Copyright © 2018 Fraser Parker

THE FOOL WHO PERSISTS IN FOLLY

Ultimate Prop-less Star Sign Divination

Edited by James Scott

The following work is something I intended to hold onto a little longer

before sharing it with the community at large. It really is that good.

Everyone I have shown this to has said it is either the best prop-less
star sign divination they have ever seen or at least the closest we have
come to it to date.

I knew some would miss its effectiveness, due to its simplicity. This
was one of the reasons for not wanting to release this effect right
away.

However, it is exactly this simplicity that makes the following method

such a breakthrough.

After showing it to a few magicians and getting their feedback, I knew

that this was something I couldn’t hold onto for much longer. I was as
excited by this new method as those who I performed this for. It was
something special and something that needed sharing for posterity,
as a useful contribution to the art and this particular ploy. I knew
other performers would benefit from knowing its secrets and so made
the difficult decision to share it in this form.
Perhaps writing this method in a smaller manuscript will help it to
stay hidden from the masses a little longer.

In terms of method, I knew that I had to keep everything simple and

not add process where doing so would ruin the aesthetic of the effect.

In fact, it was only with the taking away of an element of the method
towards the end of the creative process that everything finally fell into
place and the perfect solution I had been searching for was finally
discovered!

I wanted to be able to hold onto the hand of the participant and, after
giving a brief reading, simply and without any real effort reveal their
star sign.

It had to be this clean with as little compromise in the way as

possible, whilst still retaining its prop-less nature.

I threw out lots of ideas and subtleties, because utilizing these would
destroy the idea I had for this effect and would weaken the other
components of the method I already had in place.

No perceivable compromise was my goal.

It had to look and feel as if you were able to meet with a stranger and
instantly tell them things about their life there is no way you could
know, including their star sign—which would be the cherry on top of
the readings I already perform.
This is how I imagined a psychic would reveal a star sign: not by
guessing letters or having the spectator repeat the sign in their minds
over and over, but for it to seem as if you truly read the spectator and
from the characteristics and traits you were picking up were also able
to guess the star sign relevant to their own life.

I feel I have managed to finally achieve such a seemingly impossible

feat and have done so in a way which allows for the cleanest prop-less
star sign guess currently available to us.

The key to understanding why this method is so powerful is its

structure. It is the way the effect is built, as well as the fact you are
essentially lying to your audience via your actions, that make it work.
I purposefully made the outward appearance of the effect
uncomplicated and straightforward, so that I could get as close to
what appears to be the real thing in performance as possible.

I know I sound as if I am overstating it, but the truth is if you think of

this as too simplistic or child-like to fool your spectator and the
audiences you perform for then you have missed what makes this so
deceptive.

Method and effect are merged together, seamlessly. All that is

discernible is the overall illusion created by the outward appearance
of the performance itself.

And all that is left is illusion; or the beautiful lie you are causing
others to perceive as true.
You will need to act as if what you are doing is true, in order to fool
your audience or have them believe in the illusion.

Act as if it is so; that is all you will need to do to force others into
seeing the illusion for themselves of which you create by believing it to
be true yourself (or at least acting as if it is so).

Now that I have talked a little about the real work involved in making
this prop-less piece fly in performance—as well as hinting at how to
make your performances credible (which will ultimately allow you to
get away with such methods)—I will explain its workings.

Because the method exists in words, the easiest way to teach this
effect is to deal with each piece of the scripting in turn; this way I can
more easily break down the mechanics of the method and show you
how each linguistic component works together to create something
greater than the sum of its parts.

However, before moving into the scripting, it is worth noting that I

doubt I would have worked out the following method without the
prompting from my good friend Adrien Lochon.

He came to me with an idea he had of using labelling of the hands of

a spectator with the various star signs in order to allow him to utilize
a binary method and discover the spectator’s thought-of sign.

I informed him that this is something I tried to do many years ago and
after playing with what seemed to me at the time to be a natural
theatrical device of labelling the hands—the same way they would
within the esoteric tradition of palm reading—and not being able to
find a workable method, I abandoned it.

It was only after seeing what he was doing with his early versions
utilizing this basic idea that I decided to try again and find my own
way of using hands and labelling.

If you haven’t seen Adrien’s own work on this already, I suggest you
do so. He has some beautiful thinking all on its own based on
utilizing the labelling of the spectator’s hands. I believe his work can
be found in a manuscript titled Jaffa.

I began with a way of re-framing the moment the spectator held out
the relevant hand, in order to fool the spectators into believing I was
not aware the hand they held out contained their star sign.

This was a nice idea in and of itself but ended up not being needed. In
fact, it was only at the end of the creative process that I realized that
the idea I had built the entire method around was not actually
necessary and actually got in the way of the ideal solution I was
imagining for this effect.

I realized that a ploy I had come up with for working out which half of
the year the spectator was born was actually the correct foundation
upon which to build the rest of the method.

Everything I had been thinking about suddenly fell into place and I
knew I had the perfect solution! I couldn’t wait to show my close
friends in magic and got on Skype instantly where I proceeded to blow
their minds with its simplicity and directness in method.

So, without further ado, here is the breakthrough method I couldn’t

wait to share with a few close friends and am now passing on to you.

First of all, because we are going to be working with the star signs
that fall into the first half and second half of the year respectively, we
need to deal with the two problematic signs: Capricorn and Cancer.

These signs are considered “cross-over” signs, due to the fact that
they each co-exist in both halves of the year. Capricorn straddles the
end of the year and its beginning, whereas Cancer crosses the first
and second half of the year at its mid-point. Therefore, if your
spectator is a Capricorn they may think they were born in the first or
second half of the year depending on their date of birth.

If they were born towards the end of the month of December, then
they would consider themselves as being born in the second half of
the year; and if they were born towards the start of January then they
would say they were born in the first half of the year.

Likewise, if they are a Cancer and were born at the start of July then
they would think they were born in the second half of the year; and if
they were born in the latter half of June they would say first half of
the year.

This can cause a problem in terms of method when trying to split the
star signs into two halves of the year to more easily work with them.
The easy solution to this potential problem is to simply tell the
spectator which half of the year we ourselves consider each of these
signs to fall into, in order to make the following process easier for
them to follow.

Here is the scripting I use, to ensure this doesn’t become an issue

during performance.

“I need you to focus on whether you were born in the first or

second half of the year. The reason for this is there are certain
‘cross-over’ signs that can cause problems. So, to ensure there is
no confusion, if your sign is Cancer then I want you to imagine
you were born in the first half of the year; and if you are a
Capricorn, then imagine you were born in the second half of the
year.”

You may also want to add the following line, for clarity:

“Obviously, the Months 1-6 would be considered as belonging to

the first half of the year and the Months 7-12 would be the second
half.”

I personally don’t bother adding this line, but you may want to as it
ensures the spectator is entirely certain as to which half of the year
they were born. Naturally, most of us are used to writing our date of
birth on forms in a numerical format and so your spectator should
have little trouble quickly working out which half of the year is
relevant to themselves.
I now label the hands as relating to different, specific star signs. This
sets us up for the ploy—about to come—upon which the entire
method is built.

“Traditionally, in esoteric palmistry the different star signs would

relate specifically to different areas of the hand of the sitter.”

This line is nice theatrically and helps to begin to set up the premise
of the effect as relating to palm readings.

I now touch the back of the spectator’s right hand and say the
following:

“On the right hand would be the signs Aquarius, Pisces, Aries,
Leo, Virgo and Libra …”

I then touch the back of their left hand and continue:

“…and on the left would be the signs: Taurus, Gemini, Cancer,

Scorpio, Sagittarius and Capricorn.”

*** NOTE *** The labelling of the hands in this particular way is
very important. It is essential you label the hands exactly as in
the above scripting, for the method to work.

Remembering which group of signs goes where is easy once you

have memorized all of the star signs in the natural order they fall
throughout the year.
On the right hand (which will be towards your left if the spectator
is facing you) will be the first three signs in the first half of the
year plus the first three signs from the second half of the year.

Conversely, on their left hand (towards your right, so we are

working from left to right as we would do naturally if reading in
the West) would be the last three signs within the first half of the
year and the last three signs of the second half of the year.

For ease of remembering their order, I imagine these as four

distinct groupings of three signs which relate to the first and
second half of the year.

Each hand contains signs from the first and second half of the
year.

Here are the signs again as they are spread out on each of the
hands:

Right Hand (To Your Left) Left Hand (To Your

Right)

First Half First Half

Aquarius Taurus
Pisces Gemini
Aries Cancer
 Second Half Second Half
Leo Scorpio
Virgo Sagittarius
Libra Capricorn

We now instruct the spectator to think about which of their hands

contains their star sign. This is irrelevant to the method but is in line
with the premise of a palm reading.

“So just focus on whichever hand relates specifically to your own

star sign.”

Here is where we apply the core ploy on which the entire effect relies:

“Oh sh*t! Sorry, I actually got a few of those wrong.”

This is clever, entirely disarming and very deceptive. We pretend to

have messed up the previous labelling of their hands, which will in a
moment allow us to secretly narrow down on half of the potential
signs they could be thinking of.

I continue by touching the spectator on their left and right hand

respectively, swapping over a few of the signs, in the process.

“On your left hand should be the signs Aquarius, Pisces and
Aries; and on your right should be the signs Scorpio, Sagittarius
and Capricorn.”
*** NOTE ** Remembering which signs to switch is easy if you
imagine you will only ever swap the first three signs from the
first half of the year and the last three signs in the second half of
the year (each star sign grouping at opposing ends of the year to
one another).

Now it is a simple matter of asking the spectator whether or not their

sign has changed hands, in a way that fits the theatrics of the piece.

“Just yes or no—are you now focusing on a different hand?”

If they say “yes” then we instantly know they are thinking of one of
the signs we switched over, and if they reply with a “no” then we know
they are one of the other signs (either one of the last three signs of
from the first half of the year or one of the first three signs from the
second half of the year).

*** NOTE ** The idea of making a mistake may have been inspired
by Adrien as he employs this ruse in an entirely different way in
his own version of this. However, the idea of changing the labels
as a kind of secret “do over” and starting again as a way of
narrowing down on the signs is something that I have had in my
notebooks for many years.

I remember this update on my thinking coming to me recently in

a dream. I woke up and worked through the idea, trying to piece
together what I had dreamt and then quickly wrote it down so
that I didn’t forget it.
Peter Turner has also recently used the ploy of pretending to
have got something wrong as a secret method—albeit in a very
different way—so credit must also go to him for this style of
thinking.

I have also used the notion of starting again in a chair test, so

the idea of something not being right and needing to change is
something I have had as a seed of an idea for quite a long time (of
which I have an inkling I first picked up from my mentor,
Kenton).

It is important you act completely as if you have genuinely made a

mistake in order to convince your spectator this is the case. This is
how we help to create a compelling illusion for everyone watching.

We now apply a form of the Context Shift from Peter Turner and Ross
Tayler and “throw away” the previous process of labelling hands, by
changing the premise of the effect we are performing.

This ensures that all of the proceeding process is disregarded and

thought of as unimportant by the spectator and audience members,
which in turn makes any possible method so far indiscernible.

This shift in premise makes what you do impossible to backtrack for

everyone involved.

As long as what you do appears natural and feels right to the

spectator and those watching, it will fly.
Everyone will be fooled into perceiving what happens through the lens
of illusion. They cannot imagine that you would make a mistake on
purpose and that would be your method.

Because the method exists in the words you say—as well as your
attitude— as long as what you do appears fair and feels fair to
everyone involved, it will be seen as so.

Continue with your script with no guilt whatsoever, as follows:

“In fact, I don’t want this to be confusing. So, just forget about
which hand relates to your star sign. Instead of trying to read
your palm, I am going to just try to read you instead.”

We are now in the perfect position to start over again with what seems
to be an entirely different approach.

So far, nothing has apparently taken place. Therefore, no information

could already be known. Michael Murray has some beautiful thinking
along similar lines—yet very different to what is taught here—in his
book Isolation. I highly recommend you check it and all of his work
out. He is a genius.

We are now in the position to give a reading, and in doing so

apparently pick up on enough characteristics and traits about the
participant sat in front of us to also successfully guess their exact
star sign.
Therefore, we have switched from attempting to read their palm to
simply reading them.

I now ask for the spectator to hold out their hand and hold onto it, as
if needing to make a connection with them to be able to better read
them.

This allows me to reaffirm in everyone’s minds that there is no way I

could know anything about their star sign already.

“I DO need to make a connection with you to be able to do this, so

just hold out either one of your hands. Obviously, there’s no way I
could know if this is the one you were just focusing on or not.”

I now take their hand palm down in mine, place my other hand on top
of theirs and begin a reading.

Next comes the second way of narrowing down the possible star signs
they could be thinking of.

I played with a few different ideas for being able to know in which half
of the year the spectator was born and decided what follows is the
quickest and best-fitting with the overall aesthetic of the routine.

Naturally, thanks to how we staggered the labelling of the signs on

each hand previously, knowing which half of the year they were born
instantly gets us down to three potential signs they could be.

I use a “closed question” to always make it appear I knew the correct

answer before apparently asking for confirmation from the spectator.

Thanks must go to Kevin Hamdan for suggesting using this “closed

question” later on in the routine when giving a reading and not up
front at the start of the routine. He is correct in saying that this
particular handling of the closed question fits perfectly within the
context of a reading.

This is something Peter Turner created whilst I was jamming with him
on my previous star sign divinations. He always felt like it was a
weakness in the previous routines. However, we both agree that now
it is placed properly in with the readings part of the routine it
becomes a completely different animal and now entirely makes sense.

Another reason for why the “closed question” should come later on in
the routine and in the midst of a reading is due to the fact it
essentially halves the amount of signs you could be working with in
the minds of those who are thinking critically about the proceedings.
You want it to appear as if you are slowly working out these qualities
from reading your spectator and not just throwing out a guess—as it
may appear if you were to use the “closed question” too early in the
routine. You also want it to still appear as if all of the signs are in play
at the beginning of your reading and obviously narrowing them down
in this way early would be a detriment to the seemingly impossible
nature of the effect. It is much better to not seem to narrow anything
down from the start.
During the course of a reading I say the following:

“You weren’t born in the first half of the year, were you?”

Because we ask this question in the negative, it allows us to adjust its

meaning after the spectator has responded.

If they say “yes” to our “closed question” then we simply continue

with the scripting as follows:

“Yes, I thought so because I am also getting a sense that you are

a very loyal individual who is very trusting once that person
shows themselves to be trustworthy too and this would be
indicative of someone born within the first half of the year—
which is how I was able to instantly know that about you.”

What this scripting does is tie a readings statement most won’t want
to disagree with—especially in front of their friends and peers when
placed under pressure of a social situation—with scripting that makes
it appear you are simply confirming that your impression was correct.
They will usually not argue with the statement you have just made
and will therefore also go along with the notion that you apparently
knew all along in which half of the year they were born.

This is what Peter Turner added to the way a “closed question” would
usually be used.

These words fit whatever answer the spectator gives, with only a
slight adjustment being necessary to make it appear we always knew
the correct answer before asking the question. It will always feel to the
spectator and audience at large as if you are simply asking for verbal
confirmation that we are correct.

If they respond with a “no” then the scripting would flow as follows:

“No, I didn’t think so because I am also getting a sense that you

are a very loyal individual who is very trusting once that person
has shown themselves to be trustworthy too and this would be
indicative of someone born within the second half of the year—
which is how I was able to instantly know that about you.”

The line “which is how I was able to instantly know that about you”
brings your statement full circle and ties everything together
beautifully.

Of course, we are now down to three potential signs for the spectator.
Thanks to the previous ruses, we appear to have not asked any
questions and are in the perfect position to reveal their sign utilizing
the following gambits.

REVEALING THE SIGN

In order to nail down on the sign from three possible signs to one, I
didn’t want to resort to the Repeat It ploy or throwing out letters or
any of the usual verbal prop-less tools dealing with letters in a word
that we have at our disposal.
These would be the wrong methods to use within this particular
effect.

The reasons for this are not only would it spoil how clean the method
appears up until this point in the routine, but it would also change
the aesthetics of the piece. Trying to “hit” specific letters wouldn’t fit
with the overall aesthetic of the piece and would feel out of place
within the context of the routine and its premise.

It would turn the premise from being about reading the spectator’s
characteristics and traits to intuitively know their star sign to that of
mind reading.

Due to the method having so little perceivable compromise both

methodologically and theatrically so far, I didn’t want—if at all
possible—to ruin the near perfect aesthetic of the effect. Therefore, I
settled on the following ways to nail down from three signs to two and
then from two to one. The following applications of older “outs”
seemed to be the perfect fit for this routine—with the least
compromise to the overall effect.

THREE TO TWO

After giving the spectator a brief reading and tying what I say to
specific characteristics and traits I am apparently receiving about
them, I am now ready to begin the actual reveal of their sign.

The first thing I do is deliver the following “hanging statement” as an

attempt to get my first “hit.”

*** NOTE *** This is Peter Turner’s beautiful Two-way Verbal Out;
but instead of it being applied to two star signs [as usual], I use it
here to either “hit” their star sign right away or dismiss the sign
I have just said out loud.

Here is the first half of the “hanging statement”:

“What is interesting is that when I first sat down in front of you I

instantly felt that you were a [say one of the three star signs].”

I deliver this line with confidence and snap my fingers as I say their
sign and then pause slightly to wait for a reaction.

If the spectator is whatever star sign you just decided to “throw out”
then you will get a confirmation from the spectator in the form of a
positive reaction to your statement.

*** NOTE *** If you prefer to be subtler, then you may prefer to
nod your head just after saying their sign instead of snapping
your fingers (in order to encourage a positive reaction when it is
necessary for them to give you one).

YOUR WORK IS DONE!

You have just revealed their star sign in the cleanest manner
possible.
However, if they don’t react then I quickly continue on with my script
—as if always intending to finish my sentence—as follows.

“…but I’m glad that I didn’t just go with my snap judgement but
actually took the time to get to know you a little better instead,
because based on all of the characteristics and traits that I am
getting from you there’s only one sign you could be.”

I am now left with the other two possible signs they could be and use
the Two-way Written Out (also from Peter Turner) to nail down on
their exact sign.

*** NOTE *** The previous “hanging statement” is a thing of

beauty! It fits the overall presentation and effect perfectly and
feels entirely natural. I love the fact that the two possible
meanings of the [broken] statement are separated in time. You
were either correct with your first impression and only fully
committed to it once you had gotten to know the spectator a
little better via a reading, or it was a snap judgement you chose
to disregard as a wrong impression (which makes everyone else
also disregard it as unimportant and not as the outright guess it
really was).

TWO-WAY WRITTEN OUT

Here I simply pick up my folded piece of paper or business card I use

to write my reveals onto and write down one of the two remaining
possible star signs, placing the card or paper writing side down on the
table.

I then “throw out” the other sign as follows:

“Are you a [say other star sign to the one you just wrote down]?”

If they say “yes” then you have got your “hit” and you can just
casually place the piece of paper or card away in your pocket or leave
it on the table.

If they ask to see what is written—which they hardly ever do—then

you can just say:

“I changed my mind at the last minute.”

As you casually show the spectator what was written.

If they say “no” then you simply follow up with this line:

“What is your star sign?”

They will answer, and the star sign they say will always match what
you wrote down previously.

It is now a simple matter of having the spectator turn over the piece of
paper or card you wrote on, to confirm you knew their sign all along.

“Good. I’m glad I committed to this… [gesture at the piece of paper

or card, inviting them to turn it over].”
It will appear as if all you were doing was asking if they were the other
sign in order to check that you were in fact correct with the sign you
committed to by writing it down.

The written reveal will now be seen as the reveal you intended on
being correct all along.

ENJOY!

Fraser

Performance videos will be uploaded here:

www.fraserparker.co.uk/starsign-performances.htm