Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 18

Copyright 2017. Intuition Publishing.

Prop-less Drawing Duplication.


By Fraser Parker.

The following prop-less drawing duplication is based on the limited


restriction field of commonly thought of drawings as well as the idea
to distinguish between drawings via questions about it's real life
counterpart's characteristics, found in Proteus by Phedon Bilek.
However, my method does not require an anagramming process
utilizing letters from the name of the drawing. I have also
eliminated the need to ask multiple questions about the qualities of
the real life counterpart or object thought of. Instead, I harvest this
information in a much more indirect way which fits and is hidden
via the routine and the performance of the effect, itself.

I am pleased to say that I have the full backing and blessing from
Phedon to release in his words my different AND similar
variation on the prop-less drawing duplication plot.

It is worth mentioning that the following routine only utilizes the


basic amount of outs of potential drawings made by your spectator
as the original Proteus system and Phedon has since expanded
those outs to cover 27 possible drawings in his extended version.

Although my method allows for further outs to be included I prefer


not to do so adding a few outs, at the most to ensure I do not
sacrifice the streamlined nature of the effect.

I would prefer to miss occasionally instead of adding too much


additional process to the method.

The shift that was required was to get the spectator to try to guess a
drawing you are merely thinking of, first. Of course, the way I
handle this is important, so that I am able to secretly obtain
information about their drawing along the way.

The inspiration for this method as well as obviously coming from


the Proteus Drawing Duplication came from the way I would get
which half of the year the spectator was born during my star sign
guess Miriaj, which involves the spectator guessing the star sign of
the performer and during this process the performer secretly
obtains the star sign of the spectator.

I would ask my spectator the following.

If you were to take a guess at my star sign what do you


feel is more likely that we will have completely opposite
signs to each other or that we will share the exact same
star sign?

They would then of course, answer with the word opposite which
means we can then say.

Okay, so this means we will also more than likely be born at


opposing ends of the year.

So with this in mind do you feel I was born in the first or


second half of the year?

And they will then answer in a way that tips to you which half of the
year they were born as they will now be answering in a way that is
always opposite to whichever half of the year they were born. All
you have to do is remember the opposite to whatever answer they
give.

Thanks go to Peter Turner for first posing such a question in order


to elicit a specific response from the spectator, in my other star sign
guess Seeing Signs.

This is just the first part of one of my star sign guesses and I hit
upon this whilst trying to achieve something else. It was only after
finishing the star sign guess that my good friend Ross Tayler
reminded me where the basic idea had come from; using opposites
within the context of a spectator guessing information about the
performer to secretly tip information about the spectator, was first
conceived by Ross in the early stages of his star sign guess that was
later released in our limited edition book Second Coming.
I feel each of our star sign guess are different enough to warrant
both being published and the handling of this question about which
half of the year they feel I was born, is a nice linguistic use of this
basic idea that did not feature in any of the previous attempts at
working out a use for this general concept.

But why do we need to know all of this? I hear you ask.

Well, the reason is the following method believe it or not was born
out of these thoughts.

I first started with a statement about my thought of drawing and the


spectator's not likely matching but instead having opposite
characteristics, in order to receive answers that were opposite to the
thought of drawing of the spectator.

I then realised this was too overt and was too much like giving
directions that would make back-tracking easier and the method
more obvious, so I decided to change what I was doing by
simplifying it.

This made the effect and method work together in a way that was
beautifully deceptive and perfect theatrically it looking exactly as
it should, in terms of outward appearance of effect with the use of
opposites now applied to effect as opposed to being applied directly
to the method.
The way I shifted everything was to actually get the spectator to give
similar characteristics to their thought of drawing without is
seeming like I was asking directly for them to do this.

What is really nice, is the line I use to do this is later disregarded as


unimportant and it's meaning is re-framed naturally by the
performance itself which means the method can not easily be back-
tracked by audience members.

Props should go to Ross here for first applying the idea of re-
framing to method itself it has since become such an important
part of my thinking, it is hard to imagine modern mentalism and the
genre of prop-less existing without it.

The overall appearance of the effect creates a false logic that makes
everything appear entirely fair and the fact the method exists in
words and disappears after it is spoken means all that your audience
will be left with is the appearance of what seemingly took place; that
of real mind reading.

The combination of method and effect combine to create something


bigger than the sum of it's parts.

So what does it look like and feel like?

Here is the script I use.


I want you to imagine you are back at school around 12-13
years old, sat at your desk and are bored so you decide to
create a simple drawing on your notebook like a Clock with
hands, a Mountain or a Bicycle. Please avoid those as I
have just mentioned them and also avoid only drawing
simple shapes such as Hearts or Stars but instead draw
something we would recognize as an actual object.

This is similar to the script Phedon uses to ensure the spectator


draws something that will likely fit into our limited selection of
commonly thought of simple drawings.

Note: Luke Jermay was the first to use a restrictive field that was
not seemingly restrictive.

Morgan Strebler has also used the idea of getting the spectator to
imagine they were back at school to restrict their drawing to one out
of a few simple drawings they could be thinking of.

We have eliminated a Mountain or something like a Mountain such


as a Volcano and a Bicycle from likely being chosen just by
mentioning them ala. Psychological Subtleties 1 by Banachek.

So now they will likely be thinking of one of the following,


commonly thought of drawings when given these restrictions.
The list I work with is:

MOON
SUN
TREE
CAR
BOAT
AEROPLANE
STICK-MAN
HOUSE
TABLE
CHAIR
GLASS
PEN
PENCIL
BALL
FISH
FLOWER
CAT
DOG

These are from the restrictive field discovered to work well by


Phedon.
Of course, I have also mentioned the Heart and Star shapes and
have therefore eliminated them from my system. The reason for this
is so that each of the possible drawings conform to two basic
properties:

Man made and natural objects and objects that can or can not be
held in your hand.

Art Vandelay was first to use such distinctions in his work using
Anagrams to successfully divine objects thought of by a spectator
and should therefore get credit.

The reason we need these distinctions will become clear in a


moment, each of which come from Phedon's method as a way of
distinguishing between certain possible choices of drawing.

These distinctions are something Peter Turner has also played with
in the past when dealing with thought of objects.

Now I say the following.

Before I try to guess what it is you've drawn I want you to


try to guess the drawing I have in my mind.

It is this next line that underpins the entire method and makes it
work.

I casually say,

It would be interesting if we had both drawn the same


image.

Peter Turner employs a slightly different script here which some


may prefer, as it makes what you are doing appear that much more
casual.

He would begin the effect with,

I want you to imagine you are back at school... [apply the


usual script here] whilst you were drawing your image I
did the same and it will be interesting if we both
coincidentally drew the exact same image.

We both then continue with the following questions about our


drawing.

So with this in mind, do you feel my drawing is Natural or


Man Made?

Say they answer with,


Natural.

Performer: Okay, do you feel it is something you can hold


in your hands?

No.

What your previous comment about both of your drawings


potentially being the same does, is create an expectation in the
spectator's mind that they will be the same and this causes the
spectator to give you answers about your drawing that also pertain
to theirs.

All you have to do is listen to their answer and this gives you the
properties of their own drawing!

This would be obvious if it weren't for what comes next.

After they have answered I dismiss their answers as being incorrect


but get them to think that this is their idea using the following piece
of scripting from my good friend Peter Turner.

So do you think it is more likely we have drawn the exact


same image or that these are different?

They will usually say that they feel it is more likely we have different
images due to the odds involved.

This helps to disconnect their answers about your drawing from


theirs.

Whether they say they think the drawings are the same or not I
always inform them that they were wrong on both characteristics
and tell them my drawing has opposite characteristics to what they
say.

What this does is dismisses their guess as unimportant. It seemingly


doesn't help them to guess your object because they were wrong and
the answers they gave are therefore, thrown away in both theirs and
everyone else's mind, who is watching. This also means that any
potential method is also discarded by anyone trying to back-track,
later on.

There is a weird logic at play that subtly implies if they are wrong
then what you said previously about the drawings potentially
matching must also be incorrect and any set up that may have taken
place or connection that may exist with the answers they give is also
irrelevant and of no use.

Of course, this isn't the case at all. The answers they have already
given in fact, tip the two qualities of their drawing to you.

This is happening in an indirect way as they try to guess your


drawing, so everything flies right past everyone.

The spectator and everyone watching are focusing on the effect of


the spectator trying to guess your drawing and you guessing the
spectator's drawing has seemingly not even begun yet, so everything
appears fair and as it should.

So just trust your intuition and try to get what this is.

They settle on a drawing and I always just say whatever they name
is wrong and give them another object that matches the
characteristics I have already specified. Here I would say an object
that isn't commonly thought of to help suggest they literally could
have thought of anything as suggested by Peter Turner.

The reason I choose to say they are wrong is so that I can say the
next line.

That's okay, it just shows you how hard it is to guess the


drawing someone else is thinking of even when you have
been given certain clues about it.

This line will make the subsequent guess of their drawing appear
that much more difficult and will therefore make the reveal that
much more powerful.
It also suggests that you gave them clues about your drawing and
not the other way around.

Not only this, it also sets you up for the following convincer.

Okay, I am going to try to guess your drawing but I don't


want you to give me any clues whatsoever.

This line cements the notion that you don't know anything about
their drawing which of course, isn't the case why would you not
want them to give you any clues about their drawing, if they already
have? You wouldn't. Therefore, they have to assume you are not
aware that their first answers gave you any information. This also
helps change the meaning of your comment about the drawings
matching at the start to that of a simple curiosity which has already
apparently been proven as a false impression.

Pete prefers to say that they are correct on their final guess and uses
the following script as a convincer.

That's it! You may think that I am just agreeing with


whatever you say but if that was the case I wouldn't have
told you that you were wrong previously. The only way I
can prove this would be for me to now try to guess your
drawing without you giving me any clues whatsoever.
This wraps everything up beautifully and creates a nice logic that
makes everything appear congruent.

Now you can use the information secretly obtained as well as the
length of the word or name for their drawing to nail their exact
thought of drawing.

Here I simply get them to focus on the drawing as a word (for


example, House) and have them focus on the amount of letters in
this word.

Those who know Cups by Michael Murray can apply it here. His
ingenious work on diving the amount of letters in a word to know
which word a spectator is thinking of can be found in his break-
though book A Piece of My Mind found on his website:
www.mindfx.co.uk. If not then simply throw out an amount of
letters and get the spectator to tell you the amount of letters if you
don't get a reaction. This is such a small piece of information asking
for it doesn't seem to lessen the impact of the final reveal.

In fact, here is where I would apply Ross Tayler's Context Shift


principle, first conceived and used by Peter Turner on his Devil in
Disguise DVD and throw away the process with the following
scripting.

Actually, forget the word as this is the wrong way to


think about a drawing, so instead just focus on the actual
image for me.

It appears as if the amount of letters and the word are irrelevant and
are being ignored and this in turn, cancels out any possible method
and the notion that their previous answer helps you to guess their
drawing.

If you examine the list of possible drawings you will see that now
you are in a very good position to correctly reveal their thought of
drawing 9 times out of 10.

They are separated into the following categories.

If they are focusing on a natural object they can not hold in their
hands then it will likely be one of these objects:

MOON. SUN. TREE.

If it is man made and too large to hold in their hands (or they can't
hold it in their hands because it is not an actual thing such as a
stick-man):

CAR. BOAT. AEROPLANE. STICK-MAN. HOUSE. TABLE.


CHAIR.
Note: if they take a while to think of the amount of letters in their
word then you can usually be sure they are thinking of an aero-
plane or a stick-man at this point and dismiss the process early
without getting an exact amount of letters. Then it is a simple
matter of using a fishing statement to distinguish between the two
potential drawings (as described below).

If it is natural and can be held in their hands it might be one of these


objects:

FISH. FLOWER. CAT. DOG.

And for man made objects that can be held in their hands:

GLASS. PEN. PENCIL. BALL.

The only drawings that might cause you problems when you know
the exact amount of letters in their word are HOUSE and TABLE
and MOON and TREE with more becoming a problem if you
decide to add more outs to each category of potential drawings.

A simple way around this problem is to apply a hanging statement


where you make a statement about one of the two potential
drawings you are down to and if you don't get a reaction then
instantly correct yourself ala Peter Turner.
This will simply look as if you are getting a feel for what it is they
have drawn and are simply trying to work it out from the
impressions you are receiving and will in no way look like fishing, if
performed correctly.

For example, if you are left with HOUSE and TABLE as potential
drawings, you may say the following statement:

This is something you go inside? NO. I think this is


actually inside one of these.

Now I would write TABLE/ CHAIR as my prediction to cover yet


another potentially commonly thought of drawing.

CAT/ DOG would also work well for this type of written out.

This will still seem to be a hit no matter which item the spectator
was focusing on, as these objects would usually be thought of as
going together.

If they are focusing on the two possibilities of MOON and TREE


then a distinguishing statement you might want to use would be.

I feel this is something you would look up at and can


touch? NO infact, it is something you would reach out and
touch if you could.
I will leave it to you to expand on the amount of potential drawings
you want to cover and to combine the basic method with your
favourite verbal/ physical outs.

You could also just apply more than one hanging statement to nail
down on the exact drawing, without using any form of out.

I prefer to not complicate the method further but instead use this as
taught and find a 90% chance of success adequate for my needs.

Naturally, you could present this in the classical way and have the
spectator actually draw what they are focusing on then draw it
yourself and have both drawings turned around at the same time to
show they match.

I will leave it to you how you decide to perform it.

Enjoy!

Fraser

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi