Hardin's Magic Brain

RESTRICTED IMAGERY

by Phedon Bilek

BEFORE WE BEGIN…

PLEASE… Do me a favor and try to be a layperson for a second. Forget the familiarity
you may have as a magician/mentalist/whatever, with drawings. Can you…? Perfect,
let’s try this then. Hey, it might work…

I want you to think of a SIMPLE DRAWING, something anyone can do in five seconds
and that everyone in the world would recognize at first glance. Something like a
Mountain, a Boat, a Flower… Of course, refrain from picking those examples as I just
said them, and do not go for a simple shape like a triangle… Do you have a drawing
in mind…?

Good. Now, please choose ANOTHER simple drawing. A different one. Done?

Perfect so far. Because I want your mind to produce images, a LAST ONE! OK?

You now have three drawings in mind. I want you to consider them as OBJECTS,
and I want you now to choose the TALLEST OF THESE OBJECTS THAT YOU CAN
PHYSICALLY TOUCH, because I want you to imagine yourself on top of it…

Did you end on top of either a HOUSE or a TREE? (sorry for the size, it was my -poor, I must
admit- attempt at preventing you from cheating…)

o If Yes, you will see what I have done with this and I do believe you will like it.
o If No, no worries. It’s normal. You’re NOT a layperson. You’re a magician/men-
talist/weirdo. It works on normal people.

Most of the time.

…A FEW WORDS…

This piece has evolved so much over time and performances that I can barely remem-
ber how it started. After much effort I have succeeded recalling the way I first thought
about it, before other ideas and principles got in the mix during performances. This
is the one you just played, by the way. And then Natural Selection did the rest… Once
an “improving” mutation occurs within a performance, it tends to replicate itself in
the following ones, whereas useless ones are automatically suppressed. How do we
know this mutation is a beneficial one? By measuring indexes like hit ratio, reactions,
practicality, ability to lighten the process…

Basically, the idea here was to create a fast, prop-less way to know what object a
spectator is thinking of. To her, it should look like she thought of anything, and the
performer was able to divine it.

In reality, and as the name suggests, I use many layers of -invisible- restrictions to
narrow down her choices. She is therefore led into a cul-de-sac where only very few
items can be chosen.

Some of you will think “Wait… Isn’t that the very idea of PROTEUS?” … Well, yes
and no. PROTEUS is restrictive, but still allows a vast array of choices. The price to
pay is a process, meaning: time. Here, combining the Phasma technique and the
Scenery Principle allows the performer to keep the process to such a minimum that
I cannot call it a process per se. And the result will surprise you in its simplicity and
elegance.

First, I will describe the original idea. Then, I will share with you the final version, or
rather: the one I am currently using, as nothing is really FINAL… Who knows what
beneficial mutation will make its way into it one of these days, and change it again…?

About RESTRICTIONS…

As I mentioned above, I am applying many layers of restrictions here, all invisible to
the spectator but incredibly effective in narrowing her choices drastically.

1. The use of SIMPLE DRAWINGS. You know that this is a pet technique of mine.
Anyone familiar with PROTEUS knows how effective the technique of asking
first to think of a simple drawing before shifting the attention to the OBJECT
depicted, is in making the spectator believe she freely chose any object among
the thousands of possibilities available to her… So, starting with doodles con-
stitutes the very first layer. Especially with the script I designed, prompting
them to choose something that takes 5 seconds to make, that everybody can
recognize at first glance etc.
2. The SCENERY PRINCIPLE. Below you will have a more detailed explanation
of this idea I have been using for a long time. But this is the second layer of
restriction, bringing the spectator’s choices to a very limited set of items

3. The “PHYSICALITY” of the item. -Subtly- asking the spectator to only consider
the objects she can physically touch further drastically restricts choices

4. The SIZE of the item. This is the final restriction, and it brings the ultimate
touch to this series. By asking the spectator to consider the TALLEST object,
we know she’s left with only a couple of choices

5. And here comes Phasma, which brings the final note to this. Although it is used
at the beginning of the routine, I place it final in this list as it is not a restriction.
It is rather my way of making sure that the spectator has hit on at least one of
our two outs (or rather: that the performer has hit on at least one of her
choices!)

I know what you’re thinking now… That’s a lot of process!

No, it’s NOT. All these are contained into the simple instructions you’re giving your
spectator. And they are as effective and potent as they are completely invisible, even
to mentalists1.

Before that a quick look at the ideas and principles mentioned above.

… About the TOOLS…

1
Not that I care about fooling magicians, but that was just to emphasize the invisible nature of these restrictions
The ideas below are concepts I have been using for a long time. I am not aware of
their existence somewhere else, but few things are really new as I came to discover.
I take a point on giving credits where they are due, and please forgive me if I have
failed doing this with any of the following.

Ë The SCENERY Principle. The idea is simple. I wasn’t using it in the original
version of this routine, as back then I hadn’t thought of this principle yet. The
“mutation” in the routine came as soon as I thought of it, looking at a drawing
my son made for me where one could see a house, a tree, the sun, the see and
our family… Here is the thing: when we want to force something, we imagine
a logical scenery where this object (our Force) occupies a central position.
Then when we ask the spectator to “think of something”, we give as exam-
ples the objects of the scene surrounding our Force. What's happening in
the spectator's mind is that when she hears these objects we're giving as ex-
amples she unconsciously builds a mental picture encompassing them, since
they're related. She's placed within a context actually. And when she's asked
to think of one object, she'll fill in the blank left in this scenery, which is the
missing -and forced- object. The routine described below gives a very good
example of this. And by itself, one could argue on the effectiveness of this
idea. But it is its combination with Phasma which gives it its potency and im-
pressive hit ratio.

Ë PHASMA. This idea is fully explored in its dedicated section in my project
ORION, but in a nutshell it is to ask the spectator to think of not one but several
things in order to maximize the chances of hitting. This concept exists, but this
particular way of doing it, Phasma (meaning “Spectrum” in Greek), was first
created for my routine MNEMON, which is a prop-less Memory Revelation.
Once she has a set of three or four items in mind we are almost certain that
after the restrictions applied beforehand our force is in the mix. We just have
to isolate it, and the hit will be as strong as if she were asked to choose only
one item.
Ë EURYDICE. Like the Scenery Principle this concept is used only in the “final”
version of Restricted Imagery. However, I include it here, so you are familiar
with it. I named it that way because of what Orpheus attempted to accomplish
in the Greek mythological tale. Eurydice was his wife, and he tried to bring her
back from the underworld with his enchanting music. Hades, king of the un-
derworld, allowed Orpheus to take her back to the world of life and light. But
although ancient Greeks had discovered many things, they didn’t invent Hol-
lywood and happy endings, and this story doesn’t end well. Thing is: this con-
cept is about bringing something PHYSICAL from another world/dimension.

Ë The WAIT-A-SECOND Ploy. If you own SIBYL, you know this very well. And
you know how potent it can be. If you don’t own Sibyl, no worries. Below (and
all over this project) you will see it used and explained, with many examples of
its applications.

RESTRICTED IMAGERY: ORIGINAL ROUTINE

As mentioned above, this is the very basic routine I started with a long time ago. You
had a quick demonstration of it at the beginning. I will present a “normal” perfor-
mance below, with explanations along the way.

MENTALIST: Helen… I would like you to think of a simple drawing. You know,
one that would take you five second to do, like a Mountain, a Boat, a flower…
Something that anybody would recognize at first glance. Please do not take
my examples, that would be too easy… You have one?

HELEN: I do yes

MENTALIST: Perfect. Now, think of ANOTHER ONE. Another simple drawing.
Good?

HELEN: Yes, all good
MENTALIST: Alright Helen, I want your mind to produce lots of thoughts…
So, A LAST ONE… OK?

HELEN… Eeer.. Yes!

- This is Phasma. They have three drawings
in mind, thus making a hit upon one of our
two forces very highly probable-

MENTALIST: You have three drawings in mind right now. I want to make clear
that I will not try to guess anything, there are just too many possibilities, hun-
dreds, if not thousands… I just want you to think of them as REAL-SIZE Ob-
jects… Er… WAIT A SECOND… Is there in your set of objects one that you
CANNOT touch?

- Many things are happening here. First, the
Wait-a-second ploy. You know from Sibyl
that when it hits, it hits HARD, and when it
doesn’t, it just didn’t happen, and none is the
wiser. Second, you noticed the little ruse I
used saying that their choices were almost
endless. Make no mistake: they WILL believe
it. Magicians and mentalists fall for it. Third:
you can see I have switched from DRAWINGS
to OBJECTS. And from now on, they will be
referred to as such. They will remember (and
I will ‘help’ them do so) that they chose an
OBJECT among millions. Not a drawing
among a limited set-

HELEN: Yes…!

MENTALIST: I know! I can feel that…! That struck me, as I feel a… DIS-
TANCE… This object feels so far… Like the sun or a star…

- This is very important. The SUN and the
STAR are recurring outs among simple draw-
ings. Therefore, I am playing with probabili-
ties here. Consider this: if they have one of
those in their set, it is a direct hit. If they have
a moon, a cloud, or anything “heavenly”, di-
rect hit as well! You’d go just like “A cloud
right!? I knew it, it was high there in the sky,
out of reach…!”. If they have anything else,
no worries either. It could go like “A ghost…
Right… I KNEW it was impossible to touch,
and assumed it was owing to distance…”.
But the last case never happened. It will al-
ways be either SUN, MOON or CLOUD,
whenever there is something that cannot be
touched.

A little performing tip: this is purely personal,
and you might choose to discard it. But I
found out, after so many performances, that
it makes a big difference. This is in the event
their answer is ‘Yes’ on the Wait-a-second
ploy (when you ask them if there is an object
within their set that cannot be touched). As
soon as they have confirmed that there is
such an object among their choices, turn
away from them, shift your gaze to the sky
and extend your hand towards it, as if you
were attempting to touch a cloud, and say: “I
know… I sensed it. I feel it high… distant, out
of my reach…” Now turn back to face them,
observe a little pause, and finally ask: “Are
you thinking of the Sun, or a Star…?”

HELEN: IT IS A STAR!!! HOW…?

MENTALIST: I felt it very strongly… Please Helen, discard this star. I want you
to choose, among your objects, the TALLEST one that you can physically
TOUCH! I’m asking this because the most representative in a set is always the
largest one. And I want you to imagine yourself on top of this object. Done?

- Here you can see the double, yet invisible,
further restriction applied. Among her ob-
jects, she’s asked to go for the tallest one
that can be touched. And the chances there
is either a HOUSE or a TREE within this set
being extremely high (actually, you’ll even be
surprised at how frequently your spectator
will have BOTH these objects in their set),
you understand that the odds are greatly in
our favor (don’t forget we have killed the
‘Mountain’ and the ‘Boat’ in our examples,
which I have chosen owing to the fact that
they were the occurrences that usually ruined
the whole thing, being objects that are usu-
ally seen as being ‘taller’ than the House or
the Tree)-

HELEN: Er… Yes, done!
- Always watch them at this moment. If
they’re quick in their response, that’s a con-
firmation that you’re good. However, if you
see them freeze, be undecisive or hesitant,
you know there is a problem, and that they
CANNOT imagine themselves on top of their
object. That’s the very reason I inserted the
line “Imagine yourself on top of this thing”:
to provide a verification. Let’s take a worst-
case scenario and imagine her set to be
made of a Sun, a Star and a Shell. I know,
even you will agree that this is far-fetched
and improbable. But let’s consider it. When
she is asked to imagine herself on top of her
choice, which should be the Shell (being the
only ‘touchable’ object in her set), she will at
very least hesitate. If you pick such hesitation
therefore, VERIFY! Like: “I take it that you
cannot imagine yourself standing on top of
this object, right?”. If the answer is positive,
then you know it’s neither the House, nor the
Tree. To me the thing is over, and I just pro-
ceed asking her what it is that she chose.
When she replies, say, “a Car”, I just look at
her, mumble “Interesting” to myself, and
give her the meaning of this object as a quick
reading, making her ‘realize’ this was nothing
more than a quick little personality test-

MENTALIST: Perfect… Wait…! This object is not man-made, is it??

- Now Helen should be either on top of a
House or a Tree. The question above will al-
low me to finally zero in onto their choice.
Whatever the answer, you know what to do,
as I am sure you have recognized our old
friend the Vanishing Negative-

HELEN: Er… Yes, it is!

- Now we know it’s the House. But whatever
the result, first we have to make it appear that
there were many choices to choose from.
You will read it below, in the mentalist’s re-
ply. What is important is that in this original
version I was adopting, to reveal, rather a DE-
DUCTIONAL APPROACH considering the
personality of the spectator. Again, read be-
low to see what I mean-
o

MENTALIST: I thought so… Listen, Maria, most people would now be on top
of a Car, a Plane, a Rocket… Not you though. I am almost CERTAIN it is NOT
your case. The reason is simple: from the start you struck me as a person firmly
grounded, solid, holding a firm belief in values such as family and sincere
friendship. You are a person who needs stability and security. You chose, I
believe, an object that cannot be moved, unlike the usual ones I said above.
Considering all these, I am pretty sure you are sitting on top of what represents
you perfectly: a HOUSE!

- Should they have gone for the TREE the
patter would be similar. We would say that
while most people would have chosen things
like a Bird, a Dog or an Elephant, they must
have thought of something different owing
to their grounded personality, their creative
nature, their strength coming from deep
roots etc. A Tree, which represents these val-
ues best!-

As you can see, this first and unrefined version is already playing very well as is. It
served me well for some time, and the little reading at the end, which is always very
well accepted, is the cherry on the cake. It never fails to impress, since the spectators
really believed I deduced their thought-off object after analyzing their personality.

A final point you might be asking yourself: Let’s say that in their set of drawings they
had three man-made objects, like a Car, a Bike and a House. And at the end, they’re
sitting on the House. Objective reached, of course, but isn’t there a little discrepancy
when I tell them that most people would have chosen a Car, a Plane, etc.? Actually,
there is. Hence the little detail on the script at the beginning, telling them that among
drawings into a set the TALLEST is the most representative. Just a detail.

ALTERNATIVE REVEAL

Of course, the above is a mere suggestion. You can make that more direct and reveal
the Tree or the House using two outs, like a Himber wallet, or your favorite method.
In an impromptu situation that could be a napkin lying on the table (with the Tree
drawn face down) and the coaster under your coffee cup (with the House).

restrictedimagery Phedon