Abyss

By Ross Tayler
Cover Illustration by Jaye Tayler
 ABYSS
By Ross Tayler
Cover Illustration by Jaye Tayler

Please, dear readers, do not share this with people who haven’t paid for it.

If you have a friend or acquaintance who may struggle financially to purchase this work, please ask
them to contact me directly. I’m a deeply loving individual, and I flirt vociferously with socialism,
so they can be sure to find some kind of compromise if I deem them to be in need of one.

Outright robbing me, however, is not very kind and not something that will encourage me to
continue sharing my thoughts. I love to write and I love to share, so please be generous and respect
my ownership of this work.

Similarly, you’re welcome to use this material at any time, but please be sure to contact me if you
have any intention of using it in showreels, performance videos, or any other recorded context.

With those things in mind I extend all my love and best wishes, preying that you enjoy this offering.

Copyright 2015 © by Ross Tayler

First published in association with Intuition Publishing 2015

All rights reserved. This book or any portion thereof may not be reproduced or used in any manner
without the express written permission of the author. For further information or enquiries contact
the author at: RossTayler@outlook.com
“I have always considered the actions of men the best interpreters of their thoughts”

- John Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1689)

 Dedication

For my mother, Julie and my father, Anthony. For my sister Jaye. For My dearest friends, Laura,
Josh, Brad and Fraser.

I love you all so much, and it’s the love you continue to extend to me that leads me to lead such a
very fulfilling life.

Despite recent pains, I’m as happy as I’ve ever been. That is thanks to you. This book exists because
you all love and believe in me, and have allowed me to extend that love and belief to myself.

I can never thank you enough.

 Introduction

I am very hesitant to release the work you’re about to read. I’ve held it closely guarded for a very long time.

I discovered this principle by accident when experimenting with the use of Ouija in a lie detector routine. I was
performing, and it just happened. Spotting the phenomena, I proceeded to floor three of my cohort consecutively, using
the exact same method for three different effects - off the top of my head. Guessing names, detecting lies, revealing pin
numbers… All with no apparent process and absolutely nothing to hide. By the end of it, I think I was almost as stunned
as my audience (and let me tell you, these were my closest friends, who’ve seen me develop and know almost every
trick in the book - case in point, one of them can do Train Tracking, she saw me practice it so many times!) I knew what
I’d discovered was big!

I held it back from everyone for a long time, including my closest friends within the industry. Without any requirement
for tight scripts, crafty linguistics, multiple realities, reframes or any of the other (incredible, yet disappointingly
terrestrial) tools with which I had become so familiar, it was now possible to achieve effects which previously required
peeks, tears and pencil dots on envelopes, in a matter of seconds, with a few casual moments of conversation.

This method falls into a family I refer to as “natural principles” - those being methods that are reliant on human
behaviours and expectations, which are therefore utterly devoid of process, and achieve that beautiful status of method-
effect indistinguishability. To me, “natural principles” will be the key to unlocking the reality of propless mind reading,
in line with the vision we all have for it. In these types of tools lies real mentalism.

After working on applications and subtleties for 7 months, I finally performed a name guess using this method for
Fraser over Skype. I can only recall two other occasions on which I’ve fooled him so badly. Once with the Circle Force
(now “O”, look to his fantastic work “False Messiah” for details, as I gave him permission to include it following the
withdrawal of the original manuscript), and again with an unpublished verbal-peek technique. No matter how hard he
backtracked he could not find the method, as it existed in the one place he’d never look - inside his own head.
Immediately I performed the lie detector on him: same result (he just assumed I was guessing). Finally I gave him the
method. He just sat in silent reverence.

Publishing this is like giving away a child. It’s been a pet secret of mine and only two other close friends for a very long
time. For me, however, this community means the world. In the happiest and hardest times of my life, I’ve found
friends and fellows, willing to share the pain of bad times and boost the joy of the good. People of incredible generosity,
always willing to encourage and direct me; to ground me and boost me; I’ve done a lot on my own over my 10 short
years in this craft, but that road has been made far easier, and far more lovely, by the following people:

Brad Hodgins, Fraser Parker, Charlie Adorian, Jack Tighe, Joe Barry and Jakob Michaels (/Jacob Smith, one of my best
mates, I still have no fucking idea). John O’Riordan and James Cooper are also both worth a shout-out.

There’s many others I could name, but either I know they’ll never see this, or they’d barely recognise the part they
played in getting me here, so would probably find the mention of their name a little odd. Nevertheless, I have owe
thanks to almost everyone I’ve ever encountered in this industry, and I extend every piece of gratitude to every one of
them. Thanks and acknowledgements rarely go at the start of a book, but I feel in this instance they must.

As I write this, at the back of a philosophy lecture hall, I’m reminded how grateful I am to be part of this community.
It’s lead me to develop talents and self-belief few people have the pleasure of experiencing in a lifetime, and most
importantly, I’ve met the most beautiful people in my life - the ones that really make this tale of sound and fury worth
the suffering it entails.

The reason, therefore, that my acknowledgements go here, is that the only reason I’m releasing this technique, is
because I really must give something back to the people who’ve given me so much. Also, Fraser wants the 30%
royalties he gets if I sell it on his site.

So thank you all, and I pray you enjoy this offering.

 What is the Pre-Thought Principle?

All of this is made possible by a technique I call the Pre-Thought Principle.

Conceptually, the easiest way to understand the Pre-Thought Principle is as a billetless way of marking information in a
list. That is, of a series of pieces of information a spectator says out loud, you can know which one relates to their
specific thought.

Clearly, the ability to do this allows for a diverse range of effects to be achieved. The obvious ones are things like living
and dead or a lie detector. Less obvious might be name guesses, pin guesses and even an impossibly clean ACAAN. All
of these ideas shall be explored. Many other things can also be achieved, and these will be easily discovered by anyone
who plays around with this. It’s even possible to use this principal in such a way that the spectator never needs to say
anything out loud.

Some of my favourite uses include memory revelations and a system of readings in which you can directly address the
concerns of a spectator, without them saying a word. As these utilise pieces of other people’s work as well, I won’t go
into them here. But do bear in mind that this principle can be combined with other strategies to create some truly
incredible mentalism. That is the beauty of reducing methods to principles.

The Pre-Thought Principle relies on forced hesitation, however works in reverse so there’s nothing for the audience to
see at the moment you get the cue.

The means by which we do this is very simple. The spectator is asked to think of something. They do so. They’re then
asked to name this thought amongst several others in a list. Because the other items are thought of in-the-moment, there
is a noticeable hesitation prior to their being stated, which does not exist when they name their thought. Thus the
thought is marked out from the others and can be easily identified by the wise performer.

The pauses can be subtle, but I’ll list here some of the tells which mark out the unimportant pieces of information.
These will vary from individual to individual, but you will be able to tell almost instinctively which thought is the
relevant one. Some things spectators do include:

• Hesitate, literally a short time delay.

• “Um” or “Eer” prior to the thoughts which are happening off the dome piece.
• Wandering eyes (NLP eye accessing cues), whereas they make eye contact when naming their thought.
• Voice inflections - increased pitch at the end of the irrelevant information, like a question.
• Clear, confident voice when stating their thought.
• Slight nodding of the head when naming their thought, still or shaking head on others.

Any or all of these tells may be present, often there’s a cluster of several at once. This may sound a little wooly,
however experimentation will prove to you that the cues are very reliable. Simply, you watch out for the statement on
which these cues are absent, where the spectator seems most confident, and that is the piece of information the spectator
has already thought of i.e. their thought. If you see no cue, the likelihood is that they placed their thought at the front.
This tends to obscure the inconsistency in timing.

It is the fact that this cue works in the inverse that I believe makes it so much more reliable than any others. It is the
confident answer, the moment of not thinking, which gives the spectator away. For all others, they MUST think, as they
are yet to have anything in mind. Thus the cue is practically sure-fire.

As I mentioned in the introduction, this is a “natural principle” i.e. one that occurs naturally as a result of the spectators
behaviour. As a result of this there are very few specific requirements in terms of scripting. The rest of the book will
therefore be devoted to examples of applications, utilising the kind of conversational scripting I might use. This is
entirely based on my lexicon, so you should be aware that the specific wording matters far less than delivering the
instructions with clarity.

That said, I’ll begin with what I believe to be the easiest to understand application of this principle: as a lie detector.
 Suck me, Eckman

The first use I devised for this principle was as a method for the classic lie-detector effect, in which a spectator makes
several true statements and one lie, and the performer is able to differentiate between the true statements and the lie,
thus demonstrating his incredible psychological prowess, and how awful it would be to be romantically involved with
him (as all of us know, lies are the only foundation upon which a lasting relationship can be built. I’ve tried the truth,
very poor strategy.)

I believe this will be the easiest routine through which to illustrate the principle, as it will be easy for the reader to
imagine how it will work.

The script will go as follows:

“I’d like you to think of a lie you can tell me, something about yourself which is not true. But don’t make this anything
obvious, that I would know immediately was a lie by looking at you. Yes or no, do you have something clearly in mind?
If you were to say this to me now, there should be no chance I’d know this was a lie, correct?”

This scripting is not precisely important, but it does contain a few crucial factors. Firstly, the spectators focus is directed
towards the piece of information you wish to be marked out, and nothing else. Some people may be tempted to include
changes of mind at this stage. Whilst not always a problem, this is nonetheless unwise, as if the spectators have other
thoughts go through their mind, these could be reference points which speed up their thought processes later and make
the cues a little murky. it is for this same reason that I don’t use examples. Another important factor here is that the
spectator is encouraged to lock onto a clear thought and imagine saying it out loud. This familiarity will increase the
contrast later. Finally, asking a close-ended question gets the spectator responding, but also occupies their mind in such
a way as to stop it from wandering, redirecting their mind towards the thought we need them to be focused on.

We’d now set up the next phase as follows:

“Okay when I snap my fingers I’d like you to tell me this lie amongst several things about yourself which are true, but
not things I would know where true just by looking at you, like your hair colour for example. Do you understand? Okay
go! [snaps]”

This scripting isn’t hurried, but we don’t wait around either. The aim is to ensure the spectator doesn’t get ahead and
start thinking of truths prior to your asking them to say them out loud. To aid this, we again use a closed question to
occupy their mind (and also to genuinely clarify that they understand), as they cannot simultaneously ponder your
question and think of possible truths to tell you. Furthermore, the example of their hair colour throws them off, as again
they must think of this to understand why it wouldn’t work, this is brief, but it gives us the leeway we need.
Furthermore, this example leads them to consider every truth they tell to make sure that you wouldn’t know it. This
increases the hesitation. Their answer may then go something like this (forgive the caricature here, expressing the
subtlety of the cues is difficult in text):

“Uurm [eyes roll diagonally upwards], I have a cat called Felix, …my mum’s name is Julie, my favourite food is
Salmon, and… [shakes head] my boyfriend’s name is Jake.”

Hopefully in reading that you were able to tell which of these statements was untrue, despite what a fantastically
experienced liar our spectator doubtless is. It may seem exaggerated, but trust me it’s often that easy. The individual in
question, of course, doesn’t even like fish, and the thought of gorging on the finest Oncorhynchus Nerka is the last thing
to turn them on.
This is the reverse of most lie-detector methods, which usually look for a cluster of cues on the lie, without doing
anything in particular to encourage them. Furthermore, most methods also experience various types of response when
the spectator is telling the truth, and for this reason the methods become about distinguishing between the two types of
tell. In this method, by eliminating responses on the lie, we end up with something far clearer and more reliable.

The only real weakness of this method is that it’s hard to perform for friends and family, as it’s hard for them to think of
truths and lies which you couldn’t detect anyway (and that they’re prepared to tell you), without lots of thought at every
stage. Thus in these instances the method will either be obvious or completely void. For the professional performer,
however, this is the most reliable method of legitimately performing the lie detector routine I’m yet to come across.

For my next trick, I shall present you with a method for a thus far completely unexplored effect. I have absolutely no
idea why this is yet to be attempted by the mentalism community, as to reveal a piece of information so incredibly
personally relevant to a contemporary audience, with the odds so drastically stacked against you, produces an impact so
powerful that it’s barely possible to believe without seeing it first hand. Maybe one day another viable method will be
published to achieve this effect, but at this point in our art’s history, I don’t believe a single creator has released even an
attempt. If a reader does happen to find one in some very obscure manuscript, be sure to contact me immediately or post
vitriolic and uncouth comments on The Magic Cafe regarding this book, and my mother.
 A World First

So star sign revelations are seriously played out. Why we keep working on it when there’s already so many
good methods I have no idea. Yet here is another. Not very exciting. Tired plot. Bored author. Let’s spice it
up with some role-play:

Let’s say I’ve waltzed into a club, with a view to copulate with some fair maiden, the interaction may
proceed thus:

“I’d like you to focus on your star sign for me. Like… Capricorn. Yes? Do you know the symbol for your
sign? When I snap by fingers, name this sign amongst any others you know.”

At this stage, my charming companion would probably respond something to the effect of:

“Um, why are you talking to me, creep? You actually expect me to do this? Eurgh, fine: Um, Saggitarius…
Taurus. Libra. Cancer and er, Virgo, ha, unlike your mum! Banter.”

Naturally if I’d realised she was from Cheltenham beforehand, I’d never have even spoken to her. The
mistake made, however, I would continue with gallantry:

“Ah dear lady you were mislead, I in fact wished only for you to name the symbols for the signs. No matter,
we can try this another way. If you know the symbol or animal that represents your star sign, please picture
this. Fantastic. Hmm, interesting.

“Despite your somewhat plebeian disposition, I sense a great level of balance is essential in an otherwise
deeply chaotic life. It would therefore be sensible for me to conclude that the stars were such at your time of
birth, that you are in fact a Libra.”

So let’s break that down, though I’m sure you understood precisely what was going on.

Basically, very few people know a great deal of star-signs these days, as belief in such things is becoming
less and less common as people think more and more. As a result, there is often additional hesitation, on top
of that already provided by the principle. This leads to a very readable cue.

You’ll notice that I give myself the chance of a direct hit by throwing out “Capricorn” (or any other sign). If
this misses, it doesn’t matter, as even if it comes up in their list without hesitation (due to having been given
it as an example), we’ll be able to discount it.

Added onto this is a bizarre and illogical re-frame of thoughts, implying they messed up. This allows the
performer to move away from the process in a: “never mind, forget that. Let’s try something new, just focus
on your star sign,” kind of way. This detaches the moment of method from the apparent process of guessing,
and implies that this stage was in no way important (indeed, their apparently messing up should mean that
any method you had in play would have failed) - this is the psychology of this part of the scripting.

I don’t really have much more to say on this. It’s a very simple and direct method to achieve the effect. It’s
reliable. Hope you like it.
 Sadist

For the psychopathically inclined of our readership, it only makes sense that I include a method for that inherently
entertaining effect in which the performer has the spectator contemplate the passing of a loved one and then proceeds to
sense, via his or her clairvoyant disposition, which of a group of named individuals was the poor bastard to cop it.
Clearly this routine is played mainly for laughs.

In all seriousness, the Living and Dead test is a potentially very powerful effect, and should be used with extreme
caution by the performer. It is only the sick fuck with zero integrity that would attempt to use these kinds of emotions
simply to gain a theatrical moment. Ensure you look after your spectators. If you don’t, I swear to god I will fucking
come after you.

As the spectator will know a great many living people, we ensure that a suitable cue occurs by drawing their focus
deeply into thoughts of the dead individual on their mind. This is done as follows:

“Mary thank you for agreeing to do this. It’s very important to me that if at any point you feel uncomfortable you make
that clear to me, and we’ll go no further. Okay? Excellent. I’d like you to think of someone you loved who’s passed on.
Please don’t make this someone who died recently, as we want this to be a positive experience for you, so we shouldn’t
approach any fresh wounds. You have someone in mind? Perfect. I’d like you to really concentrate on this person, close
your eyes and fill your mind with their attributes. Hear their voice, picture every detail of their face. Perhaps you can
remember how they smell? Concentrate on everything you can. Say their name over and over again in your mind. When
you really have a clear image of them in mind, just give me a clear yes.”

I made that paragraph longer than it needed to be, as I really do wish to emphasise the moral responsibility on the
performer which comes with performing material of this tone. We make a point of directing the spectator to someone
they can think of positively, triggering happy emotions rather than the deep, cold sense of emptiness that comes from
losing someone we love. Methodologically, see how we absolutely concentrate their thoughts, immersing their
consciousness with thoughts of this individual and preventing their mind from wandering. There might be a temptation
to have them run through memories of the individual at this stage. Don’t. The memories may contain other people, and
therefore act as prompts, weakening our cue. Having them repeat the name is also very important, as doing so will
reduce hesitation and increase clarity when they say it later. Finally, we use the closed question to have them respond
whilst maintaining the focus of their thoughts.

“Perfect, you’re doing fantastically. I’d like you to do something else for me. When I snap my fingers, I’m going to ask
you to say the name of this person, amongst several other names, people you know who are living. 5 or 6 is fine. Okay,
so do that for me now! [Snaps]”

A few things happen here that strike me as important. Firstly, the spectator is informed that in a moment they’ll have a
task to do. This primes them to respond, and thus avoids them actively (rather than unintentionally) pausing for thought,
which blows the method. Secondly, we say the instructions in the order of say this thought - amongst several others; the
reason for this is that if we were to do it in reverse, the command embedded in the sentence (this isn’t an endorsement
of NLP by the way, simply an observation about the nature in which we think) may cause them to start thinking of
names to say. By doing it in this order, not only is attention directed to the existing thought, but we don’t use the
expression “say other names” - which would inspire them to think of other names to say. Finally, we conclude promptly,
and use the snap of the fingers to pressure them to respond. At this point, it’s also imperative that the performer shut up,
and simply stare in silent expectancy at the spectator. This will increase the pressure on them to respond promptly,
whereas if you carry on talking, you’re giving them time to think.

Assuming that our friend Mary hesitates or appears to think a little prior to naming her friends: Simon, James, Matthew,
John and Thaddeus, and burst into tears immediately after the clear pronouncement of her pal Jesus’s name - we can be
fairly sure both of whom has passed on, and that we should desist from our weekly residency at the local mental health
facility.
There are a few comments I’d like to make on how to make this revelation process theatrically strong, as a piece of
mind reading.

I attempt to break up the identification of the dead individual from the naming of the individual. Thus the name appears
to come out of a separate process from the spectators speaking it aloud. We do this by varying where we direct our
attention at any given time.

After all the individuals have been named, I will begin making readings and guesses about the individuals. Perhaps I
will take a guess and claim to sense the presence of three friends and two relatives. Maybe even take a shot at which
relatives these may be. I’ll then peg the gender of the passed on individual, and give a reading regarding their general
appearance and personality. Depending on the name, it may even be possible to name the relative the spectator is
thinking of (hint: it’s almost always a grandparent - you asked for it not to be too fresh or sensitive). This is all part of
one big reveal, as you detect which of the individuals you’re picturing in front of you has passed on.

Finally, I ask the spectator to imagine calling their name, and at this stage make that revelation. Thus, the apparent
‘moment of mind reading’ has moved to a position entirely separate from the method. This adds to the deception, and
the whole thing builds in a far more theatrical manner.

There you go, that’s about it: how to make delicate and emotionally vulnerable women cry so that you can look like the
dogs bollocks for your magic buddies.
 TOCATON

Magicians continue to obsess over the any card at any number plot. It can certainly be very powerful for a lay audience,
although I’m still not sure whether our love of the plot as a community comes so much from this as it does from the
intriguing process of devising and discovering new methods. Not that that in itself is necessarily a worthless endeavour.

Whilst I shall give a specific method here, really what I’m providing is a subtlety for any ACAAN in which you require
the spectator to tell you the number they‘re thinking of. It is actually possible to use this subtlety with both the card and
the number, but for me this is not the most direct method.

I begin with the Jack of Spades at the 14th or 17th position in the deck (as each of these is often named) and perform
The Circle Force (‘O’ - one of my contributions to Fraser’s excellent book “False Messiah”. The principle which makes
this works is detailed in another publication of mine, “Ecrof”). Alternatively, any other psychological or even physical
card force can be used, and the card brought to the chosen position.

I then turn to a second spectator and deliver the following script:

“In a moment I’m going to snap my fingers. When I do, I want you to allow a single number from 1-52 to just pop into
your mind. Don’t try to guess, a number will just appear in your mind. Stick with it. Understand? Right, now [snap]”

The objective of this script is to have them land on a number in one go, without their mind wandering. This is achieved
through a combination of direct commands, closed questions and slight psychological pressure - all of which we’ve
already discussed. Next we obtain this number in via a presentational ploy:

“You have a single number in mind? When I snap my fingers, I’d like you to say this number amongst three or four
other numbers at random. Do you understand? Go [Snaps]”

At this point, they will name several numbers, including the number they thought of first. You will know, via the pre-
thought principle, what this number is.

If it is correct, you’re in the fucking money. If one of the other numbers is correct, simply equivoque this. If nothing is
correct, abandon all hope.

Actually don’t. Never abandon all hope. There’s always a brighter future, always a way out. If nothing else,
you can rest in anticipation of the eternal calm and solitude that is the abyss.. Rather, if nothing is correct,
adjust the position by spreading through the cards and casually cutting at the necessary position. Do this, and
then deliver the following script:

“Now one of those numbers was intuitive, it just came to you spontaneously. The other two were guesses based on
arbitrary factors. In life we spend a lot of time thinking, and over-processing. Instead, we should adjust our thoughts to
simply accept what is, and go with it. Two of the numbers you named were based on the overly analytical way of
thinking we practice every day. One of them was instinctive. Now you could have settled on any of those numbers, but
I’d like you to tell us which of them simply arose in your consciousness without effort. Which number did you think of
instinctively?”

This script frames the procedure as a demonstration of the differences between guesses and intuition, and also implies
that they could have gone for any of those three numbers at the point at which they settled on one.

By the time they name the number the deck is on the table and the card is yet to be named.
Pretty clean, yo gotta admit!

As I’m a total sweetie, here’s a bonus. Once the card and number have been named I ask one of my spectators whether
they’d like to count the cards face up or face down. If they say face down, I respond:

“Okay that’s your choice, but I’d like you to remember it - because if you’d decided to count with the cards the other
way up, you’d end up on an entirely different card, you agree? Okay, deal to your number.”

This final choice makes the effect twice as powerful, as the simple 50/50 choice emphasises the extent to which every
decision mattered, and if they’d chosen anything else the effect would not have worked.

If the spectator chooses to deal the cards face up, simply respond:

“Okay perfect, I prefer that, more theatrical. I’m not going to touch the cards, pick the deck up and deal the cards one
at a time, face up from the top.”

It now seems that your question was merely about the orientation of the cards as they are dealt, rather than which end of
the deck is being dealt from.

It’s better when they say face-down, as you get to frame it as yet another choice which would have impacted the
outcome, but if they say face up it’s not a problem at all - as the linguistic out makes perfect sense.

This is a really lovely subtlety I use when performing ACAAN, so hopefully you enjoy it, and hopefully you enjoyed
the use of Abyss to get the number. These combined methods really do create one of the cleanest ACAANs possible,
implement them into your performance and you’ll really see their impact.
 Invasion of Privacy

I’m going to combine the explanation for two effects as one here. Both relate to PIN numbers, and both are played
effectively as a direct mind-read when I perform them. The first of these, however, is closer to a verbal Seven Keys to
the Baldpate in terms of presentation (utilising Pete Turner’s idea of using the code for an iPhone in place of actual keys
and a padlock), in that it can be presented as an attempt to differentiate between the fake lock codes and the real one, or
more often I’ll play this as the initial premise, then appear to fail and instead segue into an apparent direct mind-read of
their code. The second is played simply as a direct mind-read, and is probably the hardest effect in this book. The
performer will have to be well practiced with the other effects in Abyss in order to be capable of performing this
particular routine, as the tell can be far more subtle. I do still miss on this from time to time, but fortunately it leaves
you in a position where you can apparently be none the wiser, so no resistance is encountered as you move into another
method.

I shall detail the first method, quite appropriately, first:

“I’d like you to focus for me on your PIN number (/lock code for your phone). See this clearly in your mind. Imagine
walking up to a cash machine and punching it in, paying particular attention to every number. Do you have that clearly
in your mind? Excellent. When I snap my fingers, I want you to say this PIN code amongst several fake codes, ones you
just make up. Don’t use any past codes or codes you use for other things, as you’ll have a matching connection with
these and that will throw me off. So now, five or six codes including your current code at some point. [Snaps]”

Again, see how we ensure the spectator remains present up until the moment we ask them to say numbers out loud, and
has the information we want to extract clearly in their mind. We must be in total control of their focus at all times, in
truth we really do have to know what’s going on in their head.

The tells for this are a little more nuanced, in that as well as the delay before saying the numbers, and the other signs of
thinking, we also look for how ‘smoothly’ each code is said. One should flow with rhythm and without pause between
digits. It will be said with a confidence and familiarity not existing with the other codes. This will be their code.

At this point the direction in which you take is up to you. Either play it in the manner of Seven keys, having them
picture each of the codes in the air, moving your hand across and identifying which is theirs, before apparently reading
their mind and then punching it in. Alternatively, I might simply say I got nothing, and couldn't remember so many
numbers anyway; I then simply ask them to repeat their real pin code in their head and proceed to reveal it.

The second method utilises the pre-thought principle combined with my doublethink principle (the reframe which
makes the first method of Ouija operate, which Fraser later took much further in False Messiah) to produce a very
impressive piece of mind reading.

“I’d like you to focus for me on your PIN number (/lock code for your phone). See this clearly in your mind. Imagine
walking up to a cash machine and punching it in, paying particular attention to every number. Do you have that clearly
in your mind? Excellent. When I snap my fingers, I want you to say these digits amongst a random stream of seven or
eight irrelevant numbers, so they’re hidden amongst them. Okay? Go [Snaps]”

Now, this will cause the spectator so say their code within the stream of numbers, and this can be distinguished by the
same tells as have already been noted (focus especially on the pauses between digits). To add to the deception, however,
we add in the following reframe:

“Excellent, so you said the digits of your code at random points throughout that stream yes? And I can have no idea
which numbers related to your code or even what order you said them in? You did say all of the digits thought didn’t
you? Some people get confused when they’re randomising information like this and leave bits out, but you got it all in?
Perfect.”
You’ll see how this implies that they weren’t even intended to say the digits together or in order, but rather treat each
digit as a separate entity and simply name each digit at some point. This creates an interesting type of dual reality,
which is distinguished as the doublethink principle for the following reason: the audience at large will believe that each
digit was said at a random point, not in order, as the spectator verbally agrees with you that this is what they did. Yet the
spectator accepts this as well, as they simply assume that this is what you wanted them to do and that they made a
mistake. They see no need to point this out, however, as they are led to believe that it doesn’t truly matter as their code
is still hidden. This is very powerful.

We can now proceed to reveal the PIN as we wish.

This effect will require a lot of practice, but is highly effective and deceptive. Recently, when I met Fraser in person for
the first time, I was able to fool him with this effect despite his being aware of all the principles which make it work.
Hopefully that goes some way to showing it’s power.
 Aphrodisiac

Guessing thought of names really is the shit. If someone just thinks of a person they love, and you can tell them that
person’s name, everyone will consider you to be Mr Sex.

Do you know what else is the absolute bollocks? Giving readings. Like seriously, performers who actually do this stuff
for real people will all back me on this. I’ve had experiences where I’ve done killer sets of mind reading and sleight of
hand card magic (for those of you who don’t know - that’s my actual speciality), with a single line of cold reading
thrown in - and the girl for whom I was performing texted me a few days later asking how the hell I knew that about her
(it may be an exaggerated claim to say that this brief reading was the reason I got her number in the first place, I’d put
that more down to my erudite charm and perfect bone structure). That was one fucking line! So combining these two
elements, cold reading and a name guess, is very, very powerful.

This again is all made possible with the pre-thought principle, and a devise for name guesses Fraser and I have both
worked on extensively, that being having spectators think of personality traits which in various ways cue us into letters
from that spectator’s name. Here is one example of the type of scripting I may use, assume the spectator is thinking of
an individual from a favourite memory:

“I’d like you to focus on this person’s name. Think of a personality trait they possess that begins with the first letter of
their name, we do this to make the process a little more personal. So you have a characteristic that applies to them,
which you wouldn’t relate to anyone else in the same way. This demonstrates that every individual has different quirks
and traits that make them special to us. When I snap my fingers, I’d like you to name this trait amongst several other
traits they possess, albeit traits which may be less unique, understand? Okay, go [Snaps]”

This is beautiful. Using the pre-thought principle, we are able to identify which trait the spectator thought of, and
therefore what the first letter of their thought of name is. Not only that, but we are also given a huge reservoir of
information upon which to base a hot reading. It’s important to note that we don’t have them think about this person for
too long at this stage, as otherwise further personality traits may pop into their head. We proceed as follows:

“Now clearly I have no way of knowing which of those traits you considered to relate most to the individual you’re
thinking of, but taking them as an aggregate, I can tell you several things about this person…”

Proceed to deliver a reading. The traits they name will often give you an excellent cue to the gender of this person,
which you may choose to reveal at this point. the focus of this routine should absolutely be on the reading, and no
attention should be placed on the letters or the name at this stage. This acts as psychological misdirection.

Now you can either proceed to use the same method to get the second letter of the name, or those of you who are
familiar with Ouija may choose to use a variation on the second letter reframe. This should be easy to work out, but I
shan’t explain it here out of respect for those who purchased that work.

Deliver another, more elaborate reading, baring in mind that you have a very strong conclusion to this effect, and can
thus afford to take some pretty specific, out-there guesses. Really play this up - I can’t stress how powerful it is, or how
much credibility it gives the revelation to come later.

If there’s currently several possible names, there’s a lovely fishing devise you can use at this stage. In fact I almost
always use this whether I’m certain of the name or not. Sometimes I use this for the second letter, if the number of
possible names is quite narrow (e.g. male names beginning with M).

“Focus on the last letter of this name. Again, think of a personality trait which begins with this letter. Say nothing, just
think of this.”
I now simply take a guess based on possible names and the traits most likely to be thought of based on those letters. If it
hits, it’s a fantastic extra effect. If not, it still gives me information. This isn’t played so much as a thought-of-word
revelation, rather its built into the reading, so nothing seems to fall flat. If I’m struggling, I may ask to be corrected in
order to gain some extra information, but this is rarely necessary.

Either way, I complete my reading, naming the gender, appearance, occupation, hobbies and character traits of the
person they’re thinking of and only after all of that ask them to focus on the name. All we need to do at this stage is use
Michael Murray’s excellent CUPs principle (this guy could literally never receive enough praise for this contribution) to
make sure we’re on track, and then we have all the information we need to guess the name. The best part, even if we
miss (which is extremely rare), we’ve just done ten or so minutes of incredible readings - so no one will give a shit!!

This is a very easy approach to the name guess plot, and is incredibly deceptive due to the combined use of the pre-
thought principle and the focus on readings to disassociate the characteristics named from the letters of the name.
Hopefully you'll perform this and find out for yourself how powerful it is. Perhaps you’ll even develop my super-stud
capacities! Who can tell until you try?
 Key Points

So in reviewing the various “scripts” you’ll see some elements are repeated. No precise scripting is required in the way
it is for much of my work, as this is not a linguistic so much as a psychological tool. I always tend to include certain
points however, to maximise the quality of the cue.

Maintaining Presence:

This method is essentially dependant on ensuring the spectator is only thinking of one thing (their chosen thought) prior
to their being asked to say anything out loud. If their minds jump around, they will likely be quicker in stating other
things later, as they have a clearer flow of ideas. It is therefore imperative that we maintain control of their thought
processes and ensure that they remain deeply fixated on their chosen thought. We do this by asking them to do things
with their thought e.g. say it aloud in their mind, picture it in a particular manner etc.

We also use closed questions towards the end of the scripting, to stop their minds from wandering, as closed equations
encourage no further association. Furthermore, there is no mention of additional thoughts prior to them being stated out
loud. Routines are given context as they occur, rather than via some kind of preamble. This does not mean routines must
be without presentation, only that the presentations you use should make no suggestion as to the process about to occur.

Familiarity:

It is also important that the spectator be intimately familiar with their thought, in the form in which they’ll be interacting
with it. So if they’re to say a lie out loud, they should already have it in their head, clearly worded. This will result in a
smoother delivery on their part and therefore a better cue.

Pressure:

It is also important, when it comes to the spectator speaking out loud, that they are encouraged to be prompt in their
response i.e. given no time to think. They must therefore feel a slight pressure to respond. We create this imperative
through the use of direct commands for them to begin, a snap of the fingers, solid eye contact and a vacuum of silence.
We fully shut up whilst looking expectantly at our spectator, and this forces them to fill that gap or feel a great amount
of social discomfort. The pressure is further added due to their feeling slightly rushed whilst scrambling for ideas, and
this too accentuates the cue.

Surround the Sound:

As I said, this method was the result of playing with Ouija. The Ouija methodology however, will cause you problems
within this routine. It is therefore useful to specify that their thought should be “amongst” i.e. in the middle of, the other
thoughts. This will lead to a much more readable cue. If a cue is not readable, try the first and last positions.

Clustering:

As you saw right at the start of this book, there are several different ways in which the spectator may cue you into their
thought. Whilst the main cue is the hesitation, looking for a cluster of cues will give for a more reliable read, especially
with a difficult spectator. I therefore highly recommend that you keep an eye out for a variety of the signs mentioned
when performing this. Occasionally a spectator will even gift you with obvious things (during lie detector, for example,
making one of their truths about their daughters name, which you’ve already seen tattooed on their shoulder), and these
themselves serve as useful cues.

Remember these key points and you shouldn’t go far wrong. These also apply to the unspoken application of Abyss.
 Abyss Internalised

As mentioned in the introduction, it is actually possible to use Abyss without the spectator having to say a word. The
reason for this is that only some of the cues are verbal, and really what we’re looking for is speed of response. Therefore
it is possible to have a spectator simply think about certain things, and gain cues based on how quickly they are able to
do this.

In this instance, the tells are generally the following:

• Eye Movements
• Nodding of the head
• Intensity of eye contact
• General body language and facial expressions relating to confidence and self-assuredness

The list is not especially long, but the cues are nonetheless visible.

However, this application of Abyss only provides you with a yes/no answer, and for this reason can only operate within
a limited selection field, in much the same way as an anagram.

The system works by first asking a spectator to do something with whatever thought they’re focusing on, and then
asking them to do this same thing with all the possible pieces of information they could be focusing on. The quickest
response to these requests will occur when asking them to transform the piece of information they’re focussed on, as
this has already happened. Recollection is easier than creation, so there will be a noticeable difference.

This can also be applied to a few other routines, if the goal is not to reveal specific information. For example, the lie
detector can be done entirely silently, by first having the spectator go through the process in their head, and then naming
at which point they lied.

This is also an excellent way of getting any kind of binary cue, for example for a game of which hand. The key here is
to make the internal process the spectator is required to go through sufficiently complex that they cannot simply do it on
the fly, whilst focussing primarily on the idea you wan them to focus on. Examples might be doing sums, recounting
memories, or visualising detailed imagery.

Whilst many of the routines which utilise Abyss can also utilise this non-verbal variant, I shall nonetheless present an
additional routine here which specifically utilises this technique. I see no need to elaborate far beyond this, as if I have
been successful in my job as an author, your understanding of the pre-thought principle should now be sufficient to
incorporate it into your own routines. Consider this effect a cheeky bonus.

This is how I go about revealing the last holiday someone went on. The routine uses a principle which Luke Jermay
introduced in 3510 (as with all of Luke’s work, I thoroughly recommend you check this out. He wrote it in 2007, so
may not himself stand by everything therein; I myself, however, have found a great deal of worth in its pages. Next to
Pure Effect, this is one of the books to most drastically impact my performance.) This principle he calls “invisible
restriction”, and simply put it involves taking categories which are effectively without restriction (e.g. a holiday
destination), yet which in actuality are very limited. For example: Spain, Portugal, France, the USA, Italy and Greece
are the most popular holiday destinations with British tourists (Spain and its islands claiming a huge majority of those).
Therefore whilst we can say “Think of the last holiday abroad you went on, this could be anywhere in the world!” and
be being totally honest in that statement, in truth we know this is very unlikely to be Baghdad, and is in fact highly
likely to be one of the aforementioned locations. So the script goes as follows:

“I’d like you to think of the last foreign holiday you went on, so outside the UK or Ireland. Don’t be too specific in terms
of location, just think of the country. You’re locked onto that? Now I’d like you to imagine being there, focus on the food
you ate, the sounds the smells the people - really get in mind what it’s like to be there. Perhaps get a landmark in mind
to help you visualise this. Okay, perfect. Now I’m going to take you through an imagination exercise to help me
synchronise with your thoughts. I’m going to have you imagine yourself in several other countries. First, Imagine
you’re in Greece. Imagine the sites and smells. Imagine the food. Now imagine you’re in Italy. Imagine the people.
 Picture a landmark. Do the same with America. Can you taste the food? Now France. Hear the sounds, the language,
the music. Let’s say… Portugal! Picture a scene. Imagine the food. Let’s do one more. Spain. Hear the music and taste
the food. What can you see? Excellent, I feel really in synch with you right now. Finally, imagine yourself in the
destination you were thinking of. Picture the views and taste the food. This is very clear [reveals country].”

At the point at which we notice the spectator needn’t think very much to access the images and sensations we’re asking
them to imagine, we know they’re thinking of their destination. There is a mild reframe at the conclusion of the script,
when we ask the spectator to now focus on their own destination; this subtly implies to the audience at large that this
was not one of the named categories, and to the spectator reinforces that you do not yet know what they’re thinking of.
Combined with time misdirection prior to the revelation, this renders the method considerably harder to backtrack.
When it comes to the reveal, we’ll tend to attempt to get more specific, if we know enough about the country, we can
take a guess at likely destinations. Certainly we can take guesses about the types of food or landmark they pictured, and
this adds realism to the demonstration. If we get no cue, we can assume that the spectator went to a more obscure
destination, and easily transition into a billet at this stage, under the guise of “refocussing their thoughts” following this
exercise.

This combination of principles allows for a diverse range of effects, including phobia revelations (whilst technically the
most common phobias in the UK are social phobias, the likelihood of you performing for these people is slim, they’re
all at home - therefore you can construct categories around the more traditional spiders, snakes, the dark, dogs etc),
advanced systems of reading, revelations of thought of relatives, health conditions, star sign elements and many many
others. It becomes even more powerful when combined with a little profiling, allowing the performer to tailor scripts to
specific audience members on the fly.

I’m sure you can see the scope of opportunities made available by having such a reliable silent cue. I look forward to
seeing how you apply this technique to your own routines.
 Concluding remarks

As ever, I’m eternally grateful to you for your support in purchasing this work. It’s truly incredible to consider how
many people care what I have to say on this topic, and to the point that they’re happy to separate from their hard-earned
cash (enough to have a half-decent night out) in order to listen. It’s incredibly humbling.

As I said in the introduction, I could never sufficiently express my love for this community and the people in it. For
every naysayer, I’ve met twenty guys who delight in the happiness and success of others, and who’ve continued to
support and encourage me in everything I do. Meeting those people has been deeply rewarding. I hope in sharing my
thoughts with the community I provide some equal levels of value to those individuals.

I’ve mentioned this in previous works, but it bears constant repetition: perform this. It’s easy for all magic and
mentalism, but especially the niche of a-prop to become no more than a circle jerk, where we get to sit around reading
and talking about ideas and theories, speculating as to their potential. Some may do this in a derogatory fashion, using
their time to cut down other creators and disregard their ideas without any attempt to test their assertions. Others will
celebrate the cleverness of ideas and rave about how bright and ingenious the author of whatever work they’re reading
is, all from the comfort of their living room, having never tried it on others. Both of these are entirely pointless
(although the former is definitely more so). Magic is a performing art. Mind-Reading requires a mind to read. Go out
and test this stuff. Real performance experience is the pinnacle of knowledge in this field. Ignore anyone who speculates
about material without having actually performed it. Do it yourself!

Don’t be fearful of failure. This method is reliable, but of course can fail from time to time. Heck! You’re doing it for
real! This is not an issue. If you do not care, your spectators will not care. They’re looking to you to understand how to
respond. In much the same way that you’ll only really get hecklers if you’re being cocky and challenging, your
audience is not used to being in this situation, so they look to you to understand how to react. Therefore if something
doesn’t work, don’t even acknowledge it. This applies to all of your routines. Simply move on. Be calm and ignore the
failure, continue rollin as if nothing happened.

A perfect example of this was a lecture Brad Hodgins and I gave at MEMS (Middle Essex Magic Society). Scott
Penrose (President of the Magic Circle) and Simon Lovell were in the audience. Foolishly, I’d drunk a little before
hand; one of the routines screwed up completely (I forgot that the shuffles at the start had to be false…) so my poker
deal ended up with five random poker hands dotted around the table, the aces nowhere to be seen. Did I get upset? Did I
admit failure? Did I even skip a beat? Hell no! I picked up my hand and lied that it was the winning one. It got applause.
I then went onto say that this is how things would be done for real, a subtle win, but that this could be made to look
more theatrical. I culled the aces and did the thing again, this time properly. Perfectly logical, justified what would have
been a failure, turning it into a mere presentational ruse. I call these narrative reframes, but that’s a topic for another
time. The point is that no failure is failure if you don’t perceive it as being so. The performance space is your home, and
you dictate the rules. I’ve gone on for long enough. To conclude, there is always a way out, and with the correct attitude
failure does not matter. Therefore, do not hesitate to perform this just because a sharpie dot on an envelope seems more
reliable.

I truly do hope you enjoyed this work, and that in expanding your toolkit of principles, it will allow you to create and
perform more miraculous routines through which you can share yourself with your audience. I look forward to seeing
you around various conventions. Please always feel free to come and say hi or drop me a hello. It’s not that I don’t bite.
It’s just that when I do, it’ll be one of the most deeply passionate moments of your life.

With a great deal of love and gratitude,

Ross Tayler

Exeter, 2015