Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Circle Force B y R o S S T A y L e R W I T H F R A S e R P A R K e R PDF
Circle Force B y R o S S T A y L e R W I T H F R A S e R P A R K e R PDF
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Circle Force
!
by Ross Tayler with Fraser Parker
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! !
!
Circle Force
!
by Ross Tayler with Fraser Parker
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Intuition Publishing
2015
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Copyright 2015 © Ross Tayler and Fraser Parker
!
All rights reserved. This book or any portion thereof may not be
reproduced or used in any manner whatsoever without the express
written permission of the publisher except for the use of brief quotations
in critical articles.
!
PDF first published in 2015.
!
Intuition Publishing
Badger’s Hollow, Chapel Lane, Mareham-Le-Fen, Lincolnshire, UK
!
Circle Force
!
!
Foreword by Fraser Parker
After gently nudging him for the rest of our time on Skype, I finally
persuaded him to write out everything he knew about his force and how
he had been using it, hence the following work. I am very excited about
this method and am pleased he has managed to refine a method of mine
that was unfinished when it was originally shared.
-1-
I wish I had this as a tool in its current state when I first envisioned a
force that allowed someone to change their mind, alas, I had to wait until
Ross came along to have this dream made a reality.
At such a young age, Ross has impressed me greatly with his thinking;
not only with this effect but with other methods we have worked on
together. He has the right attitude towards performance and a great
natural discernment when it comes to working out what will play for an
audience and what is only a pipe dream. So please be assured that this is
something that can and does work reliably, most of the time.
Fraser Parker
January 2015
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
-2-
Introduction
Greetings!
-3-
As with any psychological method (or indeed any other method), there’s
a chance of failure with this effect. This will most often be due to poor
spectator selection, or an awkward delivery of the script. Keep in mind
the scripts contained herein were written by me, with my pacing,
tonality, vocabulary etc in mind. If you repeat them verbatim, this force
will not be so effective. Your spectators will smell a rat when your style of
speaking changes – and this small amount of discomfort will be sufficient
to put their backs up, limiting the efficacy of these techniques. However,
if you practice this and adapt it to your own character, I promise you’ll
have a great deal of success with this force!
Ross Tayler
January 2015
!
!
!
!
!
!
-4-
Basic Effect
Method Outline
The principle upon which this effect relies is that one category of cards
i.e. the pictures, is massively more limited than the other category, the
numbers. Resultantly, by switching from a number to a picture, the
number of possible choices reduces from 40 to 12.
The Script
“We’re going to build a card up one piece at a time. First, I’d like
you to think of the colour. Now the number. And now the suit. In
fact, to make this fairer, change your card entirely. So if you’re
thinking of a black card, change to red, a red card – change to
black. If you’re thinking of a picture change to a spot, a spot
change to a picture. Obviously pictures are the Jack, or Queen/
King, spots are Ace through to ten. And then settle on a suit.”
-5-
Script Analysis
“We’re going to build a card up one piece at a time. First, I’d like
you to think of the colour. Now the number. And now the suit.”
By telling them we’re going to build the card up, this stops our
participant from jumping ahead, and thinking of a card outside of our
parameters.
This next stage is sure fire: we always know the spectator is going to end
on a picture card, as we don’t give them that option in the instructions.
We tell them to think of a number, not a value. Therefore, we can be
certain they’ll think of a value between Ace and Ten.
Asking them to think of the suit last prevents them from over-thinking
the previous instructions. By stacking the three together, the spectator is
put under pressure, and less likely to deviate from our path.
These instructions are delivered rapidly, and I personally snap after each
instruction to add an additional layer of urgency to the proceedings. The
spectator is now thinking of one of 20 cards, and it’s clear we couldn’t
know.
-6-
We now proceed with the second part of the script, to guide our
participant to the Jack of Spades.
“In fact, to make this fairer, let’s change your card entirely. So if
you’re thinking of a black card, change to red, a red card –
change to black. If you’re thinking of a picture change to a spot, a
spot change to a picture. Obviously pictures are the Jack, or
Queen/King, spots are Ace through to ten. And then settle on a
suit.”
The first part of this script justifies the changing of the card. Justification
= Acceptance, and therefore you won’t be questioned on this.
-7-
The force is now complete. The script is delivered quickly and casually, as
if the decision to change is spontaneous. Any sense of process will disrupt
the deceptiveness of this method.
Fraser’s comments
The basic strategy for the ploy from ‘The Secret’ Ross mentions is
to say the force card first then mark it out from the other options
by pausing slightly then naming both of the other cards together in
quick succession. This, coupled with the Jack of Spades being the
most psychologically appealing black picture card, makes the odds
of hitting this force very good indeed.
The suit selected will likely be the Spade, due to psychology: most
spectators opt for the suit which is easier to visualise and name
(most seem to struggle to recall what the more intricate symbol of
a Club is called). I have been using this as a force for over a year
now and have only ever had the spectator choose a Club a few
times when asked to name one of the black suits, especially when
pressured slightly with a snap of the fingers. Naturally, this may
change from culture to culture, so you should do what best fits
your location and use those psychological likelihoods as your force
items.
Variant Scripting
“I’d like you to think of a card, nothing too obvious, and lock it in
your mind.”
-8-
I would only perform this on a female spectator, and naturally, it is
slightly chancier than the original script. That said, this is how it works:
Females, by and large, will think of red cards. This is half of the script,
and the chanciest element. I find it to be quite reliably the case, however.
The Worst Case Scenario: Initial colour force may miss – the spectator
can still only be thinking of 1 of 12 cards, as they have no option but to
think of a number at the start.
Third Worst Case: ‘The Secret’ fails – the spectator can only be thinking
of 1 of 3 cards. They will be very close.
I personally have no preference for either script. The first is slightly more
reliable; the second may seem more relaxed. Choose whichever best fits
your character and performance context.
-9-
If using the second script on a man, you may choose to use the Jack of
Hearts as a force card, as he is statistically more likely to be drawn to a
black card initially.
Fraser’s comments
-10-
choices separately in each one of my pockets and reveal the card
the spectator eventually names.
If you are still unsure then instead of placing your prediction face
down on the table before you start, you can leave it in the deck and
quickly check the colour of their first card before taking out the
card of the opposite colour, as your prediction. This questioning is
more in line with the original method from True Mysteries and will
go by completely unnoticed by your spectator. They will still be
impressed you can get anywhere near their final selection, in terms
of suit and value.
-11-
this way. When addressing the number selection I would disguise
this element of the force by saying,
“or value.”
If you snap your fingers after the first part of this statement then
your spectator will commit to a number before you seem to offer
further choice of the picture cards, after they have already made
their decision. This is an idea from Peter Turner to create the
illusion of a greater selection field after subtly forcing the spectator
to commit to their choice, with a snap of the fingers. I would then
leave the suit selection as is. This is just my preferred approach.
What is important is how you deliver these lines yourself. Use
whatever lines and exact wording work best for you. However, if
you do modify the scripting, it is essential you keep in tact the
same structure and order in which the lines are given to get this to
work.
I may also say the following words before getting the spectator to
change their mind,
“To make this even fairer, when I snap my fingers, you are going
to change your mind to a completely different card.”
This line allows you to give all of your instructions to the spectator
before they change to a different card as well as control when this
-12-
happens with a snap of the fingers, ensuring they do not drift off
and think of a non-force card too early.
The beautiful thing about this method is the fact that it exists in
words, which disappear after they have been spoken. This
combined with the fact a seeming free choice for the spectator to
change their mind is created, along with the use of certain
psychological ploys, all come together to create a bold deception
which is very hard to back track. This notion of tying up the effect
is cemented even further when the following thoughts on re-
framing are applied to this effect.
Reframing
It’s often said that most of an effect happens in the minds’ of our
participants, after the performance. Therefore, we should always be
acutely aware of how they go on to remember an effect. I therefore
thought it necessary to include a brief discussion of creating false
memories via the reframing, or recapping process.
-13-
performer struck. A month or so later I bumped into this guy in the pub,
and he informed me he’d got bored one day, so found himself searching
‘how to bend a coin by magic’ on YouTube. Of course, it didn’t take him
long to find the method. He told me he knew I must have switched the
coin, he was right – but here’s where it gets interesting. I responded:
He thought for a second, then a frustrated grin burst across his face,
This stuff works. In the context of this force, I’d suggest the following
script:
“So let’s quickly look at how fair this is! I asked you to think of
any card in the deck – that was a totally free choice, wasn’t it? No
influence or restriction! And then to make it even fairer I had you
change your mind entirely! How many times did you change?
Clearly there’s no way I could know to what card you’d change
before even you knew!”
The points we mention multiple times are those we really wish them to
remember:
-14-
• That they had total freedom in their decisions.
• That they could have changed their mind in any way they wish,
possibly multiple times.
1. Ooh, no, you take that, I don’t ever want to touch it!
2. Okay, make sure I stay away from the coin, I don’t want to touch it.
5. Is that really bent?! I never even touched it! Can I touch it now?
See how a statement about my own intentions soon slips into a reality
altering statement.
Fraser’s comments
-15-
create a false memory due to the fact that they now have pieces of
scripting they remember which will fall in line with the false story
you wish to create.
Effects
Due to the speed and reliability of this force, it has practical applications
beyond a simple card guess. Here I will run through several
presentations and effects utilising this method, combined with other
psychological ploys to achieve totally hands-of feats of mentalism, mind
reading and mystery.
Influence
A card is placed face down on the table, in an envelope, wallet or even the
spectator’s pocket. You speak with the spectator about advertising,
hidden messages and subliminal influence. The spectator thinks of a card
under the fairest possible conditions, even changing their mind. You are
then shown to have influenced their thoughts.
This is the simplest application of the force, however there are some nice
elements to this presentation that make it effective. Firstly, you’re really
doing what you say you’re doing. Even if a spectator where to cotton on
to elements of the method (they won’t, but just imagine), you really are
using words to influence someone’s thoughts – there’s nothing to
uncover. Secondly, on the rare occasion you miss slightly, you’ll always
be close. Therefore you can point out that, like advertising, these
methods can’t produce precise results – but it’s clear how they can
produce results closer than mere probability would permit.
!
-16-
Fraser’s comments
Psychic Spectator
A card is placed face down on the table, in an envelope, wallet or even the
spectator’s pocket. You tell the spectator to slip into a negative state of
mind, and think of a card. You then encourage them to focus on a time
they felt positive or especially intuitive, and now to change their mind
entirely. The new card is named, and it is then shown that the spectator
is more skilled than they first believed.
Again, a very simple application of the force. The shift in spectator state
justifies the change of mind. I love this type of presentation, as if the
spectator is guessing, it prevents them from being difficult. It’s also far
more pleasant and theatrically interesting to apparently give a spectator
a skill, or teach them to achieve their potential. The fact that they’re not a
real psychic will act as an out if the force misses slightly.
Fraser’s comments
-17-
tried this yet but if you were to label the first card's colour
selection as reflecting a negative emotion, I would be willing to bet
that the spectator would be naturally drawn to black due to its
association with negative emotions and vice versa for the positive
emotion being associated with the brighter colour of red. The
proper labelling and scripting would therefore, ensure the force
would work as planned. I will leave it to you to find the best words
to use for this.
Two cards are placed face down on the table, in an envelope, wallet or
even the spectator’s pocket. You tell the spectator to think of a card. You
then instruct them to change their mind entirely. Both cards are named,
and the spectator is shown to have guessed them with a startling degree
of accuracy.
This effect is slightly risky, but the payoff is very strong. Often, you’ll find
that the first part of the script will lead spectators to think of the 7 of
Hearts. This is a very psychologically appealing card anyway, and with
the script structured as it is, the odds of the participant thinking of it are
quite in our favour. The Jack and 7 are placed down casually, and we go
through the force. When the Jack is named, it is turned over. We then
enquire “out of interest” what their first card was. If this was the 7 or
close, we reveal it. If not, the card is casually tossed back into the deck
without a word.
-18-
moment, then with some struggle names six cards. One at a time, each
spectator is then instructed to sit if his or her card was named. All sit
down.
Have six spectators stand from different areas of the audience and
perform the force on the group. Once all have cards, go through your
process, whatever that may be. Now continue with the following script:
“Okay, I’m not certain on all of these, but this is what I’m getting:
the 3 of Clubs, the Jack of Spades, the 4 of Hearts, the Queen of
Spades, um… there’s also a red picture card. Really send it! Okay
no that’s all I’m getting, a red picture card, but we can count that.
And finally, the 9 of Diamonds.”
-19-
thus creating multiple applause cues, and strengthening the illusion that
each spectator was thinking of a different card.
Let’s break the script down quickly to show why it’s so reliable! This is
the most important section:
So firstly, you’ll notice that two of the most likely cards are named – the
effect is not reliant on ‘The Secret’ element of the method hitting
perfectly, as two of the Spade picture cards are included in the script.
This increases your odds of hitting. Secondly, you’ll notice that there’s no
need at all for the colour force at the start of the effect to hit, as every red
picture card is covered by the second part of the script. By saying that
“we can count that” – we are telling the spectator to accept their mind as
read, thus they will sit down.
So what if a spectator or two remains standing? I’ve only had this happen
twice. Firstly don’t panic, you’re reading minds; four out of six isn’t bad!
But we can actually recover further – remember how earlier we saw that
there’s only ever twelve cards the spectator can be thinking of (assuming
every psychological aspect of the force misses) if they followed your
instructions. We’ve mentioned 8 of these in the above script: all six of the
red picture cards, and two of the Spades. We are therefore only fishing
for one of four cards! The options are the Jack, Queen and King of Clubs,
and the King of Spades. We handle this as follows:
“Yes, I said I’d struggled with you, it wasn’t the four of Hearts,
was it?! No. Okay, re-focus! This is a Club, yes?”
-20-
The first part of the script does a few things. Firstly, it implies you knew
you’d get this wrong, so you don’t lose any control over the situation.
Secondly, by inferring that you thought the four was theirs, you’re
cementing the suggestion that each card you named was aimed at a
different individual. This beautifully covers the use of the ‘Hoy Principal.’
If the spectator responds that the card was in fact a Club, just guess at the
Queen. At worst you’ll be off by one (bare in mind the audience don’t
know that you know they’re thinking of a court card – so this will still
seem very impressive).
If more than one spectator is standing, state that you feel as though a
coincidence has occurred, and ask if they’re both thinking of a club. If
neither is, both are thinking of the King – have them name their card on
3. If both are, guess that they’re both thinking of the Queen as normal. If
one is thinking of a club and the other not, name the Queen first so that if
it misses you can end on the strong revelation of the King of Spades. By
mentioning the coincidence, we have a chance of creating an additional
layer to the effect, so it’s worth the punt.
Fraser’s comments
-21-
of the cards correct right away creates further drama and also
prevents this effect from always being too perfect. Being able to
state that two spectators are thinking of the same card as a
coincidence and to be able to name the exact card they have in
mind is also a real bonus effect, which can occur from time to time.
The idea of getting the spectator to sit down if you are only close
with one of the thoughts is a subtly from Luke Jermay, he uses as
part of his devious and brilliant ‘Touching on Hoy’ routine.
Pseudo-Berglas
A borrowed, shuffled deck is placed on the table well away from the
performer. The spectator thinks of a card, and then changes their mind.
The new card is named. Another spectator is instructed to give a number
between 1 and 52. The performer never touches the deck. Someone deals
to the named number, turns the card over, and it is the thought of card.
-22-
The set up is simple. The Jack of Spades in the 36th position in the deck. I
normally accomplish this by cutting the Jack to the face of the deck, then
casually shuffling 16 cards from top to bottom. The deck needn’t be
touched after this.
Perform the Circle Force and have the card named. Half the work is
done.
Now to force the number 36 - I’ve developed a technique I call the Ruler
Force to do this every time. This is included here as a bonus, however at
this point any method of getting a card to a number without touching the
deck will work. This could even be combined with Fraser’s approach to
the ‘Berglas Effect’ presented in True Mysteries 1, those of you who own
the book will see how killer this would be.
I make direct eye contact with the spectator, and ask them to visualise a
scale in the air between 1 and 52. I mark this scale out with my hands,
being sure to draw the scale left to right from the participant’s
perspective. Precise labelling and direct commands are key for this force
to be effective.
I now begin sliding my right hand from right to left along the “scale” and
instruct the spectator to call stop. By watching the participant closely,
one can predict precisely when they are going to say stop, and adjust the
-23-
pace of the right hand movement accordingly. Most frequently, the
spectator will have you stop just over 3/5 of the way along the scale.
This is where you must be really assertive. Stop at that point and address
the spectator:
“There. You’re sure? That must be what, 35… 36? Yes. And that
was a free choice, you don’t want to change. You’re happy with
36.”
A small amount of experimentation will allow you to find your own pace
with this very bold force, and calibrate precisely how much pressure you
need to put on your spectator, and when you can begin relieving it.
Once the card and number have been named – simply take a few
moments to recap the effect (take the time to create a false memory of
how free everything was), before having a spectator pick up the deck and
deal to 36 for the revelation.
When playing with the number force early on, it’s possible that the
spectator will decide they want to change the number slightly. They can’t
move that far away, so don’t panic (they, after all, apparently decided
their own restrictions by calling stop where they did). It’s a simple matter
to casually move a few cards from top to bottom or visa versa in the
-24-
action of handing the deck to a third spectator to count. With practice,
this won’t be necessary.
Fraser’s comments
I would personally just place the force card on top of the deck and
then use a Andrew Gerard idea of using a reverse count to create
the illusion the spectator dealt down to the force card. The correct
way to do this is taught on the True Astonishments box set, for
those who want to use this option. If you hit the card directly, you
can then either reveal it as the top card of the deck or go into a
pseudo any card at any number.
I have also used an idea I first saw my friend Peter Turner use to
get the spectator to deal down to the correct number of cards. This
method requires placing the force card seventeen cards down in
the deck and then using a timing force to get down to the exact
card. You simply have the spectator slowly deal cards one at a time
face down then when they have dealt thirteen cards, say the
following words to them in a casual manner, “just stop wherever
you want”. They will usually go three more beats and deal three
more cards face down before stopping. You can then have them
turn over the next card left on top of the deck or if they go one card
extra just get them to turn over the card they just dealt onto the
pile of cards on the table. This way you get two chances at hitting
the force number. If you stack the 3 force card outs on top of the
deck, from the start, in the following order: Jack of Spades, Queen
of Spades and King of Spades, then depending on which card they
name, it is a simple matter to change the position of your timing
-25-
force to hit the correct card. If they were to name the Queen of
Spades for example, you would simply adjust when you tell them
to stop dealing, in this case, telling them to stop after they have
dealt the fourteenth card, one extra to the original placement of
the force, the thirteenth card. Therefore, with a simple adjustment
you can cover all of the most likely possible outs. If you miss the
card force with either method you can simply ask what card they
thought of and then set up either method by looking through the
cards face up and casually cutting the card they name to the
correct position in the deck, to create the outcome of either effect.
-26-
Equally, one could simply move into a different effect if the force misses.
Let’s say we’re set to perform Pseudo-Berglas, with the Jack of Spades in
the 36th position; and the force misses entirely – the universe is against
you. The spectator names the 4 of Hearts. Just improvise! The Jack could
serve as a key card, allowing you to quickly shift the 4 to the correct
position before performing the Ruler Force. Or you could simply locate
the 4 and use it for a stop-trick. Or really think: based on the process
we’ve taken them through – where must they have started? On a black
picture card of course! Why not ask what their first card was, give
yourself another chance to hit! Or use an invisible deck as an out.
Whatever you do, just remember to stay relaxed. You own the
performance space. Only you know where you’re going. Only you know
your process. There’s nothing to call you on.
-27-
occasionally miss. In fact, if I get a succession of hits during a set I
will usually add in at least one near miss or failure anyway, to
breed credibility into my act.
The good news is that with this method you will very often have a
way of hitting the exact card someone is merely thinking of even
after they have had a free choice to change their mind, or you will
be seen to be very close. The percentage of potential success to
failure far outweighs my fear of failure.
I believe what makes our approach unique is the fact the method
allows for a seeming free choice for the spectator to change their
mind. The fact that the force happens earlier in the script to get
them to a card that is, in itself, a seeming free choice, as well as the
fact it is discarded early on, means that it is completely forgotten.
This in turn, makes what you do very deceptive and the effect
outwardly very fair.
-28-
Thanks and Credits
There are many other forces in the literature, here’s a very brief list of
these – as well as some excellent forces on psychological forcing as a
broader subject, all of which you should investigate:
Derren Brown has a force of the Jack of Spades in his excellent book
‘Pure Effect,’ as well as in his fabulous ‘Devil’s Picturebook' tapes. Both of
these sources contain an array of other mental card forces – these works
are seriously worthy of study.
Docc Hilford has an interesting force of the 6 of Clubs, which I first saw
published in ‘Psychological Subtleties 3.’ This book contains several other
methods of psychologically influencing spectators to think of certain
cards.
Peter Turner has some excellent work of forcing playing cards and other
pieces of information in his various works. Specifically, I’d suggest
looking into his DVD sets ‘Jinxed,’ ‘Devil in Disguise’ and his ‘Penguin
LIVE Lecture.’
Ben Seward has some great thoughts on both forcing and fishing for
cards in his fantastic ‘Cog’ manuscript. These techniques are
exceptionally difficult, but well worth the practice.
-29-
There are doubtless others – but these are the sources that occurred to
me first. Study all of these works, and you’ll have an excellent set of tools
to work with.
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
-30-