This is the re-frame, and is what essentially allows us to get away with being so bold with the subtle change of instructions during the second letter jump. We simply change the meaning of our second set of
instructions to imply we meant all along for the spectator to again, jump randomly to a different letter of the alphabet, instead of simply jumping to the very next letter of the alphabet.
To recap: The first time they jump to a letter, to give us a positive
characteristic trait, they genuinely have a free choice of any letter of the alphabet, whereas, the second time, when generating a negative
characteristic trait, they only actually jump to the very next letter of the alphabet (whatever letter is right after the first letter of the thought of
name).
[You only need the first letter of the name and the additional ploys, which follow, to guess the name, so it doesn't matter that the first letter jumping sequence is entirely random and you can not back-track to the second letter of the name. Incidentally, the fact that this first phase is entirely fair, also helps cement the illusion created after the re-frame, due to the fact they will now much more easily believe you meant for the second phase of letter jumping to be identical to this one and also involve a completely free choice of letter].
This second, unfair, process is now readjusted by the re-frame, in the minds of everyone involved. By delivering the above scripting and getting the spectator to agree with your statement, you effectively
change how what has happened is perceived. You first get the spectator to follow along and then change the rules of what supposedly took place, once it is too late.
The spectator will now feel as if you always meant for them to change freely 'each' time, to a completely random letter of the alphabet and will think that they, perhaps, made a mistake and didn't follow you
previous instructions well enough.
This is a great position for you to be in, as they will believe their not following along correctly, actually makes your job harder when in reality, it makes it easier and is what actually makes the effect possible.
Whether this happens in their minds consciously or not doesn't really matter. This is what they will effectively believe your words to mean and is what they will take away from these words and the performance itself. This causes the spectator to doubt you know they only jumped one place away in the alphabet from the first letter of the name and they will therefore, believe you couldn't possibly back-track from the letter they are now on and in turn, couldn't know the first letter of the name they are thinking of.
This brings the effect full circle and cements the illusion for the spectator as well as for everyone else watching. Everything will seem completely fair and as it should.
If you think of this in a conceptual way, you have effectively shifted perception temporarily away from the effect and illusion you wish to create, in order to get a mental 'peek' of information, and then shifted it back to illusion, leaving nothing to be found in the process. Everything appears as it should and everyone is fooled. This is beautiful! And I believe the first time a re-frame has been used in magic, as applied to method.
As the method exists in words and nothing is really changed outwardly, in terms of scripting and presentation, it means all method disappears after the words are spoken and the shift in perception has taken place which in turn, leaves nothing behind that is out of place – all that
remains is the pure effect. The illusion has truly become a closed circle. The fact it is words and perception which enable this work, makes what you do seem very real! Even to the performer due to the fact you are using as close to a real method possible, to create a magical outcome. Once the spectator agrees with your statement the re-frame goes to work in their minds and ensures no one, not even themselves, can back-track and work out what has happened. The illusion is water-tight due to their fooling themselves with their own faulty perception of what has taken place – thanks to the words and the psychology of the re- frame.
When delivering the re-frame you should state it as fact, as if it is already the case and not as a question, with slight pressure added for your spectator to agree, with a nod of your head and you confirming this to be true by you saying 'yes' afterwards, yourself.
Note: The re-frame was first devised by my good friend Ross Tayler, when we were creating our first method for
guessing a name completely prop-less, “Ouija”. I have since taken the basic idea and pushed it to even greater heights with the name guesses which subsequently followed this release.
they wanted each time they jumped to a different letter of the alphabet and will believe you couldn't possibly know they actually only jumped one place and you therefore, can't back-track to find out the first letter of the thought of name.
I would now give a reading based on the characteristics and traits the spectator has given me. This is essentially a hot reading similar in approach to the name reading systems created by Richard Webster and Ken DeCoursey. They would generate readings from words which they would associate with specific letters, as they appeared in the name of the sitter, who had gone to have their reading given. What this system created was an oracle, which enabled the reader to easily generate associations which in turn, made giving a reading much easier,
ensuring they could easily come up with things to say during the course of the reading but much more than this, it also meant that if they ever were to see the same sitter, in the future, they would be able to
naturally and with no extra work, give a similar reading, as it would ultimately be based on the same name and letter associations, even if they had not realised the person who sat in front of them had crossed their path before.
Where my system differs, is not only will the reading, each time, be random, the spectator will also give you information about the thought of person just by giving you positive and negative traits of the person's personality.
As already stated, all you have to do is give a reading which lies somewhere between the two sides of this polarity and use your common sense and associations you would naturally make with the words they give, to be able to give an accurate reading. My approach not only tips vital information required for you to eventually guess the thought of name, it also, at the same time, essentially gives you a hot reading, for free.
You could, if you so choose, leave the reading portion out of the routine and simply claim that the characteristics or words the spectator names, give you enough information to divine the name, but I feel this would be a massive detriment to the effect. What is beautiful about the way this effect and method is structured is the fact, you are not only just going for the name but are instead divining much more about the personality of the person being thought of. You appear to be getting to know this person on some level and it is this which seemingly enables you to nail the exact name of this person, also. The reading therefore, not only adds to the presentation and theatrics of this piece, it also justifies the process and creates a pseudo method, in and of itself! It looks exactly as it should, this way. And lastly, it also provides time mis-direction and a disconnect between the moment you obtain the main piece of information required to guess the name, and the subsequent revelation.
Note: I truly believe that the ability of the performer to give an effective reading and the tools each performer prefers to
use do so, is a very subjective thing. No two performers will read the same way. I feel it is important to find your own way of delivering effective reasons, where you find the tools which fit you. In order to get better at giving readings you have to just have the confidence to go out and try it! Doing it repeatedly in order to gain the experience you will need to be able to give the impression you know about the person in front of you or the person they are focusing on. It is for this reason I am hesitant to give you any further tips on giving readings, in this section of the manuscript, and will not give you my own personal approach and preferred tools, in this area. What I will give you is this following advice: You already know how to read others, just by being a human being yourself – all you have to do is remember your life and the lives of those around you, in order to relate to the person in front of you. Then it is simply a case of speaking out loud the impressions you have about this person.