lfirst became aware ofthe process ofEquivoque in my earlyteens. Because so little information was available on thissubject, I was forced to develop my own principles built onempirical research. As is often the case, these circumstancesled me to an understanding of the subject that is probablygreater than what I would have been able to learn fromwritten guides, had they been available.

Given the above, why have I written such a guide m~self? The answer is that I hope my work in this area will helpothers in their ownfield testing. with the understanding thatreading this manuscript in no way eliminates the need forsuch experimentation on the part of the reader. This is adifficult process to learn properly. and conveying thisprocess through the printed word has not been easy.

By itself, this essay is worth nothing. Combined withyour own explorations. this treatise can hopefully aid you indeveloping your own skills with Equivoque.

This essay wasfirst written in 1976.

Phil Goldstein

Mentalism is not magic in cerebral drag. It is true thatthe two fields share common technical roots, andthat many of the great practitioners of one faction

have been highly adept at both. However, there are radicaldifferences between the two. All of the great mentalists haveeschewed the use of magician's props, preferring to utilizethe most commonplace materials-at least in outward ap­pearance.

I am not demeaning the value of elaborately preparedworking materials. Many such devices are quite worthwhile.However, I maintain that it is absolutely necessary for theworking mentalist to avoid building a dependency on"things" with which to accomplish a performance. The lateTheo Annemann once said about our art, "When you get tothe root it is nothing but your personality and wits againstthat of your watcher, and a case of telling him to do as hepleases and then letting him do what you want him to do."

Probably no other technique in mentalism is as "pure" inthis respect as Equivoque-s-tue "Magician's Choice."Equivoque is one of the most valuable tools to the mentalist,if it is used properly. If it is handled poorly, it is embarrass­ingly transparent to the audience. If it is worked successfully,it is straightforward mindreading-without gimmicks orprops. Every mentalist has had the experience of being ap­proached by a lay person, offstage, and the request (ordemand) made, "Read my mind, here and now!"

Equivoque is a perfect solution to this challenge. By justgrabbing a handful of change, or a few objects off the dinnertable, and applying the techniques of verbal control, theperformer can provide a lasting impression that will provehislher abilities to the most cynical observer.

Given how valuable this technique is, it is most surpris­ing to find how little information is available in the literatureof mentalism giving detailed attention to this subject. Mostoften, Equivoque is given only the briefest of descriptions, ifany at all. The only writing to cover the "Magician'sChoice" in any intelligent detail at all is that of Gene Grantin his excellent 1956 treatise Phantini's Mental Key. Grantcalls his approach "Phantinism," and it is very good. Myown work in this area goes a bit further in detail, and I pro­pose to break down my approach explicitly.

Before I start, I should point out that my handling ofEquivoque is by no means the only approach to this tech­nique; nor is it necessarily the best. As with most presenta­tional theories, what works well for one performer is notalways sound for another. I suggest that you study my tech­nique and analysis, and then apply it to your own work.When you evolve your own technique, you will have a valu­able skill that will serve you well in a tremendous variety ofcircumstances.

In essence , Equivoque is a process of psychological forc­ing combined with double entendre. The spectator is askedto choose an item from a small group . His/her choice isguided by psychological factors . If necessary , a "narrowingprocess" is used , in which the spectator's actions are ma­nipulated by instructions which seem to be specific , but infact are open to multiple interpretations.

When a person is confronted with a horizontal row ofobjects, and asked to take one, hislher choice is not com­pletely random to begin with. Assume the number of objectswe're dealing with is five.

In a row of ABC D E, the object in position C willalmost certainly not be chosen, for its central Iocation makesit seem too "obvious" to the spectator's subconscious mind.For the same reasons, he/she is unlikely to pick either A orE, for they are at the ends of the row, and thus too"extreme." The spectator is therefore most likely going toselect either object B or object D. Furthermore, if the specta­tor is reaching with the right hand, the choice will mostlikely be item D; reaching with the left hand will lead to achoice of B. The spectator's subconscious mind attempts toavoid the "obvious" choices-and thus plays right into yourhands!

We want to take advantage of this psychological set-upas much as possible. Also, we need to protect ourselves, bylaying the foundation for the narrowing process, should thespectator's initial choice be wrong. In other words, if it be­comes necessary to make the spectator do further selecting,we want himlher to assume that such was our intention fromthe very start. We must conceal the fact that these furtherinstructions are being delivered after the fact.

Aiding us in all of this is an approach that might betermed "verbal overkill." It is a manner of instruction whichis designed to do several things. Most importantly, it willallow maximum flexibility should the "narrow process"phase be entered. In addition, it will convince the spectatorthat your instructions are precise and deliberate, when in fact

nothing could be further from the truth. Also, it serves totake the spectator off his/her guard-and thus in::rease yourcontrol over the spectator's actions.

Before explaining this "overkill" technique, let medigress for a moment. There are situations in which theobjects to be chosen from will be quite differeta, In such asituation, one or two of the objects may strongly stand oatfrom the others, due to size, color, etc. An outstar-ding itemshould not be used as the force object, for psychoklgically thespectator will avoid it via the same "too obvious" reasoningpreviously discussed.

For the purposes of this technical discussXm, let usassume that the five objects are U.S. coins ~ diffe:reutdenominations: a penny, nickel, dime, quarter, and fifty-«ntpiece. The fifty-cent piece is a "too obvious" item: i1 is muchlarger, and of significantly greater value than my of theother coins. The next least likely selection will be the penny,due to the color difference between it and the rest of thecoins, and its lesser value. The spectator doesn't k::.ow it, butthe choice is already limited to three possible coins-abenickel, the dime and the quarter. On his/her inizal choice,the spectator will almost certainly reach for OLe of thesethree coins.

Let's assume our choice for the force coin is~ quarter.We'll place the quarter in position D. The reason busing Dinstead ofB will beexplained shortly. Now, in oroer to movethe spectator toward the right end of the row ~-:cn heJshemakes the initial selection, we'll position the fifty.....cent pieceand the penny in the first two positions (A and 3). In thismanner, when the spectator approaches the row, there willbe a subconscious move away from the "extreme" coins onthe left.

Naturally, the positioning of the coins is don: casually.We don't want to give the game away by suggesting to thespectator that at the outset we are setting up the pcsitions ofthe coins toward a purpose. At the start of the test, you reachinto your pocket and dump out a handful of coins, Removethe five different coins, and casually lay them out in theorder from left to right: half-dollar. penny. dime; quarter,nickel. Your choice of positions should seem to bearbitrary.

The prediction is made. You can write "quarter" on ascrap of paper, or else hold a sixth coilr-anOlherquarter-in your fist. Now you are ready to begia the test,but before starting your instructions to the specator, youbegin your "verbal overkill."

What I do in this type of situation is along mese lines:"Before you is a row of coins. In a moment, fOEr of thesecoins will be eliminated, for I only need one com to matchmy prediction. As you look over the row, you will aotice thatthere are many psychological factors regarding Cese coinsthat might make you more attracted to one than the other.The penny is a different color. The dime is the snallest insize, while the half-dollar is the largest. The quarter is tails­side-up, as is the penny . The nickel is thicker thanmy of theother coins. The dime is in the center of the row; me nickelto one end, the fifiy-eent piece to the other. There are differ-

ent pictures on each of the coins which might appeal to youin one way or another. The light might be hitting the coinsin such a way as to make one of the coins shine brighter thanthe others from where you are sitting. All in all, there aredozens of psychological factors involved with these coins,but think you will agree that there are so many factors in­volved that they more or less cancel each other out, and thereis no way 1 could know which factors are going to affect youand which will not. Do you agree?"

Let's analyze this pitch. First of all, note that the pri­mary statement is not that a coin is about to be chosen;rather, it is that four of the coins will be eliminated. Notethat this wording sets you up for the "narrowing process,"should you need to enter that phase later. Also, note the useof the phrase, "1 ... need one coin." Again, this wording willbe important if and when the "narrowing" phase is entered.You are laying the verbal groundwork for a potential futureprocess of multiple interpretations.

Observe that in all of the preceding verbiage, the words"select," "choose," "pick out," etc. are never used; they areinstead implied, with the less-specific word "attract" Thecomplementary concept of "elimination" is the one actuallystated. Once again, you are setting up an ambience of multi­ple interpretations.

The opening monologue serves other purposes . It func­tions as a focusing device, establishing the idea that you arecontrolling the situation. Note that you have yet to tell thespectator exactly what he/she is going to do. The spectatorknows that a choice is about to be made, but he/she is wait­ing for your Iead. Psychologically, the spectator is feelingjust a bit confused, and will therefore look to your authorityas a guide out of that confusion. In other words, the spectatoris ripe.

Note also that this monologue makes the (blatantly false)statement that you have no psychological advantage in thissituation . It is a convincing argument, which puts the specta­tor off-guard, and also adds to his/her confusion at the sametime. if the subject has approached this test with the idea of"psyching out" the performer, that idea will now be dropped.You are, in this speech, talking more than you have to interms of the specific information conveyed. In addition toconfusing the spectator, you're setting up a "drone effect" Inother words, by talking too much you are causing the specta­tor to be drawn toward the form of your speech over itscontent. Thus, once again you are building a framework forfuture multiple interpretation. Hence, the term ''verbal over­kilL"

The spectator is already off-guard. We'll push further inthis direction by now stating, "I want you to relax." Theminute this is said, the subject of course goes in the oppositedirection: he/she feels very self-conscious, knowing thatsomething important is about to happen, and that he/she isthe one who will have to do it. Say, "Relax . Take a deepbreath. Now I want you to reach out with your left hand, andtouch one of the objects."

))

Why the left hand? You make this specification for threereasons. First of all, we know that the use of the left handwill cause most spectators to reach to the right, toward theforce position (D) . Secondly, the spectator is (we'll assumefor the purposes of this essay) right-handed. To make aright-handed person work with the left hand adds to thesense of confusion. Not being used to leading with the lefthand, a person will be more likely to flow with the basicpsychological factors and go straight for the quarter.

Lastly, your emphasis increases the sense that you arefollowing a deliberate plan which you've pre-thought. Thespecific direction thus gives you an "either/or" state. If thespectator picks up the force object, your specifically statedinstructions makes that statement seem final, and suggeststhat you did not plan to go further.

If, however, the subject does not pick up the force item,your specific instruction lends itself immediately for entryinto the "narrowing" phase, for you instantly continue yourinstructions as if this was what you had planned from thestart. Assume that the spectator has not taken the forceobject, but has instead opted for the nickel.

You immediately bark, "Pick it up!" This is deliveredwith a shade of impatience-as if you had told the subjectspecifically to pick up the coin in your initial instructions. Infact, you did not: you told hirnlher to touch a coin. But byimpatiently adding this extra instruction you throw the sub­ject further into the confused state, and make it seem as ifyou'd planned to continue all along.

You keep going by saying, "And now reach out withyour right hand, and pick up another coin, for as I told you,an elimination must be made."

Note that you have already introduced the term"eliminate" prior to this step, so that the use of the word hererings true. By using the left/right gambit, you give the psy­chological suggestion that you had planned from the start tohave two objects picked up, one in each hand. By using theword "elimination" here, you again set yourself up for a fur­ther "narrowing" phase, should that be necessary.

One of two situations now exists: either the spectator haspicked up the force item in the right hand, or not. Assumethe former . Here you would again assume a posture of delib­erate instruction : tell the spectator, "Weigh the two objectscarefully. We only need one of them, so hand one to me."

Note the wording of this last statement. You've used theambiguous term "weigh," and added the modifier"carefully." Again, the subject is made both confused andself-conscious. Recall that earlier, during the "overkill"monologue, you stated, "I only need one coin." This time,you've changed the phrase to "we only need one"-so thatthe spectator's next action will be open to two totally oppo-,site interpretations.

Adding to this flexibility is, of course, the word"elimination" which you've just reintroduced. Let's say thespectator pauses, then hands you the force coin. You smile,and say, "'Remember, I said I only needed one coin. This is

the one you've decided to give me. It is the quarter. Wouldyou now look at my prediction..."

Note that you have reverted to the original first personpronoun., ignoring the ambiguous "we" of a moment before.As the statement is made, you raise your hand with thequarter. All of your attention is directed to that coin . Youfocus your eyes on it. holding it up prominently. The specta­tor's attention also focuses on that coin. You forget about theother coin the spectator is holding... and so does thespectator.

If, on the other hand, you are given the other coin. youimmediately put it down, and point to the force coin whichthe spectator has retained. Focus all of your attention on thatcoin, as you exclaim, "You have made your elimination; thatis the coin you've elected to keep. Hold it up!" Again, bydeliberately shifting the focus of your own attention, youshift the attention of the others . By bringing up the word"elimination" again, you once more establish the continuityof action, implying a pre-planned sequence of actions.

Let's go back to the situation wherein the spectator haspicked up a coin in either hand, and neither one is the forcecoin. In this case, we go back to our gambit of impatience.You quickly say, "I told you we had to make our elimination.Put those two coins aside!" The slight trace of annoyance inyour voice again suggests to the spectator that you hadplanned for this to happen from the start.

There are three coins on the table. One of them is theforce coin . You are again going to tell the spectator to per­form a specific action. The force coin was in position D.Thus, it is now either at the right end of the row of three, orin the middle. In either case, it is to our advantage to tell thespectator to use his/her left hand once again.

We will vary the instructed action this time, to distin­guish it from the preceding events. "This is important. Iwant you to extend your left forefinger... and push one of thecoins forward." Note that by telling the spectator that thisaction is important, you have kept the action ambiguous , andagain added to his/her sense of being self-conscious.

A coin is pushed forward. If it is the force coin, you im­mediately pick it up and hold it high, exclaiming, "This coin.You separated this coin from the others." Again. you utilizethe focus of your own attention to control the attention of thespectators.

If the coin pushed forward is an indifferent one, youimmediately sweep that coin aside with the first two. Youexclaim, "Good! There are two coins left. Now this nextdecision is the most important of all. Pick the two coins up.Two coins, and two coins only. One is mine. Hand one tome." Again, the subtle impatience the used. Again, the two­way inferpretation of the situation is provided, for the state­ment "one is mine" is totally ambiguous until it is inter­preted a moment later.

Obviously, if he/she hands you the force coin. you pro­mote the idea that the coin just given to you is meant to bethe target coin. If the spectator chooses to keep the force

...

coin, you suggest that he/she has decided to keep only onecoin after eliminating the other four.

This, then, is the basic technique of Equivoque. Obvi­ously, this has been an overly-detailed description. Detailswhich loom large in this description are actually swift andsubtle when put into use. You will observe that in every stepof this hypothetical run-through we have constantly preparedourselves for the next step, should we have to take it. provid­ing an ongoing continuity as perceived by the spectators. Ifproperly delivered, this technique should always come off asbeing exact and deliberate, as ifyou had specifically plannedto carry it out in exactly this fashion-no more, no less.

I most commonly use Equivoque with coins for an im­promptu test. However, I should note that I usually do it withjust four coins, as I rarely have a filty-cent piece with me.Using four coins makes the test just that much easier. Insuch a case, the force coin is usually the nickel or the dime.The four are laid out ABC D, and the force coin is atposition C.

Having described this technique for you, I think it only rightthat I suggest some routines for stage and close-up using theprocess. Of course, as you piny with Equivoque you will findthat new ideas occur to you constantly. You can use thisverbal control concept with virtually anything.

Scraps of paper can be used. On each you write some­thing-s-numbers, words, colors, designs, etc., and thencrumple the scraps into small balls which you layout inarow. For instance, you might take a wristwatch and set itshands at a specific time-say 9:10. Now put the watch intothe spectator's pocket.

On five scraps of paper, you write a different time: 2:34,8:40,4:55, 11:02,9:12. You use Equivoque to force the 9:12slip (having written the time two minutes ahead to compen­sate for the time it takes for the selection). When the specta­tor opens the chosen slip, it is the only one which matchesthe time on the pocketed watch.

On stage, you display five identical packages. You 'ex­plain that you're going to playa game of "Psychic Let'sMake A Deal," This spectator chooses one package. Theother four are opened. They contain lumps of coal.; whilethe selected package has a box of candy which is given to thespectator as a gift.

You display a row of six miniature liquor bottles. Thespectator picks the one that matches your previously writtenprediction, and thus gets to take the bottle home. For certainaudiences you would change the product to different brandsof soda, or cheese, cigarettes, etc.

An Equivoque version of "Bank Night" would be simpleenough-or how about a reverse "Bank Night." You displaylive envelopes. The spectator chooses one. When they'reopened, the chosen envelope contains a blank piece of pa­per... the others all have bills.

Why not a version of "Seven Keys To Baldpate," wherethe spectator finds the only one of five keys that will open apadlock? The lock is ungimmicked. The keys are put intoenvelopes. The working key is-put into a nail-nicked enve­lope, and thus is easily kept track of so that you can force itwith Equivoque.

For close-up, takeout five business cards. On the backofone you've marked a bold X. Force this on the spectator, andshow that he/she located the only marked card through"psychic intuition." The spectator keeps the card-whichhelps advertise your business.

Use a set of locking flap slates. Show them blank, andask the audience to call out geometric shapes. As each shapeis called, you draw it onto a surface, until each panel has onedesign on it. The slates are given to a spectator to hold, andDOW you draw the four shapes onto slips of paper. These arecrumpled up, and another spectator chooses one. It is, say,the square. Upon opening up the slates, the first spectatorfinds that the square has been disfigured with chalklines-the spirits have responded to the spectator's choice.The preparation and handling are obvious to anyone with aknowledge of slate work.

Certainly there is no limit to the possibilities. ESP sym­bols, playing cards, colored balls, chess pieces, crayons,postage stamps, etc., etc. Once again, I remind you: whenEquivoque is handled badly, its nature is completely obviousand transparent to your audience. When properly presented,it is infallible.

Copyright 01976. 1996 by Philip T. Goldstein