Silent Running by Ben Harris

[Tom Frame]

Silent Running (PDF or book) by Ben Harris $39.95
60 pages, 30 photos, 8 illustrations, 3 templates
Available at: http://www.wowbound.com
Dealers contact Murphys Magic Supplies, Inc. (916) 853-9292
http://www.murphysmagicsupplies.com


Here we have the book that has created much anticipation and speculation on this and other forums. So, whats all the hoopla?

Well, Ben Harris mated a Crossroads principle with a previously unpublished technique by Peter Duffie, induced labor with a time-honored mentalism technique, and out popped Silent Running, smiling and glistening. Its an extremely clever procedure that makes possible a wide range of amazing effects.

As weve come to expect from Mr. Harris, the book is beautifully designed. The author writes well and does a very good job of teaching the material. Clear photos and illustrations complement the text.

The author sent an early copy of this book to a number of performers. They dug it, got inspired and sent him their ideas. Contributors include Bob Cassidy, Paolo Cavalli, Devin Knight, Jason Messina and Steve Shufton.

The book begins with a Foreword and glowing endorsement from Looch, and an introduction by Mr. Harris. Then the author gets down to business and teaches the procedure. Those of you hip to Crossroads will be familiar with one of the principles. And no, equivoque is not used!

Then, you will learn and be delighted by Mr. Harriss application of Peter Duffies Duffie Dodge, which is described here for the first time. This is a very cool technique! Ive never seen anything quite like it. I dare not say too much about it, but I can tell you that it utilizes the performers body parts.

Now that weve learned the procedure, its time to put it to work.


The Dissolving Card: The performer hands the participant a cased deck of cards, which she places in her pocket. She mentally selects a card using the Silent Running procedure.

The performer asks the participant to visualize her card and then to imagine it slowly fading away to nothing. The participant removes the cards from her pocket and counts them into a face-down pile. There are only 51 cards. The participant turns the cards face-up and searches for her card. It is nowhere to be found.

Amazingly, the participant can remain mute throughout the procedure. She need only nod to confirm that she has carried out the performers instructions. The effect relies on a special deck that you will have to assemble. Even though the participant handles and views every card in the deck, she will find nothing amiss. I really like it.


Direct Mind Reading: A participant mentally selects a card using the Silent Running procedure. After making several statements, the performer divines the selected card.

The first version of this effect requires no props. Using a wonderful visualization technique, the performer is seemingly able to read the participants mind. I really like it.

The second version requires the performer to write his impression on a piece of note pad paper, which he folds and tables. The participant announces the identity of her card. The performer unfolds the paper and displays the correct card.

While Mr. Harriss note pad technique is clever, the piece of paper cannot be examined. And if the performer could actually read minds, he wouldnt need to write anything down. He would simply name the selection. For these reasons, I dont like this version as much as the first version.

In both versions, about 50% of the time, the performers statements will receive a maximum of one negative response from the participant. The rest of the time, the performer will be 100% accurate. I consider this to be an acceptable level of imprecision and I agree with the mentalists who maintain that a miss can actually strengthen effects of this type.


Spirited Card Stab: A participant mixes a deck of cards face-up and face-down and spreads them out on a table. The performer covers the cards with several pieces of newspaper.

A second participant uses the Silent Running procedure to mentally select a card. The performer hands her a knife and asks her to mentally transfer the image of her card into the knife. The performer retrieves the knife and after divining several attributes of the selected card, stabs the knife into the table, through the newspaper. The participant names her card. The performer pulls the knife free from the table and newspaper, revealing the selected card impaled on it.

This effect has blown the minds of the people for whom Ive performed it. Its my favorite effect in the book. I love it!


The next section of the book is an Appendix. Here, Mr. Harris describes how to prepare the deck used in The Dissolving Card and how to practice the note pad technique in Direct Mind Reading. He provides templates used to prepare for the Spirited Card Stab and he debuts Peter Duffies original Duffie Dodge.


The final section consists of Bonus Contributions.

Bob Cassidy shares his idea of performing the Silent Running procedure with two participants at the same time. This method eliminates one step from the procedure. I really like this version.

He also describes his variation of the Spirited Card Stab in which the performer does not divine the participants card. After the participant mentally creates her card, she names it. The performer immediately stabs the correct card. I like the impression that the performer apparently doesnt know the identity of the selected card prior to blindly impaling it.

Paolo Cavalli shares an equivoque procedure for creating the perception that court cards could have been selected. One of the more appealing aspects of the Silent Running procedure is that equivoque is not employed. While Mr. Cavallis idea creates a modest increase in perceived freedom, I dont think its worth dragging equivoque into the mix.


Devin Knight teaches a cool sleight of tongue technique and a terrific T.A. Waters subtlety that negate any no response by showing that the performers statement was actually correct. These are marvelous strategies that make Direct Mind Reading 100% accurate every time.


Unexplainable Prediction (Devin Knight): The performer tosses a balled-up napkin into the audience. Whoever catches it, tosses it to another person, who comes on stage. The participant tables the napkin and mentally creates a card. The performer successfully reads her mind and announces her card. The participant opens up the napkin and discovers the name of her card written on it.

Mr. Knight includes his complete performance script. He concedes that this prediction will only work about 60% of the time. But if it doesnt work, no one will be the wiser. The crowd will assume that the napkin was used only to randomly select a participant. But when it does work, youve got a miracle on your hands. I really like it.


Silently Running Bearded Pop Stars (Jason Messina): A participant mentally selects one celebrity from photos of eight celebrities. The performer correctly divines the selected celebrity.

Mr. Messina acknowledges that he is only describing the bare bones of the effect. He doesnt provide a fully fleshed out method or presentation. The scant presentation involves hirsute female celebrities and male celebrities with hair deficits.

This premise seems weird, contrived and potentially confusing. Given the small sample of celebrities from which the participant can choose, I question the effects impact. I dont like it.


Steve Shufton teaches three clever ways to identify the participants mentally selected card without the participant saying a word.

Open Prediction (Steve Shufton): A participant mentally selects a card. With the performers back turned, the participant removes her card from a deck and places it in her pocket. The performer turns around, writes a prediction and tables it. The participant names her selection, opens the performers prediction and sees that he correctly divined her card.

The effect requires a prearranged deck and an attentive performer, but thats it. The participant never utters a word. Purists may complain that this is not a traditional open prediction because the performer writes his prediction after the participant makes her selection. If you can live with that, this is a strong, seemingly impossible effect. I really like it.


The material in Silent Running is inspired and inspiring. Its also worth every penny of the asking price.


Highly Recommended

[Ben Harris]

Hi Tom,

Thanks for the detailed review. I'm very happy that you enjoyed this work.

Benny

[Tom Frame]

You're quite welcome, Benny. Bravo, sir!

[Stan Willis]

Reference: The James File Volume One (1); page 1502; The Richard Osterlind Solution to Fifty One (51) Faces North. Letter to Allan Slaight dated March 02, 1993???????

[Richard Kaufman]

Is there a reason you have seven question marks there, Stan? One will usually do.

[Stan Willis]

My apologies for the over zealous ad copy.

[El Mystico]

I get it.

Back on 12th March on the Caf, someone asked if there would be a video demo.
Ben said:
There may be a demo (time permitting -- I owe BackStory Members TWO downloads this month!) and it will show the following:

Said to spectator...

"Please THINK of a number from one to ten - BUT DON'T TELL ME WHAT IT IS. Have you done that? Good!"

"Now, THINK of one the card suits--diamonds, hearts, clubs, spades--BUT DON'T TELL ME ANYTHING! Have you done that? Wonderful!"

"Please combine the number and suit IN YOUR HEAD to create the image of a playing card, BUT DON'T TELL ME ANYTHING. Have you done that? Excellent."

"Would you agree that NO ONE could know the number you have SILENTLY thought of, and that NO ONE could know the suit you have SILENTLY thought of? This card you are imagining can exist ONLY IN YOUR HEAD. Would you concur?"

"Now, please CONCENTRATE ON YOUR IMAGINED CARD..."

From here you can perform any of the effects detailed in the book, and will be able to create your own effects BECAUSE YOU KNOW the SILENTLY thought of card.




That is misleading on two counts. A video demo would have shown the selection of the card to be more convoluted than this. And by the end of the process outlined above you do not know the name of the card.

This is not a comment on the effect itself. I think it is OK - others here are clearly far more enthusiastic. Fine.

But why did Ben choose to lie in this post? The rest of his advertising was hype, sure, but good hype, and basically honest.

But his post on the 12th March was just wrong.

[000]

If done as outlined above, now that would be real magic.
For those still sitting on the fence re purchasing this effect, the only issue is: how much more convulated are the questions that follow...........

[Richard Kaufman]

I've only had time to quickly glance over the booklet, but my recollection is that the statement(or sometimes two) which follow are not convoluted, but brief and to the point.

[Andrew Charles]

If done as outlined above, now that would be real magic.
For those still sitting on the fence re purchasing this effect, the only issue is: how much more convulated are the questions that follow...........

The spectator has a free selection of a number.

The spectator does not get to choose what suit to add to that number to create a playing card.

Then there is a standard fishing procedure to determine which card they are now thinking of.

[Jonathan Townsend]

I've only had time to quickly glance over the booklet, but my recollection is that the statement(or sometimes two) which follow are not convoluted, but brief and to the point.

Note: the quoted post has not been redacted or abridged.

No comment -J

[000]

Getting interesting.( and less impressive) You select a number, 1 to 10, but not the suit, if I understand Andrew correctly.
Followed by a standard fishing procedure.

[El Mystico]

Yes; frankly, it is a far cry from what he promised a video demo would show; "THINK of one the card suits--diamonds, hearts, clubs, spades--BUT DON'T TELL ME ANYTHING! Have you done that?"

I think there are two issues with this trick.

First is - is it any good? Ben to his credit has a poll on his site, asking people to rate it, and showing the results. This is a very interesting procedure, and kudos to him. Currently it seems fairly evenly balanced.

Second is the honesty of the marketing. Ben has always been a master of marketing hype. And magic's history is full of examples of dealers pushing hype to the limit. But in my opinion (and others) the quote above was not hype but a lie.

He now claims that this is how the effect would be remembered. Well, that isn't my experience. But, if he had said that in the marketing, I wouldn't object. But I do not see any way he could produce a video demo to show the suit selection looking like this.

Does that matter? I think it does. When I was growing up, I'd pop into one of my local shops to see a demo of the latest thing. The growth of internet shops was in part fueled by their ability to show the equivalent demo online.

But if we countenance lies, not only do magicians lose, but anyone selling a genuine breakthrough will also suffer.

[000]

The review by Tom, thorough as it was otherwise, also only continously referred to selecting 'a card' (as not being restricted to number cards with no suits.) An omission perhaps?

[Tom Frame]

Yes, I intentionally omitted the details of the selection and divination procedures to avoid potentially tipping the methods.

[Richard Kaufman]

Of course he omitted details that tip the method. Duh! Are you guys new to our field?

[Jonathan Townsend]

Of course he omitted details that tip the method. Duh! Are you guys new to our field?

The question folks want answered is: What specifically makes this new offering significantly better than the works already in print - as alluded to with the Lin Searles quote from over fifty years ago. From there IMHO it's a matter of practicality for the working performer - presuming it's not the sort of thing ones kid brother can suss out between sips of beer.

[000]

Sorry,but when the ad or review refers to selecting 'a card' one assumes its 1 out of 52 cards. Not one out of 10 numbers, no suits included. I fail to understand why disclosing this may lead to 'tipping the method'.

[Richard Kaufman]

There's no reason you should assume anything from an ad. The ad replicates the experience as seen by a layman. That's the way magic ads have been produced for over 100 years.

I'm in the middle of writing the Berglas book, and a big part of it is the way the material is experienced by the viewer--that's the only thing that really matters when you perform. Who cares what you really do? You, but not your audience. They only care about the effect as it exists in their minds. Any professional magician knows this.

[Jeff Eline]

... one out of 10 numbers, no suits included.

Ah, THAT'S how it done! Got it.

[Jim Martin]

They only care about the effect as it exists in their minds. Any professional magician knows this.

It seems they (magicians) only care when it costs $39.95.

Let s/he who is without artifice sell the first e-book -- or should that be 'with' artifice. The ad copy seems in keeping with Ben's other items. I am a very happy subscriber to the BackStory Project.

Viva Benny.

[Andrew Charles]

There's no reason you should assume anything from an ad. The ad replicates the experience as seen by a layman. That's the way magic ads have been produced for over 100 years.

I'm in the middle of writing the Berglas book, and a big part of it is the way the material is experienced by the viewer--that's the only thing that really matters when you perform. Who cares what you really do? You, but not your audience. They only care about the effect as it exists in their minds. Any professional magician knows this.

You're confused.

Yes, we all understand a magic ad can be a bit of creative fiction. The problem is that Ben came out and said, "This is what a demo video would look like," and proceeded to describe something that is not what a demo video for this would look like. This was not in an ad, this was on a magic forum (and has been copied above). Once you break the fourth wall of the magic ad I dont think you can straight-up lie about stuff. This too is something that "any professional magician knows."

[Jeff Haas]

Oh, geez. Has anyone actually bought the ebook, learned the effect, and tried it out for real people (not at the magic club)?

Until you've done that, enough with the whining.

[El Mystico]

Yes, I have.
"So I don't get to choose the suit then?" was the first comment.
Someone watching the trick and following the procedure named the card before I did, she found the technique so transparent.

BUT - let's put that down to my inexperience - I've been doing magic for only around 35 years. If you check the Cafe, and Ben's poll, you'll see there are people who are very happy with what they bought.

[Efendi Kwok]

Bought, learned, tried to my gf, and busted :/

She's an analytical person (a programmer) so maybe that one time did not count :/

[Jonathan Townsend]

Bought, learned, tried to my gf, and busted :/

She's an analytical person (a programmer) so maybe that one time did not count :/

Actually, if you would, get a run down of the "effect" as she perceived it and kindly post it so we can know what a real layman experiences. A consensus of such reports from real people might be a sense of what we call the "effect".

Thanks,

Jon

[Jonathan Townsend]

...way the material is experienced by the viewer--that's the only thing that really matters when you perform. Who cares what you really do? You, but not your audience. They only care about the effect as it exists in their minds. ...

I hope we are all agreed about this - eliciting an experience which the audience can later report as "the effect as we'd like it". The methods for reliably eliciting that effect - the crucial means of moving audience attention, both outer focus of vision and inner sense of physical and sentimental priorities, are significant aspects of a "method". Items offered without sufficient attention to these crucial aspects of the means required to reliably elicit "the effect" under robust conditions (that means not just one addled eager muggle at the bar)... are IMHO examples of a discourtesy to the market.

[mrgoat]

There's no reason you should assume anything from an ad.

Really? In England, at any rate, we expect the truth from ads. It is very illegal to mislead in an commercial.

[mrgoat]

Oh, geez. Has anyone actually bought the ebook, learned the effect, and tried it out for real people (not at the magic club)?

Until you've done that, enough with the whining.

So, you cannot have an opinion on something until you have tried it out on people? How many people do you need to try it out on? 1, 100, 1000?

[Andrew Charles]

Oh, geez. Has anyone actually bought the ebook, learned the effect, and tried it out for real people (not at the magic club)?

Until you've done that, enough with the whining.

This is the best defense we have against making false claims about an effect? So, is the understanding now that a demo video -- or a purported demo video -- does not need to demonstrate the actual effect (and no, I'm not suggesting they need to show every sleight)? If so, this is going to make marketing effects much easier. Although it does make buying effects a tad more difficult.

I bought this - based on Ben's false description of what it looks like - because it sounded like something I couldn't currently achieve with the methods I know. Sadly, it's not.

And, sorry, I only perform for "real people," I don't belong to any magic clubs.

[mrgoat]

So, is the understanding now that a demo video -- or a purported demo video -- does not need to demonstrate the actual effect

Fantastic. This means I can sell my Sleightless Ambitious card. I've put a demo up here. The spectator will be CONVINCED this is what happened.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBKcGEHhw1s

You can buy it from me here Misleading Magic

[Bob Farmer]

Given the discussion here, it now doesn't matter what was said in the ad since any potential purchaser who Googles the title will come upon the points made.

The ad clearly states that, "A spectator is asked to merely THINK of a number from 1-10 ...." Unfortunately, those are words that many laymen know as the introduction to some mathematical trick they can do. Those people will recognize some sort of limiting procedure, even though they probably won't understand how the whole thing works -- they certainly won't understand how the card vanishes from the deck.

This is a plot I've worked a lot on and I have many methods. For one, my ad would read:

Spectator shuffles his own deck. I don't touch it. He cuts off some cards and looks at them, thinking of one card. I don't tell him to do anything except, "Cut off some cards, look at them and think of one." He shuffles that packet, puts it back in the middle of the deck and reassembles the deck.

To this point I have not touched the deck and I don't know where his card is or what it is.

I pick up the deck, shuffle and cut it quickly (a few seconds), nothing fancy, then I fan the deck and ask the spectator one question (the question has nothing to do with the value or color of the card).

Once he answers the question, I place the face-up deck in his hands and ask him to look through the deck, card by card, and to stop when he arrives at his card.

He does so -- but his card has vanished.

I've already published most of the method in Genii. The rest is Martin Gardner and Paul Harris.

[Jonathan Townsend]

What really happens is the volunteer loses track of the fussy procedure, thinks of the queen of hearts or their favorite card (it's as good as any card, right?) and follows along until you get to the ending.

[Efendi Kwok]

Basically (I tried to described without exposing the method) this is what she tell me: she remember that she can't choose her suit, so from that point on she know that I have one clue (the suit), and the rest is obvious from the questions I ask, since she also tries to follow what is it that I can get by asking the question. She is a smart person :/

[000]

A good effect then to 'smooth run' your audience participation selection. Bright enough to follow the fussy procedure, but not bright enough to figure the method.

[Efendi Kwok]

A good effect then to 'smooth run' your audience participation selection. Bright enough to follow the fussy procedure, but not bright enough to figure the method.

Agree ;)

Maybe I still needs to do more tweak to the presentation, so as not to make people suspect anything in the questions (In the bonus contributions section, Devin Knight have a very good tips at this :))

It will not work as a direct mental reading thing, if you still don't have a reputation for it I think :P

---
Also I did not think I can pull-off the "Duffie Dodge" it was too obvious from my perspective :/

[Bob Farmer]

Efendi, if it's any consolation, I showed my mother, who was 86 at the time, the classic version of this effect, "Premonition." ANY card is named and the spectator deals through the deck face up. The named card is missing and there are only 51 cards.

My mother noticed that there were duplicate cards in the deck. She would also have busted "Silent Running" and "Crossroads" for the same reason.

My point above was this: the ad clearly stated that the spectator had to think of a number between one and ten. That's a very lame beginning (and I told Ben that with "Crossroads"), but if you bought the trick anyway, you can hardly complain that the REST of the selection procedure is also lame.

[Roger M.]

My point above was this: the ad clearly stated that the spectator had to think of a number between one and ten. That's a very lame beginning (and I told Ben that with "Crossroads")

Although I initially hesitated, one of the reasons I convinced myself to purchase Crossroads (to ultimately be disappointed) was because of the full page ad in Genii which clearly indicated that the effect was vetted by professionals, including.........Bob Farmer :)

[Bob Farmer]

Roger -- I've sent you a PM -- guilty, with an explanation.

[Roger M.]

I'd like to make crystal clear that, although my post is entirely true, that smiley face at the end implies a somewhat light hearted poke at Bob, a man whose work I own (well....most of it) and consider quite brilliant, and also a man who obviously has an extrememly sharp sense of humor.

That Bob might see the inherent (and somewhat cheap) humor in my my decision making process was my sole reason for posting!