POLITICAS CONTABLES SIGNIFICATIVAS

I have kept the following write up and subsequent explanation very brief and purposefully simple – to reflect the simplicity of the method which follows.

The reason this method appears very simplistic outwardly, is because both myself and my good friend Peter Turner have worked hard at slowly and carefully refining it, so that it is now the best it can be [at the time of writing within the context of the tools currently available to us].

What was important to us was that everything from a method point of view was justified in the context of the performance and fitted with the premise – that of the performer reading the aura and general characteristics and traits of the person sat in front of them to be able to accurately divine their exact star sign.

It is the outward appearance of the effect itself which fools those who watch our

performance and take part. We shouldn't at any point seem to be performing a trick, if we do then the effect will fall flat before we have even begun and the effect will appear transparent. If however, we perform the effect in a way that is credible – as if we are really doing what we claim to be doing – then it won't matter whether there is a trick to what we are doing or not, as it will not be looked for. What we are doing will seem credible and the audience members will therefore follow the logic of the effect and not of the method underlying the performance.

At the very least, we will be doing what we are claiming to be doing, throughout the performance of the routine.

I have searched for the perfect star sign divination for years and have read many of the plots currently in print but found I was always slightly dissatisfied with what I read.

Each of these solutions seemed to either have too much of a process or a process which didn't make much sense within the context of a star sign divination, for example – why would you use something as impersonal as letters from a sign using the classic anagram method when dealing with a reveal of something as personal as a star sign which is inherently related to personal characteristics and traits of your spectator and

therefore, intrinsically linked to their life – from both a theatrical point of view and in terms of the aesthetic of the effect?

I feel the honest answer to this question, is that you wouldn't when given the chance to perform without any artistic restrictions and the fact we often resort to anagramming is due to time constraints. It is often much quicker and sure fire compared to other more drawn out, less sure fire methods. Very few people can pull off these anagramming processes convincingly whilst simultaneously keeping the process interesting but do not let that stop you learning the anagram and subtleties as I have found that sometimes when I am in a situation wherein I don’t have artistic liberty it is very useful – after all, it is one more tool in your arsenal. It is better to know more than it is to know less.

There were a few things that I looked for when creating this system. I first took apart the things that I disliked about the anagram – one being that it doesn't make sense aesthetically for you to deal with information of this nature in such a cold and analytical way. That is something that I wanted to change and it got me thinking: Would it not be more logical to deal with star sign divinations in terms of getting a 'feel' for the sitter's characteristics and traits and relating the reveal directly to their own life and personality?

Could I take a classic of Mentalism that is heavy in terms of the props it uses – namely the 'Horrors!' plot by Stuart Robson from Annemann's 'Practical Mental Effects' – and update it, so that it became an entirely verbal presentation.

The answer to both of these questions was 'yes'.

I am not claiming what follows is the perfect solution or the only way a star sign divination should be performed but I do feel it is a step in the right direction, in terms of how I personally believe a star sign reveal should look and more importantly 'feel' to an audience.

I suggest you familiarize yourself with the aforementioned classic of Mentalism before reading any further.

It can be found on Page 109 of the Holden edition of 'Practical Mental Effects' by Annemann.

The effect and method for 'Horrors!' put in simplistic terms, is as follows.

4 or 5 index cards with lists of items printed on their faces are placed in front of a spectator and they are instructed to pick up each of the cards containing their thought of item and focus on that item.

These cards are either secretly marked on their backs or overtly marked with different color backs.

Each card represents a different number in a binary system.

The performer takes note of which cards are picked up by the spectator and secretly totals each of the numbers each card represents.

This gives them a total and this number secretly cues the performer into which one of the list items the spectator is thinking of.

I went back to my notebooks and my notes on this effect and tried to once again iron out what had made performing this effect prop-less a problem in the past and this is when I had the following break through.

What if I used the colors from the classic method as a way of mentally labelling each of the cards?

I had already decided to verbalize each of the list items on each of the cards within different groups – to do away with the need for the use of cards – I just needed a way of knowing which of the groups of different list items their thought of item appeared in.

I realized that if I got the spectator to listen out for their list item and to focus on a specific color depending on which of the groups it fell into – it would be possible to know which 'cards' they had 'picked up' mentally. This would be achieved by using the three primary colors: red, blue and yellow for each of the groups and having the

spectator mix two colors together mentally, whenever they are focusing on more than one color/ group and their thought of item therefore, appears in more than one of the list groups.

They would therefore, be focusing on either the secondary colors: orange, purple and green, if they mixed two colors together or they would be focusing on one of the primary colors, if they stayed consistent to one color.

What is so nice about this is whatever color the spectator is left focusing on instantly cues you into which groups their thought of item appeared in and therefore, which item they are thinking of – for example, if they are left focusing on the color orange you now know that they must have mixed the two primary colors red and yellow together to make orange and their thought of item appeared in the list groups associated with these colors.

This will become much clearer as we move on and begin to apply this method to the star sign divination, itself.

I just wanted to give you an overview of the basic principle before moving into the scripting, of which makes this entire method deceptive.