The Wizard is Dead

[Guest]

I hope it is ok to mentioned it.
The Wizard is Dead that was reviewd by Jamy Ian Swiss in the March issue is now available online at www.magic-notes.com

Yaniv Deautsch

[Guest]

I am from Israel.
Can I buy it?

[Guest]

Yes.

[Guest]

Did you try to do it on the 102FM radio?

[Guest]

TWD is a great piece of psychological work. I'll be reviewing it in upcoming issues of TOP HAT (Magic Bunny UK) and OnLine-VISIONS.

Highly recommended!

[Guest]

He tried it on 102 FM and blew it completely. it wasn't a preety sight to look upon (or hear actually).

[Guest]

The fact is,I didn't do it on 120FM radio.
You might wish to find a recording of this show and listen to it again.
Regards,

Yaniv Deautsch

[Guest]

I think you did very well.
The hosts didn't like you at all.
Don't worry , no one will remember it.

Zruba

[Guest]

Maybe Yaniv can tell us what happened there?

[mrgoat]

Originally posted by zrubavel:
I think you did very well.
The hosts didn't like you at all.
Don't worry , no one will remember it.

Zruba

Seems someone did remember - or at least got confused.

So what did happen?

[Guest]

The only time I did The Wizard is Dead on radio was for Andrew Baroch from Voice of America radio.
You can take my word that it was a success or you may chose to ask Andrew himself since he is a member of The Magic Cafe under the name 'fib'.
All the best,

Yaniv Deautsch

[Guest]

Tell them what you did on 102FM.
Zruba

[Guest]

Last week I took the plunge and bought Yaniv Deautschs much hyped (sadly only by the authorbut that is another story) effect The Wizard is Dead, an effect that the author modestly describes as a miracle. For those who have been off radar for the past nine months, this effect is essentially a drawing duplication done over the phone. The spectator draws something and the mentalist then guesses it (hopefully correctly).

So, what has the fuss been all about? I have read through the manuscript three times and to be honest, I still am none the wiser. The description of the effect is the effect. Im not kidding. You have to literally guess what the spectator is drawing. I laughed out loud at the audacity of it.

Ok, Ill elaborate as this does sound ludicrous. The premise is that when rushed, most people will draw a certain predictable number of things. Your job is to then psychologically fish for this drawing using cold reading, acting, common sense and also linguistics to minimise your failures at guessing correctly. If you fail outright, check this: Deautsch suggests blaming the spectator and then start over again with a different drawing.????!!!!!!!!!

Deautsch is obviously an armchair performer who does more theorizing than actual performance and this lack of experience shows throughout this manuscript. He talks a lot about risk taking and failure being ok. The former is a fine sentiment if you have an arsenal of decently strong effects up your sleeve, the latter is not. Failure is never ok if you are a paid mentalist performing for an expectant audience. To say otherwise is nave and foolish. Sometimes failure is unavoidable but that is life you dont make failure a serious likelihood if you can help it and if you present TWID as prescribed then you WILL have a massive chance of failure. Even if you hit, I dont think the risk is worth it. Deautsch talks a lot of the benefits of risk-taking and nothing of the downside. If this is indicative of Deautschs act, then I feel as cheated as his audience.

The manuscript is padded with waffle, poetry and quotes. It is extremely pretentiously written with much pontificating, pseudo mystical theorizing and has little serious application beyond pointing out a couple of mildly interesting psychological points. Just what on earth is a blind compromise???? Jargon for jargons sake is just silly and smacks of self indulgence. For the princely sum of $45 (for an e-book) you get around 27 pages of which 23 are content. My opinion is save your money. This is not an effect, this is merely an interesting attempt at an effect. The nearest comparison I can think of is Station Manager and I must admit, SM is a more practical effect despite the background behind it and that is saying something.

[Guest]

I will ignore all the insults you managed to throw at me and I will stick to the facts.
You wrote:"hyped (sadly only by the author}" if that is the case why did you chose to get it in the first place?
I guess you read the quotes and reviews from Jamy Ian Swiss,Ford Kross,Banachek,Luke Jermay,Sean Fields and others....So your comment isn't exactly fair to say the least.

You wrote:"Deautsch suggests blaming the spectator and then start over again with a different drawing"

This is partly wrong and may I suggest reading this manuscript again?

And can I asked you if you tried this effect at all?
Regards,

Yaniv Deautsch

[Guest]

I'll not go into extreme details but I have lent to this little tome both, a "thumbs up" as well as a "gift" to Yaniv in the form of an adendum that expands a bit on the psychology set into the routine. In short, I made some additions and adjustments so as to apply more to the American performer and said circumstances.

The psychology sewn into TWID is rather simple but at the same time, it is based on many of the principles outlined in WONDER WORDS and other NLP related techniques WE ALL USE (that is, Mentalists and magicians trying to master Psychological Forces.)

By all means, there is a bit of a "guessing game" involved, but we do the very same thing with Kenedy's DEAD PRESIDENTS or other Anagram styled bits... we've being steered in a certain direction in order to reach a specific conclusion.

Sorry, but that's how a lot of mentalism has worked for decades, if not centuries!

Most of the "pros" I've spoken to on this issue actually appreciate it and see it as a fine step forward for Yaniv. Encouraging him to keep experimenting and using his mind. The belief being that he may just become a new and potent resource within the Psychic Entertainment field. One thing's for certain, he's creative!

Oh! I nearly forgot... I have used this material a good dozen times in the short period I've had it and it's knocked folks out of their seats. ;)

[Andrew]

Hi,
Yaniv Deautch is right. I interviewed him for Voice of America. My story on mentalists was broadcast and his voice was heard in many countries.
His routine was very direct. I recall him seeming to struggle initially for an image in his mind of what I'd drawn. But then he got it dead on.
[Yaniv, can I have a free copy of your manuscript now? Just kidding. All the best, andy]

[Guest]

Yaniv, ff you cannot take criticism, then don't publish. You appear to be the only author who cannot take criticism. Is your ego so fragile?

As for your self promotion, ker-mawn..., you have been expounding this manuscript under your own name and under several alias in different internet forums since December. This is in extremely bad taste and very uncool. If the work is good, then it will stand up by itself.

In answer to your questions, I have indeed read some of the reviews including Mr Swiss's. Banachek's review needed some degree of qualification and Jermay's review needs updating based on some of his recent comments.

In many ways, Swiss's review echoes mine only he was not so explicit in his statements. I have no such qualms. Here's a quote from Swiss's review which you will no doubt take out of context and use to support your case:

'This is something that can be very effective and unquestionably strong.'

Swiss, I believe, refers to the effect of divining a spec's drawing over the phone. Yes, the effect is strong, but whether your method is the best for achieving this effect is arguable. I proffer that it isn't. It's not even close. Walking on water is a great effect, a miracle even, but if you are using 5ft long styrofoam shoes to do so, it detracts from the effect and makes the effect a joke.

Your second question, as to whether I used TWID. Yes, I've tried it on a dozen or so guinea pigs. I failed on 10 of them and on the other 2 I just took a guess. Go figure. The effect is not sure fire but then again, neither are Luke Jermay's, however, with Luke's effects you have a much, much stronger chance of success as you have so much more on your side than a mitigated failure if it goes wrong. I maintain that you cannot perform an effect where the chance of failure is so high.

Yaniv, don't you read your own manuscript? Here's a direct quote from TWID:

'There is another option: blaming her for your mistake. As the saying goes, attack is the best defence: "I think you are trying to confuse me!" Driving her into a corner. Before the spectator can even think about what has happened, you keep her mind busy with your verbal attack. Ask her to make the drawing again, as if it will help her concentrate better, without really saying this of course."

Aren't those your words?

In response to Craig, mentalism is not just about guessing. It is about, inter alia, using invisible advantages to ascertain information you shouldn't appear to possess then reveal that information in such a way as to appear miraculous. Progressive anagrams, although I hate them, are one way of ascertaining this information in a structured, surefire way. TWID is firmly within the realms of intuition and guesswork combined with a way of mitigating failure. There are too many variables for it to work reliably. You do NEVER perform an effect like this where failure is more likely than success. In fairness, Yaniv's methodology does raise this effect from a 90% degree of failure to maybe a 60% chance of failure but that is still unacceptable if you are a paid mentalist. $45 for a near 50/50 chance of success? Better to just take an educated guess. It is ill conceived from the start and this type of effect is fundamentally flawed. I'm sure that Craig's attempt to modify the effect is noble but I can't help but think it is akin to polishing a turd.

[Guest]

You wrote:"Banachek's review needed some degree of qualification"
ً
ًWhy is that???

You wrote:"Jermay's review needs updating based on some of his recent comments"

What recent comments?
I'm unaware of any recent comments that are any different from his review [posted on the Magic Cafe] and i'm afraid you are misleading the public.

You wrote:"In many ways, Swiss's review echoes mine only he was not so explicit in his statements. I have no such qualms."

Are you saying that Swiss is a man who is afraid to say what on his mind???
Please!
Give me a break!

You wrote:" Here's a quote from Swiss's review which you will no doubt take out of context and use to support your case:

'This is something that can be very effective and unquestionably strong.'
Swiss, I believe, refers to the effect of divining a spec's drawing over the phone."

I'm afraid you are wrong.
Since there is only one way of doing an over the phone drawing duplication Swiss talked about MY effect.

Here is the exact pergraph from which the above quote was taken:" That much information will give you a sense of the territory being mapped,and I hope,a sense of who this is for,who it is not for,and what you might get out of it.This is not for the casual practitioner who is not willing to experiment with real people.
Success depends greatly on your ability to manage and communicate with people,to "read" them,and to take advantage of subtle influence and insight.
As should be clear by now,if you're only comfortable with surefire methods that guarantee a certion outcome,this is not for you.
That doesn't make it bad or weak.
THIS IS SOMETHING THAT CAN BE VERY EFFECTIVE AND UNQUESTIONABLY STRONG.

You wrote:"Yes, the effect is strong, but whether your method is the best for achieving this effect is arguable"

So,are you saying there are OTHER and BETTER methods for doing an over the phone drawing duplication?
If so,where can I find them?

And your quote from the manuscript is again misleading since the ruse of blaming the spectator is done at an EARLY stage of the effect,before there is any impression of failure.

You asked me if I read the manuscript but the question is if you read it?
In your first "review" you wrote that after blaming the spectator, the spectator is asked to make another drawing but in the quote you took from the manuscript the spectator is asked to make THE SAME drawing again!

[Guest]

Originally posted by Yaniv Deautsch:
You wrote:"Banachek's review needed some degree of qualification"
ً
ًWhy is that???

Banachek himself needed to qualify his comments after you rudely took his original review and decided to use his comments out of context to make the manuscript appear better than it actually is. This qualification is on the Magic Cafe for all to see and I won't post it here.

You wrote:"Jermay's review needs updating based on some of his recent comments"

What recent comments?
I'm unaware of any recent comments that are any different from his review [posted on the Magic Cafe] and i'm afraid you are misleading the public.

I'm not. You are unaware of it because that is the way it is. Some people will know what I'm talking about.

You wrote:"In many ways, Swiss's review echoes mine only he was not so explicit in his statements. I have no such qualms."

Are you saying that Swiss is a man who is afraid to say what on his mind???
Please!
Give me a break!

I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that Jamy Swiss is not as explicit in his expression as I am. If your work is s**t, I will tell you it is s**t.

You wrote:" Here's a quote from Swiss's review which you will no doubt take out of context and use to support your case:

'This is something that can be very effective and unquestionably strong.'
Swiss, I believe, refers to the effect of divining a spec's drawing over the phone."

I'm afraid you are wrong.
Since there is only one way of doing an over the phone drawing duplication Swiss talked about MY effect.

Actually, you can take a stab in the dark, which is in all honesty, just as effective.

Here is the exact pergraph from which the above quote was taken:" That much information will give you a sense of the territory being mapped,and I hope,a sense of who this is for,who it is not for,and what you might get out of it.This is not for the casual practitioner who is not willing to experiment with real people.
Success depends greatly on your ability to manage and communicate with people,to "read" them,and to take advantage of subtle influence and insight.
As should be clear by now,if you're only comfortable with surefire methods that guarantee a certion outcome,this is not for you.
That doesn't make it bad or weak.
THIS IS SOMETHING THAT CAN BE VERY EFFECTIVE AND UNQUESTIONABLY STRONG.

You wrote:"Yes, the effect is strong, but whether your method is the best for achieving this effect is arguable"

So,are you saying there are OTHER and BETTER methods for doing an over the phone drawing duplication?
If so,where can I find them?

As I've said before, you can always take a stab in the dark. There is a reason why your's is the only method to claim to do a DD over the phone: it's because the concept is fundamentally flawed (note I didn't say impossible, as I would love to be proved wrong) and if the best that you can come up with is essentially a 'guess', then this effect has yet to be achieved with any success however, I hear Eric Mead has come close.

And your quote from the manuscript is again misleading since the ruse of blaming the spectator is done at an EARLY stage of the effect,before there is any impression of failure.

But you are still blaming the spectator for the fact that you are wrong and don't know what they drew?

You asked me if I read the manuscript but the question is if you read it?
In your first "review" you wrote that after blaming the spectator, the spectator is asked to make another drawing but in the quote you took from the manuscript the spectator is asked to make THE SAME drawing again!

That is tenuous indeed. The fact is, you are asking the spectator to draw again. Whether it was the same drawing or different one is immaterial.

I will leave you with excerpts from Swiss which substantiate my assertion that TWID is nothing but a theoretical work, a pipe dream that has no basis in practical mentalism.

Mr Deautsch seems so firmly committed to the value of risk-taking that he appears unwilling to acknowledge the potential downside...Mr Deautsch offers no counsel in this regard...

[TWID] consists of 27 pages, many of which contain no shortage of white space and a certain amount of blather that has little to do with the workings of the effect.

If Mr Deautsch had perhaps provided the ne plus ultra manuscript on this subject, examining everydetail and providing every angle of approach, that would also considerably improve the manuscript's value. But to some extent he provides the ideas and general guidance, without even coming close to pursuing every path or possible outcome....all the talk of being flexible and intuitive is fine and dandy, but if you're teaching something-and asking a premium price for it- you should be willing to work as hard as possible to provide your student every possible tool available. A bit less highfalutin' theorizing and some more nuts-and-bolts amplification wouldput less expereienced students on the path to success, and greatly increase value along the course. But rather than serving as a definitive manual, this is more of a premise and a guide.

As I stated before, it would appear that you cannot handle criticism. By trying in vain to attack fair comments you are making yourself look stupid. Many authors get some degree of stick but you appear to be the only one who comes out with a quivering bottom lip to defend your work against every little individual criticism.

You appear to attack anyone who criticises you and from the posts here and on other forums you certainly appear to be disliked both in Israel and further afield. My question is why? No other person appears to generate so much dislike but judging from the previous posts I am rapidly getting the picture.

[Guest]

You avoided answering my questions...
Offering criticism is one thing.
Calling someone by names is something else.

Since you quoted Jamy Ian Swiss I would like to quote him too.
This is from Genii March 2004:

"A remarkable feat!...Nothing but you and and your voice and and your mind,and the spectator.
If you're successful,this can be a great effect with tremendous impact....
This is something that can be very effective and unquestionably strong.
What if you use The Wizard is Dead regularly and successfully?
In that case only you can judge its value,but odds are,you'll probably come to feel your invensment was well made."

[Guest]

Originally posted by Yaniv Deautsch:
You avoided answering my questions...
Offering criticism is one thing.
Calling someone by names is something else.

I haven't avoided answering anything. And as for calling names...well, if the cap fits...

Since you quoted Jamy Ian Swiss I would like to quote him too.
This is from Genii March 2004:

"A remarkable feat!...Nothing but you and and your voice and and your mind,and the spectator.
If you're successful,this can be a great effect with tremendous impact....
This is something that can be very effective and unquestionably strong.
What if you use The Wizard is Dead regularly and successfully?
In that case only you can judge its value,but odds are,you'll probably come to feel your invensment was well made."

You continually use the same phrases out of context. 'Remarkable feat' refers to the effect you are trying to achieve and not your method for achieving this effect. For you to think that it is refering to TWID is delusional and egotistical.Swiss in no way endorses your manuscript. He provides an opinion, not a recommendation. The final phrase you use in particular clearly states that the only judge of TWID's value is the buyer. If you use it regularly and successfully, yes you will feel it was a good buy, just as the flipside is true but isn't that the same with most magic and mentalism if not a lot of things you buy? My viewpoint is that the chances of it being successful aren't good and I suspect most owners of TWID feel likewise. Get over it.

[Guest]

I do not own TWID, but I have read the posts here and at the "other" magic BB.
I have found posts that both praise and knock TWID.
Banachek did say tho (in his clarifications)
that he liked the writing and that the effect would be very good in the hands of an "experienced" performer.

[Andrew]

I recently purchased Yaniv Deautsch's manuscript. In part, here's what I think it lacks: he tends to dwell on generalities about human nature. "People do this"..."people do that..." Too many pages are wasted on this general crap. It doesn't make me feel confident about the feasibility of this drawing "experiment." A performer who buys this kind of product can sense right away if it's strong or flimsy. TWID is flimsy.
For instance, there is no clever, groundbreaking, coherent strategy to force a drawing -- other than urging the participant to hurry up with their sketching. He writes that we have to find the pertinent psychological skills on our own. He suggests such hypnotic phrases as "Tell them to relax,...tell them to sit back in their chair."
What made Mr. Deautsch think his creation was worth $45 dollars -- why did he think it was worth anything? More important, why did I believe him? Because people like me are suckers for Barnums like him.

[Guest]

I must say that when i read the description i thought. 'I am not buying that, Banachek has the basic workings in Psychological Subtleties'.

I don't want to sound offensive but why the h*ll did anyone buy it? Did you honestly expect somesort of brand new method or technique?

I wouldn't waste my money,
Steve.

[Guest]

I'm sorry that you feel that way,Andy.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion after all.
I can only suggest listening to the interview you made with me and to your own reactions and feelings after I read your mind.Maybe it will change your mind.
With respect,

Yaniv

P.S Barnum never said:"There's a sucker born every minute".
It was actually a banker named David Hannum who said it.
Barnum did said:"You should have something for everyone"
I guess I didn't have something for you...

[Guest]

I found out that Jordan Rocque is also the owner of the following blog http://www.gunnsight.blogspot.com/
Now you will all be in a better position to judge his "reviews" and what stands behind them.

[Guest]

Originally posted by Yaniv Deautsch:
I found out that Jordan Rocque is also the owner of the following blog http://www.gunnsight.blogspot.com/

I am???? That's news to me. Now you're getting paranoid and petty. Resorting to cheap shots will get you nowhere.

That said, I've just read the blog and whilst I would not phrase things quite the way Mr Gunn does, I do agree with him on some things and not others.

[Guest]

The fact that you are hidding behind an alias just proves it.

[Guest]

Originally posted by Yaniv Deautsch:
The fact that you are hidding behind an alias just proves it.

An alias??? Wanna see my driving licence? Your 'proof' is about as flimsy as TWID is. You must get off on pointing fingers at people for no reason and with no proof. Just because I gave you a bad review doesn't mean I'm out to get you. You need to get a life.