The one thing I love and hate about the Magic Café is the vast army of "armchair experts" who know how everything works the minute they read a description of it. Not only do they know how everything works, they know what will work on stage, in the parlor, and at home.

The thread at http://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/viewt......9&24 is a perfect example of this. Only ONE person who has posted to this thread actually knows how the book test works. That is Dennis Loomis. The rest of them have no idea at all. Not only that, at least one of them has demonstrated his total ignorance of how to manage the props and people during a book test. I won't even dignify his comments by mentioning his name.

So, what do you get for the money? You get four books -- the three that are used in the test and the instruction booklet.

The book test works exactly as described on several different web sites. The spectator -- completely unprepared in any way -- comes up to the stage. The spectator freely selects any one of the three books. One is a computer manual, the second is a detective story, and the third, a travel guide. The magician may be blindfolded. And the blindfold is a genuine one.

There is one statement in the description that I have seen on various sites that isn't completely accurate. This is the statement that the spectator is asked to think of a page number. He doesn't have to do this at all. He can simply turn to any page. He is asked to look at the first word on the page. The magician divines this word.

He is then asked to look at the last word on the page. Again, the magician divines the word. Finally, he is asked to look at any other word on the page, and the magician reveals that word as well.

I would find this item best suited to the stage, but suitable for a large gathering as well.

It will require a certain amount of spectator management and prop management. All you need to know is detailed in the instructions.

There is also some very important information on how to work with book tests.

I collect book tests. I own most of those that have been marketed in recent years, and have had the opportunity to examine most of the others while staying at Ted Lesley's place.

This one does everything that has been described in the ads.

If you are the kind of magician who leaves his props lying around his house or his stage, or you are the kind of fellow who is like the magician Al Baker described in Magical Ways and Means, who nearly killed the hero of the playlet the troupe did between acts, because he used the real dagger instead of the rubber dagger, because the rubber dagger could not be passed for examination, then this book test is not for you.

But you really can't do that with most of the book tests on the market, anyway. These are specially printed books. As such, they make very dull reading. But as tools to use in a book test, they are sure-fire.

I could easily see using this in a stage act.

Is it worth the money?

It is, if you are a working performer.

I also have to say that Dennis has done a yeoman job of crediting and polishing. He traces the history of the principle used in this test as far back as it goes. It worked well then -- and it will work even better now.

Thanks for taking the time to thoroughly review and share this, Bill!

Thank you Bill. Can't tell you how much I appreciate this evaluation from a working performer, an expert in book tests, and somehow that has the props and instructions is his hands.
Denny Loomis

I think we have a dual reality in this thread and the other posts regarding this book test.

From my personal standpoint - and I think from the view of most of the posters in the other thread - there is no criticism levied against Dennis' new book test. Nor did I find a group of "know-it-all" armchair experts. What I found - and what I consider myself to be - are people who really love book tests. Among the various book tests there are different types. Some can be examined. Some cannot be. Some rely on certain principles, and some rely on others. Some are for stage use, others one-on-one, others parlor. The afficionado is always intrigued with knowing the forum for which the book test is designed and whether a new method has been offered.

So all I saw in the earlier posts on this topic were a group of people who love the topic and are excited about speculating whether they will be intrigued by the method or not. Whether one is intrigued depends on what one particularly likes to find in their book tests.

Bill Palmer's review is very helpful because it lets most of us know into what genre this book test falls.

Gianni

Is it possible to adapt this great book test to another language?

Gianni:

What I saw were a bunch of uninformed speculators who revealed their ignorance by the nature of the postings.

So maybe there is a triple reality here.

I have commented on this tendency in my "column." I watched "The Abyss" being torn apart for almost a week before anyone actually purchased one and reviewed it. I called Hocus-pocus, purchased the item AFTER Paul told me what it was. NOBODY who was involved in the speculation was anywhere close.

Your postings in particular that stated

gave me the feeling that you were not writing from the standpoint of a person who actually regularly does book tests in a professional performing context. I have done book tests for decades, and I have never once had anyone ask to examine the books. PERIOD.

Part of this is due to very astute spectator and prop management. Part of it is due to routining. With proper routining, there is no opportunity for anyone to grab the books and examine them.

And part of it is because I do understand how to make a book test look like genuine mindreading. This is something that I learned on my own, before I worked with Punx. When we got together for the first time, after the publication of MAFT, we discussed the "realities" of book tests, and how to make them look like the real thing. We were both pointed down the same road.

But that is not a topic for this part of the forum.

Bill: I respect your performing experience and the way you handle your effects, audience and act. I appreciate your success.

Now, why would I be begrudged if I have a certain approach and criteria I want in my effects? My posting should stir no ire, nor condescension. I simply choose to want to eliminate certain speculation from the audience's mind, speculation that I would have in my own mind if I were viewing the effect. I have enormous respect for people experienced in their field, like you. Great experience trumps a lot. But it doesn't trump me in wanting to present effects I do - and I do them for paying audiences - the way I want, under the conditions I want.

Gianni

To Kjellstrom,
Certainly the Dynamite Book Test could be printed in other languages. The question would be is it economically feasible? I might even be willing to pursue that myself if there appears to be enough interest. Or, if someone is interested in taking it on as a project, they can contact me and we can discuss the royalties. What language would you be interested in?

To Gianni,
No one would argue with your right to set the criteria for your own performances. You are free to buy an item or not. But you took your own uninformed opinion and said that my new effect might not be worthwhile. (If it can't be examined.) I'll bet that Bill and I can list 20 book tests and hundreds of mentalism and magic effects which can't be examined. Many are used daily by working performers to earn their living. If that's not worthwhile, I don't know what is. I worked very hard and took the experience of a lot of years onstage and produced a product for my fellow magicians and mentalists to use. There is not a lot of profit here. Remember, the vast majority of my sales are to distributors. They buy them at 60% off the retail amount, take a cut of 20 to 25% (Of the retail) and resale them to retailers. The retailers have to about double the amount they pay in order to have a viable business. (Given that they have a lot of overhead involved in their business.) Given that each $75.00 set contains three different books that had to be designed, laid out, and printed, and the instructions, and I get only 40% of that, you can see that I'm not doing this for the money. The photos on the covers of the books are all taken by professional photographer and graphics designer Larry Utley. He and I traveled to San Francisco (From the Walnut Creek area) and spent three or four hours shooting pictures for just the travel guide. (Another little secret: if you look very closely at one of the Cable Car Photos on the back, you will see me in the crowd or people getting off the cable car.)

Believe me, I make a lot more money as a performer than I do creating and selling props and books. My good friend, fantastic performer, and able writer, Gene Anderson, contributed dozens of hours of his time helping me edit and rewrite the Instruction booklet. To try to share everything we could, and to get everything clear, the 14 page book went through 10 drafts! Gene didn't charge me a thing. (Well... I sent him one.) But, I'll be helping with his big upcoming book project in return. We did this so that relatively young and inexperienced performers could take this and do it in the real world. There are lots of things explained that will apply to other book tests, and other pieces of mentalism and magic. I also did a lot of research on the origins of the principles involved. Besides Gene, I consulted with Max Maven, Chuck Mignosa (Former Psychic Entertainers Association President) Loyd Auerbach (Current Psychic Entertainers Association President) proofreader and cruise ship entertainer Serena Lumiere, Profession Magician Tom Allen, and several others, gathering the material.

I do not know you, and I'm not angry. But, I would suggest that before you suggest that something is "not worthwhile" you think beyond your own limitations. It would have been far more approriate to say that you are a "purist" and don't use gimmicked equipment.

Denny Loomis
P.S. Based on early sales, a LOT of people find this worthwhile.

"I do not know you, and I'm not angry. But, I would suggest that before you suggest that something is "not worthwhile" you think beyond your own limitations. It would have been far more approriate to say that you are a "purist" and don't use gimmicked equipment.

Denny Loomis
P.S. Based on early sales, a LOT of people find this worthwhile."

Dennis: would it help if I simply said it was not worthwhile TO ME, which is what I intended in the first place? It is simply not something I care for. And I'll add congratulations on your sales. I wish you success. By all accounts you are a gentleman and a fine performer and admired in this business. But I need not retreat in stating the things I like and the things I don't care for. The tension in this thread is not warranted.

Gianni

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gianni,
Yes, it would have helped a lot.
Denny

Gianni,
Perhaps my use of the word "uninformed" was what you interpreted as tension. If I could I would go back and use a different word, because it does sound kind of angry. But, it's too late for that. Just understand that I was being very literal, not judgemental. You have admitted that you have not seen this performed, you have not had the books in your hands, and you haven't read the instructions. That's what I meant by being uninformed.

As magicians and mentalists we work hard to control what the audience thinks. That's a result of what we say and do. There is a lot going on in this routine that you do not understand, and couldn't from the ad. Believe me when I tell you that when performing the predecessor (which is not as deceptive or clean from the audience's standpoint) I always got great responses. It was hard to follow. And, as Bill says, performers that use book tests know that laypeople seldom ever ask to examine the books. Magicians and mentalists know about "special" books. Lay people do tend to accept books at face value. But, for example, there's a big section in the instruction booklet on how to create the idea that borrowed books are being used. Several ideas of different ways are presented, and I send the readers to a couple of other DVDs where Mark Chelman and Richard Osterlind do that, too. (Although I must admit to being very fond of my own version, which I developed with the help of Tom Allen.) You didn't know that did you? Does that change your thinking at all? Do you think that a layperson would view the effect the same if he really believed that the books were borrowed? Hardly. Does it now occur to you that there may be a lot more in the instructions than are in the ad?

Denny Loomis

Denny,
You have handled this very well.
man...sometimes it is so *** hard to make a living

I for one have ordered your book test based on recomendation from someone that is a working performer whose opinion I respect. He told me that the dynamite book test was an excellent way for someone new to booktest mentalism and actually wants to perform it professionally as myself to learn the psychology and workings of book test mentalism without breaking my bank. I look forward to working with it and posting further review.

Thanks, jonnyb,
Hope that it serves you well. Let me know if I can be of any help.
Denny Loomis

The magic Café is shooting itself in the foot. I think the key word in one of Bill's posts is "speculation." I do not believe most people are "speculating" in an attempt to determine if the product is right for their performing style, genre of venues, or travel requirements. Most people are specualting because they want to figure out how it is done and not have to pay the fair price set by the creator. We see this whenever a new magic TV show comes out ("er, I'm just interest in the historical lineage of these KINDS of effects" -yeah, right), and we see it whenever a new product comes in.

And it is having its repurcussions. A friend of mine has the best Card through Window I have ever seen. Jaw dropping AND practical. I was talking to him about releasing it and showed him the Café. He took one look at the Icarus thread and said, "They are a bunch of hyenas." His decision was not to release the trick. (Well, sort of. But it will not be done in a usual way.)

Because of this "let's figure the trick out by group speculation so none of us have to buy it to see how it works attitude," some creators are deciding to hold back.

We should respect people like Dennis who have chosen to offer their labors for our benefit and not play these children's guessing games that - accurate or not - are no thank you for someone's support of the art.

Brad Henderson

Brad,

I'm usually with you on your opinions but one statement in your opinion in the above post has me scratching my head and saying "HUH?". ("Because of this "let's figure the trick out by group speculation so none of us have to buy it to see how it works attitude," some creators are deciding to hold back.") How does people speculating about how an effect they don't own reveal the secret working of that effect? All of the speculation is just that, speculation. And, at the end of the day, all of the speculation in the world could be "incorrect solution" and, even if correct, how would anyone ever know?

Rather, my issue with all this endless speculation is that it dilutes the value of the Café forum pages. When person after person comes on and gives a speculation (however clever and disguised it might be), it wastes space and caues me to get frustrated as I wade through page after page of worthless chatter as I try to glean enough sufficient relvant information on whether or not to buy an item. Lots of times, I just give up after wading through 5-6 pages of worthless pap and I go on to "bigger and better things". The Magic Café clearly states that the "The Good, the Bad, and the Garbage" is for reviews of these items, NOT for idle speculation.

But, IMHO, it is not idle speculation if a person is, in good faith, trying to determine actual performance conditions for an item or effect. Too often we have all been burned by the clever obfuscating ads that intentionally and deliberately leave out key information in their efforts to sell the item or effect. In many many instances, it is only after you buy the item that you learn of the severe impracticality of the item or effect. (i.e., angles are critical and effect must be performed straight on, can only be performed for one or two people at a time, resets takes a 15 minute trip to the bathroom, cannot be performed under bight lights, etc.) Worse yet are the ads that charge you $80.00 to "keep the secret out of the hands of the "merely" curious". After buying the "secret", you find out that you got stung and just purchased the most expensive piece of IT or DB card or cheaply made prop that was ever assembled for sale or that you just purchases an extremely derivative effect with little or no difference from an already published effect. So, to this extent, reviews are valuable.

Mike

Mike,

I contend that SOME people may be sincerely interested in trying to determine if an effect is right for them. But I also am reasonably convinced (based on a poster's history and other statements) that MANY may just want to know how it is done.

Does idle speculation without confirmation hurt anything? Well, I would ask, what good does it do? Is it a nice thing to do? Does innacurate guessing encourage sales? Does this behavior encourage people to come up with something close and make it up themselves (when possible)?

Many magicians here believe, as they have stated, that once they figure out the secret they shouldnot have to pay for the trick since (as per the magic shop adage) you are paying for a secret.

Some one comes up with a great color change and posts a video. The hyenas start putting pieces together. Each one has a little idea. Of course, not one of them on their own would have ever thought of the creator's idea. I know that - because they DIDN'T. But together they figure out something that at least looks similar and now they feel that they owe the creator nothing.

Well, you know, they would have never started to think about the trick had it not been for the work of a truly creative magician, and I think they owe him (or her).

Now, I'm all for improvements and variations when they are warranted - but shouldn't you have bought the item you are varying before you release your handling, which is essentially what an online post would do?

So, if someone comes on and asks - "Hey, I only use unprepared materials, am I buying a gaff or a method?" that is a fair question. But to start deconstructing types of gaffs and trying to replicate the effect - yes or no - does not always encourage future contributions from the creators.

Case in point, on a different forum a VERY creative magician posted a link of his color change and specifically asked it not be deconstructed. Clearly he does not care for it. My friend was appalled by what he saw here and did not want his work subjected to the vultures of public deconstruction.

Lastly, people do nto read carefully. They are interested in a trick, glance at a thread, and see all of these people talking as if they know what they are saying. They see words like "not worth it" or "same word on each page" or whatever and decide, "I'm not going ot buy that" Which IS unfair and DOES hurt.

MAgic ads should be careful in what they promise and people should be careful with what they say. And I am not without sin. I made a statement based on something a close friend had told me about a product. He was wrong and I was wrong. But I retracted.

So what harms does it do? For one thing, it is encouraging creative people to hold back and share selectively. It's the made bed in which we are now sleeping.

Shouldn't all this speculation about speculation go to another thread? Last time I checked this was a thread about reviewing "dynamite book test".

Thanks, again jonnyb.

I'm pretty thick skinned and none of this has hurt my feedlings or upset me. However, what has happened on this thread and the other goes beyond speculation as to conditions of workability and methodology. The effect has been labeled worthless and "not worthwhile" by two of the speculators. Under the guise of freedom of expression, they state their own opinions as if they carried some weight. If they had said: I've never seen this performed, I haven't seen the props, I haven't read the instructions, but my opinion is: xxxx then all of the readers would know that they are just uninformed individuals with little to do but waste your time with an opinion based on nothing real.

I was pleased to get a phone call from David Alexander this morning. He's a busy and successful working performer of many years standing. He called to order the Book Test. Before I would accept his credit card, I told him exactly what he was getting. He still wanted it, and I'm shipping it to him this afternoon.

If you want the real story, read Bill Palmer's review above.

There was another big hint in the ad, now that I think about it. You know that you are buying three books. If the book test was unprepared, you would be buying instructions only. Admittedly I had a good copy writer write the ad. It is designed to sell the effect. But there is not a single false statement. The complete ad copy will be in the ad in the November MAGIC. Hocus Pocus did edit it a bit. In particular, right up at the top, under the name, it says: The Ultimate Stage, Banquet, and Platform Book test.

Denny Loomis

P.S. I will be starting a page on my website as an after service to purchasers. Bill Palmer had a great idea on a part of the presentation which I'll share there, and Devon Knight called to tell me about another use of the principle that I was unaware of. It was a book test produced by Al Mann. He only had 50 of them printed and they are long since unobtainable. But, when/if we reprint the instructions I'll credit that as well. Right now, it's the only version of the four I'm aware of using the principle that is available. And, it has significant improvements over the three.

Yes and no. Bill's review was predicated on the specualtion issues, so I think it is worthy to address. But you are right, if we wish to continue that line of thought, it is better placed elsewhere.

Bill started it.