813.duplicity+ +Joshua+Quinn

I
ill ,
A devious new direction

in drawing duplication
by Joshua Quinn
Y.A.K.S.
(Yet Another Kmyst Scan)
I: I
duplicity \du-plii-i-te\ n 1 : deceitfulnessin behavioror

speech 2 : doublenessof meaning or intent~the quality of
being two-fold
\
EFFECT
You invite someone to assist you with a thought experiment. You say a few words to explain
what you're going to attempt, help relax her, and put her in a receptive state of mind. Then
you ask her to draw a picture of an object of her choice, keeping it hidden from you and from
the rest of the audience. Afterward, you confirm with her that she could have drawn
anything, and that her choice was a free one. She agrees. You then unveil a picture that you
drew earlier as a prediction, which you show to the audience, but not to your assistant.
Before you see if her picture matches yours, you say you'd first like to demonstrate exactly
why you predicted this particular thing. You then repeat, word for word, what you said to
your assistant before she started drawing. In retrospect, the entire speech is seen (or rather,
heard) to be a series of subtly veiled suggestions aimed at planting the image of your
prediction into her mind. As the audience hears it for the second time, they realize it's full of
phrases that seemed innocuous at first, but now stand out as glaringly obvious references to
the object in your picture. Although your assistant still hasn't seen what you drew, she
quickly catches on to what's happening, and her increasingly startled reactions make it clear
that she recognizes how each phrase really did influence her thoughts. Finally she reveals
her drawing which, of course, matches your prediction.
METHOD
The deception in this routine is accomplished through a combination of mechanical, verbal,

and psychological chicanery. The mechanical requirements boil down to two tasks: learning
what your assistant drew, and making it look like you predicted it in advance. Both of these
have been admirably addressed by several generations of mentalists far greater than myself.
While I have no revolutionary improvements on the wide variety of methods they've given
us, later in this manuscript I'll review some of the available options, and discuss which ones
I've found most useful for different situations. However, since that is not the main focus
here, I'll skip those details for the moment, and for now will simply say that you produce a
prediction of your assistant's drawing "by any means necessary."
The primary focus of this manuscript is on the process of subconsciously influencing your
assistant's choiceof what to draw - or at least,makingit look like you did. To do that, you
will need three things:
. The willingness to invest some time and thought into carefully crafting an original
script, which meets the requirements of the effect while remaining congruent with your
individual character
. The ability to memorize the script thoroughly, so that not only do you know it
absolutely cold, but you can improvise with it
. A list ofthe Most Commonly Drawn Objects
The last item is provided for you here. The other two you'll have to provide yourself.
Now that you know what's required, here's the single-sentence encapsulation of the method:
The speech you deliver at the beginning can be made to sound like it was meant to influence
someone to draw ANY of the commonly drawn objects, depending on which words are
emphasized.
That's it in a nutshell. Whichever object your assistant draws, you repeat the speech in a way
that makes it sound like that was the image you were trying to plant in her mind. Unless, of
course, she draws something other than a commonly drawn object, in which case the whole
"influence" premise goes out the window before the audience is ever aware of it, and the
effect simply becomes your favorite "regular" drawing dupe. Later on I'll discuss numerous
ways to minimize your chances of having to resort to that option. But for now let's look at...
A SIMPLE EXAMPLE
Here's a basic "quickie" version of the effect. You get someone to help you, and give her the
following instructions:
"In just a moment I'm going to ask you to imagine something that you could draw a small
picture of - not just a shape or symbol, but some tangible thing. The first thing you think of,
stick with it, figure out how to turn that first impression into an image you can draw. And
yet your drawing, ah, can't be too complicated, so please make it really simple, like... about
like a cartoon, how simple they are. Understand? Beautiful, our minds are in sync already.
So choose something to draw, face that way, I'll face this way so I can't see... and go ahead
and start drawing now."
She makes a drawing, and you learn what it is. If it's something obscure, then you switch to
Plan B and simply duplicate and reveal it however you like, and everyone assumes that was
your intention all along. But if it's any of the following...
2
.. a stick figure
.. a house
a flower
.. a tree
a car
.. a face
a sun
.. a cat
an airplane
a boat
...then you continue with Plan A. You do whatever is needed to make it look like you
predicted the outcome. You show the prediction to the audience (but again, not to your
assistant), explaining that this is what you predicted she would draw. But before you see if
your prediction came true, there's something you want to point out first...
"Before you started drawing, I explained what I wanted you to do. But while I was
explaining it, there was something else I was trying to do - a certainphraseI tried to subtly
emphasize with my voice and my body language. Not enough that it stood out consciously,
but hopefully enough that if someone's subconscious mind were particularly keen and
receptive, they might pick up on it at that level. Let me repeat what I said, and this time I'll
make the emphasis much more obvious..."
You then repeat the instructions, adding a very exaggerated verbal and physical emphasis to
whichever one of the following phrases corresponds to your assistant's drawing:
Stick figure: "The first thing you think of, stick withit,figure out how to..."
Airplane: "an image you can draw. A jet your drawing..."
Cat: "And yet you're drawing a cat be too complicated..."
Tree: "so please make a tree-Iy simple..."
Boat: "really simple like... a boat like. .."
Car: "like... about like a car toon, how simple..."
House: "about like a cartoon house simple they are..."
Flower: "Understand? Beauti:flower minds are in sync..."
Sun: "So choose sun thing to draw..."
Face: "..something to draw,/ace that way, I'll/ace this way..."
When you get to the phrase in question, slow down your delivery, accent the words, gesture
toward your assistant with your hands and/or your head, and pause slightly before finishing
the sentence. Once you're past the relevant phrase, there's no need to finish the rest of the
speech. If it's one of the later objects, you can say the entire thing or just the part leading up
to that phrase, as you prefer. Also note that some of these will require a bit of subtly creative
pronunciation. For instance, in order for "your drawing, ah, can't" to turn into "you're
drawing a cat," you have to kind of swallow the N in "can't." The phrase for a house is "like
a cartoon house," which is justified by the fact that the house your assistant draws is likely to
look pretty cartoonish. "About" uses a somewhat Canadian pronunciation to become "a
3
--
boat," and so on.
Note that when you recap the speech in this way, you're utilizing one of my favorite methods
in all of mentalism: brazenly and unabashedly lying, with absolutely no alibi, and getting
away with it. Of course you didn't actually emphasize that phrase, or pronounce it that way,
or make any particularly significant gesture with it. But because you were speaking in a
generally animated tone and making assorted small gestures throughout, and because no one
was paying attention to when you did and didn't raise your voice or make a gesture, no one
will disputethat you did - especiallywhen it turns out that your assistantdid, in fact, go on
to draw the thing you emphasized.
EXPANDING THE IDEA
The example above has only a single cue phrase for each item. You can expand this and
incorporate multiple cues for each item by making your speech longer. This is where your
own creativity comes in. But before you start crafting a speech of your own, you'll have a
few decisions to make.
First you'll have to decide what you want your speech to be. I described it earlier as "a few
words to explain what you're going to attempt, help relax [your assistant], and put her in a
receptive state of mind." While that's the most obvious choice, it's certainly not the only
one. Your speech can be anything you have a reason to say, which of course will depend on
many things - your character, your performing conditions, what happens before and after it,
how much time you want it to take, etc. It could be an introduction to yourself and what you
do; a general blurb about how the mind works; a pep talk about the latent intuitive powers we
all have; a reading of some sort; a pseudo-hypnotic induction, or for that matter, a real
hypnotic induction; if you're really clever, it could even be an entirely separate effect. Any
plausible excuse to talk to your assistant for a few moments will suffice.
Next you'll have to decide which commonly drawn items you want to include. I'll refer to
this collection of items as your "set." Obviously, the more items you include in your set, the
more often you'll have a hit. But at the same time, more items will make the speech longer
and more difficult to construct. The items in the example are my own composite of various
lists of commonly drawn objects that have appeared throughout the mentalism literature.
(These are referenced in detail at the end of this manuscript.) Your own set may include the
same items, or only some of them, and/or others that I didn't include. If you've been doing
drawing duplications for a while, you probably have a sense of which things people draw
frequently for you, so you should definitely let your own experience guide your choices.
(For example, according to Bob Cassidy, those of you who perform in biker bars might want
to include a whole separate category of anatomically-oriented objects, possibly with wings.
Don't ask, I'm just repeating what I heard.)
Once you've decided which items to include in your set, the next step is to go through them
one at a time and, for each item, start thinking of words and phrases that relate to the item in
some obvious way, and could therefore be made to seem like subconscious cues in the recap.
4
In the example above, because there's only one cue per item, all the cues are veiled ways of
saying the actual name of the respective item, and most of them are direct commands to
"make"or "draw" or "think of' that item - "draw ajet," "make a tree," etc. But when you're
using multiple cues, this won't be the case; the cues can simply be references to words that
have something to do with the object in question, so that taken collectively, they obviously
refer to it. For instance, other cues for a tree might include phrases like "out on a limb,"
"branching out," "leaves any doubt," "takes root," etc. Also, some words and phrases can be
used as cues for more than one item, which is particularly useful. For example, "leaves any
doubt" could refer not only to a tree, but also to a flower. "Out on a limb" could be a cue for
a tree and a stick figure (and for that matter, so could the word "stick"). "Door" and
"window" would both be applicable to a car and a house, and so on. As a rule of thumb, it's
a good idea to have these more general cues occur first, and have the direct command to
"make" or "draw" or "see" the specific object occur at the end.
The next step is the most challenging one, but also the most fun: sitting down and writing a
script that says what you want to say, while at the same time incorporating as many of the
cue words and phrases from your list as you can. The idea, of course, is to pack in the cues
as densely as possible, so that when you give the recap it seems like virtually everything you
say is pointing toward the item in question. The most densely packed sentence in the above
example has six different cues in it, which is a pretty good ratio for the simple version. Once
you start dealing with multiple cues and multiple meanings, however, it's not uncommon to
have ten or twelve cues in one sentence.
The final step is probably the least fun, but the most necessary: memorizing and rehearsing
your speech exactly as you will say it, not only for the initial delivery, but also for every
possible outcome. If, like in the example, your set contains ten items, then you'll have to
memorize and get completely comfortable with eleven different ways of saying the speech:
the initial delivery, and ten different possible recaps. You'll need to be able to do it without
stuttering or hesitating (except where you mean to), and without giving any indication that
there's any other possible way for it to be interpreted. This involves working out just how to
slow down and accent the cues, while getting clearly but quickly through the other
"unimportant" parts. The goal is to pace things so that the accented cues seem to take up
about as much time as the entire rest of the speech, even though in reality the cues for any
one item will constitute only a small portion of the whole. If you like, you can aid this by
cutting some of the "unnecessary" parts from different versions of the recap, since no one
will have paid enough attention to notice their absence. Note that it's okay if the recap
sounds canned and rehearsed; the trick is to make it sound like you've rehearsed it only that
way, and not ten other ways as well.
A LONGER EXAMPLE
At this point you're probably expecting to see an example of what I just described: a longer
speech containing multiple cues for each item. Unfortunately that's where things get
complicated.. .
5
-- - - - - -- -- -
Here's why: this is an effect that really needs to be tailored and personalized for each
performer. That means you'll need to construct your own incarnation of the speech from the
ground up, based around your own shining personality. You see then that if I included a
sample script for, say, a basic set of instructions for the assistant, my true feeling is that no
matter how watered-down I made it, I really believe some people would simply use it as-is
ratherthan craftinga scriptof their own - which,I'd argue,is neitherbrightnor constructive.
It's unfortunate to say, and yet I don't feel I'm being at all unfair. Plainly stated, whenever I
browse a board for mentalists or magicians on the internet, I'm faced with copycats who all
seem clueless about making anything their own, due to a lack of either drive or ingenuity
(which in either case is sad). Such people embody the root of the entire problem with this
art, and really should pause and take a look at how seriously they're harming their craft.
Okay, nine times out of ten those people wouldn't attempt a bold effect like this, and are
more likely to stick with figuring out card moves and deck juggling tricks. Still, as I see it, if
our efforts to raise the level of mastery in our art are to succeed, we can't be afraid to offend
or, perchance, even anger those who can't whip up enough dedication to take it seriously
(even if they buy what we peddle).
So I'm going to go out on a limb and not include a sample script. My hope is that those who
wish to rise above the norm and set themselves apart won't mind this unusual departure, and
will welcome at least the attitude behind shifting gears and leaving room for some steps to be
completed by the reader. However, I will offer something else to steer you in the right
direction and get your own wheels turning...
Rather than a sample script that could plausibly work for this effect, I've composed a
completely unrelated passage of text which is chock full of the kinds of phrases I'm talking
about. So while it can't be lifted and used directly, it will nonetheless serve to demonstrate
how it's possible to cram a whole lot of cues into just about anything you'd care to say. This
passagebegins- or rather,began- at the top of this page.
That's right, what you've just finished reading was not merely a sanctimonious,
curmudgeonly rant bemoaning the sad state of the mystery arts today. Rather, it was a
sanctimonious, curmudgeonly rant bemoaning the sad state of the mystery arts today while
simultaneouslybeing densely packed full of hidden suggestions- or at least, phrases that
could be made to sound like hidden suggestions provided they were delivered correctly.
I now present you with two options for using this information. The easy one is to proceed to
the following pages, where you'll find the above passage rewritten multiple times (once for
each item in the set) with the relevant phrases bolded. The more challenging but more
beneficial option is to resist the temptation to look ahead, and instead to reread the passage
and try to spot the cues yourself. That is, go through and think about every word and
syllable, and see how many of them you could creatively emphasize or subtly mispronounce
in order to make them sound like something that relates in some way to a tree. Then do it
again, but this time with a car. And then again with a house, a flower, a stick figure, a face, a
sun, an airplane, a boat, a cat, and a dog. (A dog wasn't included in the earlier example, but I
include it here and in real life because it has so much in common with a cat.) Write down all
6
the ones you find, and then check and see how many you spotted and how many you missed.
Naturally this is time consuming, but you'll find it to be a great help in getting yourself in the
right mode of thinking for crafting a script of your own.
Dh, and when you do read the highlighted versions on the following pages, note that I've
rewritten them as I would repeat them in real life, and I've altered them accordingly. So
some parts that had long stretches with no cues for a particular item have been shortened or
eliminated.
Happy hunting.
7
TREE:
Here's why: this is an effect tha-TREE-Iy needs to be tailored and personalized for each
performer. That means you'll need to construct your own incarnation of the speech FROM
THE GROUND UP. You see then that if I included a sample script for, say, a basic set of
instructions for the assistant, no matter how watered-down I made it, I really be-LEA VES
some people WOOD simply use it as-is rather than crafting a script of their own.
It's unfortunate to say, and yet I don't feel I'm being a-TALL unfair. Plainly stated,
whenever I browse a board for mentalists or magicians on the internet, I'm faced with
copycats who all seem clueless about making anything their own. Such people embody the
ROOT of the entire problem with this art, and really should pause and take a look at how
seriously they're harming their craft. OAK-kay, nine times out of ten those people WOOD-
n't attempt a bold effect like this, and are more likely to STICK with figuring out card moves
and deck juggling tricks. Still, as I see it, if our efforts to raise the level of mastery in our art
are to sue-SEED, we can't be afraid to offend those who can't whip up enough dedication to
take it seriously.
So I'm going to go out on a LIMB and not include a sample script. My hope is that those
who wish to set themselves apart will welcome the attitude behind LEAFING room for some
steps to be completed by the reader. ..
8
IE: --~
CAR:
Here's why: this is an effect that WHEEL-Iy needs to be tailored and personalized for each
performer. That means you'll need to construct your own in-CAR-nation of the speech from
the ground up. You see then that if I included a sample script for, say, a basic set of
instructions for the assistant, I WHEEL-Iy believe some people would simply use it as-is
rather than crafting a script of their own - which, I'd argue, is neither bright DOOR
constructive.
It's unfortunate to say, and yet I don't feel I'm being unfair. Plainly stated, whenever I
browse a board for mentalists or magicians on the internet, I'm faced with copycats who all
seem clueless about making anything their own, due to a lack of either DRIVE or ENGINE-
nuity. Such people em-BODY the root of the en-TIRE problem with this art. Okay, nine
times out of ten those people wouldn't attempt a bold effect like this, and are more likely to
stick with figuring out CAR-d moves and deck juggling tricks. Still, as I see it, if our efforts
to raise the level of mastery in our art are to succeed, we can't be afraid to off-FENDER,
perchance, even anger those who can't whip up enough dedication to take it seriously (even
if they buy what we PEDAL).
wish to rise above the norm will welcome the attitude behind SHIFTING GEARS and
leaving room for some steps to be completed by the reader. However, I will offer something
else to STEER you in the right direction and get your own WHEELS TURNING...
9
r
HOUSE:
performer. That means you'll need to CONSTRUCT your own incarnation of the speech
from the ground up. You see then that if I included a sample script for, say, a basic set of
instructions for the assistant, my tr-ROOF-eeling is that no matter how watered-down I made
it, I really believe some people would simply use it as-is rather than crafting a script of their
own - which, I'd argue, is neither bright DOOR CONSTRUCT-ive.
browse ABODE for mentalists or magicians on the internet, I'm faced with copycats who
WALLS seem clueless about making anything their own, due to a lack of either drive or
ingenuity (whi-CHIMNEY-ther case is sad). Such people embody the root of the entire
problem with this art, and really should pause and take a look at HOUSE seriously they're
harming their craft. Okay, nine times out often those people wouldn't attempt ABODE effect
like this, and are more likely to stick with figuring out card moves and deck juggling tricks.
Still, as I see it, if our efforts to raise the level of mastery in our art are to succeed, we can't
be afraid to offend or, PORCH-ance, even anger those who can't whip up enough dedication
to take it seriously.
wish to set themselves apart will WELCOME MATT least the attitude behind shifting gears
and leaving room for some STEPS to be completed by the reader. ..
10
FLOWER:
perfonner. That means you'll need to construct your own in-CARNATION of the speech
FROM THE GROUND UP. You see then that if! included a sample script for, say, a basic
set of instructions for the assistant, my true feeling is that no matter how WATERED-down I
made it, I really be-LEA VES some people would simply use it as-is rather than crafting a
script of their own - which, I'd argue, is neither bright nor constructive.
browse a board for mentalists or magicians on the internet, I'm VASED with copycats who
all seem clueless about making anything their own, due to a lack of either drive or ingenuity.
Such people embody the ROOT of the entire problem with this art, and really should pause
and take a look at how seriously they're harming their craft. Okay, nine times out often those
people wouldn't attempt a bold effect like this. Still, as I see it, if-FLOWER efforts to raise
the level of mastery in our art are to sue-SEED, we can't be afraid to offend or, perchance,
even anger those who can't whip up enough dedication to take it seriously (even if they buy
what we PETAL).
wish to set themselves apart will welcome the attitude behind LEAFING room for some
steps to be completed by the reader. ..
11
a;:;:II
STICK FIGURE:
Here's why: this is an effect that really needs to be tailored and PERSON-alized for each
ground up, based around your own shining PERSON-ality. If! included a sample script for,
say, a basic set of instructions for the assistant, no matter how watered-down I made it, I
really believe some PEOPLE would simply use it as-is rather than crafting a script of their
own.
browse a board for mentalists or magicians on the internet, I'm FACED with copycats who
all seem clueless about making anything their own, due to a lack of either drive or ingenuity
(which in either case is sad). Such people em-BODY the root of the entire problem with this
art, and really should pause and take a look at how seriously they're ARM-ing their craft.
Okay, nine times out of ten those people wouldn't attempt a bold effect like this, and ARM
more likely to STICK with FIGURING out card moves and deck juggling tricks. Still, as
EYES SEE it, if our efforts to raise the level of mastery in our art are to succeed, we can't
be afraid to offend or, perchance, even anger those who can't whip up enough dedication to
take it seriously (even if they buy what we peddle). So I'm going to go out on a LIMB and
not include a sample script.
12
- I
FACE:
EARS why: this is an effect that really needs to be tailored and personalized for each
ground up, based a-ROUND your own shining PERSON-ality. If I included a sample script,
my true feeling is that no matter how watered-down I made it, some people would simply use
it as-is rather than crafting a script of their own.
It's unfortunate to say, and yet I don't feel I'm being unfair. Plainly stated, whenever
EYEBROWS a board for mentalists or magicians on the internet, I'm FACED with copycats
who all seem clueless about making anything their own, due to a lack of either drive or
ingenuity (whi-CHIN either case is sad). Such people embody the root of the entire problem
with this art. Okay, nine times out often those people wouldn't attempt a bold effect like this.
Still, as EYES SEE it, if our efforts to raise the level of mastery in our art are to succeed, we
can't be afraid to offend those who can't whip up enough dedication to take it seriously.
wish TWO EYES above the norm and set themselves apart won't mind this unusual
departure. ..
13
SUN:
Here's why: this is an effect that really needs to be tailored and per-SUN-alized for each
ground up, based a-ROUND your own SHINING per-SUN-ality. You see then that if I
included a sample script for, say, a basic SET of instructions for the assistant, my true feeling
is that no matter how watered-down I made it, I really believe SUN people would simply use
it as-is rather than crafting a script of their own - which, I'd argue, is neither BRIGHT nor
constructive. It SUN fortunate to say, and yet I don't feel I'm being at all unfair...
Then I babbled a bit more, and finished with:
As I see it, if our efforts to RAYS the level of mastery in our art are to succeed, we can't be
afraid to offend those who can't whip up enough dedication to take it seriously. So I'm
going to go out on a limb and not include a sample script. My hope is that those who wish to
RISE above the norm AND SET themselves apart won't mind this SUN-usual departure...
14
CAT:
Here's why: this is an effect that really needs to be TAIL-ored and PURR-sonalized for each
PURR-former. That means you'll need to construct your own incarnation of the speech from
the ground up, based around your own PURR-sonality. You see then that if I included a
sample script FUR, say, a basic set of instructions FUR the assistant, my true feeling is that
no matter how watered-down I made it, I really believe some people would simply use it as-
is rather than crafting a script of their own.
It's unfortunate to say, and yet I don't FELINE being at all unfair. Plainly stated, whenever
I browse a board for mentalists or magicians on the internet, I'm faced with copy-CATS who
all seem clueless about making anything their own, due to a lack of either drive or ingenuity.
Such people embody the root of the entire problem with this art, and really should PAWS and
take a look CAT how seriously they're harming their craft. Okay, nine times out often those
people wouldn't attempt a bold effect like this, and are more likely to stick with figuring out
card moves and deck juggling tricks. Still, as I see it, if our efforts to raise the level of
mastery in our art are to succeed, we CAT be afraid to offend or, perchance, even anger those
who CAT whip up enough dedication to take it seriously (even if they buy what wePET-Ie).
15
DOG:
Here's why: this is an effect that really needs to be TAIL-ored and personalized FUR each
performer. That means you'll need to construct your own incarnation of the speech. If I
included a sample script FUR, say, a basic set of instructions for the assistant, no matter how
watered-down I made it, I really believe some people would simply use it as-is rather than
crafting a script of their own - which, I-DOG-ue, is neither bright or constructive.
It's unfortunate to say, and yet I don't feel I'm being at all unfair. Plain-LE4SH-tated,
copycats who all seem clueless about making anything their own. Such people embody the
root of the entire problem with this art, and real-LEASH should PAWS and take a look at
how seriously they're harming their craft. a-CANINE times out often those people wouldn't
attempt a bold effect like this. Still, as I see it, if our efforts to raise the level of mastery in
our art are to succeed, we can't be affaid to offend or, perchance, even anger those who can't
whip-PUPPY-nough dedication to take it seriously (even if they buy what we PET-Ie).
16
L
-
BOAT:
ground up. You SEA then that if I included a sample script for, say, a basic set of
instructions for the assistant, my true feeling is that no matter how WATERED-down I made
it, I really believe some people would simply use it as-is rather than CRAFT-ing a script of
their own - which, I'd argue, is neither bright or constructive.
browse ABOARD for mentalists or magicians on the internet, I'm faced with copycats who
all seem clueless a-BOAT making anything their own. Such people embody the root of the
entire problem with this art, and really should pause and take a look at how seriously they're
harming their CRAFT. Okay, nine times out of ten those people wouldn't attempt ABOARD
effect like this, and are more likely to stick with figuring out card moves and DECK juggling
tricks. Still, as I see it, if our efforts to raise the level of MAST-ery in our art are to succeed,
we can't be afraid to offend or, perchance, even ANCHOR those who can't whip up enough
dedication to take it seriously.
17
,,-
AIRPLANE:
Here's why: this is an effect that really needs to be TAIL-ored and personalized for each
performer. That means you'll need to construct your own incarnation of the speech FROM
THE GROUND UP. You see then that if I included a sample script for, say, a basic set of
instructions for the assistant, no matter how watered-down I made it, I really believe some
people would simply use it as-is rather than CRAFT-ing a script of their own.
It's unfortunate to say, and JET I don't feel I'm being at all unf-AIRPLANE-Iy stated,
copycats who all seem clueless about making anything their own, due to a lack of either drive
or ENGINE-nuity. Such people embody the root of the entire problem with this art, and
really should pause and take a look at how seriously they're harming their CRAFT.
Then I babbled a bit more, and finished with:
wish to RISE ABOVE the norm and set themselves apart won't mind this unusual
DEPARTURE, and will welcome at least the ALTITUDE behind shifting gears and leaving
some steps to be completed by the reader. ..
18
Finally, just to illustrate how densely packed it really is, here's the passage one more time
with the cues for all the items noted:
Here's [face] why: this is an effect that really [tree, car] needs to be tailored [plane, cat, dog]
and personalized [cat, stick figure, sun] for [cat, dog] each performer. [cat] That means
you'll need [stick figure] to construct [house] your own incarnation [car, flower] of the
speech from the ground up, [tree, plane] based around [sun, face] your own shining [sun]
personality. [stick figure, face, sun] You see [boat, face] then that if I included a sample
scriptfor, [cat, dog] say, a basic set [sun] of instructionsfor [cat, dog] the assistant, my true
feeling [house] is that no matter how watered-down [flower, boat] I made it, I really [car]
believe [tree, flower] some [sun] people would [tree] simply use it as-is rather than crafting
[plane,boat] a script of their own - which, I'd argue, [dog] is neither [stick figure] bright
[sun] nor [house, car] constructive. [house]
It's unfortunate [sun] to say, and yet [plane] I don'tfeel I'm [cat] being at all [tree] unfair.
Plainly [plane] stated, whenever I browse [face] a board [house, boat] for mentalists or
magicians on the internet, I'mfaced [face, stick figure, flower] with copycats [cat] who all
seem [house] clueless about [boat] making anything their own, due to a lack of either drive
[car] or ingenuity [plane, car] (which in either [house, face] case is sad). Such people
embody [car, stick figure] the root [flower, tree] of the entire [car] problem with this art, and
rea[tree, car]llyshould [dog] pause [cat, dog] and take a look at [cat] how seriously [house]
they're harming [stick figure] their craft. [plane, boat] Okay, nine [dog, tree] times out of
ten those people wouldn't [tree] attempt a bold [house, boat] effect like this, and are more
[stick figure] likely to stick [tree] with figuring [stick figure] out card [car] moves and deck
[boat] juggling tricks. Still, as I see [face] it, if our [flower] efforts to raise [sun] the level of
mastery [boat] in our art are to succeed, [flower, tree] we can't [cat] be afraid to offend or,
[car] perchance, [house] even anger [boat] those who can't [cat] whip up enough [dog]
dedication to take it seriously (even if they buy what we peddle). [flower, car, cat, dog]
So I'm going to go out on a limb [tree, stick figure] and not include a sample script. My
hope is that those who wish to rise [sun, face, plane] above the norm and set [sun]
themselves apart won't mind this unusual [sun] departure, [plane] and will welcome at
[house] least the attitude [plane] behind shifting gears [car] and leaving [flower, tree] room
[house] for some steps [house] to be completed by the reader. However, I will offer
something else to steer [car] you in the right direction and get your own wheels turning...
[car]
19
QUEUES OF CUES
To further help in getting you started, following is a list of cue phrases I've come up with for
all the items we've been dealing with. It includes all those that appeared in the sample
passage, plus a lot more that didn't. Some of them I use in my own script; others didn't end
up working for me, but might very well work for you. And of course you're highly
encouraged to come up with more cue phrases of your own. In these examples, an
underscore indicates any word that starts or ends with the given letter, i.e. "_n" means any
word that ends in N (or an N sound), and "d_" means any word that starts with D.
,
,
TREE:
three
it really (a tree-ly)
tree-mendous
leaves
be-leave
roots
branch
trunk
truncate
would (wood)
limbs, out on a limb, limbo
succeed (sue-seed)
climb
plant a seed of... (curiosity, doubt, etc.)
stick
timbre
am able (a maple)
okay (oak-kay)
at all (a tall)
CAR:
incarnation
cartoon
,
cargo
carve r
driven, drives
transmission (of thoughts, etc.)
if it doesn't stick, shift to something else
head right (headlight)
exhaust
tires, tired
window
when do, when does (window, windows)
20
.
shift gears
trunk
truncate
really (wheel-y)
wheels turning
transport
engine-nuity
steer
brake, break
body, embody
D
_d or (door)
~ bump around (bumper)
offend or, defend or, offend our, defend our (fender)
remoteor, emoteor, - m odor (motor)
HOUSE:
house (verb)
hows
construct, construction
structure
building (verb)
_d or (door)
welcome at (welcome matt)
which in either (chimney)
when do, when does (window, windows)
see lingering (ceiling)
at home
floor
story, stories
room
handle (doorknob)
...side, walk...
single (shingle)
_r if (roof)
true f- (roof)
who all s- (walls)
I take steps
poor ch_, perchance (porch)
FLOWER:
_ful our (grateful, wonderful, etc.)
if our (with a slurred F)
bloom, blue m-
pedal, peddle (petal)
21
r
Ii
stem
I
leaves I
be-leave
roots
succeed (suc-seed)
face (vase)
plant a seed of... (curiosity, doubt, etc.) ,
rows, arose (a rose) I
rose-tinted i
days he, days even (daisy)
incarnation
\,
too lip... too little (tulip)
water down
ways, weighs (vase)
STICK FIGURE:
stick (verb)
make it stick, figure out...
make us tick, figure out...
body, embody
person, personal, personality
limbs, out on a limb
lay g- (leg)
get a leg up
head (verb)
here (hair)
arm, disarming, alarm
are more (arm)
hand (verb), at hand
face (verb)
afoot
feat, defeat (the feet)
two feet (unit of measurement)
to hand (two hands)
neither (knee)
need (knee)
FACE:
face (verb)
is mildly (a smiley)
it's miles from (smiles)
head (verb)
I (eye)
too wise, too I s- (two eyes)
22
visualize (visual-eyes)
I browse (eyebrows)
knows (nose)
mouth (verb)
here's (ears)
ear-regardless
I lash (eyelash)
here (ear)
too little (two lip)
take it on the chin
chintzy
round, around
circular (thinking, logic)
off the top of your head
_z it (zit)
SUN:
this un- (the sun)
it's un-e- (it's sunny)
per-sun, rea-sun, etc.
bright, _bright
glow, -g low
warm, warmth, - w or m
in this guy, guise (in the sky)
hot
burning
round, around
circular (thinking)
ready until (radiant)
ready at (radiate)
raise (rays)
rIse, arIse
set
something that rises above...
what sets this apart...
shy n-' shyness (shine)
so large (solar)
CAT or DOG:
pet (adj)
tale, tail
pause (paws)
clause (claws)
for (fur)
23
ifher, ifar- (fur)
of hurrying (furry)
pedal (pet-dIe)
flees, if these (fleas)
risk or (whisker)
wet (vet)
vent (vet)
animal (adj.)
_m am I 1- (i.e. "What time am I looking at" - mammal)
call a r- (collar)
legs
CAT only:
kat
can't (cat)
catch
feel I'm (feline)
purrfect, purrcent, etc
_kit an (kitten)
litter, literal
DOG only:
dogmatically
would augment
embark
bar code
okay, nine (a canine) times out of ten
unleash
_ly sh- (i.e. "really should" -leash)
~ up e- (puppy)
spot
are over (Rover)
BOAT:
about (a boat)
ship (verb)
waves (thought waves, energy waves)
sale
water down
see (sea)
float
sink
anchor, anger
24
rows
a board, a bored
deck
stem, stirrin'
cast off
not yoLo yet (yacht)
sooner (schooner)
master
craft
remote or, emote or, _m odor (motor)
AIRPLANE:
plain
yet (jet)
fly
of light (flight)
if ly- (fly)
land
wing it
propel
engine-nuity
tail, tale
take off
attitude (altitude)
hairline (airline)
first class
depart, departure
arrival
terminal
gear (landing gear)
pile 0' t_, --p I'll at- (pilot)
land (verb)
when does (windows)
their craft (aircraft)
remote or, emote or, _m odor (motor)
Also, I mentioned earlier that cues which can refer to more than one item are particularly
useful. For your convenience, here are all the ones from above that can do this (except for
the cat/dog cues, since they're already indicated):
incarnation - car, flower

when do, when does (window, windows) - car, house, airplane
_d or (door) - car, house
trunk, truncate - car, tree
25
'"'
t
engine-nuity- car, airplane

remote or, emote or, _m odor - car, airplane, boat
body, embody - car, stick man
which in either (chimney, chin) - house, face
pedal, peddle (petal) - flower, car, cat, dog
rows, arose - flower, sun, boat
limbs, out on a limb, limbo - tree, stick man
stick - tree, stick man
face (verb) - face, stick man, flower (vase)
head (verb) - face, stick man
round, around - face, sun
see - face, boat
circular (thinking, logic) - face, sun
water down - tree, flower, boat
leaves, be-leave - tree, flower
roots - tree, flower
sue-seed, plant a seed of... (curiosity, doubt, etc.) - tree, flower
tail, tailor - cat, dog, airplane
SCRIPTING TIPS
There's no way around it: writing a script like this is hard. However, you can make the
process less intimidating by taking a systematic approach to it. I developed such an approach
through brute force trial and error. I present it below so that you don't have to.
First, when you've decided what you want your speech to be, write a rough draft of it giving
no thought whatsoever to this effect. Forget all about faux-subliminal cues and ambiguous
pronunciations and such, and just script out the speech as you would say it normally. If it's
to be a set of instructions for the effect, then script out the way you would normally instruct a
spectator for a drawing duplication. If it's some sort of preliminary screening for you to get
to know something about the way your assistant thinks, then script that out as you would
otherwise do it. If it's an introduction to what you do as a performer, then say what you
would already say about yourself (and if you'd like to start with something you already use in
your act, feel free to do so and skip to the next step). Once you've got a decent first draft, put
it away and forget about it. Sleep on it. Then a day or two later, go back and revise it, again
with no regard for this effect. If you're like 99% of us, you'll spot a bunch ofthings that you
don't like as well as you did when you first wrote them. So fix them. Then put it away
again. This accomplishes two things: it lets the speech simmer in your mind, and it ensures
that you'll be starting with something that sounds like your natural voice.
After you've let the second draft simmer for a bit, then it's time to start putting in the work.
Get out your draft and the list of cue phrases you've come up with for all the items in your
set (which I assume you'll have made by this point; if not, then do that). Read through the
draft a time or two, and then read through all the cues. As you're reading, see if any of the
cues jump out at you and suggest a place where they might be used in the speech. If so, go
26
ahead and add them in. Then read through the speech again, and then the cues, and see if any
more jump out at you that you missed the first time. Repeat this a few more times, and you'll
probably be surprised at how many cues you can incorporate without having to change
anything at all.
At this point you've found all the spots where cues can fit naturally into your unaltered
speech. Now it's time to start tinkering and looking for places where you can make room for
more. To do this, start going through your cues one by one and use them in a complete
sentenceor phrase - specifically, one that has something to do with the topic of your speech.
You don't have to have a place to put it; just try to find a use for it in a sentence that relates
to your topic. If you can't, that's fine, just move onto the next one. If you can, write the
sentence down. (You'll probably want to use a separate document or piece of paper for this.)
Once you've gone through all your cues this way, read through all the new phrases and
sentences you've just written. Then read through your script again, keeping an eye out for
places where the new sentences, in whole or in part, might fit. You might find places where
you can just drop them in, and/or you might find places where you can replace something
from the original version with one of your new, "loaded" sentences. This is an area that
requires some judgment. You want to work in as many cues as possible, but at the same
time, you still want to sound like yourself. For now, for the sake of the exercise, err on the
side of adding the cues even if they sound odd or unnatural. You'll be able to take out the
ones that don't work later.
Now it's time to go through the speech and tally up how many cues you have for each item,
to see where you stand. How many do you need? Well, the best answer I can give is,
"enough that it sounds good." What's most important is to make sure that every item has
enough cues to make it seem like you've crafted the whole speech around that item. You'll
have to consider not only the number of cues, but also their distribution throughout the
speech; you want them spaced fairly evenly through the whole thing. As a general rule I try
to have, for every item, at least one cue every other sentence. Of course there can be some
flexibility there, but that's a good ratio to shoot for. However, the final arbiter is simply
whether or not it works. So go through and ask yourself, if I deliver the speech and accent all
the cues for (say) a flower, does it sound like the whole speech was trying to influence
someone to draw a flower? If so, congratulate yourself and move on to the next item. If not,
find the spots that seem "empty" and go back and see if there are any as-yet unused flower
cues that you can incorporate- or, see if you can cut out some of the emptyparts in a way
that won't be noticed.
As you go through this process, you'll find that as with anything that you build, changing one
thing will tend to alter the things connected to it as well. So as you change the wording to
make it work for some item, something else about it may no longer work for some other
reason. And adapting that may require you to further change something else, and so on.
That's the nature of the process, and the only solution is to stick with it and work through it.
Finally, once you think you've got a decent script put together, do what you did at the
beginning with your very first draft: put it away and don't think about it for a while. Then
come back to it again after a couple days, and you'll probably come up with a number of
27
(
improvements that you can't believe you didn't spot before. How will you know when it's
done? I am probably the worst person in the world to answer that question, because left to
my own devices I would never stop revising anything. The best advice I can give is, if you
think it might be ready, give it a try and see how it works. You won't know how it really
plays until you've tried it for an audience, and since there are as many different ways for this
to playas there are items in your set, it could be a while before you get real-world feedback
for every possible outcome. This is an effect that will tend to evolve over time, so don't be
afraid to let it.
PARING DOWN THE POSSIBILITIES
You can make your speech easier to construct and memorize by reducing the number of
items in your set. To do this without decreasing your hit rate, you can use the ploy of
psychologically eliminating certain obvious choices by mentioning them up front. If you tell
your assistant that her drawing shouldn't be "anything too complicated, like a snowflake, but
something simple - like a flower or a stick figure, something easy to draw," that pretty well
guarantees that she won't draw a flower or a stick figure, so that's two fewer items for you to
worry about. In fact no matter what items are in your set, you might consider using this
tactic with a couple items that you didn'[ include. Personally I like to mention a cell phone
as an example of something that's too complicated, and an apple and a fish as things that are
appropriately simple, thus effectively eliminating all three of those items from the running.
Of course the down side of this is that the fewer obvious choices people have to pick from,
the greater their chances of drawing something unusual. So don't overdo it; asking for a
picture of "something simple, like a flower, or a house or a car, or maybe a tree, or a boat or
an airplane, or a cat or dog, or possibly a stick figure or a smiley face" will probably not
guarantee you a picture of the sun.
INCREASING YOUR HIT RATE
Left purely to chance, people will tend to draw one of the common objects a surprisingly
high percentageof the time - definitely often enough to make this effect worth doing.
Nonetheless, there's no reason to leave things purely to chance when a few simple actions on
your part can stack the odds even further in your favor.
The first step in this process should happen before the effect even begins, during the selection
of your assistant. Obviously, as with any effect, your first criteria is to find someone
cooperative who won't deliberately try to mess you up. Beyond that, the next most important
factor is this: the more artistically skilled people are, the more likely they are to draw
something unusual. Therefore the people you want are the ones who don't draw all that well.
I've found that the best way to find them is the most obvious: ask. I justify this by
humorously explaining that I'm a terrible artist, so I want someone who won't make me look
bad...
"Now if I could, I'd like to find out by a show of hands, how many people here consider
28
- ---"
yourself to be somewhat artistically inclined as far as drawing or painting? Not necessarily

professional caliber, but if you're at least a pretty decent doodler, please raise your hand.
You are? And you? Who else? Come on, don't be modest... Okay, the reason I ask is, I am
terrible at drawing. [If applicable I'll add here, "Remember the thing we did before with the
circle and the triangle? Well that's about the extent of my skill."] So in order to keep me
from looking too ridiculous, everyone with your hand up is disqualified from what we're
about to do, so put your hands back down. Now then, who else besides me considers
yourself kind of hopeless when it comes to drawing? Yes, these are my people! So would...
you be kind enough to join me up here in a celebration of our shared lack of talent?"
This works because, for the bad artists, it takes the sting out of publicly admitting to a
deficiency by setting me up as the most deficient one of all. Incidentally, I recommend this
approach whether or not it has any basis in fact for you. In reality I happen to be a passably
decent freehand artist, but my audiences don't know that. All they know is that my
handwriting is so bad, it often looks like something I hastily scribbled with the tip of my
thumb.
Once you've chosen your assistant, your next opportunity to limit her choices comes with the
language you use to tell her what you want her to do. This is where a slight difference in
wording can make a big difference in outcome. Consider the difference between these two
statements:
"I'd like you to draw a picture."
- and -
"I'd like you to imagine something you could draw a picture of."
It's a subtle distinction that can make all the difference in the world. In the first statement,
the focal point of your request is the act of drawing; it makes the process more important
than the result. That's fine for a standard drawing dupe where the result doesn't especially
matter, but isn't what you want here. In the second statement, you're not asking her to draw;
you're asking her to imagine some thing that she could draw. To comply with this, she'll
start generating her own mental list of things that exist in the world that she is capable of
drawing a picture of. This is exactly the thought process you want, so this is the kind of
statement you should use.
Next is the qualification that the drawing be "not just a shape or symbol, but some tangible
thing." This steers your assistant away from drawing something like a simple geometric
shape, a dollar sign, a yin-yang symbol, etc. This is important because these are the next
most frequently drawn things after the usual commonly drawn objects. By eliminating that
entire line of thought from the start, you increase the chances of her drawing one of the items
from your set.
Finally, there's the request for her to stick with the first thing she thinks of. Obviously this is
because people tend to think of commonly drawn items first, and only get around to choosing
29
I --..
obscure things if they think about it for too long. This brings up the other element in play
here: pacing. You don't want to give her a lot of time to think. Therefore when you get
around to asking her to decide on something to draw, speak quickly and do whatever you can
to convey that you're eager to get on with things, subtly pushing her through the process (but
without making her feel overtly rushed and uncomfortable). And before you have her
actually start drawing, be sure to get a definite verbal confirmation that she has understood
the directions.
Though these tactics may seem like small things, taken collectively they really can greatly
increase the likelihood of getting a hit with one of the items in your set, so please don't
dismiss them.
THE DIRTY WORK
As I said earlier, the mechanical aspects of sussing a drawing and producing a prediction
have been tackled by many greater minds than mine. While I have no stunning new
contributions in this area, I'll briefly review a few of the many techniques available, and
discuss which ones I've found most effective for various circumstances.
First there's the matter of learning what your assistant drew. My guess is that there are, at
this moment, more published techniques and physical devices suitable for this task, available
to the mentalism consumer, than there are words on this page. There will likely be several
more available by the time you read this than there are as I sit writing it, and probably one or
two more by the time I finish typing this sentence than there were when I started it. I'm
assuming that anyone who found this effect appealing enough to purchase already has his or
her own preferred methods of covert information gathering, so by all means use whichever
variety of peek, glimpse, switch, pad, wallet, shiner, clipboard, or electronic gizmo you're
most comfortable with. The only class of techniques I would categorically avoid are those
that involve tearing, since you'll want the assistant's drawing intact at the end.
I've successfully used several such methods with this effect, but my preference is for
impression devices. Specifically, the magnetic ones. Even more specifically, the ones I
make myself. I've grown fond of them for this effect and for information gathering in
general, because they keep me from ever having to go near the original, and because being
able to draw lightly with a marker throws off the few (but not as few as we'd like to believe)
laymen who are familiar with more traditional impression techniques. I use the green
magnetic viewing film that's been used for years in many commercial impression devices
(which you can find by Googling the phrase "magnetic viewing film"), and the gimmicked
markers that are currently available from thecentertear.com. You could also try to gimmick
your own markers, but having attempted it, I recommend saving yourself the time and
frustration and just buying them. Once you get them, they're easy to maintain and refill if
you know how Sharpie-type markers are put together, which is easy to learn if you spend a
couple minutes with a pair of pliers pulling one apart. My implementation of the film is
about as simple as can be: using my high-tech tool kit consisting of scissors and a
repositionable glue stick, I cut an appropriately sized piece of film and hide it between two
30
temporarily stuck-together business cards for close-up performances. For larger venues, the
film goes in between two similarly temporarily stuck-together pages of a spiral-bound artist's
drawingpad - the kind withthick paperthat a Sharpiewon't bleedthrough. (The Strathmore
400 series are my favorites.) Once my assistant has finished her drawing and I've taken back
the pad or the remaining stack of cards, I do the necessary unsticking and glimpsing while
closing the pad or putting the cards back where they came from. But as I said, all that is
simply a matter of my own preferences and habits, and any number of other data-gathering
options are just as valid and can be used just as effectively.
The options for producing the prediction are slightly less numerous. There are two basic
approaches: 1) have predictions for all the items in your set prepared in advance, and produce
the appropriate one as needed; or 2) surreptitiously draw or write your prediction on the spot
once you've learned what your assistant drew. I generally prefer the former, though I've
used the latter at certain times.
First let's look at using an index of pre-drawn predictions. Their main advantage is that
they'll very probably be better-looking and more detailed drawings than you could create
spontaneously and covertly. You'll need to decide what form they'll take, how you want to
produce the right one, and where you want to keep them until you need them. Again, these
matters will be dictated primarily by your performing conditions. For close-up I have the
predictions drawn on the backs of my business cards, since that's what the assistant draws
on. I have these folded in half and stored in a custom-made pocket index, which is a rather
presumptuously grandiose term for a piece of cardboard with some slits in it. Then at the
appropriate moment I palm out the one I need, load it into my business card case which has
casually been sitting on display throughout, and remove it from inside the case. Any wallet
or business card case that can be loaded from the outside will work for this. If you have no
such wallet, a slit or window envelope will do just as well. For that matter, so will the old
ruse of using an ungimmicked envelope, and apparently pulling the card from inside while
actually dragging it out from behind. Or if you're of a minimalist bent, you can dispense
with wallets and envelopes entirely, and instead just pull the appropriate card from your
pocket as though it were the only one there.
If the venue is a parlor-type situation or larger, I use a completely different tactic: I have all
my predictions in one envelope. It's a padded mailing envelope, which is important because
the contents are slightly bulky. If I used a regular envelope, it would be obvious from
looking at it that it contained a good deal more than the one piece of paper I removed from it.
But since padded envelopes are bulky anyway, the difference is undetectable. The envelope
has four internal compartments, achieved by inserting three dividers cut from similar
envelopes. Inside each compartment is a Z-folded piece of paper that can display any of
three different drawings, for a total of twelve possible outs. As I pull the paper out, the side
the audience sees is blank (and the dividers allow me to casually flash the inside of an
apparently empty envelope if I feel the need, which I almost never do). I can then turn the
whole paper over to reveal a picture on the other side, concealing the fact that the paper is
folded; or I can open the front part of the Z-fold to reveal a second picture; or open the back
part of the fold to reveal a third picture. I keep the flaps in place with repositionable glue
along the short edges, unsticking them as needed. The paper I use is a fairly heavy
31
.,
presentation paper, which keeps the drawings from showing through on the other side.
Neither the envelope nor the drawings are remotely examinable, but under the conditions in
which I use them, they don't need to be. And of course, as with peek options, there are
multitudinous multiple-out envelopes, wallets and folders out there that are just as workable
as what I've described, so if my setup doesn't appeal to you, go with whichever one allows
you a sound night's sleep.
Any type of indexing system will require you to be able to get to the right prediction quickly
and without much thought. This is an instance where mnemonics can be a great help.
Obviously mnemonic devices are a very personal thing, and you'll want to use whatever
associations are easiest for you to remember. But for what it's worth, here is the system I
developed for myself, which you may find to be a useful starting point for working out your
own:
Sun rhymes with one.

My house has two stories.
Tree sounds like three.
Flower sounds like "flour," which looks like four.
My car has a fIVe-speedtransmission.
A stick figure is made of sticks, which rhymes with six.
An airplane is a seven forty-seven.
The dog ate (eight) my homework.
The cat has nine lives.
The face is a big circle, like the zero in ten.
A boat... hell, what does a boat remind me of? Nothing. So it must be in last place at
number eleven.
That last one may not be the most elegant thing I've ever come up with, but as I said, with
mnemonics it's down to whatever gets the job done.
Now let's look at the option of creating the prediction in real time by using some variety of
covert scribbling. Naturally this option is more suitable for smallish billets in close-up
situations than for parlor- or stage-sized pieces of paper (unless you have exceptionally
spacious pockets, and/or thumbs like a character from a Tom Robbins novel). The main
advantage is that you don't have to futz with an index. The main disadvantage is that that
trying to nail-write a picture of a house, with a discemable door, windows, chimney, etc., that
doesn't look like a bad imitation Picasso, is about as much fun as root canal work. However,
there's no rule that says your prediction has to be just a picture; it can be a message that
reads, "My assistant will draw a _." You can then fill in the blank space with either a
pictureor a word,whicheveris easier. In mostcases,writingthe wordwill be easier - house,
car, cat and dog come to mind. But at the same time, it's easier to just draw a small stick
figure or smiley face than to write the words that describe them. Overall I find word
predictions weaker and less aesthetically appealing than pictures, which is why I generally
prefer to use an index. However, I have used this approach in semi-impromptu situations
when I didn't have an index, and it's worked fine. Plus, the one advantage it has over an
index (or better still, in conjunction with one) is a certain amount of added flexibility when
32
things don't go quite as you'd hoped, which I'll discuss in the next section.
Whichever mechanical methods you decide to use, bear in mind that because of the nature
and timing of the events in the routine, there's no need to limit yourself to the most
bulletproof, over-proven, magician-fooler techniques you can find. Your methods can be
anything from the most elaborate, to the most basic, to none at all (more on that last one in a
moment). Here's what I mean: If you asked someone to name a number from one to five,
and you then reached into your pocket and, with a grand "ta-daaa," pulled out a piece of
paper with their number on it, it wouldn't take long for people to grow suspicious about what
else was in that pocket and your other pockets. But if someone makes a drawing of anything
in the world, and not only do you pull a drawing of that same thing from your pocket, before
she even reveals what she drew, but you also go on to show how everything you said
beforehand pointed toward that very thing... well, that takes a lot of heat off of the fact that
she wasn't in a lead-lined closet in another state when she made the drawing, and your
prediction wasn't removed from a biometrically locked titanium briefcase by the federal
marshal it was handcuffed to. So my point is that for this effect, a cheap impression pad and
a few pieces of paper stuck in your pocket can be just as effective as a system of hidden
cameras, secret assistants, covert earpieces, and a prediction chest that cost more than your
car.
In fact if you like, you can eliminate the prediction element entirely and just openly draw
your picture in front of the audience, explaining that you were trying to get your assistant to
draw "something like this." The effect won't suffer as long as you can convince them that
you don't yet know what she drew, which anyone who can successfully pull off a garden-
variety drawing dupe should be able to manage. And since this requires nothing more than
some way of peeking the drawing, it brings the effect into the realm of the nearly-impromptu.
(In fact if I'm doing the effect without an index, I'm more likely to just do this than mess
with a swami.) Alternately, if you're able to produce the prediction convincingly, you can
dispense with the peek and simply watch the assistant draw her picture. Of course this is
riskier because then if she draws something obscure, you can't turn the effect into a standard
drawing dupe (or at least not a terribly impressive one).
Taking it further, you can combine both ideas into a completely impromptu version that you
can perform even under the most adverse conditions - with no way to peek, no imp device,
no index, no swami, nothing but a writing instrument and something to write on. Just give
your speech and ask the person to draw something out in the open. If her drawing is a hit,
then recap the speech and show how you influenced her. This is strong enough all by itself
that in casual circumstances no one will take issue with the lack of a prediction written in
advance. If it's a miss, then again it becomesa differenteffect - just not a drawing dupe.
You can give her a character reading based on the drawing, then apparently use what you
learned about the way her mind works in your next effect. Or tear the picture into four
pieces, wad them up into pellets, mix them, and have her blindly reassemble them in what
turns out to be the correct order (think marked pellets, a dummy pellet, and some switches).
Or just have her draw a second picture. If it hits, well then, it often takes a moment for these
subliminal impressions to take effect. If not, have her make a third drawing, then use Bob
Hummer's "math monte" principle to tell her which one she's holding her hand over while
33
[
your back is turned. Etc., etc., etc...
Also note that the impromptu version doesn't require you to actually see the drawing, which
opens up another possibility: you can do it over the phone. Say your blurb, ask the person on
the other end to draw a picture, then ask what she drew. But if it's a hit, don't just go
immediately into the recap. Instead, first ask her to describe the drawing in as much detail as
she can. This is because her description will probably include some of your cue phrases,
which will increase the impact when she hears them back in the recap. If it's a miss, there
are any number of very good phone effects that use pictures drawn by the subject (or can be
adapted to if they don't originally), so have her draw a couple more pictures and go into one
of them. If you don't currently have any, see the bibliography for some suggestions.
HITS, MISSES, AND EVERYTHING IN BETWEEN
So far I've been talking about two strictly-defined varieties of results: direct hits, wherein
your assistant draws something right from your set; and complete misses, wherein she draws
something so far off that you scrap the premise and change the effect. Now l'd like to talk
about the in-between scenarios. There will be times when she draws something that isn't in
your set, but is close enough to something in your set to take credit for. For example,
suppose she draws a bird, and your set doesn't include a bird, but it does include an airplane.
Many of your cues for an airplane will probably be applicable to a bird as well - anything
about wings, a tail, flying, taking off, etc.
There are two ways to deal with this. The first is to stick to your guns and go through the
routineexactlyas though she had drawn a plane - show your drawing of a plane, and recap
the speech as usual. Then at the end when she reveals her bird, well, she came very close.
Obviously her subconscious was picking up the cues, but different people interpret them
differently, and of course this is far from an exact science. But she's clearly a very
perceptive person with a keen mind, and she did an excellent job. Etc., etc.
The second way is what I call the "swami and tap-dance" approach. It involves secret
writing, so you can't use it if you're working strictly from an index. However, there's no
reason you can't have a swami at the ready in addition to your index, which I always do for
this very occasion. Once you learn that the drawing is a bird, secretly write the word "bird"
onto your prediction and display it. Then during the recap, simply highlight all the "plane"
cues that also fit with a bird (flying, tail, etc.) and skip the ones that don't (i.e. the ones based
on the word "plane," the ones referring to a propeller or an engine, etc.). At the same time,
you can do a quick mental check to see if any of your cues for other items would also be
applicable to a bird. For instance, references to eyes, legs, and feet (originally for the face
and stick figure) would be appropriate, as would direct references to a tree. Additionally, if
you know your script well enough, you can search "on the fly" (if you'll pardon the pun) for
words and phrases that you can spontaneously turn into cues for a bird. For example, if you
use the word "because" at any point, it can turn into "beak cause." Ditto with "become," "be
clear," etc. Likewise, if your speech happens to contain the phrase "if ever" or "if other,"
those could become "a feather." Any word that ends in "ness" can become "nest," "agree"
34
can become "egg-ree," "above" can become "a dove," and so on. This is what I mean by
knowing your script so thoroughly you can improvise with it. The better you know it, the
more easily you'll be able to find these kinds of spontaneous cues.
I also want to discuss an alternate way of dealing with a complete miss if you don't want to
scrap the premise and change the effect. If someone thinks of something really obscure to
draw, there's a good chance she thought of a couple more mundane things first. So if you're
feeling brave, you can take a sort of Hail Mary approach and hope you hit with one of her
rejected ideas. After you've sussed the drawing, point out that you've made a prediction
(call attention to the envelope or wallet or what have you), but don't reveal it yet. Instead,
have her reveal her drawingfirst. Then say something like...
"Is that a martini glass [or whatever it is]? Interesting. Well, I'll tell you right now, that isn't
what I predicted you'd draw. That's okay, it's my own failure and it's nothing for you to feel
bad about. But tell me this, and be honest with me: Did you also think of something else that
you considered drawing, but decided not to?"
If she says no, you can try to coax a yes from her by employing whatever amount of John
Edwardesque verbal badgering you feel comfortable with. "Seriously, not a single other
possibility crossed your mind, even for a split second, the entire time you were thinking
about what you could draw?" If/when she relents and says yes, ask her what it was. If it's
still a miss, keep going without missing a beat: "Okay, and what else?" As soon as you get
something that's a hit, reframe it as, "So your first instinct was to draw a house [or
whatever], but then you changed your mind and drew a martini glass." Note that this is a
statement, not a question. Once that's established, show your prediction. This will get a
reaction all by itself, but cut it off and do the recap. Then milk the reaction for all it's worth.
The advantage of this approach is that it can play just as strong as, or even stronger than, a
direct hit. The disadvantage, of course, is that it sets you up for the distinct possibility of
unqualified, unrecoverable failure. But if you're in a situation where failure is an acceptable
risk, you might find you like it.
If, however, failure is not an acceptable option, there's yet another way to further hedge your
bets and keep all your bases covered. Once you've learned what she drew, don't have her
reveal her drawing yet. Instead, just ask her if at any point she changed her mind about what
she was going to draw. If she steadfastly says no, then act as though you were hoping for
that answer, because you don't want any other mental images getting in the way while you
try to focus on what she drew. If she says yes, then ask her about what she considered
drawing but didn't. If none of her rejected ideas are hits either, then act as though the reason
you asked is so that you'll know to filter those images out while you try to intercept her
thoughts. But if one of her rejected ideas is a hit, then you can proceed with the routine using
that item. That leaves you with two options for dealing with her actual drawing. One is to
have her reveal it before you do the recap, thus getting it out of the way since it wasn't what
you were going for. The other is to have her keep it hidden until the main effect is over, and
then, almost as an afterthought, use your mental powers to duplicate it. (I'll leave it to you to
decide whether or not both of those feats can be combined congruently with your character.)
35
L-----
THE ONE THING YOU ABSOLUTELY MUST NOT DO, EVER
It would be the easiest thing in the world to present this effect in a self-aggrandizing, ego-
stroking fashion that left your assistant feeling gullible and easily manipulated. Naturally I
trust that anyone with the class and discerning taste to buy my manuscript would never
deliberately engineer such an oafish, masturbatory outcome. However, the very nature of the
effect invites the danger of coming across that way even if you don't mean to. Therefore you
must take utmost care to insure that your assistant comes away feeling perceptive, intuitive,
and empowered, rather than weak-minded and exploited. You must do this both explicitly
with your words, and implicitly with your demeanor and attitude. The implicit part happens
not only throughout the effect, but also throughout your entire performance by treating your
audience with courtesy and respect. As for the explicit part, for me it begins as I'm setting
up the recap:
"There were certain phrases that I emphasized slightly with my voice and my gestures. Not
enough that they stood out consciously, but hopefully enough that if someone were [looking
at assistant] particularly keen and receptive, she might pick up on them at the subconscious
level. And if she were really connecting with me and listening to her inner instincts rather
than simply being contrary and trying to throw me off, those impressions might come
through in what she decided to draw."
This establishes from the outset that if this turns out successfully, that means that A) she is
special in that she was "keen and receptive" enough to pick up on these things, and B) she
was kind and cooperative enough to put herself in a frame of mind that would allow them to
take hold, rather than being a jerk and trying to make me look bad. In so many words, I say
that if this works, it means she's a brilliant and lovely person - and then I show that it
worked. Then after the recap and the revelation, I reinforce the idea by giving her all the
credit; telling her she did an amazing job, she performed brilliantly, I couldn't have asked for
a better partner, etc.
You'll note that the above summary is completely devoid of terms like "influence,"
"suggestion," "mind control," "free will," and other such juicy and enticing phrases the likes
of which I was so happy to dangle in front of you in the ad copy. Although such terms are
(apparently) not inaccurate, and people might later use them to describe what took place, I
never personally invoke them during the effect. This is because they're antithetical to the
feeling I want to leave my valued assistant with. Of course that's a matter of personal
choice, but however you decide to frame the experience for your assistant, I urge you to
choose your words carefully.
ADDITIONAL TIPS, PRESENTATIONAL OPTIONS, AND RANDOM MUSINGS
Those of you who have studied neuro-linguistic programming will recognize this effect as a
simulated demonstration of "embedded commands." If you're not familiar with the term, the
basic idea is that under the right conditions, slipping these kinds of hidden phrases into your
speech really can influence people to do what you're subtly commanding them to do -
36
though of course in real life you would attempt to induce only a single response, not ten or
twelve different ones at once. Whether or not you end up believing a word of it,
familiarizing yourself with the concept will help strengthen your presentation of this effect,
so you'll find it worth your while to read up on it. Anyone of the many introductory NLP
texts on the market will cover the topic.
***
Here's something that's important to remember and convey. Predicting which ESP symbol
someone chooses can be massaged into an impressive feat, and it's a one in five shot.
Predicting a single digit is one in ten. A letter gives you one in twenty-six, a playing card
doubles it to one in fifty-two, and the old standby three-digit number raises it to one in a
thousand. But to predict what someone will draw when their choices include anything in the
world... that's a whole different magnitude of improbability. When you look at the number
of things that someone could draw (as opposed to what they're likely to draw when put on the
spot and made to decide and act quickly - though of course we won't bring up that
distinction), the possibilities escalate into the realm where expressing them numerically
almost becomes pointless, and rather than one in, say, something like "millions" or
"billions," the odds essentially become one in "the entire spectrum of human experience and
imagination"- which, one could argue, is literally as close to infinity as we can comprehend.
Even if you don't put it in those terms or use those figures, you'd be letting all that genuine
(or at least, quasi-genuine) improbability go to waste if you didn't point out just how
staggering the odds really (apparently) are in this experiment. So please be sure to find your
own way of conveying a sense of that magnitude. Doing so will then make it all the more
incredible when you go on to show how you shifted those same staggering odds to your favor
with nothing more than a few well-placed syllables and gestures.
***
Here is an alternate presentation that I've used at times. After the assistant makes her
drawing, both of you reveal your drawings simultaneously, and they match. Applause cue,
the effect is apparently over. Then you say there's something you'd like to show everyone
again, and do the recap. The advantage is that you get a double climax and twice the
applause. The disadvantage is that it's difficult to turn the end of the recap into a theatrically
strong conclusion. Finishing the speech, letting the cues sink in, then thanking your assistant
and sending her back to her seat isn't bad per se, but it lacks the punch and the obvious
closure provided by the revelation of the matching drawing. This is why I personally don't
perform it this way anymore. I mention it anyway because someone out there may well find
a way to make it work better than I could.
***
Speaking of double climaxes, if you're up for a challenge, this can be a fantastic effect to
perform for two people at once. The reasons for this are, coincidentally, twofold. First, it
doesn't just double your chances for success; it increases them exponentially, as I'll explain
in a moment. And second, it opens up the possibility for some real miracles. However, for
37
reasons that will soon become clear, it should only be attempted after you've got your script
down absolutely cold for every possible outcome, and you're thoroughly comfortable with
performing it for a single person.
To perform the setup, stand between your assistants while you deliver your speech, and
constantly shift your gaze and your gestures back and forth between them. No one will
remember who you were looking at when you said which part, and you'll use this to your
advantage later. Then once you learn what they've both drawn, you'll have several possible
scenarios to deal with...
The worst case scenario is when both of their drawings are misses. The chances of this
happening are very slim, but even if it does, you can still duplicate both their drawings while
milking any possible connection between them. (For reference see Bob Cassidy's
"Narne/Place Routine.")
The next best case is when one of them draws a hit and the other draws a miss. In this case,
you explain that you were trying to influence one of their drawings. Then during the recap
you look and gesture meaningfully toward the one who drew the hit during the parts that
pertain to it, and sort of half-heartedly look and gesture toward the other one while saying the
other "random, meaningless" parts. Then if you like, you can "try something different" with
the other person and finish by duplicating her drawing. (Again, it's up to you whether or not
that combination of abilities works for you.)
Next is when the drawings are two different hits. This is probably the most entertaining
outcome and the most fun to perform, but also the most difficult to pull off. It requires you
to direct your gaze and your gestures toward each person during the cues that deal with their
respective drawings, and toward both of them during any cues that deal with both drawings.
In this scenario, you'll want to really slow down your delivery and make the accents obvious,
to make sure the audience can keep up with what's going on. The best part occurs when you
come to a word or phrase that could be interpreted in two different ways to correspond to
either picture - for example, when they've drawn a car and a tree, and you come to the word
"trunk." When this happens, really pause and hang on the word, and maybe even repeat it
while pointing to the appropriate sections of both prediction pictures. (Incidentally, this
scenario is the reason you need to be totally confident with the script before trying it with
two people.)
The final scenario is one where both people not only draw a hit, but draw the same hit. This,
of course, is an un-backtrackable miracle all by itself, and it could be argued that you should
just leave it alone because doing the influence bit would actually weaken it. That will be for
you to decide if and when the time comes. To date this has not happened to me, but someday
it will. And that will be a really good day.
I suppose there's one more theoretically possible scenario, wherein both people draw the
same thing, but it's some random and obscure object that isn't in your set. I trust that if this
ever happens, you'll figure out a way to handle it.
38
***
Finally, I'd like to discuss another way to reveal the cues besides simply repeating them and
making them obviouswith your voice. This is the use of "subtitles" - showing the cue
phrases in written form on a card or screen as you say them. For instance, as you're
recapping the speech, just before you get to the phrase "have a belief in these things," you
hold up a card that says, "have a be-LEAF in these things." This is actually my preferred
way of performing the effect. Not only does it add a strong element of visual interest, but it
also gives you some more options to play with, which you and your audience might enjoy.
The most low tech, self-contained way to do this is to have a stack of "cue cards," big enough
for the audience to read, with one phrase on each card. As you do the recap you hold the
cards in front of you, moving them one at a time from the front to the back, timed so that
each phrase appears to the audience just before you say it. Obviously this requires you to
have as many stacks of cards as you have objects in your set, indexed in some easily
accessible way. Depending on your performing conditions, you could also use any number
of slicker, more high-tech options; anything from an overhead projector to slides to
PowerPoint could get the job done. But now having mentioned those options, I'll admit that
I have never used them. A simple stack of cards has always been my preferred medium. Not
only are they by far the least susceptible to technical glitches, but you can use the back sides
as cue cards for yourself, to let you know when to pull the next card. But whatever the
medium, the point is that having the phrases appear in writing makes the alternate meanings
more obvious, and therefore allows you to go through the recap without having to slow down
and exaggerate the pronunciation nearly so much.
If you have the technical capability, you can use this idea to take the effect even one step
further: instead of repeating the speech, you can hold up the cue cards while playing back an
audio recording that you apparently made as you were saying the speech at the beginning.
This could be as low-tech as having a small digital recorder stuck in your shirt pocket, all the
way up to having the sound man apparently record the feed from your mic and then play it
back through the PA. In reality, of course, you've pre-recorded a separate "take" for every
item in your set, and you play back the appropriate one.
Note that if you do this, your vocal accents and mispronunciations can, and in fact must, be
very subtle indeed, since they will need to be believable as having gone unnoticed the first
time. The alternate meanings will still come across to your audience due to the powerful
human tendency to hear what we've been told to expect to hear, regardless of how closely it
mayor may not resemble what's actually being said. This is the same phenomenon that
causes people to hear ghostly voices in random static, satanic messages in backward rock
albums, and rational, sensible ideas in Amway seminars; they're all perfectly audible to those
who've been conditioned to hear them. Thus if people read the phrase "have the SUN-
familiar feeling" just a split second before they hear you say "have this unfamiliar feeling,"
then they will literally hear "have the sun."
There's really no way to appreciate how dramatically powerful and effective this
phenomenon is without experiencing it for yourself. If you never have, one of the best ways
39
I
to do so is via the various web sites that demonstrate supposed "backmasking" in pop music.
A simple Google search for the term will turn up many such sites, but as of this writing one
particularly good one can be found at:
http://jeffmilner.comlbackmasking.htm
Listen to any of the backwards songs, and they'll sound like gibberish. Then click the button
to reveal the backward "lyrics" and listen again, and the words will come through so clearly
you won't understand how you could have missed them the first time. While I don't believe
for a moment that the guys in Led Zeppelin sat around painstakingly composing lyrics that
would reverse to reveal cryptic messages about sad Satan's little tool shed, I nonetheless find
the perceptual phenomenon fascinating.
On a technical note, if you use this idea in a situation where you need to amplify the sound
coming from your playback device, do not try to do so by sticking a microphone next to it. If
you do, not only will the loss of sonic quality make it difficult for the audience to understand
your words (thus negating the point right from the get-go), but the timbre will probably be so
harsh and grating as to make them want to cover their ears anyway. Your local Radio Shack
will have all the plugs, adapters, and cables you need in order to run any sort of playback
device directly into any sort of amplification system, so a visit to them will be well worth the
annoyance of having to convince the leech-like sales staff that no, you really don't need a
camcorder, cable radio, or remote-controlled monster truck to go along with your purchase.
Final note: one significant advantage of the pre-recording approach is that it allows you to
memorize only the "basic" delivery of the speech rather than a different one for each item.
Obviously this can eliminate a very substantial amount of the time and effort required to
perform the effect. I've put off mentioning it until now because I believe in saving some of
the good stuff for my readers who are still paying attention at the end.
PARTING THOUGHTS
You've now seen the totality of my work on this routine. I realize I've taken quite a lot of
words to explain a single effect, and I thank you for your indulgence if you've read them all.
I further realize that the prospect of actually preparing and mastering this routine may seem
more than a little daunting. To that I can only say that, for me, the rewards have been well
worth the effort. When all the tips and guidelines I've described are followed, I've found that
the effect results in either a direct hit, or else something very close, somewhere between 80
and 90% of the time. When it does, and when it's performed well, it plays utterly believably.
(For that matter, it also plays that way when it doesn't hit, even if it's not quite as much fun
to perform.) It has served me very well in numerous performing situations, and if you choose
to put in the effort to make it your own, I have no doubt it will do the same for you. As
always, please feel free to send any comments, questions, corrections, suggestions, or success
stories to [email protected].
Joshua Quinn, September, 2007
40
BIBLIOGRAPHY
As I mentioned earlier, my own list of commonly drawn objects evolved from several such
lists that I've come across in the mentalism literature. Below is a list of these lists and where
to find them. I recommend having a look at all of them that you can get hold of, because
while there is considerable overlap, the different authors have an assortment of opinions and
approaches, all of which are worth considering when putting together your own tactics.
Banachek, Psychological Subtleties, "Subtle Drawings," page 58

I mention this only for the sake of completeness, since I assume that anyone bothering to
read my little manuscript is already well acquainted with this landmark publication. If by
some strange chance you're not, then stop what you're doing and go get it. Don't ask
questions, just go. It will change the way you perform.
Bob Cassidy, Universe, "The Universal Billet," page 18

This e-book contains some fantastic work on using indexes and multiple outs to accomplish
things that don't seem like they could be done with indexes and multiple outs. Additionally,
the routine has an excellent ruse for subtly limiting a spectator's choice of what to draw,
which by itself is enough to make this a worthwhile purchase for anyone who performs
"Duplicity." As of this writing, this and several other of Dr. Bob's greatest hits are available
from Lybrary.com.
Luke Jermay, The Bigger Three, "A Target Image," page 34

Unlike the other works listed here, this manuscript was released (in very limited quantities)
well after "Duplicity" was already developed. I'm mentioning it anyway because, frankly, I
wish it had been around for me to refer to earlier. The other forty-nine of you who have it
will certainly want to take Luke's ideas to heart, and may find ways of combining them with
those presented here. And for the rest who may be wondering how much his effect has in
common with mine, you may be as disappointed as I was pleased to learn that the answer is,
very little.
Richard Kamann and David Marks, Psychology of the Psychic, page 315
This volume was written by a couple of our frequently (and often unjustly) maligned brethren
on the skeptical side of the fence. Regardless of your feelings about them or their intentions,
this thought-provoking book contains a good deal of valuable information for mentalists, not
the least of which is the first ever published list of commonly drawn objects. Their list is
based on solid research and, helpfully enough, grouped by frequency. The book is in print
and easy to acquire, new or used.
Ian Rowland, Alpha Series Lecture Notes, Set 1: Mentalism, "No Method Drawing
Duplication," page 36
This is something my friend Ian Rowland published eons ago in one of his tatty booklets. He
has asked me not to say too much about the details of it, so I won't, apart from noting that 1)
it's very, very good, and 2) it played an inspirational role in the development of this routine.
The booklet is now out of print, which is unfortunate for everyone except those of us who
already have a copy and are selfish bastards, for whom it's quite fortunate indeed. If you're
41
I
-
lucky enough to find a copy second hand, I highly recommend picking it up. And I'm not
selling mine, so don't ask.
Richard Webster, Good Luck From Beijing, "Almost Remote Viewing," page 67
Richard has some slightly different thoughts on what kinds of things people are likely to
draw, and he incorporates the concept nicely into a remote viewing theme. Like most of his
material, it combines a strong presentation with a method that's dirt-simple but highly
effective. The book is still in print seventeen years after its original release.
Also, I promised some references for over-the-phone effects that can be used as outs when
someone's drawing is a miss. I already mentioned Bob Hummer's "math monte" principle,
which can be found under the name "Hummer's Three-object Divination" in the Martin
Gardner book, Mathematics, Magic and Mystery. It will allow you to have the person make
three drawings, then tell her which one she's holding her hand over at any given moment.
Alain Nu's excellent variation "Nu Sense," from his XXX book, adds a small procedural
subtlety that makes the outcome surefire. Another option is Dave Arch's "Quintuple" from
SYZYGY, which will let you mentally distinguish the drawing from four other "random"
objects (or blank pieces of paper, or what have you). And phone mentalism virtuoso Dave
Koenig, a.k.a. Slim King, tells you how to divine which physical object is placed on each of
three drawings in "The Blessing," from his Naked On A Beach DVD.
Having plugged all those fine publications, I will now conclude this manuscript in the grand
tradition of mystery arts writings throughout the ages by plugging some of my own. ..
exceptionall9 clean and direct means

of divining a zodiac sign while delivering
impossibl9 precise character reading
.Menta 119Impossible.com/ ascension
IN
' '" ' '
: "" "'
', rr; ,' '~~"":=~~ '" ,
0 NJ, U
" " ..
"
'
: '
' '" . ,: ,
.
i'
\J.I'
, '
, , ,, ,,
,a
,
, ',i
,,
:' " i
,,
" ': .":' '..' , , , ":, Andnothllg else. At ill Redy. ;::r-,......
,
" , " fill I' II . II I' ." I I.
(",, ,N", - -
1HIII"I1 SUf--UMKlft8BIfSIII!' fAItj) www.Mentallylmpossible.(om/(onjundion
42
'"

813.duplicity+ +Joshua+Quinn

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

813.duplicity+ +Joshua+Quinn

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

813.duplicity+ +Joshua+Quinn

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the primary focus of the manuscript?

What is the primary focus of the manuscript?

What three things are needed to subconsciously influence someone's drawing choice?

What three things are needed to subconsciously influence someone's drawing choice?

I

A devious new direction

duplicity \du-plii-i-te\ n 1 : deceitfulnessin behavioror

The deception in this routine is accomplished through a combination of mechanical, verbal,

boat," and so on.

EXPANDING THE IDEA

steps to be completed by the reader. ..

if they buy what we PEDAL).

own - which, I'd argue, is neither bright DOOR CONSTRUCT-ive.

and leaving room for some STEPS to be completed by the reader. ..

steps to be completed by the reader. ..

not include a sample script.

it as-is rather than crafting a script of their own.

Then I babbled a bit more, and finished with:

is rather than crafting a script of their own.

crafting a script of their own - which, I-DOG-ue, is neither bright or constructive.

whip-PUPPY-nough dedication to take it seriously (even if they buy what we PET-Ie).

their own - which, I'd argue, is neither bright or constructive.

dedication to take it seriously.

Then I babbled a bit more, and finished with:

some steps to be completed by the reader. ..

incarnation - car, flower

engine-nuity- car, airplane

PARING DOWN THE POSSIBILITIES

INCREASING YOUR HIT RATE

yourself to be somewhat artistically inclined as far as drawing or painting? Not necessarily

"I'd like you to draw a picture."

THE DIRTY WORK

Sun rhymes with one.

your back is turned. Etc., etc., etc...

HITS, MISSES, AND EVERYTHING IN BETWEEN

THE ONE THING YOU ABSOLUTELY MUST NOT DO, EVER

ADDITIONAL TIPS, PRESENTATIONAL OPTIONS, AND RANDOM MUSINGS

Joshua Quinn, September, 2007

Banachek, Psychological Subtleties, "Subtle Drawings," page 58

Bob Cassidy, Universe, "The Universal Billet," page 18

Luke Jermay, The Bigger Three, "A Target Image," page 34

exceptionall9 clean and direct means

.Menta 119Impossible.com/ ascension

', rr; ,' '~~"":=~~ '" ,

1HIII"I1 SUf--UMKlft8BIfSIII!' fAItj) www.Mentallylmpossible.(om/(onjundion

You might also like

', rr; ,' '"":= '" ,