Ask anyone "What's a card trick?" and they'll tell you. Ask them " What's mind reading?" and they'll tell you.
Ask someone....."What's a book test?" and see what they say....
I'd never heard the term until I started reading about Mentalism.
Soooo....What's the purpose of a book test?
Thanks
Dave

Entertainment? A book test is a way for a mentalist or magician to illustrate her "mind reading" abilities in a (hopefully) entertaining manner.

I have never and would never call the performance of a book test a "book test".

It is a pyschic demonstration or something like that. To me, the phrase book test is merely shorthand for describing an effect where a word selected from a book is divined.

Put another way, I don't think you can equate "book test" with "card trick". Who remembers their SATs? I think something more along these lines: a "book test" is to a "pychic demonstration" as "ambitious card" is to "card trick".

I never say book test just as I never say ambitious card.

A book test is a way of decreasing the mentalists odds at success....

LOL....
Carlos is right with the comparison. However...How did book tests get started? Somewhere in the back of my mind I remember reading the perfect answer to this, I just don't remember the answer. It has to do with the book's writer and other things that are pertinent to the situation....Not just....The first word on page 212 is GO...Know what I mean?

A book test is a good way to make money from mentalists.

Jim

H.O.A-X

Well. In my demonstrations I use the theory of memory as a form of a super mental feat and as such I can memorize whats on every page yadda yadda. I also have been known to use the theory of focusing a thought and bringing it to the surface/ "Our minds hold a lot of data so to detect a thouoght sometimes it's easier to focus the mind on one word or phrase..."


Posted: Jul 10, 2006 8:39pm
---------------------------------------------
Seriously could you imagine how boring of a show it would be if it was just me and 400 people? Think of a word. Got it. Think of a name. Got it....

As one of my good friends often reminded me way back...

You have two royal roads, two major schools if you will - OVERCLOUD and OVEREMPHASIS


The first is more the school following the teachings of the grand founder of the old "E Pluribus Unum" school, Alainus Bellonibus.

The second is from the old school of "Real X Medianicosis" and follows the teachings of the founder and grand master Gustamara Adelphi Rollov.

Both ways are good, both work.

People who deny that both ways work, do that just because they strictly learned to present and to abide blindly to ONE WAY ONLY, and have refused a priori to embrace the other way too.

Of course you don't call it a book test; you can call it an "interesting demonstration." If a mentalist predicts something that is thought of or that will occur in the future, he (or she) may need a way of proving that he has made a correct prediction--hence the book. It's documentation of the successful reading of a mind or prediction of the a future event. Certainly, a mentalist can use some other type of documentation, but a book is handy and accepted by an audience as an non-tricky item of everyday use. I like book tests.

Its a tax on the stupid

Who did the first book tests, and Why?

No, I wouldn't call it a book test if speaking to a laymen. No one wants to take a test.

I use books for a demonstration of my ability to speed read or "scan" a book very quickly and/or a memory demonstration. I don't call it "mind reading."

John

Jim,
That gave me a good laugh, never a truer word spoken.

Also just for my 2 cents worth, book tests that are for only 1 or 2 words are pointless, PCT or peek of their own word is just as good and more personal. If you gonna do ....yuk... a book test get a paragraph out of it , not just a word.

regards

steve


still chuckling at Jim's comment

If you are using the Hoy book test, then the Hoy book test is the shortest distance between the mentalist and the business card in the spec's hand.

The "book test" was not invented by magicians; it was acquired from British actress and medium Gladys Osborne Leonard, through her work with the Society for Psychical Research in the early part of the twentieth century. The first book test was supposedly suggested by Mrs. Leonard's spirit guide, Feda. In a successful test, a "spirit" would direct a sitter to retrieve, say, the ninth book from the left on the third shelf down. Upon opening the book to a page named by the spirit, the sitter would discover that the text made reference to something that would only be significant to the sitter and the spirit. Magicians of course immediately recognized the potential to make all this drama into a dull puzzle. And the rest is history.

Well, to each his own. But on Independence Day, I premiered my routine using the DBT for a group at my parents' house. The response was great! So a one or two word book test routine can effective if it's framed correctly.



Joe L.

I am not saying it can't be effective. my point was a word chosen from a book seems to serve no purpose when compared to a name held dear or a special place etc.
My issue with book tests when used for a one or two word reveal is that...yes I know it can be very effective, but why not just read their mind with a loved one that isn't there, why some dead word from a book.

Hence why I said if you came back with ' now read in your mind on that page, and a few seconds later you start reciting that paragraph, you are either reading their mind, or have memorized the enitre book and caught a glimspe of the page, either way I think it is far stronger than just one word.

I have tried a number of book tests and they have just never felt right, I do use Richard osterlind magizine test, that's some good fun. But if I do a book test, which I use a few different methods I do it with a good chunk of text revealed.
And leave the one word to something of meaning to the spec like a loved one.

Anyway, just an opinion. Each to his own heh!

kind regards

steve

Personally, I do word revelations only in impromptu situations.
If permitted, I would rather have spectator just read the passage, visualize what he reads. And I describe or draw what I 'see'.

Maybe someone needed a method to get a "thought" of word - hence the book.

I don't favour booktests, though there're some around that are really good. Rather they think of a word straight up. Then again the discussion about variety in a show made by Scott may be a valid point.

And yeah... why a book?

- Almost Dunninger's act?