part of the ad. So important, that except for the title I put it in the largest type font on the page.

Dennis Loomis

"In January or February my new book test will be released. It has been 2 years in the making and will contain a lot of new work combined with tried and true methods of mentalism and magic."

Here we go .... this will be the talk of the Café in a couple of months and not in a good way.

Josh (owner of MOAB)

Two comments, one autobiographical, the other not. I myself would never use an effect employing this method. To my mind, it's way too risky. Second: How many performers would choose to purchase this book test if they knew in advance how it works? I think very few would. But of course I may be wrong. But I don't think I am.