Lottery

Using Dark Magick to win the lottery?

Like a lot (a lot a lot a lot!) of people, I'm quivering with anticipation!

Tomorrow - 09/09/09 - Derren will be predicting the lottery numbers live!

Rather, he will be performing a feat of misdirection!

Apparently, Derren has been banned from purchasing a lottery ticket.

And William Hill have stated that they will not be taking bets on Derren correctly predicting the numbers.

So, given that Derren does not have the power of foresight (you really wouldn't expect to need to point this out right?), here's my prediction:

We're actually all taking part in an experiment*. (And a jolly exciting one too!)

Take a look at what's happening! The rumor mill has never milled so hard: the internet is positively smouldering with speculation.

If you fancy getting stuck in, check out the comments over on Derren's blog: All Your Minds Are Belong To Us.

He's also blogged recently about rumours and gullibility.

Derren's second special is titled How to Control the Nation, in which he will be investigating the world of subliminals and inviting us all to take part in an experiment*.

And sticking us to our sofas.

Zero Wing.

Google came forward to explain their ufo doodle. They claim to be paying homage to the 20th anniversary of the infamous Japanese game Zero Wing. The translations from Japanese to English were wonderfully mismanaged, and the world was gifted with the legendary t-shirt slogan: All Your Base Are Belong To Us!

Hey, if I wanted to control a nation, I'd certainly want Google on my side!

Retention

Stress granule art.

I got to thinking about methods of impregnating the reader.
With information, I mean.

Data sperm if you will.

My question, I think, is this: Does the reader retain information better when under duress or when relaxed?

But I suspect that it's not simply a case of retention, as we might discover anon ...

I've been practising my 'mind reading' skills on everyone. (For 'mind reading' read 'subliminal impressioning'.)

I suppose the results were probably as expected: the technique works well on some people - those who I would deem to be receptive - and not on others - the unreceptive folks.

Still, it's quite a pleasure to plant images into someone's head and then amaze them with your prediction.

Now much of the technique involves focusing the subject's attention somewhere, and doing stuff with your hands and also with hidden meanings and repetition in the words. As such, it won't work especially well here, but try it out anyhoo ...

I'd like you first to imagine a blank canvas and fix it in your mind. When you're ready, I'd like you to imagine two simple shapes - like a square, but think of your own two. Now, place one of those shapes inside the other. Fix the image in your mind. Now give each of the shapes a colour. Again, fix the image and make the image bright and bold in your mind ...

And, with luck, you will have thought of a circle and a triangle, and the colours red and green.

What I've discovered is that this needs to be delivered at a precise pace, which is perhaps difficult to achieve with the written word. Too slowly and the subject might take the opportunity to move from the desired first impression to something more inventive, which is bad. Conversely, too quickly and the subject hasn't the opportunity to retrieve the first impression. Often, I have the subject imagining the triangle and the circle, but don't give them time enough to conjure the colours. Also, unless the subject is focused on me and what I am saying and doing with my little Dennis Hopper-esque handies, they will invent something far too imaginative and cling to it with all their might.

***

N.B. And if you love to take a beating, free your mind and picture that blank canvas again. Focus on it. Allow a playing card to appear. Bring the colours to clarity, bright and bold. See it there! Imagine the dots down the middle. Fix it upon the canvas as vividly as you can.

***

Watching Hancock the other week, I was aware of the stressful nature of the scene in which Hancock throws a boy into the sky. For as long as that boy is airborne, the scene is positively charged with tension. Only when Hancock safely caught the boy was I able to breathe again. However, during that time, I was utterly unable to process any other information: I was simply concerned about this boy's welfare. Three of hearts?

Then I got to thinking of other stressful scenes/instances. I can think of several 'up in the air/gravity' scenes. Then there's the smoke alarm going off in Rain Man. How uncomfortable is that scene? Only when Raymond's brother comes in to silence the alarm can we relax again. Telephones ringing! Gosh, whenever the banker phones and Noel is chatting away with the contestant, I'm telepathically willing him to answer the phone. I guess babies bawling on the bus have the same effect. People knocking on a door too. And neglected baths/sinks filling with water.

When our attention is captured within a stressful moment, I don't think we can consciously deal with other stuff. So when I was jesting about the Raiders inciting incident being delivered during the boulder chase, I guess I was making this very observation.

So then these stressfully charged moments become bad places to impart important information?

Well I wonder. Perhaps they are, in fact, brilliant places to access the subconscious, rather than the conscious, mind? After all, when I endeavour to plant an image into a subject's subconscious mind, I must first occupy their conscious mind. Tie one up, and the other is receptive, it would seem; befuddle the conscious, open the subconscious.

Why would we want to do that then?

My son and I have been playing quite a bit of Big Brain Academy together lately. It's startling how agile the mind can become when put under the pressure of a human opponent. In a flash, we are both utterly immersed in the game - in the contest. Note that this 'stress' is created in single play by the timer. The countdown. Yikes!

We also made this collage from old tv guides.

A better example might be sudoku. I don't find the opportunity to engage in sudoku much these days, but during my sudoku-playing days I would set myself a strict four minute time limit. Without the time limit - without the stress factor - I might idle and pontificate. But when that timer is ticking, you're suddenly on a kind of autopilot, charging through the columns and rows at breakneck speed.

Let's not forget, too, that if we really want to connect with the reader's emotional core, we need to go in deep! (Beneath the seven veils!)

I'm resisting the urge to mention the Incredible Hulk. Darn. Yep, the pilot episode, if memory serves, showed Dr Banner, pre-transformation, studying the extra reserves of human capacities when under duress. I think there was a woman whose child was trapped under a burning car or something, and yet she found the strength to physically lift the car and save the child. Come to think of it, I've always assumed that was based on actual events. Hmm. Regardless, we can easily see the extra something that we are capable of under duress.

I suppose we're looking at two distinct types of information then, and their different modes of delivery. I'd say that stressful scenes are bad places to deliver need-to-know/need-to-process information. However, once the tension has been released, the conscious mind is receptive to that information.

Conversely, if we want to secrete clandestine things into the unconscious mind - perhaps little clues or foreshadowing devices that make a reveal intensely satisfying - then throw something into the air or set off an alarm and whack it in there! Or, at least, engage the conscious mind somehow!

And to answer my question: Does the reader retain information better when under duress or when relaxed?

I think the reader retains the information in different ways/places.

I'll return to this probably.

P.S. Rest in peace Smudge. We'll miss you. x

Dual Reality

Magritte's Empire of Light.

Bob McKee proposes three possible ways to connect the audience to the story using Curiosity and Concern:

1) Mystery: In Mystery the audience knows less than the characters.

2) Suspense: In Suspense the audience and characters know the same information.

3) Dramatic Irony: In Dramatic Irony the audience knows more than the characters.

Three super tools in the writers' tool box, and particularly suited to the variations of third person. Oh yes, it's a return to third person plotting and all its possibilities for rationing and controlling information!

After, ahem, a good few hours spent watching Derren Brown on 4oD, and more hours typing in permutations of 'Derren Brown how does he do it?' into my Google search bar (with and without expletives), I finally unearthed a good deal of his secrets! After the initial euphoria, I found myself saddened to have destroyed the mystery, and discovered the terrible truth that, in fact, the techniques are very simple but require years of careful practise and study, and lashings of innate talent and charisma. Better stick with writing then eh? (Insert your choice of smiley here.)

So, back to thinking up reversals, because the reader likes them a lot (oh, such a very lot!), and because I want more and more! Given that I'm unabashedly employing as many favourite elements of the page-turner as I can divine, I got to thinking about the old memory loss jewel and wondering how it might work under the supervision of Mystery, of Suspense, and of Dramatic Irony.

Typically, memory loss is rooted in Suspense: a character attempts to recall a piece of information which, when retrieved, will supply a brilliant reversal for both character and reader alike.

I'm into double-whammies at the moment: that is, I'm experimenting with quick-fire double reversals. I got to wondering what would happen if memory loss were presented as Dramatic Irony ...

In this way, a reversal is presented to characters and reader in the form of shared information - a momentous reversal which changes everything and creates incredible Suspense! - and then the characters forget this information and are separated from it, leaving the reader in Dramatic Irony! Then the reader can only observe helplessly as the characters forge blindly into destruction.

Anyhoo, more on reversals soon. For now, let's return to Derren Brown.

If you're unfamiliar with the psychokinetic touch, which is credited to Steve Banachek, you might enjoy this clip of Derren Brown touching Spearmint Rhino girls.

This pk touch trick, from Derren Brown: Mind Control 3, begins at 3 mins 48 seconds.

I'll also stick a variation on the trick up there in the YouTube section.

Escher's Puddle.

So here's how it's done:

(Really - you might want to watch the clips first!)

--SPOILER BEGINS--

This trick relies on a concept called dual reality.

One girl has her eyes closed. Her 'reality' is now devoid of sight. But she still retains her kinaesthetic faculties right?

The other two girls share a different 'reality': they can see, but they can't experience the subject's sense of touch.

We share the visual 'reality' of the two girls because we watch through the camera lens. We don't share the kinaesthetic 'reality' of the subject.

In an instant, Derren turns to the two girls, distracts their attention, and taps the subject on the hand. The two girls don't notice this, and we don't see this either because the cameraman doesn't let us. Furthermore, our attention is diverted to the pretend taps several inches over the girl's hand. Whilst the technique sounds simple, the speed and precision with which Derren taps the subject's hand is astounding.

In the YouTube clip, the mentalist cannot rely on the cameraman for assistance, and so he sweeps his hands around the bride's arm, momentarily obscuring our view and tapping the girl's hand (with, I understand, the fourth finger). He then turns immediately to misdirection and taps the groom's hand, and that is where our attention is diverted (rather than Derren's pretend taps). Yes, we all clearly see him tapping the groom's hand, and do not consider the fact that he also tapped the bride's hand.

N.B. Naturally, this is a diluted account and makes no mention of the mentalist's ability to create rapport and trust, and to induce the subject into a compliant state. Note how the first Spearmint Rhino girl's blind reality is augmented with the words 'From now on ...' and how both girls are commanded to count in their minds and not out loud; in both cases, their realities are further distanced and held apart from the viewers'.

If you fancy hanging out with magical and mental folks to discuss dual reality performances, head off to the Magic Cafe!

--SPOILER ENDS--

In considering Bob McKee's proposed elements of Curiosity and Concern, we are simply toying with different realities. Our characters each have their own set of perception tools, as does our reader. When they are in tune, we work with Suspense. When the characters are aware of more than the reader, we are in Mystery. When the reader is aware of more than the characters, we are in Dramatic Irony.

It's worth considering not just the reversal, but who to throw it at!