Matt Mello - The Grey Area

THE GREY AREA
MATT MELLO
THE GREY AREA
MATT MELLO
No part of this publication may be duplicated, copied, or transmitted in any form

without written, explicit permission from the author.
Copyright © 2017 by Matt Mello
2
Table of Contents
Opening Thoughts…………………………………………………………………………………4
There Are No New Effects!………………………………………….....…………………………5
Providing Purpose……………..……………………………………………………..……………7
The Art of Creating…………...………………………………………………………..………….9
The Lies We Tell………………………………………………………………………...………12
Witchhand………………………………………………………………………………………..16
Metal Detector…………………………………………………………………………….……..18
Motor Skills……………………………………………………………………………….……..20
Nameless…………………………………………………………………………………………25
Profit 2.0……………………………………………………………………………………..…..28
Targeting: An Approach to Psychological Forces……………………………………………….32
Force Field……………………………………………………………………………………….35
Closing Thoughts……………………………………………………………………………...…47
3
Opening Thoughts
I would like to start by thanking you for purchasing this work. It’s hard to explain how good it
feels to have people support your thoughts and artistic creations, so thank you, truly.
“The Grey Area” is one of the most important books that I’ve written in my personal opinion. It
contains the concepts and thoughts that I believe will help to enhance our creativity, and that
have altered the way that I approach my performance.
I wanted this book to feel like you were gaining access to my notebook, with all of my ideas, and
honest, unabashed thoughts transcribed before you. If at any point you take issue with the things
that I’ve written, please understand that these are merely guidelines for what I want from my
own performance, and what I wish to personally express with my magic and mentalism.
The first three chapters could almost be considered one long essay, discussing the topic of
creating effects, and how I specifically approach this process. There are many little tips and
tricks that we can use to motivate ourselves to try to push our creativity ever further, all of which
are discussed at length.
The latter half of the book consists of certain effects that I feel imbue the beliefs set forth in the
essays. These pieces represent what I want my mentalism to look like. They are powerful,
interesting, and direct demonstrations of mental manipulation.
Some of this work is a blending of hypnosis and mindreading, creating a presentation where each
piece is elevated by the other, where there is logic behind the mindreading, stemming from one
situation into the next. Other effects touch upon valuable mental skills to have in the real world.
Although I perform much less frequently than I used to, a fair number of the pieces in this
manuscript are still a part of my act. If I were booked for a show tomorrow night, you would
absolutely see most of the thoughts in this book being put to use.
This book represents my thoughts and feelings on the art of mentalism and magic, and how we
can attempt to make it look and feel as real as possible, or at the very least, be more interesting
and unique.
I hope that you will enjoy my thinking on these subjects.
Matt Mello
4
There Are No New Effects!
During a conversation with Paul Harris, he once shared the very simple advice of, “People want
to see things that are different.” Apple felt that this was too much of a mouthful and shortened it
to, “Think Different.” For a statement that can be summed up so eloquently, it represents an
immense challenge.
Upon the first reading of Paul’s quote, and the second and the third, it seems a rather simple
observation. Yet, from its simplicity comes a clear focus: the audience. People want to witness
things that are unique, and they’re inherently drawn to them.
Of course, within our small magic and mentalism community, many argue that the audience has
no idea of what ‘new’ is, and so that provides an excuse to be lax in our creativity. We become
happy and content with performing effects that are decades old, as long as we add a bit of a twist
to them, or create a new method to do the effect.
It took some time before I accepted that discovering a new method to an old effect wasn’t very
artistic. The originator of that effect was the true artist. I was merely the demonstrator and
creator of a new method to achieve their vision.
It is certainly possible that this newer version is better than the older version, whether through a
change in handling, props or presentation. And if the audience has never been exposed to the
effect, they might as well be shown the ‘best’ version of it. This is a fine aspiration, as it may not
be your goal to create new effects, but to simply spread the magic.
And I don’t wish to imply that every effect we perform must be brand new, or that we can’t
express our visions through presentation alone. But if we wish to view ourselves as creative
artists, we must drive ourselves to create original pieces of art, discovering things that have
never been witnessed or displayed before. That should be our unwavering goal.
Though sadly, upon closing our eyelids tight, and trying our damn hardest to create a brand new
effect, we find that we inexorably fail. We toss away our notebooks in disgust, crying to the
unsympathetic drywall, “THERE ARE NO NEW EFFECTS! THEY’VE ALL BEEN TAKEN,
DAMMIT!”
Never view this outcome as a negative thing. This should often be the end result of our creative
efforts, if our standards are high enough, as it’s rightly difficult to create truly new effects. This
5
is what makes discovering them such a thrilling experience. It doesn’t mean that we give up,
resigning ourselves to performing the same tired effects, over and over.
This may be morbidly insensitive, but there are only so many times that I can watch a magician
cut and restore a length of rope before I want to jab the scissors into my eyes and noose myself
with said rope, no matter how proficient they may be. Perhaps this is just my fatigued, inner
magician talking, tired of watching thousands of feet of rope get needlessly snipped into
oblivion, but I just find this to be a strange use of our so-called “powers”. To which you might
reply, “I have to perform the cut and restored rope trick! There are no new effects!”
When I find myself slipping into that ‘no new effects’ mindset, I imagine that at that very
moment, whilst I’m sat down complaining about there being no new effects, someone on the
other side of the world is creating a brand new trick, relishing in that elated feeling of knowing
that they’re in possession of something rare. This thought of someone discovering an idea before
us can be a strong motivator.
I also imagine that a hundred years into the future, there will still be magicians discovering new
demonstrations. At least, I hope that this is the case. If you happen to be reading this book a
hundred years from this publishing, understand that I feel bad for you as a creative artist, as it
means that there are even fewer original ideas in this world. On the brighter side, recognize that
this means you have more works of art to be inspired from, and to attempt to move forward from.
So, future reader—of the non-psychic variety—you have no excuse either. Get to work on some
new material!
Always remember that discovering a new effect is more important than creating a new method.
From an artistic perspective, there is far greater value in creating a new effect using an old
method than there is in creating a new method for someone else’s effect.
Removing the noose and returning back to the cut and restored rope trick, I can recall Penn and
Teller gruesomely cutting a snake in half and healing it on an old talk show. They recently
performed it on Fool Us, and I most recently saw them do it live in Las Vegas.
The method harkened back to the beginnings of rope magic, yet they created a brand new effect
from that old method, adding emotional content that made it feel fresh and much more like true,
occult magic. It was far better than finding yet another way to cut and restore a meaningless
rope.
Once we have our unique idea, we can try to alter different parts of the handling and structure to
find a new methodology, but the focus and priority of creating should always go to the effect,
first and foremost.
Oftentimes, when we finally stumble upon an undiscovered effect, a new method tends to
naturally reveal itself.
6
Providing Purpose
Developing effects that have a real world purpose is where I tend to be at in my current creative
endeavors. I wish to demonstrate things that make my audience say, ‘That would be so useful!’
Achieving this response is as simple as asking, ‘If I could truly read, influence or control a
person’s mind, what might I do?’
In nearly every mentalism effect, the real world purpose is only ever implied. They leave it to the
audience to interpret what their ability means. One could argue that this is suggestion at work,
but if we can demonstrate an effect with a real purpose, in a straightforward way, it will always
appear more believable.
Taking a book test for example, we have the effect of a mentalist guessing a word that a
participant has thought of from a book. Performing this effect, we desperately hope and pray that
our audience thinks, ‘Wow! He guessed a word from a book! He could probably guess any word
that she could think of!’
Except the performer hasn’t demonstrated the latter effect, it is only implied. We merely have the
effect of a mentalist guessing a word from a book, which would be nearly useless. But, we hope
that it translates into them thinking that we can read any thought, which would be useful.
In this sense, a billet peek is closer to what real mind reading should look like. At least with a
tear, or a peek or an impression device, the participant could truly have thought of anything with
no restrictions.
Yet even then, after we have a viable method to learn anything that they could think of, we
should ask, ‘What is the purpose of our revealed information?’
Revealing a single word is practically a pointless effect, unless it’s some type of password, or
their profession or a personal interest. Truthfully, a vast majority of the information that
mentalist’s reveal is useless. To discover what could be useful information, we must continue to
view things through the mind of a real thought manipulator, as well as consider the spectator’s
thoughts about us during our casual and professional encounters.
For my purposes of appearing to be an ordinary person demonstrating extraordinary things, it’s

important that the moment seem somewhat ordinary, with a smidgen of something strange.
7
Envisioning a normal encounter with a stranger, it would likely be more useful to simply guess
their own name, rather than randomly guessing the name of their dear old mother.
I’ve guessed the names of thousands of mothers, fathers, brothers and sisters, and can attest that
having them think of a family member or a friend is never questioned. Though, would that really
be the best use of our abilities, if we could truly do what we claim?
Could you imagine a stranger coming up to you and asking you to think of your mother’s name,
and then proceeding to guess it? Does that feel like something a real mind reader would do? Or,
how might you feel if this stranger walked up to you and was somehow able to guess your own
name?
I think this second demonstration seems much more natural, purposeful, and in the moment,
while still being intriguing and mysterious. It’s how I imagine a real mind reader might honestly
interact with people. I couldn’t imagine them walking up to a person and having them think of
some random piece of information just to prove that they can guess it. I’m not saying that I don’t
do that, but I think we should always try to consider how a real mind reader would use their
abilities.
It would likely be an extension of their personality and daily routine. They would use it in ways
that would be beneficial to them, both socially and economically. They would guess a person’s
phone number, pin code, social security number, and credit card numbers before they ever
considered guessing the total in an add-a-number routine; unless one works as an accountant,
demonstrating their remarkable ability to add numbers without looking at a spreadsheet; which is
straining to be useful.
There are endless purposes that a little mental mischief could serve, aside from guessing direct
thoughts. Intuiting if a person is lying or telling the truth would be quite useful, particularly if
one should find themselves surrounded by liars. Even something as simple as hypnotizing
someone for a sandwich, if you’re starving, would be of value. Attempt to consider how a real
mentalist might interact with the world, and try to be consciously aware of this during your
everyday interactions. Thinking along these lines is what led to the creation of “Nameless”.
Ask yourself, what might be a motive for using your mental abilities, whether helpful, devious,
or self-satisfying? If the person was poor, how might that affect their use of these powers? If the
person was rich, how might they use their abilities? There are numerous situations in which
possessing genuine mind control abilities would be invaluable.
Not every demonstration need have an overly obvious purpose, but using intermittent effects of
this nature aids in communicating to the audience what we’re capable of out in the real world. It
adds another layer and dimension to our character, making them feel more realistic, and well-
rounded.
8
The Art of Creating
Within any craft, after mastering the basics, the art of creating must be learned, and then
continually practiced and honed. To say that one isn’t creative is rarely true. It often means that
one has given up too early in learning the art of creating, something which only develops if we
continue trying to create, constantly working to outdo ourselves and our previous thinking. As
I’ve stated, creating and discovering new effects and ideas isn’t supposed to be easy.
There’s no way of knowing if any of these particular techniques will work for you, but I often
find myself performing these exercises to develop ideas. I feel that they provide a helpful
structure to my creative process.
First, I want to mention the practice of self-hypnosis. I’ve discussed this topic in a past
manuscript, how by nature, we’re all great self-hypnotists. We hypnotize ourselves whenever we
want something that we don’t need. We talk ourselves into doing things that are stupid, and we
self-hypnotize ourselves each night that we gently rock ourselves to sleep.
Talking with other creators and performers, as well as reading it in other texts, many have shared
that they tend to have their most interesting thoughts late into the evening, continuing into the
morning on some nights; such is the life of an artist.
I believe this boost in creativity is partially due to a natural self-hypnosis taking place. You may
also find that you have a unique idea just as you’re beginning to drift to sleep, as your mind is
entering a different state of thinking and consciousness. With the practice of self-hypnosis, we
are trying to actively use this phenomenon as a creative engine.
At the start of my self-hypnotic session, I maneuver into a comfortable position and focus on my
breathing. After a few calming moments, I visualize standing up and walking through a door in
my home. Stepping through the doorway, a mysterious environment begins to form. Perhaps I
open a closet door, and it opens to the inside of a car. I imagine myself driving around, and when
I open the car door, I’m suddenly inside of a kitchen. I open the refrigerator door, and find
myself walking into a classy, fine-dining restaurant, or any performance venue that I desire.
Your creative journey can take you anywhere in the world. Try to be inventive with how you get
to your final destination, and attempt to alter the journey each time, as a type of warm-up, mental
exercise.
9
Having arrived at your final performance venue, look at the things around you that begin to
appear. Acclimate to your surroundings for a moment. Imagine a group of people that you’re
performing for. What are you going to show them in this kind of space?
Perhaps your journey ends with you throwing open the curtains on a stage. What items pop into
your head, materializing onto the stage as you walk out? What would your character do with
these items? What would be funny? What would be shocking? Let your subconscious mind guide
you, until the exercise has run its course.
Taking the creative process out of your head, interacting and playing with physical objects can
often help with producing ideas. Studies have shown that messes enhance creativity. I prefer to
make ‘organized messes’.
For instance, I’ll make a list, or gather a large number of normal, carry items. Things like keys,
coins, pens, wallet, cash, phone, lighter, cigarettes, rings, watches, lipstick, gum, mints, and even
typical surrounding items, such as napkins, utensils, cups, etc. All are collected. Having a trashed
room isn’t likely to inspire much, but having a variety of practical choices for effect props, all
laid out before us, can help to produce an idea that we may not have had without the objects
being tangible and right there.
If performing on stage, our list of random objects can expand quite farther. We must then attempt
to make any items we use feel organic and theatrically interesting within the set.
Another great exercise is to write short stories about our characters. There are no limits when
writing a story, besides our imagination. This allows us to think in grander ways. Following this
writing exercise, our story may spark an idea for an interesting effect. Though, as with any story,
and especially for our purposes, maintaining a level of realism should be the ultimate goal.
Imagine your character, and imagine some type of plot. It can be a terrible plot. Going to work,
or going to school, are particularly terrible plots. Still, what situation might our mindreading,
hypnotist get himself into in these environments?
Perhaps he was late for work, and convinced his boss that he was ten minutes early. Maybe he
convinced his school teacher that an empty activity sheet was his completed homework. There
are endless scenarios and possibilities, one of which may spark an idea for a great routine.
At the very least, this exercise may offer an intriguing line of script. After thinking up the idea of
convincing a teacher that an empty quiz sheet was actually filled out perfectly, I decided to add
the story to my set as something that I actually did when I was in school. I even went so far as to
print up a fake quiz, write my name and date on the empty sheet, and put a (100%) circled in the
corner. It just adds an interesting touch to the character, even if it isn’t true.
Changing our perception of what we do can also lead to interesting thoughts. I find ‘mentalism’
to be a fairly bland term for our profession. Mental mischief, mental manipulation, mind control,
10
psychological phenomenon, and brain games are more vivid descriptors. They are playful and
whimsical terms for our demonstrations, causing us to think in more playful and whimsical ways.
So, rather than think, ‘what new mentalism effect can I create?’ Ask, ‘what would be an
interesting brain game?’ ‘What psychological phenomenon could I make occur?’ ‘What would
be some fun, mental mischief?’ Addressing these types of questions will only enhance our
creative process.
In Derren Brown’s Pure Effect, he observes that all mentalism effects can be described as simply
as, “A thought is to move from one place to another.”
This single sentence is a gateway to countless unique effects. Problems arise when we get
trapped in the idea that this thought must always be a word, a number, or a drawing. Those who
are familiar with my work will be aware that we can perform very powerful and unique
demonstrations of mentalism without ever asking the spectator to actively think of something.
There are only so many ways that we can ask a person to think of a piece of information, and
reveal or predict it. It puts limits on the originality of our effects. I’m not saying that I don’t
perform these types of demonstrations, but if it’s our intention to stand out, they shouldn’t
dominate our show. Mentalism has far too few interesting and unique demonstrations.
Everything just looks the same from a layman’s perspective, often indistinguishable from the
next performer, which can sadly be said for many of the arts.
Speaking of other performers, examining the works of others can also be helpful in sparking
ideas, but they should only be a subtle influence, not a strict guide of what we should be doing.
I know that I’ve already beaten this to a pulpy death, but we should be striving to create things
never before seen. We won’t always succeed, nor do we always have to, but we must persist in
honing our creativity and personal artistry, as that’s how we meaningfully progress in the art of
creating.
Be ruthless with your ideals, for it will ensure that the few effects and ideas that make the cut are
amongst the highest quality that you could produce.
11
The Lies We Tell
Effect:
From a small group of participants, the performer is able to identify who is lying, and who is
telling the truth.
Introduction:
After all of my preaching on prioritizing the effect before the method, the very first effect that I
present to you is an old premise with a new approach. But, as I mentioned in the “Providing
Purpose” chapter, possessing the ability to know if a person is lying to you, or telling you the
truth, would be quite a valuable skill in the real world.
I had always wanted to develop an impromptu method for this type of effect, without the use of
logic puzzles, forces, NLP eye accessing cues, guessing, or any of the traditional methods. I
wanted it to look real. This meant simply asking people questions without being able to work
things out based on their answers. With the method I’ve developed, they don’t even need to
answer aloud, and yet you will always know who the liar is.
“The Lies We Tell” is one of the most direct approaches to this plot. It can be used anywhere, at
any time, and is as easy as this kind of work can get.
Presentation and Method:

“People often ask how I use my abilities in the real world. One useful skill is telling if a
person is lying or telling the truth. For this demonstration, three of you will be truth tellers,
and one of you will be the liar. I’m going to turn away, and I would like one of you to
decide to be the liar by pointing to yourself.”
12
Give the group a moment to decide who the liar will be.
“Excellent, so we now have our truth tellers and our liar. Can I have all of you look at me?
To the person who has chosen to be the liar, please listen carefully, and follow my
instructions. I will be asking you simple questions, and you must answer with a lie. To make
it easy for you, I’ll say what the question is beforehand, so you can think about your
answer. For now, please close your eyes, all of you. This way I can’t be accused of reading
information from your eyes.”
When everyone’s eyes are closed, we ask our first question, “How old were you when you had
your first kiss? That is the first question. Please take a moment to think about your
answer.”
We now go along to each person and ask this question. The answers to this question can often
lead to some improvised comedy, if they were really young or possibly older than one might
expect.
I may even appear to take a guess at one guy, and before they answer, I say, “Wow, that young,
huh? What a legend.” If you say it a little dryly, then even if they say an older age, it comes
across as a sarcastic joke.
We can now continue to ask any number of questions that we want. Picking slightly taboo topics
will help to naturally add some comedy and byplay between us and our participants.
At the end of our questioning, we immediately pinpoint two truth tellers, shake their hands, and
ask that they return to their seats.
Two people are left standing, and I may ask one more question, having them answer mentally,
before finally revealing which of them is the final truth teller, and which is the liar.
That’s all there is to this piece.
You may have missed the method, but it’s all right there in the scripting. The method works
through a reliable manipulation of linguistics, and the way that our words and their actions are
delivered.
At the start of the effect, after the group has decided who the liar is, we specifically target and
speak to the liar. We tell them to listen carefully and to follow our directions. We explain to our
liar that they will need to lie to our questions. We are talking only to them. They don’t know
exactly what’s going on, and will simply be listening carefully and following our instructions, as
this is what we’ve told them to do.
Because of this, the moment we say, “For now, please close your eyes,” the liar will close their
eyes. The instant that we see this, we finish the line, adding, “all of you.”
13
You’ll find the liar will close their eyes immediately, which almost makes a pause unnecessary.
It really shouldn’t feel like a pause, but more a natural flowing statement. Their actions dictate
our response time. If the liar takes one second to close their eyes, then there is a one second gap
between, “For now, please close your eyes,” and “all of you.”
Most of the time, it will be instantaneous, and I honestly barely pause at all anymore. I just trust
and have faith that the first person to close their eyes will be the liar, as they will be more ready
to respond to our suggestion. I hope that I’m appropriately explaining how to deliver this line
without it seeming obvious.
I should also mention that I pause for a brief moment before I say, “For now, please close your
eyes.” We do this so that it feels like we’ve finished talking with the liar, and we’re now
addressing the group at large. But, in performance, they really won’t realize that you’re talking to
them until you add, “all of you.” I would say just wait one beat, and then execute the eye closing
cue.
Another important part is asking them all to look at you. I used to perform this in restaurants at a
table of two, three or four, and if they’re all looking at you, none of them can notice the liar
closing their eyes a moment before the rest of them.
This also provides us an opportunity to try and read their reactions before you deliver the “close
your eyes” line.
As I’m instructing everyone in the beginning, talking to the liar, I am genuinely looking at who I
feel is paying the most attention. This is a concept that has been utilized by Ben Blau, Patrick
Redford, and Jerome Finley. While it’s fairly reliable all on its own, I personally enjoy having
my method as an insurance policy.
When performing on stage, depending on how large it is, most people can’t even see the person
shut their eyes. Or, you could simply ask four people in the front row to stand, and perform with
them.
The other consideration is that it really looks fairly random when everyone closes their eyes.
One of them has to be the first to shut their eyes, and even among the three remaining people,
when you add, “all of you,” they can sometimes close their eyes at different speeds, reacting to
your suggestion a bit slower.
We’re now miles ahead of them. We know who our liar is immediately, and we can now ask any
questions that we want. The rest of the effect is all presentation.
Just try to find the person paying you the most attention, see who closes their eyes first, and rest
assured that they’re our dirty-rotten liar.
14
Additional Thoughts:
--It may be helpful to start using this cuing system with only two people. Have one decide to be
the truth teller, and the other would be the liar. This gives us a fifty-fifty shot, and gives us only
two sets of eyes to watch. Trust that the first person to close their eyes is the liar.
--I mention trust, because it really takes a good amount of trust in the method to make it work,
combined with the right timing and tone of voice. But, because we are working with unique
human beings, there is also a minor chance that this will fail. To best offset this happening, I
suggest practicing the scripting until you have it nailed, and combine my cuing system with the
techniques used by Patrick Redford and Jerome Finley.
--It’s also possible to have each person choose if they want to be a liar or a truth teller. They
don’t point to themselves, or give any indication of what they’ve chosen. But you’re scripting
simply changes to, “If you have chosen to be a liar, please listen carefully…”
In this version, we would just look for multiple people to possibly close their eyes, before
finishing the line, “all of you.”
Personally, I prefer to just worry about a single person.
Credits:
I’ve been informed that Devin Knight has some ideas about cuing with the eyes being closed, but
nothing as direct as this.
Banachek’s “Stop Sign” technique is a way of subtly cuing the performer through the spectator’s
eyes.
I purchased an effect from Outlaw Effects called “Kioku”, which also involved a cue through the
spectator shutting their eyes and focusing on a bit of information.
As credited in the description, Ben Blau, Patrick Redford, and Jerome Finley have played around
with this concept of paying attention to a specific person who will give away the information.
They have also applied these thoughts to liar and truth teller routines, as well as finding an
object.
15
Witchhand
Effect:
Out of four people, the performer correctly guesses who is hiding a coin in their fist.
Introduction:
One sect of mental manipulators would possibly be obsessed with placing bets. Knowing that
they couldn’t lose, they would likely pursue many gambles.
Those who regularly place bar bets are a true representation of mental manipulators. Whether for
financial gain, or even just to earn a free beer, a bar bet serves a purpose. Certainly, most people
who regularly make bar bets tend to be asses, but if it’s a part of their personality, they can get
away with it. They get away with genuine manipulation, and now have a cold drink in their hand,
having used only their words and their cunning.
With this in mind, I think being able to do something like “Witchhand” would be quite useful
given a betting theme.

A coin is placed on the table, and while we’re turned away, one of four participants grabs the
coin and hides it in their fist. The other three are instructed to make empty fists.
We now turn back and say, "I’d like all of you to stare at the back of your fist. Whoever is
holding the coin, without moving your hand, please focus on how it feels in your fist. Focus
on the texture of it, and the light weight of it. Imagine the color of it in your mind.”
16
Take a very brief pause, and then say, “Very good! Now, please close your eyes, all of you. If
you don't have a coin in your hand, I want you to make your mind completely blank."
We now go along each participant and give any presentation that we wish to identify who is
concealing the coin in their fist.
As you should now be aware, this works using the same concept from “The Lies We Tell”.
The difference here is that instead of talking to our liar, we are talking to the person holding the
coin. We are speaking directly to them, and they will once again be the first person to close their
eyes, as they are following our direction to do so.
More often than not, I stop the routine here. I like it as an easy, impromptu demonstration. But,
on occasion, I’ve performed a simple “which hand” effect afterwards. Something like Mark
Elsdon’s “Tequila Hustler” would play very nicely after using “Witchhand” as an opener.
Additional Thoughts and Ideas:

--If we wanted to make this into a more traditional “which hand” effect, we could use two people
and two quarters. We turn away and ask that they put the coin into either hand, but that we don’t
want them both to have the coin in the same hand. We can then say, “Whoever has the coin in
their right fist, please listen carefully,” etc, and we know the person who closes their eyes will
have the coin in their right hand, and the other will have the coin in their left hand.
--When you become more comfortable with the technique, you can do a fair “which hand” effect
with a group of four or more. Give them a genuine choice of either hand to hold their coin in.
Now, when we say, “Whoever has the coin in their right fist, please listen carefully,” we
know that if two people close their eyes, they both have the coin in their right fist. We then finish
the line to have everyone close their eyes, and can go along the group and guess where each and
every coin is hidden.
Credits:
All of the credits from “The Lies We Tell” carry over to this demonstration.
17
Metal Detector
Effect:
The performer places three, small metal items on a table, and turns away as the spectators each
pick up one item and hide it in their fist. Turning around, the performer becomes a human metal
detector, and is able to identify what each person is holding.
Introduction:
This is the final variation of the eye cuing system, taking the method one step further. I
personally just like to find the one person hiding an object, but it’s an interesting way to guess
what each person has chosen.

We place three items onto a table (a coin, a key, and a ring) and ask that three participants hide
the objects in their fist, each taking one item as we look away. Upon turning back to our group,
we’ll be faced with three people concealing items, and we must now work out what each person
is holding. We start the same as the other two routines, by singling out one person, and one item.
I say, “All three of you are now hiding an object, and there’s no way that I could know who
is holding what, so I’ll take it one item at a time. Whoever is holding the key, please focus
on how it feels in your hand. Concentrate on the metal, and the shape and grooves of it.
Imagine using it to unlock a door. Very good! Now, please close your eyes, all of you.”
The first person who closes their eyes will be the person holding the key.
18
We can now go along each person, and have them imagine what they’re holding. Hold your hand
over each of theirs, as if you’re sensing the metal, and then have the person who first closed their
eyes open their hand. They will be holding the key, and that’s one down.
They can put the key back on the table, and open their eyes.
We now go a little bit further with the cuing system.
“I will now try to discover which of you is holding the ring. Whoever is holding the ring,
focus on the weight of it in your hand. Don’t move, but imagine taking it out of your hand
and putting it on your finger. Perfect. Now, open your eyes, both of you.”
As you can see, we’re now using the concept in reverse. You’ll also notice that on both cues, I’m
having the participant imagine doing something, like unlocking the door, or putting the ring on.
This will help to connect your instructions even more so with the key and ring holders.
With this cuing system, the first person to open their eyes will be the person holding the ring, and
the other person will be holding the coin.
Because both items are circular, we suggest that this makes it more difficult to sense which
object is which. After building up the moment, we tap each person on the hand, saying the object
that we think is concealed in each.
Of course, we will likely be correct.

--“Metal Detector” can play very well before my “Mental Bending” effect, as it also deals with
the idea of sensing a metal object. If you present it as trying to feel what they’re feeling, then it
acts as a perfect opener, and the two pieces really flow well together to create a strong and very
unique routine.
--We could also use this concept as a purely mental demonstration. Perhaps we would name
three shapes aloud, and each person would decide on a shape. We could then focus in on each
shape, and discover who is thinking of what.
Credits:
All previous credits apply.
19
Motor Skills
Effect:
The performer removes a person’s ability to write a word, and is then able to guess it.
Introduction:
This effect had started as a longer sequence, where I would remove a person’s ability to draw
with their dominant hand, and then give them the ability to draw with their non-dominant hand. I
would then guess what they had failed to draw with their dominant hand, and prove that I
influenced what they had drawn with their non-dominant hand.
Over time, I shortened the effect to just removing their ability to write or draw, as I found that
presentation to be more interesting to the audience. We then still have the added effect of
guessing their name, word, or drawing from the scribbles. The effect is very clear, and I like the
focus being on just this one moment, making something more of it.
Motor Skills is a perfect example of using an old method to create a new effect: though I do also
cover a bolder approach to this piece, which I think is great.
Presentation and Methods:

Ask a participant to think of a short word, and ask them to lock it in their mind.
Instruct them to close their eyes, appear to induce them into a mild trance, and say, “I want you
to think back to before you knew how to write, back to when someone would ask you to
write a word, and you’d simply scribble lines on the paper. But, in your little baby brain,
you believed that you just wrote something significant, and that it was exactly right.”
20
We have a stack of business cards in our hands. We take off the top card, and give the stack to
another participant to hold. We then extend the business card towards our “induced” spectator,
give them a pencil, and say, “Please write your word on here.”
As we feel them beginning to write, we say, “Just like a child, you may think that you’re
doing a good job writing your word right now. We’ll see in a moment. Are you finished?”
When they confirm that they’ve written their word, we cleanly place the card back onto the stack
in the other spectator’s hand. “So, again, you think that you did a good job writing the
word?”
They will say, “Yes.”
We now carefully lift the business card from the stack and show it to the other members of the
group.
We ask, “Can you read the word that she wrote?”
They won’t be able to make it out, no matter how hard they try to read it. The person who wrote
the word will now be very confused.
“I don’t want you to say your word aloud, but do you remember writing this?”
Showing her the card, she’ll see that what she thought was a perfectly legible word, is now a
random mess of squiggles. Let her react to this moment, and then we’ll take it one step further.
“Just think of the word that you wanted to write.”
Look at the squiggles, and then look at the participant.
“Is the first letter a D?”
She will say, “Yes.”
“Is the word you’re thinking of, ‘dog’?”
Again, she will confirm that you’re correct.
Method One:
This is the simple, more impromptu version of this effect. It requires only a stack of business
cards, a writing utensil, and a two second setup.
21
On the very top business card, we’re going to draw random squiggly lines in the middle of the
card, where the participant would be writing a word.
In performance, we simply do a double lift, showing a blank business card. We hold this double
towards our spectator, and they write their word on it. The important point here is that no one
else is allowed to watch what she writes. This process is justified when we then ask the audience
to try to guess the word.
When the participant has finished writing their word, we place it writing side down on top of the
stack of business cards. When we now have someone take off the top card and try to read it, they
will see our scribble card.
During this exchange, we take the stack of business cards back, allowing us to peek the word at
any time during the reactions. I typically just shuffle the card to the bottom, and then discreetly
tilt the pack so that I can glimpse the word.
You could also palm the top card, quickly peek it, and then return it.
I would recommend having them initial the printed side of your business card, as this helps to
solidify that it’s truly their card that they just wrote on.
Method Two:
Here is a second approach to this, which I feel is much bolder, and a more interesting solution.
Give the spectator an index card and a pencil, and ask them to initial it at the bottom. You now
ask them to write a short word in the middle of the card.
They give it back to you, without showing anyone else. You look at it, squint your eyes a bit, and
fake that you can’t read the word.
Ask the participant if they believe that they wrote a legible word. Make a joke and ask, “Is this a
real word?”
During all of this talking, I’ve been discreetly scribbling over their writing with a nail writer. I
turn this to the audience, who will obviously not be able to read it, and we can then reveal it.
This looks about as clean as the real thing.
I would recommend using a pencil that doesn’t have a sharp tip. You want it to be more blunted,
so that the word doesn’t come out quite so deep and defined. You will also want to make sure
that your nail writer is in about the same state of bluntness, so that things match.
22
--The presentation and idea for this effect came naturally from interacting with my niece. She
wanted me to name things for her to draw, so I did, and she proceeded to draw scribble after
scribble, completely committed to the fact that they were beautiful pieces of art. To any two or
three year old, this is how you draw. I will sometimes mention this story at the beginning of the
piece, as inspiration for creating the effect.
--I have used this effect to guess a person’s name in casual environments. You appear to remove
their ability to write their name, and then you guess it. I think it’s an interesting encounter.
--Aside from words and names, you can also have the person make a quick drawing. What I like
about this is the fact that the audience has a better chance of guessing the drawing. I typically try
to involve some sort of psychological force, and if it hits on both sides, then we have an effect
where we remove their ability to draw, and then a second member of the group somehow guesses
the drawing from the scribbles. This is much better than if you’re the one to reveal it.
--I’ve also very often made use of an out-to-lunch pack of index cards. Above the rubber band,
and on the very top card, I would draw a bunch of squiggles. I then stick a piece of index card in
the rubber band to cover this drawing. We can now give them the pack, and have them initial the
bottom section. They write their word or drawing on the top section, and then they turn over the
pack. We take out their card and give it to them to hold. We can peek their drawing on the pack
at any time, and can reveal their scribbles very fairly.
--The biggest thing to keep in mind with this kind of work is the fact that if you could do this for
real, this is exactly what it would look like. The person would be adamant that they wrote the
word, and that it was perfectly legible. If you could do this for real, the person would be just as
convinced that they actually wrote the word, and that they didn’t just draw scribbles. In order for
this to really play well, you need to actually try to induce the spectator, or at least give it a little
bit of effort. Again, just treat it like you’ve discovered a way to do the real thing, and it will
always play exactly as it should.
Credits:
I’ve been using this routine for a very long time, and have described it to a few magicians over
the years. I recently learned that Brandon Queen’s Lacuna bears a resemblance to method one.
Of course, the effects that they create are uniquely their own, and are of independent creation.
23
Peter Turner recently released a manuscript on hypnotic effects, one of which involved giving a
spectator the ability to write with their non-dominant hand. This was something that I had also
frequently used in this sequence, but decided to omit it in respect of him putting out the concept
first.
24
Nameless
Effect:
The performer forgets a participant’s name, and is able to use his skills to recover.
Introduction:
I actually released this routine a long time ago, and it didn’t really receive very rave reviews. I
think “Nameless” was overlooked as it was such a simple, subtle effect. It branches from a
natural occurrence of forgetting a person’s name. It was more of a side-effect, as a way to get
yourself out of a jam. I personally love it, and make use of this minor effect regularly.
To say that you’ve never forgotten a participant’s name is likely a lie, or it shows that you have a
super power memory, or so bad of a memory that you can’t remember that you’ve forgotten
people’s names in the past.
Even if you don’t ever forget a person’s name, it’s highly likely that everyone you perform this
for will be able to understand the situation, as they have experienced it themselves. Hell, some of
them may even have forgotten your name.
If you try it out, I think you will use it regularly.

Having already performed a few mindreading effects for a small group, I approach a girl for the
next demonstration. Before we begin, we look up and away from our spectator, as if trying to
remember something, and then say, “I’m sorry, and I don’t want you to say what it is, but I
forgot your name.”
25
Typically, they will answer with, “It’s okay, I do that all of the time!”
“Can I have you just think of the first letter of your name? Just repeat it over and over in
your mind.”
I study her for a moment, before saying, “It was an A name?”
She will say, “Yes.”
To that, we could answer, “I don’t remember that at all. Okay, think of the second letter.
Now, the third letter.”
Build it up however you want, and then take a moment and ask, uncertainly, “Is it Alison?”
She will say that you’re correct.
All that’s needed to perform this piece are some good acting skills. In reality, we haven’t
forgotten their name. They are the one person from the group that we’ve focused on
remembering. We pretend that we’ve forgotten, and then we appear to use our abilities to get
ourselves out of this orchestrated situation.
I imagine that if a real mind reader had forgotten someone’s name in the real world, they would
probably just read the person’s mind without them revealing that they forgot. As we aren’t doing
this for real, we might as well get an effect out of this natural occurrence.
One update that I’ve made is to try and get the name wrong, ever so slightly. Psychologically, I
just feel that this makes it even more believable.
Why would you guess it wrong if you were just pretending to forget? The fact that you’ve used
your abilities to get that close it still very impressive. Because this isn’t a showpiece effect, I
don’t mind a slight miss.
In the case of the name “Alison”, I would guess the (A) first, and then after having them focus on
the other two letters, I may say, “Aly…Aly…Alyssa? Is your name Alyssa?”
They will now correct you, but again, it feels like you’ve actually tried to do it for real.
You could even add, “Damn, I was going to say ‘Alison’, but I second guessed myself.”

- Some names won’t work with the slight miss approach, as they don’t have a name that sounds
similar, in which case I would just correctly guess their name.
26
---In a stage show, I’ve often performed an effect where I have everyone in the audience say
their name aloud. They are all instructed to say their name on the count of three, so that their
voices are all muffled together. You may do this a couple of times.
While this is happening, I’m looking at someone in the first or second row and reading their lips.
We can now perform the force where we pretend to write a number on a paper, point to members
of the audience, and whoever guesses closest to your number is brought onto the stage. Of
course, we simply nail write a number closest to our lip-read spectator’s choice.
Credits:
I can’t say that I’ve ever heard of someone using this type of memory miscall in order to create
an effect.
27
Profit 2.0
Effect:
A subject is hypnotized to give you more money than they believe they counted.
Introduction:
The name of this effect was to be either “Profit 2.0” or “Dollah Billz Ya’ll!” I believe I’ve
chosen the better title of the two, but I must now forever second guess myself.
Although this is “Profit 2.0”, I actually perform this before my “Profit” effect, which was
featured in my Psycho Logical book, as it’s a perfect lead-in.
With this version, you basically perform “Profit” with no gimmicks, and it can even be done
one-on-one with a person, and with borrowed bills.

After informing the group that I’ll be demonstrating a way to swindle a person out of money, I
take my “induced” subject off to the side, and give him a stack of cash to count to himself.
When he’s finished, I have him place the bills into his pocket, and ask that he remember the total
amount as we turn back to the group.
“Bill, I’ve asked you to count the bills, and I had you examine each bill to make sure that
none of them were stuck together, correct?”
He will agree.
28
“I want you to imagine that we’re in a store, and that you’re purchasing something. Take
the money out of your pocket and hand it to the cashier.”
I have Bill hand the cash to another member of the group, so that I can’t be accused of doing
anything suspicious.
“How much money did you just give her?”
He will answer, “Seven dollars.”
Yet, when the other spectator counts the bills, she finds that she has ten dollars.
He will have no idea where those extra three dollars came from.
I will typically add, “Imagine if those were hundreds!”
I understand that this doesn’t feel like your usual mentalism routine, but that isn’t what’s
important. The important consideration is if the effect feels real, and would be a useful skill to
have. Although very little performance is demanded, aside from perhaps ‘inducing’ our subject
beforehand, it looks like the real thing.
How it’s actually achieved, though, is a different story. As mentioned in the introduction, this
version is completely impromptu, assuming that you have a number of dollar bills in your wallet.
In a pinch, you can borrow from the audience. All that you need is a stack of dollar bills, setup in
a particular way.
Those of you familiar with Paul Harris’ “Las Vegas Leaper” effect will already be aware of the
count that I’m about to share. Cards are used in Paul’s effect, and while the count has the same
purpose of hiding the real total, it is typically used to produce a magic trick. I’ve chosen to
exploit the count to produce a unique mental effect.
The way that this count works is rather ingenious in its simplicity, and all of the credit goes to
Paul.
Basically, you have a stack of seven, one dollar bills all face-up in the same direction. You then
take three more dollars, flip them over so they’re facedown, and place them on the bottom. We
now take our induced spectator to the side, and instruct them on how to count the bills, taking a
single dollar off the top, flipping it over, and placing it on the bottom.
Our excuse for counting this way is, “I want you to be sure that there are no bills stuck
together, so by flipping the bills as you count them, it will ensure that everything is fair.”
It doesn’t look like a normal way to count money, nor a stack of cards, but the excuse given
completely covers the strange procedure, especially since people have experienced having bills
stick together before.
29
They will now count each individual bill, flipping it from the top, and placing it on the bottom.
After seven bills, they will get to the first facedown bill, and they will stop, believing that they
have counted through the entire stack. They will think the stack is only seven dollars, when in
fact, it contains ten dollars.
Have Bill put the bills in his pocket, and then take them out to pay for something, and the rest is
self-working.
Now that you understand the concept behind the count, we can also present the effect as if
they’re losing a lot more money.
Setup a stack of bills like this:
(7) $1 bills face-up
(2) $1 bills facedown
(1) $100 bill facedown on the very bottom
Now, when the person counting gets to the first facedown bill, they will stop. They won’t know
that there’s a hundred dollar bill hidden two bills down. They will now give the bills to another
person, who will count it and find the hundred dollar bill in the mix.
“You don’t remember counting the hundred?” I ask him, to which he will reply, “No.”
He will have no idea where it came from, and it will lead to great reactions all around, and an
even better lead-in to my original “Profit” effect.

--As I just mentioned, I often perform this as an introduction to my “Profit” effect. To
seamlessly transition from “Profit 2.0”, we must position the “Profit” gimmick as the second
facedown bill. After doing the count, and the subsequent reveal, we can just take the two bills out
of the stack and go straight into “Profit” where we can openly count the bills in front of
everyone, and still he will see an extra hundred dollar bill that shouldn’t be there.
-If performing in front of a large crowd, you could choose to borrow as many dollar bills as you
can. During the gathering of these bills, you casually flip over a few on the bottom. You now go
into the routine as described, and have a participant count the borrowed bills. At the end, you’ll
often find that people will tell you to keep the money. With this being the case, this effect could
eventually pay for this book. It will be in all singles, giving you the appearance of a mildly
successful stripper when you visit the bank, but you will have gained a free book.
30
Credits:
Paul Harris’ false count from “Las Vegas Leaper” in Volume One of his Art of Astonishment is
what makes this effect. Without that count, this piece wouldn’t be possible.
Luke Jermay created an effect which was adequately named, “Paying with Paper”. It involves
causing a spectator to believe that blank pieces of paper are actually dollar bills. Derren Brown
also performed a version of this on one of his television programs.
This last one is a shameless self-plug, but I would highly recommend getting my Psycho Logical
book in order to learn “Profit”, as it really is one of the cleanest and most practical versions of
this type of effect.
31
Targeting: An Approach to Psychological Forcing
Effect:
The performer is able to reliably influence a variety of thoughts.
Introduction:
Nearly every mentalist and magician you talk with will give monstrously inflated numbers when
it comes to the reliability of psychological forces in a close-up environment. If performing them
on a stage with the entire audience, you will certainly get a decent amount of hands raised, but in
a more casual environment, you’ll find that most psychological forces are nowhere near as
reliable as advertised.
In order to get a psych force to work in a close-up performance, we often have to say things like,
“Please think of two simple shapes, like a square or a rectangle, but not one of those, as I’ve
said them, and not something as complex as a star or a heart. So please, just go ahead, be a
doll, and think of a circle and a triangle for me.”
I find the above to be way too obvious for my liking, and we might as well add that last line of
script. What I’m going to share with you still has limiting factors, but I don’t feel that they’re
quite as apparent.

I’m not going to cover this topic like I have in previous chapters, where I describe the effect and
then the method, as we already know that this is just an approach to working with psychological
forces, and making them more reliable.
32
We’ll start with an example to force a shape.
“I’d like you to please think of three basic shapes, the first three shapes that pop into your
head. Imagine them floating in front of you.”
Give them the time that they need to do this, and then say, “Of those three random shapes that
you’re imagining, I’d like you to now focus on whichever shape has the fewest number of
sides.”
You will find that this will fairly reliably force a person to think of a (circle).
This approach can almost be thought of as chunneling with psychological forces, or performing a
type of mental PATEO force.
We know that they’re almost guaranteed to think of a circle, especially when they’re told to
imagine three basic shapes. If we’re going to ask a person to think of two items, we might as
well extend the number to three items, as it increases our chances that the force item will be
included.
The concept is essentially to take a unique quality of the force item and exploit it in some way. In
the case of the shapes, we are exploiting the fact that a circle has the fewest sides of any shape,
and it is very likely to be thought of, statistically.
However, we could also approach the shape force in a different way.
Assuming our knowledge of psychological forces is correct, given the choice of three basic
shapes to think of, a circle and a triangle should be amongst them. The third shape could be
anything from a square to a hexagon, it doesn’t really matter.
In this version, we can now say, “Of those three random shapes that you’re imagining, please
get rid of the shape with the most sides. And now, of the two remaining shapes, get rid of
the one with the least number of sides."
This seems random, and out of your control, but it will, more often than not, force a (triangle).
This is because they’ll get rid of the circle for the least number of sides, and will then get rid of
whatever shape they’ve picked that will always have more sides than the triangle.
Another example is forcing a color.
We’ve been taught that if we rush a spectator to think of a single color, it will likely be (red) or
(blue). Again, I ask my spectator to, “Think of three random colors, the first three colors that
pop into your head.”
33
Let them do this, and say, “Rather than imagining them as the colors themselves, please
imagine your colors written out as words. I want you to focus on whichever color has the
fewest number of letters in its name. Do you have a color in mind?”
They will say, “Yes,” and we can be fairly certain that they are thinking of the color (red).
Here we’re taking advantage of the psychological fact that one of the three colors is statistically
favored to be red, and it has the fewest number of letters of any color they could imagine.
It’s possible to develop multiple reliable psychological forces using this technique, things that
you can feel confident using in a close-up setting. Rarely do I ever use a psychological force on
its own, but I find that using them as a part of a bigger sequence can be very effective. This
targeting process could be quite useful combined with my “Thought Control” concept.

--If you wanted to try to make things seem random, you could also add, “So if you thought of
‘orange, yellow, and green’, you would focus on the color green, as it only has five letters.”
Or you could say, “So if you thought of a rectangle, a square, and a triangle, you would
think of the triangle, as it only has three sides.”
This just makes it seem like they had more options.
Credits:
Banachek’s Psychological Subtleties is a vast resource on psychological forcing, and different
approaches to using them as effectively as possible.
I mentioned that this concept is almost like chunneling with psychological forces, which is in
reference to Joshua Quinn’s “Thought Chunnel” effect.
34
Force Field
Effect:
From the comfort of the stage, the performer reads the minds of multiple audience members
standing from their seats. He is then able to prove that he knew exactly what they would think of.
Introduction:
This is a powerhouse demonstration. I very often end my stand-up shows with this effect. At the
very least, it is always included in my set in some way.
I have worked “Force Field” as both an opener and a closer. The thinking is that if you start a
show with a demonstration of mindreading this pure, then the subsequent use of billets or pads of
paper seem inconsequential.
The audience has already seen that we can read minds with nothing written down, so it doesn’t
matter as much if we ask them to write a word on a billet. It also creates an immediate buzz
amongst the crowd.
On the other hand, there’s something to be said for ending a show with something that looks so
inexplicably real, that it stays with the audience long after they leave the show.
“Force Field” definitely fits that bill.
I personally love the visual of performing mindreading from the stage. There is just something
theatrical and more impossible about it, reading people’s thoughts from a distance. It’s like the
oracle act, except we’re appearing to guess direct thoughts, that haven’t ever been written down.
This is one of my favorite demonstrations. It’s a showpiece in my act, and I’ve left nothing out. I
cover my main routine, along with multiple handlings, each with their own subtle advantages and
disadvantages. I’m certain that you will find some way of incorporating “Force Field” into your
show.
35
Presentation and Methods:
“We’ll finish the show with one last demonstration of mindreading and influence. I’d like
about half of you to stand. Please make it random.”
I give the audience members the time they need to decide, and stop the process when I see that
about half of them are standing.
“Thank you all for taking part in this final experiment. From now on, you will be known as
group one. As you all followed my suggestion to stand, you will be our ‘influence’ group. As
it sounds, I will be attempting to influence you, and put a specific thought into all of your
minds. Please close your eyes. I’d like you all to think of an odd number, any odd number.”
After a few seconds, we continue with, “Now, please imagine your number written out as a
word, and focus on the last two letters. Of those two random letters, I want you to
concentrate on whichever is closer to the beginning of the alphabet.”
Once more, we give them an appropriate amount of time to focus on their specific letter, “And
finally, please think of an animal that starts with this letter, preferably a larger animal.”
I ask, “Without saying it out loud, does everyone have an animal in mind?”
We will receive murmurs, and some head nods amongst our influence group, at which time we
will instruct them to sit.
“Everyone who was sitting for that part, could you now please stand? You will hereby be
known as group two, our ‘mindreading’ group. This will be much easier for you, but quite
a bit harder for me. You will simply think of anything that you want. It could be a name, a
place, an animal, an object, literally anything that you want to think of. Please do that
now.”
We now give group two a few seconds to decide on their thoughts, before saying, “Once again,
without saying anything out loud, is everyone concentrating on a random thought?”
Group two will confirm that they’re thinking of something, and we instruct them to return to
their seats.
“Every single person in this room now has a specific thought in their mind, and I will be
trying to guess a few of these thoughts at random. In order to make it fair, we’ll toss
around our very valuable paper ball.”
I display it gingerly, as I say, “I’m going to turn away, and throw it into the audience.
Whoever catches the ball, if you’re a part of group one, please stand. If not, then please
pass the paper ball to the nearest member of group one.”
36
I turn my back to the audience, and throw the paper ball over my shoulder. To whoever catches
it, I repeat my instructions, and they either stand, or hand it to the nearest person from group one,
who stands from their seat
We now instruct them to toss the ball over their shoulder. Our instructions here are the exact
opposite, “Sir, if you’re a part of group two, please stand. If not, pass it to the nearest
member of group two. We’re going to do this to select about ten of you. Toss the ball again,
this time for group one. Now, group two…back to group one....”
We continue instructing the crowd until ten people are standing. This process will take about a
minute. I think the payoff is well worth this process, but I will explain other ways around it in the
other sections of this chapter.
“I think it’s fair to say that all of you have been selected at random, and there’s no way
that I could have controlled where each of you would throw the ball, and who would be
chosen. All ten of you have a specific thought that you’re focusing on. I will be choosing
three of you that I think will work the best with this. Can I have you all imagine your
thoughts? Visualize them floating in front of you, projecting them towards the stage.”
I look at each person, studying and considering them. I point to one of the people near the front,
and say, “You’re actually really tough to read. Could you say what you’re thinking of?”
“A dolphin.”
I typically answer with something like, “Well, I never would have guessed that! Thank you
for taking part, would you please sit.”
I continue looking at people, saying, “Continue to project your thought towards the stage.”
I point to two more people, “Could you please sit?”
We do this until three people are left standing, and then we grab our pad of paper and marker.
“Focus on your thoughts. Keep visualizing them in front of you.”
I write the number (10) on the first piece of paper, and turn it to them, asking, “Are any of you
thinking of the number ten?”
When they respond that none of them are thinking of this number, I ask, “Does this number
happen to mean something to any of you? I’m really not sure why it’s coming through so
clearly.”
Perhaps you’ll get some sort of hit with the number ten, whether someone was born on the tenth,
or in October, etc, but its true purpose will be revealed later. I rip the page off and let it drop to
the stage floor.
37
“Maybe I should take it one person at a time,” I say, pointing to one individual, “Please focus
on your thought. Very good, and now you…and finally, you, focus on your thought.”
I write down three thoughts onto the pad, and turn it around, showing:
TRIANGLE
ELEPHANT
NANCY
“If I got your thought, would you please sit down?”
All three participants will take their seats, and we can take a bow and our first applause cue. Let
it sink in, as if this is the end of the show.
When the commotion and applause begins to die down, we can crank it back up with our second
reveal.
Look at the words that you’ve written, and then give a surprised look to the audience, saying,
“Huh…do any of you guys see what I’m seeing?”
The audience may think that you’re ending the show by having a mental fit, as hardly anyone
ever notices what you’re seeing. I then pick up the page that I dropped to the stage.
“I wasn’t sure where the number ten was coming from, but look at this: triangle, elephant,
and Nancy. T…E…N.”
I circle each letter as I say it.
“It must have been because I had you all send your thoughts together at first. Very
interesting.”
I drop the (10) page once more and take another bow, cueing our second applause.
After letting that sit for a few moments, we give our closing monologue.
“I have a confession to make. What you just saw looked like mindreading and psychic
ability, but it wasn’t, because there is no such thing as real mindreading. Everything that
you’ve witnessed tonight were illusions, planned with immense care and attention to detail.
So well-detailed, and so well-planned, that I actually knew before the show even started
that the three of you would have those exact thoughts. To prove this, I wrote three words
38
on a piece of paper. Who was the last person to catch that ball? Could you please stand and
open the paper we’ve been throwing around for the entire show?”
When the paper is opened, all three thoughts are revealed to be written in bold, black marker,
clear for everyone to read.
We take our third and last applause cue, saying our final thank you and goodnight.
Method One:
This opening version of “Force Field” is the one that I use most often. If you have even a
modest understanding of mentalism methods, I’m sure you’re aware that we’re making use of
David Hoy’s Tossed Out Deck principle in this routine.
What I personally like best about this version is that the inclusion of random thoughts makes the
illusion that much stronger. That we can ask people what they thought of, and get some random
choices, makes it seem like every person is thinking a unique thought.
In reality, our final three participants are all from the influence group. By tossing the ball to one
group member at a time, we can keep track of three members from the influence group during
the procedure.
With ten people standing, we will have five members of each group. I choose to remember the
middle three, as they are the least likely to be remembered, and will get lost in the group. It’s
possible a person in the audience may keep track of one of our final participants, but it’s highly
unlikely that they will also be keeping track of all the others.
Using the Tossed Out Deck principle, we must have all three participants thinking of the same
thing. In order to create this outcome, we perform a psychological force on our influence group,
guiding them to think of an elephant; I will be teaching a non-force version in the next section.
The psychological force that I use starts with the participants thinking of any odd number. I may
sometimes ask people to think of an even number and an odd number, and then have them add
the numbers together.
Whenever you add an even and an odd number, the resulting total will always be an odd number.
Using this principle, we aren’t drawing as much attention to the fact that it must be an odd
number. But, it’s also adding an extra bit of mental work for your audience.
Suffice it to say, as long as they’re thinking of any odd number, the force will work. This is
because every odd number has an (E) amongst the last two letters.
39
So, when we tell them to imagine the number as a word, and to focus on the last two letters, one
of them will be an (E). When we add, “Think of whichever is closer to the beginning of the
alphabet,” it will always lead to the (E) being selected.
From here, we ask them to imagine a large animal beginning with this letter, which will
psychologically force the elephant.
After our ten, randomly selected participants are standing, we say that we will be selecting three
of them to proceed. Of course, we need to work them down to the three people we have
memorized from group one.
To do this without arousing suspicion, we must create a way of selecting them which seems to
eliminate participants through a natural process.
This process can be anything, but I usually ask them to send their thoughts towards the stage,
visualizing their thoughts in front of them. I pretend to study the group, and I’ll point out the first
person who was selected from group two.
You will naturally remember this person, so just focus on memorizing the three members of
group one.
I remark how this participant is difficult to read, and I ask them to say their thought aloud. This
will give us our first unique thought, which helps to confirm the illusion of randomness later. I
now continue to go through the group, asking people to sit, until I’m finally at my final three.
It should seem as though we’re selecting them because they responded best to our suggestions,
and we feel that we can work with them.
From this moment on, it’s all about the revelations.
I start by asking all three of them to send their thoughts at once. This leads to us getting the
number (10). Again, perhaps this will lead to a hit of some kind.
We now reveal all three thoughts, writing them down on a large pad of paper.
We turn the pad over to show the thoughts, saying the classic Hoy line, “If I got your thought,
would you please sit down?”
All three will sit, as all three have seen (Elephant).
None of them are actually thinking of a (Triangle) or (Nancy).
Reveal the surprise meaning of the number ten, finishing with the opening of the paper ball for a
well-earned applause.
40
I may also ask the participant who opens the paper ball to say their thought aloud, as they will
always be from group two, reaffirming the randomness before asking them to open the paper.
Method Two:
This is a way to perform a very similar effect without the need of a force. I will typically present
this so that a random member of the audience predicts the final outcome.
At the very start of the show, I bring forward a random audience member, we’ll call her Joan.
I ask her to think of a basic, primary shape, and write it on a pad of paper without showing the
audience. We are positioned behind them, so we can see which shape they choose.
We now ask her to think of an animal, any animal that pops into their mind, and to write it down.
Finally, we ask Joan to think of a name, not of someone they know, but a random name. This is
written down, as well.
Let’s assume that they’ve written:
TRIANGLE
DOG
AMANDA
We tear the page off the pad, fold it into fourths, sign the outside, and tape it shut, saying that
we’ll come back to it at the end of the show. Joan is sent back to her seat, keeping hold of the
paper for the entire performance.
Reaching the end of the show, I ask people to stand at random. When roughly a third of the
audience is standing, I say, “Can you all please think of a simple, basic shape? The first
shape that pops into your mind.”
Give them a second, and say, “By a show of hands, how many of you thought of a triangle?”
During this question, we are going to look out and remember three of the people with their hands
raised, preferably people who are wearing something easily identifiable. We now add, “And
how many thought of a circle?”
41
More hands will go up, and we say, “We have a lot of unique thinkers in the crowd. Most
people would have thought of a square. Thank you for demonstrating that even with a
choice as simple as a shape, we all make truly random decisions.”
We now ask a second group to stand, another third of the audience, and ask them to think of an
animal, any animal that they wish to choose.
Finally, we ask everyone who hasn’t stood yet to think of a name, any name that means
something to them.
The big difference in this routine is that we don’t toss out a ball to select people. We need to just
ask everyone in the audience to imagine their thought, and to send it to you.
We then point to three people to stand, people who we think responded best to our suggestions.
Ask that they continue to focus on their thoughts, as we write down and reveal:
TRIANGLE
DOG
AMANDA
We say, “If I got your thought, would you please sit?”
All three spectators will sit, as they’re all thinking of a triangle.
After the applause has died down, we can ask Joan to come back to the front. Suddenly,
everyone will remember that we asked her to think of a shape, an animal, and a name. We have
her use a knife to cut through the tape, unfolding the page to reveal the thoughts that she wrote at
the start of the show.
I really love the idea of a random audience member somehow predicting how the end of the
show will occur. It has the drawback of not selecting people at random, and needing to memorize
Joan’s choices, but I think the uniqueness of the demonstration offsets those minor drawbacks.
After reading a rough draft of this book, Madison Hagler had an interesting presentation to
further solidify the illusion that our three participants are all from separate groups, as well as
some extra subtleties that I thought were worth sharing.
Have one-third of the audience stand, and ask them to think of a simple shape.
We ask, “By a show of hands, how many thought of a triangle?"
42
Memorize three people with their hands raised during this moment.
Follow up this question with, “How about a circle, a heart, or something crazy like a
hexagon or trapezoid? Wow! That's the majority of you. So you see, even with a simple
shape, there are a wide variety of possibilities, and what seems like a small category is
actually much broader than you may think. You guys can have a seat."
Now we get another one-third of the audience to stand. "I would like you guys to think of any
animal. It could be from a zoo, a jungle, a pet, literally any animal. Now, remember how
varied the responses were for the shapes? Think about how many more animals there are
than shapes! This category now seems massive compared to the previous one which was
already very large. Once you have an animal in mind, take a seat."
The last one-third of the audience stands. "How can we get broader than an animal? Oh I
know! Think of a name. It can be the name of a relative, friend, acquaintance, actor,
character, or just a random name you've heard at some point in your life. Now think about
how EXTREMELY MASSIVE this category is! There are literally billions upon billions of
names out there. As a matter of fact, the list gets bigger and bigger every second! Once you
have a name take a seat."
We continue with, "Great. Now if you're thinking of a shape, raise your hand and project
your thought to me. Okay I'm feeling it very strongly over here.”
We gesture to the general area of one of our three, memorized triangle people.
“You can put your hands down. Now, all of the people thinking of an animal raise your
hand, and imagine sending me your thoughts. Oh wow! Someone is doing a great job at
sending over here.”
We now gesture in the general area of our second, memorized triangle person.
“Put your hands down. Now those of you thinking of a name, please raise your hand.
Hmmm this is a little more difficult but I BELIEVE I'm getting one stronger than the
others.”
No gesture on this one.
“Thank you, and put your hands down. Okay…would you, you, and you please stand?”
Point out the three memorized people thinking of a triangle.
“I had some second thoughts, but I believe you three were giving me the strongest
impressions of anyone else."
From here, we would continue as laid out in the original routine.
43
This approach makes getting our three participants seem even more natural. Plus, clumping
together circle with a whole bunch of other shapes makes it seem like there's a wide variety of
random shapes being thought of.
It also makes sense as to why the three people standing at the end have different thoughts, as we
have begun to seemingly target three individuals during the hand raising sequence.
I think this is a really great way to present this version of “Force Field”.
Method Three:
This is probably the easiest version of all three, but it has some advantages and disadvantages
that you need to consider, before choosing which method and presentation you may want to use.
Essentially, we toss out a paper ball and select three people at random.
We now perform the (Elephant) force on these three people, but instead of finishing at just an
animal, we add, “If you cannot think of a large animal, then you can try to think of a color
that starts with this letter, or a famous city, or a name, whatever you can come up with.”
I say this line long after they should have an elephant locked away in their mind.
They won’t respond to my other suggestions, because they’re already thinking of a large animal
starting with that letter.
We can now ask them to send their thoughts towards the stage.
We use our (10) miss.
We then reveal the three thoughts: triangle, elephant, and Nancy.
Perform the ‘ten’ revelation, and open the paper ball for the final reveal.
As I said, this is definitely the easiest and quickest of all of the versions. It also seems the most
fair.
I just don’t like that if they go through the instructions after, they will always end up at elephant.
This is fine in method one, as we still have the confusion of how we ascertained the random
thoughts of group two. It just seems more impossible to backtrack.
Still, this is without-a-doubt the most streamlined version of this effect.
44
--Using ‘method one’, I’ve sometimes taken the ‘ENIGMA’ approach and named my show,
‘E.S.P.’ I mention the name of the show a couple of times throughout the set, and they see it on
display for the entire show. I would just perform the revelations a little differently. I would first
guess the three words. The second reveal would be the paper ball, proving I knew which words
they would pick. And the final reveal would be pointing out the specific letters, ‘ESP’, and
reiterating the name of the show.
--Once we’ve whittled the group down to our final three, we could add, “I believe we have two
people from group two, and one person from group one.” All three will think that the other
two are from group two, as they’re all from group one.
--You could use “Targeting” as a way to force a simple shape or color in any of these routines.
--Another addition that I’ve used in the past involved my soon to be wife, or any other secret
helper. After having the ten people selected, instead of asking the first person what he’s thinking
of, I point to my helper “seemingly at random” and ask what they thought of. Perhaps they say,
“Pizza.”
We could make a joke, asking, “Are you hungry?”
This will help the audience to remember the moment. At the end, on the balled up paper, we
could then have an extra prediction, “And someone get the girl in the red dress a slice of
pizza!”
I’ve also sometimes hidden a pizza coupon, crumpled up inside of the paper ball, which is
always a nice bit of comedy and surprise.
Credits:
Alain Nu first developed the polling idea in his “Zodieque” in Syzygy Magazine.
Since that publication, there have been variations on the polling technique by Luke Jermay,
Andrew Gerard, and Hector Chadwick.
Ted Karmilovich published an idea using the polling concept combined with the Tossed-Out
Deck principle in his “No Prop Nightclub Act”. He uses it very cleverly as a way to guess a few
audience members various star signs.
45
In Banachek’s Psychological Subtleties, there is an effect called the “Hoy/Karmilovich Test”
which involved using psychological forces and Hoy’s principle, but it’s vastly different than
what I’ve proposed here.
This effect wouldn’t be possible without “The Tossed-Out Deck” by David Hoy.
Luke Jermay’s “Touching on Hoy” is similar to this effect, except I feel that I’ve streamlined it
in some ways. By removing the tapping procedure, we’re also making the dual reality a bit
stronger, and harder to unravel.
46
Closing Thoughts
I’ve expressed a multitude of thoughts in this manuscript, and I can hardly expect you to agree
with every single one of them.
As I’ve mentioned, this book was meant to be a guideline for my own performance, and what I
personally want from my work. You may want entirely different things from your performance,
and that is perfectly fine. It’s great, in fact. That’s the whole purpose of this book, for us to think
differently and express our own unique creativity.
I just wish to see this wonderful art be pushed forward, beyond the countless star sign
divinations, book tests, and standard effects that get endlessly peddled out by our fraternity.
Although I suggest using old methods to create new effects, it would also be great to see us
attempting to move past some of the outdated methods that we use.
I very often avoid the types of topics that I’ve discussed in this book, because our artistic
viewpoints and beliefs are always changing. I can only say that these things feel right at the
moment, and I feel that these thoughts have helped to shape my current work.
As always, I hope that you will think on the subjects that I’ve discussed, and that some of my
processes and thoughts will be helpful to you in some way.
The best advice that I can give you as an artist is to create in the grey areas of performance, and
you will produce a show that is very much your own.
Thank you, once again.
Matt Mello
47

Matt Mello - The Grey Area

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Matt Mello - The Grey Area

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

THE GREY AREA

No part of this publication may be duplicated, copied, or transmitted in any form

There Are No New Effects!………………………………………….....…………………………5

The Art of Creating…………...………………………………………………………..………….9

The Lies We Tell………………………………………………………………………...………12

Targeting: An Approach to Psychological Forces……………………………………………….32

I hope that you will enjoy my thinking on these subjects.

For my purposes of appearing to be an ordinary person demonstrating extraordinary things, it’s

Presentation and Method:

That’s all there is to this piece.

Personally, I prefer to just worry about a single person.

Presentation and Method:

Additional Thoughts and Ideas:

Presentation and Method:

We now go a little bit further with the cuing system.

Of course, we will likely be correct.

Additional Thoughts and Ideas:

Presentation and Methods:

They will say, “Yes.”

We ask, “Can you read the word that she wrote?”

“Just think of the word that you wanted to write.”

Look at the squiggles, and then look at the participant.

“Is the first letter a D?”

She will say, “Yes.”

“Is the word you’re thinking of, ‘dog’?”

Again, she will confirm that you’re correct.

This looks about as clean as the real thing.

If you try it out, I think you will use it regularly.

Presentation and Method:

I study her for a moment, before saying, “It was an A name?”

She will say, “Yes.”

She will say that you’re correct.

Additional Thoughts and Ideas:

Presentation and Method:

“How much money did you just give her?”

He will answer, “Seven dollars.”

I will typically add, “Imagine if those were hundreds!”

Setup a stack of bills like this:

(7) $1 bills face-up

(2) $1 bills facedown

(1) $100 bill facedown on the very bottom

Additional Thoughts and Ideas:

Presentation and Method:

However, we could also approach the shape force in a different way.

Another example is forcing a color.

Additional Thoughts and Ideas:

This just makes it seem like they had more options.

“Force Field” definitely fits that bill.

I point to two more people, “Could you please sit?”

“Focus on your thoughts. Keep visualizing them in front of you.”

“If I got your thought, would you please sit down?”

I circle each letter as I say it.

From this moment on, it’s all about the revelations.

All three will sit, as all three have seen (Elephant).

None of them are actually thinking of a (Triangle) or (Nancy).

Let’s assume that they’ve written:

We say, “If I got your thought, would you please sit?”

All three spectators will sit, as they’re all thinking of a triangle.

We ask, “By a show of hands, how many thought of a triangle?"

No gesture on this one.

Point out the three memorized people thinking of a triangle.

From here, we would continue as laid out in the original routine.

We use our (10) miss.

We then reveal the three thoughts: triangle, elephant, and Nancy.