Prometheus

Mitchell Kettlewell
Cover Design by José Prager
Copyright © 2018 by Mitchell Kettlewell and E-
Mentalism

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be
reproduced in any form without written permission
from the author. For television rights and further
information, please contact:
Mitchellkmentalism@gmail.com
Introduction:
Spectator as a mind reader has to be one of my favourite plots/
presentations within mentalism. If you can give the spectator
the ability to replicate what it is that we are doing, they will be
made to feel special and unique, which, for me atleast, is a huge
part of what I aim for whenever I perform.

It has been discussed in the past by others, but a huge thing

about spectator as a mind reader is credibility; in having a
spectator read your mind, it boosts credibility on what you are
doing. Credibility may not be a thing that you aim for in your
mentalism (by this I am referring to having your performance
be believed to be a genuine display of mind reading, not tricks),
but regardless, it is a very VERY powerful plot. Should a
spectator also be performing the ability that you’re displaying,
how could someone denounce it as false?

Let’s take a look at this from another perspective - how would

you feel? A person, whom you’ve potentially never met before,
has approached you and claimed to be able to read your mind.
with their demonstrations, they have proven this true, knowing
private details about your life, as well as knowing under test
conditions the exact thought that lies in your head at a specific
point. This figure then claims that you too can do the same.
moments later, you have somehow read the mind of this mind
reader, telling him his pin code, which he confirms to be correct
(and has proof in writing before you announce your thought
aloud). However, you have NO (or very little) idea exactly how
you did it - you just knew! This is powerful stuff!

Personally, I strive for all of my material to be as clean and fair

as possible, making logical sense. The subtlety following will
direct you on how to create the illusion that the spectator has
read the mind of another, or even read your mind. The ideas are
somewhat similar to my Pandora technique, however you do
not require knowledge of Pandora to be able to learn and
perform this.

It has probably crossed your mind as to why this is called

Prometheus. I always had a fascination with myths and
Legends. With my debut booklet being ‘Pandora’ after
Pandora’s Box, it felt only right to also fit this within that
theme.
Prometheus was a titan, who would steal fire from the gods,
and give it to humans. With this technique, the performer is
giving the spectator the ability to read a mind too. There’s a
logical connection.

Before we begin, I’d like to credit Peter Turner, a) for inspiring

me to get started into mentalism; and b) for his incredible
thinking, which the following stems from.

Without further ado, let us get into learning my take on the

illusion of Spectator as a Mind Reader.

Mitchell Kettlewell
London
2018
Effect:
The performer begins to read a participant, picking up upon a
name or other specific piece of information. Just prior to the
reveal, the performer turns to a different person present, and
states that he knows how they are trying to intuit what the
information is as well… their thought is found correct when
both spectators announce the same thought aloud and the
performer reveals the information.

In my opinion, the subtlety at play here could not be simpler. It

can be applied when a spectator is thinking of something
specific, or even if one spectator is attempting to intuit the
performer’s information.

This technique is best utilised for an additional moment in

which another spectator is given the limelight too, also intuiting
the information with no compromise or process.

It is very straightforward in its working. I shall outline and

break down a mock performance below:

We shall assume that the performer has had a spectator think of

a piece of information, that he now knows in some way ready
for reveal - whether the thought be written and peeked using
you favourite method and justification, or whether it be forced
from a Svengali Pad (should something such as this appeal to
you). A stack of index cards, or another method of information
gathering/forcing will also be suitable - as long as the
performer somehow knows what the thought is!

*A side note: index cards can be used in very deceptive ways to

have someone think of something. I will not go in depth here,
but I use an index card to force a spectator to think of two
things: one piece of information is saved for later, so that I can
create a clean outcome for having someone think of a piece of
information on the spot - the the participant is prompted from
the card on exactly what they are to do. Food for thought, and
maybe more soon!*

In this example, we shall follow the belief that a name exists in

their mind, however they could be thinking of pretty much
anything!

The performer will begin to receive impressions about the name

and the person; possibly a random letter from within the name
is revealed (as in Banachek’s Brain Games - found under the
title ‘Letters in a word’ in Psychological Subtleties 1 - it’s on
page 61 in the third edition).

As much information as possible is squeezed out of the name

and person whom the thought of name belongs. However, it
should not be obvious as to what the name is, therefore it is best
to avoid revealing too much information. The furthest I would
go is revealing the initials of the person, along with details
about the personality of the person (using cold reading and out
right guesswork - being bold really pays off)!

The performer turns to a spectator and states:

“I believe that you are here, maybe also trying to

make a sense of what they are thinking, trying to
formulate an idea of what their thought could be?”
During a performance of apparent mind reading, most
spectators (if showing an interest) will be attempting to work
out what the thought is too - it’s like a game. Think to when you
have been sat at home, watching a game show on the television.
Quite often - if not all the time - you’ll find that you instinctively
play along too - it’s interactive entertainment. It is very much
the same with a mind reader performing live in front of people.
Therefore, at this point, the spectator will agree. All that need to
be ensured, is that this spectator is showing an interest in your
performance: sitting forward, leaning in toward you; making
eye contact and not looking around the room; not talking with
others there, distracted; and most certainly not heckling you.

Even if the spectator isn’t trying to work out the thought it

doesn’t matter! At this point, you go further and have them
fully formulate a thought themselves anyway.

Should none of your spectators be displaying the body language

of being interested, simply do not use that line. I use it myself
because I immediately afterwards state:

“Your intuition is naturally firing up here, honing in

upon this information yourself.”

At this point, regardless of whether they admit to attempting to

intuit the thought themselves or not, I proceed with a pseudo
process in having them hone in closer to the thought. Should
the thought be a name, I would suggest the following:

“Slowly form this thought inside of your mind. I’ll

guide you a little here, helping you through what to
think of to hone in closer to this name. So…this is a
male... or a female. Think of what this person would
look like, what we have found they act like, and get a
few letters in mind, filtering down to one letter at a
time as the letters in this name. You’re doing great.”

The direct instruction here ‘this is a male’ could lead them to

believe that the name belongs to a male person. This is NOT
guaranteed, however it could statistically help guide them. As it
has been set up contextually as you guiding them, they are
likely to take every bit of help they can get. Make eye contact
with the person you are guiding as you say “This is a male”
then look away to someone else as you say “or a female” and it
will be taken as a direct statement that the person is male.
Softening your voice on the statement of “this is female” will
also make it less prominent. Utilising the time of voice to make
choices more psychologically favourable is discussed in
Psychological Subtleties 1 as ‘Subtle Voice Forcing’ from pages
71-73 of the third edition.

This ploy is important for a small bonus thought explained at

the very end. It is not essential here for the working of the
routine, just presentationally it looks as if they are honing in to
the thought.

Alternatively, you can use the method behind Peter Turner’s

ACAAN from his first penguin live lecture (also featuring in
‘Freeform Mentalism’) in order to guide your participant to
think of the gender of the person to be used later on.

With the spectator being guided toward the gender, it makes it

just that little bit more likely that they will actually be correct
with the name that they think of. This routine is surefire due to
the method, as you will come to understand very shortly. They
aren’t likely to be correct on the information, but on the off
chance that they do think of the exact information it will be a
true miracle. Why not guide them a little to help the statistic of
that occurring increase?!

It is crucial to have them confirm that they have a fully formed

idea in mind, as this will prevent the moment collapsing later
on.

There is a key moment here to ensure that the outward reality is

that our spectator was correct with their intuited name. You
state this:

“Based off of chance, it is very likely that the guess

here will be incorrect. If so, it doesn’t matter, it’s fair
to say that you’ve never done anything like this
before. I was reading the thought from our sender of
information here, and all will be revealed in just a
moment. Firstly though, let’s check…”

At this point you lean in and whisper into the ear of spectator
who has been intuiting the thought too.

“You’ll announce the correct name in a moment - I

received the name ‘Jack’ from them. That’s ‘Jack’. By
the way as well, I received something from you just
then… your star sign is a Virgo”.

The performer leans out and addresses everyone:

“That was the thought in your head, that’s correct
yes? Excellent. So, just to reiterate, in a moment I will
count down from 3 to 1, then snap my fingers. When I
snap my fingers, I’d like you to state that name out
loud? And at the same time I’d like our sender to do
the same - To say your thought when I snap.
Great job by the way, you did excellently!”

There is a lot to break through here. Rather than break it down

bit by bit to start with, I thought it would be better to write it all
in one go for ease of understanding and referral, then break
down after.

“Based off of chance, it is very likely that the guess

here will be incorrect. If so, it doesn’t matter, it’s fair
to say that you’ve never done anything like this
before. I was reading the thought from our sender of
information here, and all will be revealed in just a
moment. Firstly though, let’s check…”

The context for what you are about to whisper is set up here,
leading the rest of the audience to believe that you are about to
whisper an instruction, along with the information that you
were receiving from the thought sender. The outward reality
created depends upon this line.

At this point you lean in and whisper into the ear of spectator
who has been intuiting the thought too.

“You’ll announce the correct name in a moment - I

received the name ‘Jack’ from them. That’s ‘Jack’.”
The information to be whispered here in the place of ‘Jack’ will
be the information that is known from the beginning of the
routine. It’s important to reiterate the information to them, just
to ensure that they heard it correctly, as they will be repeating
this back in a few moments and if they have the wrong
information the routine will collapse. You also state that the
correct name is Jack, so they will not announce an incorrect
name in fear of being embarrassed.

“By the way as well, I received something from you

just then… your star sign is a Virgo”.

This section causes the reaction in the spectator, which creates

the outward reality that their thought was correct. The rest of
the audience believes that you are simply whispering an
instruction (which is reinforced in a few moments), as well as
the name you intuited. There is no reason to believe that the
performer would whisper anything else.

The information revealed to them within your whisper is

previously gathered, and is a thought that already exists within
their mind. Details on several ways in which to do this will be
outlined after this section.

The performer leans out and addresses everyone:

“That was the thought in your head, that’s correct

yes? Excellent. So, just to reiterate, in a moment I will
count down from 3 to 1, then snap my fingers. When I
snap my fingers, I’d like you to state that name out
loud? And at the same time I’d like our sender to do
the same - To say your thought when I snap.
Great job by the way, you did excellently!”

The information revealed to them was inside of their head,

therefore they will confirm your statement of the second
question. The reaction elicited from the spectator, as well as the
question asked to which they confirm, will lead the audience to
believe that your intuiting spectator got the name correct.

In stating “just to reiterate”, it outwardly creates the illusion

that you are restating what it was that you whispered. In reality,
you are reiterating what you said in the whisper - you told them
that they will be saying that information in a moment, you are
simply giving more information here.

The length of this reiteration statement will seem to the rest of

the audience as if it is exactly what you whispered, as it lasts the
same time (roughly) as your whispered statement. The
audience now perceives that the spectator was whispered an
instruction, and then the information - to which they react,
confirming that the thought was in their mind.

The final congratulations further reinforces that they correctly

received the name. Allow a huge smile to spread across your
face at this point in order to further this illusion.

Now, when you count down from 3, and snap, both spectators
will say the thought at same time. This sort of revelation is very
powerful, reflecting that theatrical moment of a traditional
drawing duplication in which both drawings are turned and
revealed to match.
As a safety measure, and to get a potentially further reaction to
reinforce that you also got the information correct, it is best to
write the reveal yourself too. This way, should the spectator for
some odd reason say the wrong name (which is very unlikely as
they won’t want to look silly, and you have authority so they will
take your impression as true), then the routine won’t fall flat as
you still have a revelation.

To completely clear up the alternate reality, the star sign (or

whatever information is whispered), must be revealed again.
The clear up is not compulsory, however if the spectator is to
mention how you guessed their star sign when the rest of the
audience wasn’t aware of that, the realities will jar. The method
could collapse in. Therefore, in the next mind reading
demonstration that you provide, you reveal the information
that you whispered along with the revelation of the new reveal:

“Your star sign is a Virgo isn’t it - and the place you

thought of was Amsterdam?”

The reaction from the new reveal will be perceived on the whole
by the rest of the audience as if it is to both pieces of
information. This way, if anyone was to ask about the star sign,
it has already been outwardly revealed and it is very unlikely
that anyone will say anything that will shatter the reality. The
realities now blend together nicely, so all is secure.
Gathering The Info:

Within the industry of mentalism, there are several ways to
gather information. Peeks, impression devices, anagrams,
observation, research in advance, and other propless methods
of garnering information are all examples of ways to gather
information for reveal.



In terms of gathering information for this routine, it is gathered
and then needs to be stored, the performer not revealing that
they know the information until it is needed for use as an out.
There are a variety of ways to do this, which will be explained
below.

Information that I personally feel is suitable to use can include:
previously written or thought of names; star sign; date of birth;
pin code, or even a previously selected playing card that the
performer dismisses. Personally, I’m in the belief that a pin
code for their phone is too powerful a reveal, and should be
used on its own as a solitary piece. However, if you can gather
their code in some way (observation, or a peek) and don’t wish
to outwardly reveal it then you are able to use it here. 

Information techniques are as follows:

Peek and Dismissal:

Having your spectator write down the information that you
wish to gather, before peeking the information by whatever
means you wish (Quadrant Peek; an Impression device; Centre
Tear; or even a general peek), then dismissing the information
and segueing off into another effect is a definite option to use in
order to garner whatever information that you mean to utilize
here.
A center tear can often go unjustified, with the process seeming
odd - why would a piece of information be written down just to
have it ripped up before reveal? Of course some performers are
happy to utilize a center tear to gather information, I am not
saying that there is anything wrong with it and I have seen
mentalists totally rock a set using a center tear. However, with a
dismissal of the information there, the ripping totally makes
logical sense, and also brings the spectators guard down about
the tearing s it seems to be less suspicious. 



Psychologically, the information and process is dismissed, so
later, when you come to reveal that information, it is much
more difficult to backtrack.



This is a concept known widely (I believe), however i would like
to credit Fraser’s ‘Fundamentals of Mentalism’ episode, where
this is highlighted, as well as Michael Murray for his ‘Thought
Unlinking’ concept from ‘A Piece of My Mind’, and Mark
Chandaue’s ‘Scrap It Principle’ from ‘Harpacrown’. I would
recommend you pick up these if possible - they are well worth
the investment!


Additional Information Billet:

An additional information billet can be given to the spectator to
have them fill out, in order to gather two solid pieces of
information - one of which is revealed, the other/others of
which are stored for later use. 

An additional information billet would look like this:



Your thought:

_________

Also, please write down your star sign here as a bonus:

________



The spectator will be handed the billet and instructed to “gather
your thoughts and completely fill out the card,”



Thought Backtracking - Mitchell Kettlewell

This is a basic method stumbled across when considering ideas
for gathering information. It is used to covertly gather
information from a spectator, it’s my favourite method to use in
order to gather two pieces of information from a spectator, but
they are only directly aware of one. I’d go as far to say that it is
so covert that often the spectator will not remember it at all and
will be very unlikely to even be able to backtrack anything. I
won’t lie, I’m pretty proud of this. 



Simply, a spectator is given a billet, and instructed to write their
star sign. After a second, the performer changes his/her mind
and states:


“In fact, cross that out, forget that. I’d like you to
please take a moment to focus upon and write down
what animal that you believe that you would be, if
you were to be one. Take time to consider this… then
commit your thought to paper.”



The participant is left enough time to write the first 2 or 3
letters of their star sign, before being instructed to cross it out,
and forget that process. Due to the fact that they haven’t
completed the writing process, it is dismissed psychologically.
They are instructed to forget the sign and writing as well,
deeming that writing of the star sign as unimportant, aiding in
the dismissal process. It is important that you leave enough
time for the spectator to write two letters, so that it becomes
easier to determine the correct sign, as there is some crossover
in first letter. Therefore, I allow them time to what I feel would
be three letters, this way you get a minimum of two letters
written. Spectators only ever put a line through the information
that they have written, making the writing readable.
Occasionally someone may really scribble, however this can still
be readable, but if it is not then you do not have an issue as the
animal is still written out for you to reveal. Another one of the
methods for gathering a piece of information for later use will
have to be utilised. However, this very rarely occurs. 



When you come to peek the whole piece of information that
they have written, you are essentially getting a double peek - the
dismissed information and the focused target thought. In
essence this is a form of additional information billet, with a
potentially more natural seeming process. With this in mind,
there is absolutely nothing wrong with a standard additional
information billet, they certainly serve their purpose and work
in places that this technique couldn’t. 



Any piece of information can be written as the target thought
that the performer changes their mind to go for, however I
purposely choose to have the spectator consider which animal
that they believe that they would be. The reason why, is because
it allows you to utilise a neat little reading system for you to
give a reading to them from their thoughts. I have found this
especially useful when practicing delivering a reading.



In writing what animal that they believe they would be, they are
giving details about themselves to you. By reading and
describing aspects about the animals nature, you are describing
how the participant perceives themselves! Accurate readings all
around! Examples of readings will be included at the end of this
section on the technique. 



Being the target piece of information, the animal itself is
revealed. Even though the animal is revealed, as long as the
billet with the star sign and animal written on is not retrieved,
the spectator will have no reason to believe that the performer
has indeed looked at the information, and to them, will not be
able to have knowledge of their star sign. 



The letters that you will see, with a line through, will be one of
the following:



Le = Leo

Pi = Pisces

Ge = Gemini 

Vi = Virgo

Sc = Scorpio

Ca = Cancer/Capricorn

Ta = Taurus

Li = Libra

Aq = Aquarius 

Sa = Sagittarius 

Ar = Aries 



Looking at the two letters that the spectator has written, then
crossed out, you will instantly know their star sign (unless they
are a Cancer, or a Capricorn, in which case you have to utilize
the ‘CUPS principle’ by Michael Murray as one way to
determine between the two). 



Star signs are not the only information that it is possible to
gather of course. Imagine having the spectator think of the
name of someone important to them, writing their name down
(partly) on a billet, then they are instructed to stop and cross it,
forgetting about it, then writing a word that summarizes the
person (or even something totally unrelated as if the performer
has totally changed their mind on what is to be revealed). In
peeking the first few letters of the name that are on the billet
prior to the alternative target information, a fairly accurate idea
of what the name actually is can be gained. Utilizing the
methods discussed in Fraser’s works, you can very accurately
nail a name that the spectator is thinking of. It is best if a time
delay between peeking the letters and revealing the name is
used, as it will make the routine more deceptive. In order to
ensure that the same name is stored within the participants
mind, a specific line of scripting is used for the dismissal:


“In fact, cross that out, forget that. Just put that
name to the back of your mind for later when it’s to
shift back to the front.”



Later, the callback line is spoken:


“I’d like you please to focus upon a name - allow one

to shift from the back of your mind, back to the front.” 



The call back line directly identifies to the spectator that they
are to think of the specific name that they placed to the back of
their mind earlier on. As the instruction is said directly to them,
it will be understood by them in that way, to everyone else it
will simply seem as if a name is being thought of on the spot. 



Readings:

Giraffe: 

“I feel instantly that you’re a very ambitious person, I can see
that you set a goal and you work towards it until you are
somewhat satisfied. You’re not a quitter - if you can help it,
although I feel sometimes goals have seemed a little too far and
because of this you’ve given up prematurely, and that one time
people questioned why because they believed that you could
achieve great things. 

I’m also sensing that you don’t just tend to focus on one thing at
a time… you focus on maybe two, or even three goals at a time
sometimes, and because of this it can feel like you’re getting
nowhere. If you break things down, I think you’ll find and also
agree that there will be an active movement forward in what
you’re doing, and this will lead to the other focal points of
ambition becoming easier.”



Lion:

“My first impression with you is that you have a strong
personality type. I feel that you feel that you can be strongly
opinionated, but this isn’t a bad thing. You ensure that what is
right for you happens and you don’t let things that happen get
in the way too much. I also feel that your strong personality
type is to do with a confidence, although there’s a feeling within
you of sometime having insecurity over things. After a short
while you dismiss as unimportant and silly, at another point the
thought returns. This also isn’t a bad thing, it shows that you’re
a fairly down to earth person and have a soft spot that only
those that really know you well on a personal level see, and
appreciate. I also know that if something happens, you tend to
not allow your emotions to show on the outside too much.
Because of this, you find that people come to you for support
and comfort in a time of need, and it’s not until you are alone
that you really let it come to mind and consider things more -
that’s when you let your emotions. Those that are around you
definitely really appreciate you for those qualities of being there
and remaining strong for them, and although it may seem like a
small thing, is one of the best qualities someone could have.”



A similar technique is explained in Nico Heinrich’s ‘Pure
Mentalism’, entitled ‘Forgotten Impressions’. Thank you Nico
for blessing me to discuss my technique here despite the slight
similarities. 

Upon Skyping Fraser, he informed me of a similar technique
that Ross Tayler and himself were using in the original ‘Oracle’
as well, so another important credit - especially as the two of
them are at the frontline of the modern Mentalism movement. 





Covert Retrieval:

Yet another technique to secretly store a piece of information, is
to utilize an anagram, where you go as far as the reveal without
actually revealing the information, backing out and dismissing
in the same way as with the written dismissal earlier discussed.
A star sign Anagram is my preferred approach, whether it be a
lettered anagram, or one of the many other star sign guessing
methods available - I know Fraser has many, one or more of
which I am certain you will love and put to use here.



If you would class it as an anagram of sorts, then a birthdate
gathering method (such as Isabella’s Star 2 by Peter Turner)
could be used to gather the birthdate not to reveal. IS2 Can now
be done proplessly thanks to the methods available to us in
order to gather a two digit number. I’ve been using Fraser’s
‘Mental Peek’ for a single digit number of the astrological
number, then getting the second digit using ‘Springboard’ by
Michael Murray. The astrological number digits are not
revealed when I have them, I give a numerology reading based
off of the number and star sign guessed using the anagram
‘monkeying around’ (taught in various places throughout the
work of Peter Turner), before revealing it, storing the date of
birth for later use as the out. 



Whilst not being an anagram, the method I love using is
Fraser’s ‘Ploy’ technique. You get a hit of a totally different
piece of information, whilst gathering their star sign. It serves
perfectly in this scenario. 



I Unlock Your Mind pro by Myke Phillips, Cipher by Ellusionist,
and Toxic+ are all useful mobile apps that gather information
(such as date of birth and star sign) very covertly within
another effect. These are invaluable tools for garnering this
information if you wish to use them in a fitting way within your
performances. There is a large disconnect (especially with a
time delay) between the effect and the revelation of the star sign
or date gathered, in the same way as Ploy would. 



At the start of every set that I perform, I will utilize the Thought
Backtracking technique, or the additional information billet in
order to gather a piece of information stored for use within this
technique for additional, smooth seeming information reveal
(as in the number revelation from the password routine), or as
a back-up to provide an out for any occasion that one is needed. 

Bonus Ploy:
Within the whisper into the spectators ear, there is a small,
subtle thing that can be said which will have them confirm that
their thought was correct. A direct question of:

“You were actually correct on the information then?

You hit there?”

And the spectator will confirm ‘yes’.

The ploy is also fairly straightforward. This is where the
forcing/guiding toward a detail of the information from earlier
comes into play. If you have peeked a male name, and forced
the mind reading spectator to think of a male, you can use this
fact to make them confirm that they were correct. The context
set up script is useful here:

“Based off of chance, it is very unlikely that the guess

here will be incorrect. If so, it doesn’t matter, it’s fair
to say that you’ve never done anything like this
before. I was reading the thought from our sender of
information here, and all will be revealed in just a
moment. Firstly though, let’s check…”

The script softens the blow that they aren’t completely correct,
but aids in them confirming that they were in fact correct in a
few moments time.
The performer leans in and whispers:

“The person that they are thinking of is a male, so

even if you only got that detail correct, that is a hit
and we will say that you are correct.”
This way, when you ask later (after they react and have
confirmed that they were correct, and after the revelation) if
they were ‘actually correct, and hit on it’ they will confirm with
a ‘yes’. For those worried about this being fairly bold (it is fairly
bold and requires the spectator to fully cooperate with you), it
can be checked with them aside, when no one else is paying
attention or when someone is looking through a book for a book
test routine, or if anyone else is looking for something; almost
like a dunninger ploy to find out if they were correct. You can
reinforce for them to confirm, by checking when talking aside
to them:

“Did you get a hit on the male? You were correct then
as I said?”

Then when everyone is paying attention shortly after, the other

checking line can be said:

“You were actually correct on the information then?

You hit there?”

The use of ‘actually’ makes the rest of the audience perceive the
statement to be genuine when they confirm, fully completing
the perfect reality that the spectator read another’s mind. The
spectator here will not want to look silly, so will refrain from
embarrassing themselves and answer with a ‘yes’. This
participation is also boosted in working by the secondary
question. The second question is easier to answer as they know
the answer to that - and it’s treated as a reiteration if your
original question, simplifying it. Therefore, they will answer
‘yes’ to the fact that they hit on details.
This specific ploy will take a little practice in finding someone
who will cooperate with you, but it is basic spectator and
audience management really. I have confidence that after just a
few test runs on members of the public, it will be working for
you and your character. It’s all about finding the correct way of
saying the statement to have them agree with you without you
seeming suspicious. At the end of the day, they won’t want to
admit that they got it wrong, so any chance they are given to say
they got it correct (as with this ploy - saying if they got the
correct gender, then they are correct), they will jump and take
it.
Other Bits and Bobs:
This began as a spectator as a mind reader subtlety, using it
alongside Fraser Parker’s reverse pin guess ‘I fall to pieces’.
Peter Turner’s reverse guess in his At The Table Live Lecture is
also fantastic.
In this routine, the secondary spectator will get a 4 digit code in
mind, a digit at a time, with none of the process that the other
spectator has to do to intuit the code. The method is exactly the
same - the same scripting and all.

To sum up, the method is to whisper a previously gathered

reveal into a spectators ear, whilst making it seem as if you are
whispering the information that you know the other spectator is
thinking of.
Taking Chances:
The most valuable piece of advice I was ever given as a
performer of Mentalism, came from Peter Turner. The first
time that I met him, he wrote on a card for me ‘be bold brother’.
Ever since I’ve taken that advice with me everywhere. Taking
chances has opened up so many opportunities for me and really
taken my mentalism to another level.

Some are worried about being bold and taking chances,

however, as far as I am concerned, if you have a solid outcome
at the end then what does it matter? Why not throw out a
random name of a person, or a place, asking what these things
mean to your spectator? You can hit and then that will really
make you credible (but most of all entertaining). If you miss
and the information means nothing, then what does it matter?
You tried it and it didn’t work, but you still have your final
overall effect to make your comeback with. In my experience,
missing on information before hitting on the target
information, completing the desired effect, will provide strong
reactions. You lower their expectations, then end up exceeding
them when you do make your hit in the end. I’m not saying that
you should miss in every effect that you perform. One or two
misses within a whole set are fine. Too many misses damage
you, the occasional one just lowers expectations a little, builds
tension and takes them on a journey, then the performance is
more entertaining and the reaction larger.

Allow me to share a few experiences from performances. Please

do note, I am not sharing these as an egotistical opportunity. I
am sharing to hopefully inspire some of those taking the time to
read this blog to take chances.
The most stand out story for me was sat in college some time
ago. I was performing an effect from Simon Caine’s Razor
Sharp (the effect in question being Rogue), and the spectator
decided to be a little awkward (being a friend of mine ,after all,
they wanted to challenge me somewhat).

For the first few phases, they touched whatever card I named
for them to find. On the third phase, before I got to name the
card for them to touch, they touched one. I began to explain
that if they didn’t know what they were looking for then how
did they know if the card felt correct to them to select. They
wouldn’t give in and touch another card, so I simply asked
them:

“Okay...So then, what card do you believe that is?”

To this, they replied:

“The three of spades.”

At this point, I genuinely didn’t know what the card was. The
cards were borrowed so I had no knowledge of the card to even
attempt to psychologically force the card upon them. The card
was turned over... and found to be the three of spades.

Another example, which is possibly my favourite ever chance

taken, was on the night of Aidan O’Sullivan’s stage show, which
Aidan and myself had been working together on for months.
After the show, a few people stayed behind with us and we had
a small after show party. We had found a few badminton
rackets and were playing badminton. I decided to take a
random chance. I whispered to one of the people who wasn’t
playing: “One more hit from them, then it will miss and the
rally break.” It was a pure chance I took, and there was a hit of
the shuttlecock, then the receiving person went to react and
return, they hit it... but then the shuttlecock hit the floor. The
reaction from the person whom I had whispered that to was
fabulous. I wish I could’ve caught it on camera - their mouth
dropped open and they looked at me. The others noticed and
asked what happened, at which point I left the room to allow
them to react themselves and experience the moment.

These moments ,of course, can happen at genuinely any time.

However, it is so worth taking these chances.

I’ve decided to suggest a chance to take the next time certain

scenarios occur for you:

You know that annoying spectator that challenges you “what

are next weeks lottery numbers?” They are not really expecting
you to respond with 6 numbers. That is exactly what you should
do. Write some down. You never know - if it hits then you’ve
just predicted the lottery and that spectator will likely never
forget you for aiding them in winning that money. If it misses...
well what does it matter. They won’t think any different of you,
they will commend you for attempting.

I once had a spectator message me 5 times asking me to predict

5 successive lottery draws - failing each time but yet they still
returned. Why not take that chance? You never know.

*A small tip for this... I wasn’t going to include this but why not.
This is what I sent to the person who asked me to predict it
multiple times: ‘3, 11, 16 or 17, 26, 32. I’m not sure on the 16 or
17, you decide upon whatever feels right to you. There will be
another number too obviously - I’m really not sure so please do
choose a number yourself.’

What have I done here? I’ve opened myself another opportunity

and laid the responsibility onto them. They are making the final
decision on the numbers. One of the 6 numbers I have actually
opened out to one of 2 numbers, giving myself a slightly larger
chance of being correct (granted not much of a chance but every
little helps), then allowed them to make the decision on another
number. I’ve opened myself up more chances, whilst also
shifting attention off of me.

This did fail - two numbers were correct, but overall there were
no winnings. The person asked again to which I replied: ‘Keep
these numbers in mind and at some point when you feel the
urge to do so, put a single ticket on if you can do it without it
affecting you economically, with those numbers. At some point,
something will come up’

Of course, they will come up at some point eventually - it just

may not be when they put a ticket on. Therefore, when those
numbers do come out I will get the credibility for it!
Please do note that I am not suggesting they put a ticket on
every draw, I do not want to fuel or begin a gambling addiction.
I’ve been careful about it. *
They gave credit for being close. I opened myself out some extra
opportunity and it paid off. Why not do the same?

Other opportunities will arise in performance. Why not throw

out a month, a year, or even a full date in performance? They
may find some significance. And if they don’t then simply tell
them to keep the date in mind, writing on your business card. It
may become a self fulfilling prophecy. In fact, by giving them a
date, they will be likely to remember you as they wonder about
what will occur, but also, they will look for something that
happens on that date that could be perceived as significant to
them (therefore fulfilling the prophecy themselves - it doesn’t
have to be a wedding or a birthday to be significant)!

Why not throw out a name of a person or a place? America

seems to hit a fair bit as somewhere that someone wants to go
or has a tie with. Then onto New York if that does hit.

So many chances present themselves to us and some do not

take them up. I understand why, and 2 years ago I wasn’t taking
chances at all. Failing does not make you seem unprofessional
or proves that you are just human. Everyone makes mistakes
and the definitive outcome will trump that failure. Why not try
and see what comes of it? It’s better to try, and fail, than it is to
fail to try. It’s honestly worth a try - you still have a solid effect
to finish with, and if anything having an occasional miss will
make what you are doing seem more impressive.
Credit:
Now is the time to thank and credit Peter Turner again. He
truly is an inspiration of mine and without him modern
Mentalism wouldn’t be the same.
Disguising a reveal within a whisper must be accredited to his
‘Bob Principle’ in Bigger Fish 2, first debuting in ‘Devil In
Disguise 1’.

Aidan O’Sullivan - We talk daily and so much comes out of our

conversations, it would be wrong to not credit here.

Joel Dickinson, Ross Tayler, Fraser Parker, and Nico Heinrich,

for the similarity to the Thought Backtracking technique by
myself.

Fraser Parker, Kenton Knepper, and Peter Turner - for their

work on using verbiage to create incredible effects.
Final Thoughts:

For more information about products of mine, please visit:

http://www.mechanicsofthemind.com/titan/

If you email me with the word ‘Titan’, then I will send you a link
for some bonus material - only for those of you that have
purchased this and emailed me at:
mitchellkmentalism@gmail.com

Video content will also be posted on that page - you can’t go

wrong in emailing me really!

Many thanks for purchasing this E-Book - I look forward to the

future!
Mitchell K
London, 2018