Mathematical Wizardry

[Harry Lorayne]

Just did a mailing to all on my email-address list, trying to get a "feel" re: deciding to re-print this item. I'll copy/paste it here. I'd appreciate your "take" on it. If you care to respond you can do so to my personal email address:
harrylorayne@earthlink.net.

Hi: Some are trying to talk me into re-printing MATHEMATICAL WIZARDRY. (You know - how to make people think you're a genius, etc.). I'm trying to come to a decision. You can help by telling me if you'd be interested in purchasing a copy when and if I do re-print. It'd probably sell for $44.95 plus the inevitable pstg/hndlng (probably $6.50 in the U.S.A. More out of the U.S.A.).
I had a few copies of the original printing left (still have about three copies) and people were paying as much as $100+ for a copy. (It isn't on my magic website - harryloraynemagic.com; it will be if I re-print, of course). Anyway, would you do me the favor of letting me know if you'd think of purchasing a copy from me if and when I re-print? Sure would appreciate your take on it, and it'd help me make the decision. Best - HARRY LORAYNE.

[Bob Cunningham]

I'd love to buy a copy!

Just let me know when it is available - I've been looking for Mathematical Wizardry for years!

/Bob

[Harry Lorayne]

Bob: Send your email address to me at harrylorayne@earthlink.net - that way I can let you know when and if. Best - HARRY L.

[J-Mac]

My email address is on the way too. I would certainly purchase a copy.

Thanks!

Jim

[Harry Lorayne]

Got it, Jim. You certainly will be advised when and if MATHEMATICAL WIZARDRY is re-printed. HL.

[Harry Lorayne]

PS: At least I think one of the batch of addresses I just received was yours. You spoke about how much you're enjoying my book, The Memory Book, right? Incidentally, the then basketball player had as much to do with writing it as you did! Best - HL.

[Bob Cunningham]

Your mentioning "The Memory Book" reminded me that when I was in Marine Corps boot camp in 1977 I was able to bring (hide) two things to keep my mind occupied: a small Gideon Bible and 4 torn out pages from the memory book.

The pages I kept were the peg system for numbers, playing cards and letters. There are long periods in boot camp where you are just waiting in line or formation. You can not talk or move, but you can think. Working on mnemonics kept me sane - more or less ;-)

Thanks for that!

[Harry Lorayne]

Interesting. One of the letters I've used as part of my publicity is from a Colonel who was shot down during the Vietnam war and was a prisoner. He was on one of my TV infomercials, and he (and I) were on the TV show To Tell The Truth, telling his story. His "story" is that all reading and writing material was taken away from the prisoners and that they had nothing to do. He had read one of my books and used my systems and - he started to teach them to other prisoners via Morse Code, tapping on the walls! His words: "I taught your systems to hundreds of my fellow POWs over the next six years. Eventually it was spread throughout the camp and was an invaluable aid to all of us. We relied solely on memory for sanity, entertainment, names of other POWs, and more. Academic classes were conducted by POWs entirely from memory. We applied your systems and learned literally thousands of foreign words, poems, speeches, mathematics, electronics, philosophy, biology (the list is endless). This opened new world's of mental activity which was so important to us since we were isolated from the world for such long periods of time. Just wanted to tell you how much your work meant to all of us behind the bamboo wall. Most Sincerely, Arthur T. Ballard, Lt. Col. USAF"

Things like this make it all worthwhile. Thanks for reminding me of it, Bob. Best - HARRY L.

[Ian Kendall]

That really is a wonderful story.

Ian

[mrgoat]

Agreed. I can't imagine just how wonderful reading a letter like that would make me feel.

How amazing to have contributed something so meaningful for those people.

[Harry Lorayne]

It did make me feel wonderful. When we were filming the TV infomercial, the one hosted by Mike Levey, they set up a satellite situation so that we could have Col. Ballard on the show - he was living in South Carolina. Mike Levey read part of the letter I quoted above and then he spoke to Col. Ballard - I was sitting there, of course. Col. Ballard started to reiterate what he'd said in that letter and ended by saying "You are our hero, God bless you, Harry" and I started to cry! HL.

[mrgoat]

Jebers. I did magic at a couple's 50th wedding anniversary party last week and I thought the reaction I got to anniversary waltz was good.

I bow to you, Sir.

[Doc Dixon]

"Jebers" is right. Along with the huge inspirational value of this story there's something else that keeps coming to mind: These servicemen were in the worst place this side of hell, yet mnemonics is so useful (along with Mr. Lorayne's teaching style) that it significantly added to their lives even in POW conditions. Not many things could do that. Kudos, to you Mr. H.

Whenever I'm tempted to put off learning "this, that or the other thing" because of some lame excuse, I need to re-read this story.

[Bob Cunningham]

Very moving story!

[Harry Lorayne]

No, to those who've asked - I didn't mean to get that maudlin about it, it's simply a true story. HL.

[Harry Lorayne]

We sure did get off on a "tangent" in this thread. My own fault. Basically, I started the thread to get a "feel" as to whether or not to re-print MATHEMATICAL WIZARDRY. If I do re-print it, it will retail for $44.95 plus the inevitable pstg/hndlng. If you think you'd purchase a copy when and if, please send an email to my personal email address (harrylorayne@earthlink.net) telling me so. That'd help me make a decision. Best - HARRY L.

[Harry Lorayne]

Well, I've received NOT ONE email in response to my post above as to whether you think you'd purchase a copy of MATHEMATICAL WIZARDRY if I re-print. Interesting. That fact has to be taken into consideration when it gets down to making a decision.

[Jim Martin]

Hi Harry,

I'd be interested in purchasing one.

Thanks-

[Harry Lorayne]

Jim: Please send your email address to me at:
harrylorayne@earthlink.net. Then I'll have a record, etc., and you'll be advised if and when the book is available. Best - HARRY L.

[Harry Lorayne]

Timing is all. I'm trying to work out a deal with the largest magic suppliers in the world (I think) for MATHEMATICAL WIZARDRY, but the head guy, who makes these decisions, is tied up with much more important things for quite a few weeks, and that may put the "kibosh" on the whole idea. See, I get quotes from the printer for cost of printing, but those quotes are good for a certain amount of time - then the prices go up. Therein lies the problem, if I can't make that decision soon. I need to decide whether to go ahead without the above supplier. We'll see - I'll keep you advised - although I'm not being overwhelmed by people in this forum emailing interest in purchasing, when and if. HARRY L.

[Bob Cunningham]

Hi Harry,

Have you ever considered on-line self publishing. It has some real benefits to authors of niche books:

The books are high quality.

There is no cost to the author.

Your royalties are between 50% & 60% of sale price.

Here are two good sites that you might want to look into:

http://www.lulu.com

www.createspace.com

If you are expecting a large run, this may not be the best option. But for a relatively small run you may want to look into this.

/Bob

[Harry Lorayne]

Okay, just to bring you up to date. The "deal" with the large magic supplier seems to have been worked out. So, that's a plus. The small negative is that after all the posts here, only ONE person has told me he'd be interested in purchasing a copy when and if I re-print. From other areas, many more have told me that they would be interested - but I'm kind of surprised at the lack of response here. But only in one way. Truth is that I'm really pleasantly surprised at the good reaction, interest shown in purchasing a copy when and if, I've been receiving from other places. Because - many copies of this book were originally sold -all over the world. Anyway... HARRY L.

[Harry Lorayne]

I think I mentioned that the last few copies of MATHEMATICAL WIZARDRY I sold went for $100.00 plus p/h. I don't have a collector's mind bent, but I guess I understand why some would want a copy of the original printing. Problem is, the re-print will look exactly the same. Anyway... HL.

[Harry Lorayne]

I surrender! There's just no way I can keep this thread on te main page so that I can possibly get a reaction to what I need a reaction to. HL. (But I will keep trying.)

[Harry Lorayne]

I'm giving it about 40 minutes before it disappears - probably less. HL.

[Ian Kendall]

Harry - I found an error in the book which you may want to look into before you reprint. Check your email :)

Ian

[McKitterick]

I surrender! There's just no way I can keep this thread on te main page so that I can possibly get a reaction to what I need a reaction to. HL. (But I will keep trying.)

Harry,

Your reference to the "main page" gives me an idea as to what your problem may be.

The main page does indeed show only the most recent post in each of the various forum categories. So my guess is that you might be trying to keep up with your subject - in this case "Mathematical Wizardry" - by clicking on it when it appears in the right-hand "Last Post" column. Unfortunately when a post is made to another subject in the same category - in this case "Close-Up Magic" - the link to yours will disappear.

If that's the case, just keep in mind that all you have to do is click on the forum category - "Close-Up Magic" - in the left-hand column and you will be taken from the main page to a page that lists all the subjects in that particular forum. Except for Richard's "stickies", which were spoken about earlier, the subjects are listed in order of the most recent post.

Your "Mathematical Wizardry" thread remains at or near the top of this list as long as people are posting to it. And all you have to do to read it is click on the subject heading in the left-hand column.

Hoping that helps.

[Harry Lorayne]

Ian: I checked your personal email to me. You are wrong. It is not an error, not at all, and if presented as you suggest, it'd be an awful "trick," in my opinion. I'd never present it that way. But, that's an individual thing - presentation, that is. Specifically, what you point out as an error, is not - it is exactly as I've done it for many decades - as in my reply to your email. Anyway, thanks for checking.

McK: Yes, that does help, and I've done it; thanks. Just seems to me that more would pay attention if it was on that main page.

[Ian Kendall]

Harry, you misunderstood my point, and the presentation you sent me is at odds with the wording in the book. Also, I didn't send you a presentation, and didn't suggest a way to present the trick. I only pointed out that the sum arrived at is not the sum of all the numbers in the grid.

Your presentation does address that, but since it's absent from the book, I wasn't to know, was I? :D

Take care, Ian

[Harry Lorayne]

Hi Ian: No, I don't think I misunderstood your point. So, I'm going to have to repeat myself. THERE IS NO ERROR. I'll try to copy/paste my response to you here, so all can see it.

Hi Ian: Not the way I presented it decades ago for paying groups - and now, occasionally for friends. The presentation is simple - "Please total all ten numbers in the up/down column; got it?" (I didn't even know the words "vertical" and "horizontal" when I started doing these things!) "Now, since the same ten numbers are in the left/right row, the total of those are the same, right? Right. Please add the two totals. Done? What is it? 170? Great - check my prediction." Etc. and so on.

That's it basically. That's the way I've always presented it, and always will. As have many who've learned it from the book. If I started "explaining" about that center digit (the 9, in this case) as you seem to be suggesting - boy, would that louse up the timing, the presentation, and so forth. So, there's no way I'd change it, if and when I re-print. And yes, I wrote that "I'm sure this has been thought of before but I've never seen it." That HOLDS - I am pretty sure it'd been thought of before, but I've never seen it, yet - and I doubt very much if anyone has ever utilized the idea, presented it, as I do in that section.

I don't know if you're using the idea but, obviously, you can present it as you like. As I've always written - utilize your own patter, presentation, personality, etc. Thanks and Take Care. HARRY.

Hi Harry,

[Harry Lorayne]

Good example of what a lousy computer person I am. I wanted to copy/paste only part of the above - not go into the explanation of the effect, because most won't know what we're talking about. I really wanted to copy/paste my reply to Mr. Kendall's second email insisting that there was an error, after I told him that there was no error. Also saying that the mathematical concept is known in the UK. I say that in the book -the concept has been thought of before, but not used as I teach it, as a "feat." Anyway, my reply to his second "insistence" is below (if I can do it properly) - the point being that THERE IS NO ERROR. I teach the "feat" in the book exactly as I've done it for many decades. Ian's email said that it wasn't "clear." That's the reason for "clear" below.

"Good morning, Ian. Been "clear" to me for over 60 years, and clear to everyone else who read it, performed it, since the book has been available. No way I would change my presentation, but anyone is welcome to change it as they like, as per my last couple of sentences in my previous response. So far, here in the States, anyway, I've never met anyone who knew the concept. You take care, Harry."

So thanks, Ian. But again - THERE IS NO ERROR. There may be others - Lord knows there've been errors in my books over the years, BUT WHAT YOU POINT OUT SO SPECIFICALLY IS NOT AN ERROR, it's exactly as I meant to teach it. Thank you for going over my stuff so carefully. (Have you ever tried to "present that iem?) Incidentally, even if there was an error, people have told me that the book is worth more than twice or three times its price. I know you don't agree, but to each his own, right? Take care. HARRY.

[Ian Kendall]

Sheesh, Harry.

Once again, you are quoting your presentation, which does clear up the discrepancy. The thing is, that presentation is not in the book. That's all. In the presentation you tell people to add up both lines, in the book you say to add all the numbers. This is not the same.

I wasn't 'insisting' there was an error, I was pointing out the discrepancy before you reprinted the book, trying to help. Also, I was not trying to belittle your formula, I only mentioned that it was known; something you mention in the text of the book.

This was not a personal attack, Harry. I was trying to help, that's all.

Ian

[Harry Lorayne]

I realize that, Ian. I know you were trying to help. But for some reason, you refuse to understand. Let me try again. IN YOUR OPINION, there is a discrepancy. But - THERE IS NO DISCREPANCY. It is the way that particular effect should be presented, and it is the way I would ALWAYS TEACH IT. So, please, let's not be redundant. Each time you make that statement, I will refute it, because - THERE IS NO DISCREPANCY; it is EXACTLY how I intended to teach that particular "piece," and how I do it. When and if you write a book on math feats, you have my permission, right here, publicly, to re-write that effect of mine YOUR WAY. What comes to mind here is - a double turnover is a "discrepancy." You're intimating that you're showing the top card when you're not - you're "telling people" that "this is the top card" - it isn't, certainly "not the same." Silly, I know.

[Ian Kendall]

Harry,

To use your vernacular for once, please point out in the book where your presentation is given.

Now, I'm sure you read the phrase 'the sum of all the numbers' as to mean 'count each line twice'. To liken that to a double turnover is daft - that is a deception, not a discrepancy. The fact is that the sum of all the numbers on the grid is _not_ the same as counting each line separately, and no matter how many times you point to your presentation, it does not alter the fact that the presentation is not in the book!

Don't worry, the chances of me rewriting the routine is slim. But how would you feel about me rewriting it here? That way, people could see what we are gabbing on about, and it could show others the type of effect in the book, possibly increasing interest in it?

Take care, Ian

[Harry Lorayne]

This is getting silly; you're not going to let go, are you, Ian? The concept, title, you refer to is Total The Series, Plus. So, to use "my vernacular", I teach about SIX different versions of the idea. Many different ways of PRESENTING IT (wish I knew how to bold and italicize PRESENTING IT) - as a straight vertical column, in cross form, wheel form, right-side up or upside-down V form, etc. You're again, referring to ONE of the many. I guess I must be "daft" to think for an instant that you know what you're talking about.
Also, I'll put some of my phrases here - meaningless if you're not there in the book - but just want to show "presentation", which is what you're "spewing" about.

Okay, at a quick glance-through: "Tell your spectator to..." "You don't look." "Draw the adding line..." "Turn away as quickly as you can." "You can say that you've memorized all the numbers and will add them in your mind." "Explain to your spectator...you don't look as he does it." "Look at the filled-in cross for A SPLIT SECOND - and say "I've got it!" "When doing the...you don't want to make it too obvious that..." "When my spectator is adding all the numbers...I help him." "What I do is SKIP AROUND, crossing out numbers as I..." "In the above layout, I'd have him..." Instruct your spectator to..."

ALL THE ABOVE ARE PRESENTATIONAL SUGGESTIONS. I am KNOWN for teaching presentation of my effects and routines. I really don't know what in the world you're talking about. Do you? I know you're "trying to help" Ian, but please forgive one of my rusty platitudes: IF YOU REALLY WANT TO HELP ME, DON'T HELP ME! It kind of fits perfectly here.

And, NO, YOU DO NOT HAVE MY PERMISSION TO "RE-WRITE" IT HERE. And, there are so many effects in this book THAT ARE PROBABLY HUNDREDS of times better/stronger, etc., than the one you've decided to "pick on" that it would never, as you put it, "increase interest in it" - a) IT WOULDN'T. b) I'd rather you didn't help me to "increase interest in it." Remember? IF YOU REALLY WANT TO HELP ME, DON'T HELP ME! Why in the world would I ever want you, need you, of all people to, ask you to, help me "increase interest in any of my items!?!? I WOULDN'T; don't need your help. I purposely mentioned the section of the book above so that those who have it and are interested, can go there and see for themselves. Those who don't have the book, can purchase it when I re-print - I sure as hell don't want them reading a re-write of one of, ANY of, my items, by you. I really don't think I want to discuss this with you any more. You're so wrong, it isn't funny, and I realize that I simply call attention to it by responding. But I know from experience that you are a "persister." You are, of course, entitled to your opinion, but PLEASE, please, DON'T HELP ME!
Take care, HARRY.

[mrgoat]

Gents. I think there is a difference of understanding of the word presentation.

Which is leading to Mr Lorayne thinking Mr Kendal is being a pain. Which is clearly not accurate.

[Harry Lorayne]

Sorry, Mr. Goat, you're incorrect, it's accurate. I'm curious, to what do you contribute your observation and definite statement? Do you know Ian? I've had previous "experience" with him; have you? Even if you forget about the "presentation" concept - and I don't know what you mean by "a difference of understanding" of the word presentation - I've used MY UNDERSTANDING of it in MANY, MANY, books --- I've answered him, and answered him, and he persists. Why do you think that is? Think about it. HL.

[Ian Kendall]

*Big Sigh*

Right, a few bullet type points as my point seems to have been lost.

1. Read along with page 40 and 41 in the book, those thousands who have it.

2. This stunt involves writing two lines of numbers in a cross grid.

3. The book now says

Look at the filled-in cross for a split second - and say "I've got it". And instantly say the total of all the numbers

4. To me, this means add all the numbers in the grid, to Harry it means add both lines together, counting the middle number twice (as it is in both lines).

5. Harry's presentation for the effect (there's that word again) gets rid of this problem, by telling the spectator to add both lines together. This is detailed in the email to me he posted here.

6. This presentation, and the instruction to count each line separately, is not in the book. I suggest that as written, the instructions are open to misinterpitation.

7. I mention this to Harry as he is about to reprint the book.

8. I get a [censored] storm of emails.

9. I mistakenly refer to a numbered list as bullet points, but can't be bothered to go back and change things.

Ian

[mrgoat]

Sorry, Mr. Goat, you're incorrect, it's accurate.

Fair play to you. It seems that it is not. Who am I to disagree?

I'm curious, to what do you contribute your observation and definite statement? Do you know Ian? I've had previous "experience" with him; have you?

Yes. I know him through email, I am helping him with some marketing stuff. He seems very polite, well-intended, intelligent and experienced. The very fact he's taken over the Mike Close stuff alone kinda suggests he has a decent pedigree, even if (through a clear misunderstanding) you think he is a [censored].

Even if you forget about the "presentation" concept - and I don't know what you mean by "a difference of understanding" of the word presentation - I've used MY UNDERSTANDING of it in MANY, MANY, books --- I've answered him, and answered him, and he persists. Why do you think that is? Think about it. HL.

What I mean is that to me, presentation is something like Vernon's Cutting The Aces. A theatrical hook upon which to hang your trick.

But the real point is that you think an instruction is clear in your book. And I agree with Ian that it could possibly be made slightly more clear. I know he was trying to help you and had the best intentions.

Either way, ignore him or not. All this is helping keep your thread on the Active Topics section anyway!

:D

Damian

[Ian Kendall]

When and if you write a book on math feats, you have my permission, right here, publicly, to re-write that effect of mine YOUR WAY.

I accept your permission with thanks, Harry. I've trawled through my mind, and I have a few math based interesting things that will fit well in a small book. I'll get right on it after Blackpool.

Take care, Ian