Sneak Peak by Bedros Akkelian

[Craig Browning]

Most of you familiar with my posts know that when it comes to "new" magic I emphasize the need to RESEARCH and give credit where it is due. In the case of Sneak Peak by Bedros Akkelian I found myself screaming at the screen in hope of seeing this young man deliver some INTEGRITY about his "new" peek which is light-years from being "new" anything, it's a method that technically traces back to Al Mann though the "bubble" side of things hasn't been (technically) published. . . regardless, it is well known of by most anyone that's done Acidus Novus for any period of time and Acidus Novus is basically what this ground breaking peek is. . . just a subtle twist which, as I've stated, has been known of and used as a variation to the more traditional way of executing AN for a very long time.

The second routine shown on this video is a bloody card trick. . . arguably NEITHER EFFECT is anything remotely related to proper Mentalism NOT THAT THEY COULDN'T BE but because the manner by which Bedros presents them; HE'S A MAGICIAN and it shows. . . more so, it shows that he doesn't understand both, billet work and the psychology of Mentalism itself. He seems a great guy and all, love his energy and what I think is actual sincerity on screen, but I deplore the fact that a.) He's not giving credit where it is due; and b.) He's pitching another freak'n card trick as a mental miracle. . . sorry, but that don't fly when it comes to those of us the work hard in delivering the miraculous vs. potentially explainable tricks. . . please let me explain.

The card routine with the blank deck still comes off as being a Card Trick even without the pips BECAUSE you're using a deck of blank playing card stock and too, you are handling it as you would a deck of cards; the entire approach is identical to most signed card routines I've seen over the past 45 years. While it's a cute bit of Mental Magic, it's NOT and will never be MENTALISM . . . you could get it a bit closer if you just used business card blanks, which would be far less suspicious psychologically, but you really need to run far, far away from that polished card worker mode of handling; there's not quicker way to ruin a good piece of Mentalism than looking slick like that.

The Disappointment for me, is that I never saw the "peek" as I remember it being done in the preview. What I saw in the preview was someone wrote down something on a business card while you look away and you, as the performer folded and crushed it up and still, with head turned, sat it on the table. . . you claimed to have made several peeks in that process including when it was laying on the table, "rolled" shut. . . I really didn't find ANYTHING on my download that came close to replicating that teaser, please (I mean it, I want THAT peek) tell me where it's at in that I cannot find it in what I received.

 

[Spidey_magic]

crediting

Hey Craig, I just posted a lengthy response to this and I have no idea where it went, so if this is the second response; you can just ignore it, sorry, im confused

I would like to address each of your concerns one at a time

1) The second effect: Connexion IS a mentalism effect in that when I perform it for people they accept it as a demonstration of mental ability and not sleight of hand. When i present this i add a lot of cold reads and I assumed that the seasoned mentalist would know what to do with this, and the amateur would present it as a simple mental magic piece. I find it unfortunate that you could not see past the simple presentation i gave just to show the method at work and build on it to create a powerful mental miracle. As for blank cards, please do not assume that because YOU know what double blank cards are and that certain sleights are used within card magic that laymen do the same. When i refer to those as index cards, laymen accept that and I am yet to see the day one of them says "Hey those look like blank playing cards and u just did a pass so this is not a mental trick, its for sure a card trick" Laymen dont think that way, as a performer you must know that. Also, what difference does it make whether it is mental magic or mentalism? Its a strong mental effect with some good ideas that i use all the time, is the label i gave it really that frustrating to you? (Also since you are a huge fan of crediting, you must know that Banachek does ALOT with double blank cards, is he a magician also?)

2) The crediting: in my thank yous on the sales page I thank Millard longman, not only that but at the end of my description of the effect i have written EXACTLY this

"For a more complete study of peeks and an in depth explanation of the peek that revolutionized billet work, please check out http://www.mevproshop.com/acidus-novus.html
I would also like to mention an incredible mentalist by the name of Nimrod Harel who ALSO has developed a GENIUS peek based on similar psychology, completely independently. His books, Shalosh and Shalosh 3 (which includes his amazing peek), are incredible!"

I dont see how i could POSSIBLY give more credit, Millard Longman who INVENTED Acidus Novus, saw my peak, loved it and recognized it as being different enough to call it my own, he also said that he has never seen it been used the way i do it, if you have any issues with that you may take it out with him but as far as I'm concerned I find linking people to his product and mentioning the only other closed hand peak on the market is crediting enough. I hope that you realize your accusations were a little harsh after noticing this paragraph

3) the peak itself in the trailer. All i say is this "i just performed the peak in front of you 4 times...5 times" and in the middle i look at the billet. None of that is a lie, I looked at the info 5 times while it was in my hand then put it down, then i said i saw it 4 times and corrected myself and said "5 times". Yes its slightly misleading but i was just going for the surprise effect, I wanted to confuse the viewer as to when it happened, and evidently it worked! Had i put it down and said i saw it 5 times, people would have backwards engineered it to figure it out alone. So I just wanted to throw in a little misdirection as to when the peak happened, but it isnt a lie, i DID see it 5 times in total. What I dont get is, after watching the trailer you didn't catch the peak and now that you know how it works your just bashing it. I'm sorry but I stand by it, it is enormously practical and I use it all the time.


What I dont get after all this is, what is your frustrating based on? Crediting and labelling? I mean at the end of the day these are two VERY useable, practical and strong principles and I use both a lot! I hope that despite you being unsatisfied with my labelling and crediting you still find a place for these in your repertoire as I use them constantly to great ends.

Thanks for your honesty
Spidey

 

[Spidey_magic]

PS: I have read a lot of your posts and you seem like a real cool guy, please understand that my frustration sprouts from the fact that you seem unhappy with your purchase and nothing else. I really hope my response cleared a few things up and that you will find use for the material

 

[Craig Browning]

Spidey

In my looking at and around the product I only found one mention of Millard as a side note in the ad. I don't recall anything other than that but if you say there is a link to the AN system I'll accept that, I just never noticed it.

I'm very defensive & protective when it comes to my friends and Millard has been a very special friend for nearly 20 years now. So when I see "his" material being used and I don't see mention of his name, I get a bit on edge. . . I ALWAYS ask Millard for permission even though he's told me I don't need to . . . he trusts me.

My other critique of you and what I see is that you're a Magician doing Mental Magic. . . I'm very touchy when I see this sort of thing because it hurts mentalism. One key example centers on how you over-state things around the peek and how "impossible" it would be to see anything. . . that in itself creates reason for challenge & doubt. Mentalists don't bend over backwards to prove something, we just do it. Magicians & Escape Artists will stand on their head to prove something is "legit" . . . especially when it's not.

My nit picking centers on how you treat a piece that COULD BE ok mental magic. . . handling any kind of "deck" (a stack of business cards, post cards, photos, etc. ) in the manner you show on the video is a tattle tale and again, psychologically, it makes the audience view you as being a cheat & manipulator. . . the see a magic trick not a psychic type demonstration.. . . Dunninger 101, the more "props" you use, the lower your perceived value & legitimacy.

While I admit to the fact that I loathe playing cards for numerous reasons (the biggest being that too many magic lovers get in a rut when it comes to working with paste-boards and thus, fail to apply themselves in other areas of the craft. It is a situation that's so bad that I've seen groups refuse to bring back certain lecturers unless they promise to cover card magic . . . they could care less about talks on creativity, theater, etc.), when it comes to Mentalism handling cards in a slick and smooth manner destroys the psychology and lessens the impact of what you do in the mind of the observer. . . and tossing in a few Barnum Statements as part of the routine is not what "Cold Reading" is about. . . but that's another issue.

Yes, I'm a stickler when it comes to things because I believe it is the obligation of we old farts, to help the younger generation when it comes to maximizing their thinking and optimizing their results. This is how magic grows and how each division or niche area within magic, unfolds. Unlike traditional magic Mentalism is presented as REAL, not a trick. It's difficult for magicians to understand this nuance at times, but once things "click" and they get it, amazing things start to happen for them.

Do understand, I enjoy you energy on the videos and my views weren't meant to be "personal" just a matter of defense of both, a friend and an aspect of the craft that I'm deeply vested in (I'd probably be just as "direct" if someone was showing a big illusion that stunk).

I'm not making excuses, but I have been snapping at things all week but not meaning to come across as harsh as I've been. Unfortunately I'm juggling lots of pain and vertigo and it's evidently put me on edge. So I do apologize on that side of things.

 

[Ferox]

Spidey

In my looking at and around the product I only found one mention of Millard as a side note in the ad. I don't recall anything other than that but if you say there is a link to the AN system I'll accept that, I just never noticed it.

I'm very defensive & protective when it comes to my friends and Millard has been a very special friend for nearly 20 years now. So when I see "his" material being used and I don't see mention of his name, I get a bit on edge. . . I ALWAYS ask Millard for permission even though he's told me I don't need to . . . he trusts me.

My other critique of you and what I see is that you're a Magician doing Mental Magic. . . I'm very touchy when I see this sort of thing because it hurts mentalism. One key example centers on how you over-state things around the peek and how "impossible" it would be to see anything. . . that in itself creates reason for challenge & doubt. Mentalists don't bend over backwards to prove something, we just do it. Magicians & Escape Artists will stand on their head to prove something is "legit" . . . especially when it's not.

My nit picking centers on how you treat a piece that COULD BE ok mental magic. . . handling any kind of "deck" (a stack of business cards, post cards, photos, etc. ) in the manner you show on the video is a tattle tale and again, psychologically, it makes the audience view you as being a cheat & manipulator. . . the see a magic trick not a psychic type demonstration.. . . Dunninger 101, the more "props" you use, the lower your perceived value & legitimacy.

While I admit to the fact that I loathe playing cards for numerous reasons (the biggest being that too many magic lovers get in a rut when it comes to working with paste-boards and thus, fail to apply themselves in other areas of the craft. It is a situation that's so bad that I've seen groups refuse to bring back certain lecturers unless they promise to cover card magic . . . they could care less about talks on creativity, theater, etc.), when it comes to Mentalism handling cards in a slick and smooth manner destroys the psychology and lessens the impact of what you do in the mind of the observer. . . and tossing in a few Barnum Statements as part of the routine is not what "Cold Reading" is about. . . but that's another issue.

Yes, I'm a stickler when it comes to things because I believe it is the obligation of we old farts, to help the younger generation when it comes to maximizing their thinking and optimizing their results. This is how magic grows and how each division or niche area within magic, unfolds. Unlike traditional magic Mentalism is presented as REAL, not a trick. It's difficult for magicians to understand this nuance at times, but once things "click" and they get it, amazing things start to happen for them.

Do understand, I enjoy you energy on the videos and my views weren't meant to be "personal" just a matter of defense of both, a friend and an aspect of the craft that I'm deeply vested in (I'd probably be just as "direct" if someone was showing a big illusion that stunk).

I'm not making excuses, but I have been snapping at things all week but not meaning to come across as harsh as I've been. Unfortunately I'm juggling lots of pain and vertigo and it's evidently put me on edge. So I do apologize on that side of things.

Craig, Is it a "lump of coal Christmas" this year? Your literary evisceration is a little surprising. You have been in the magic game for quite some time, and should know, actually, have even pointed out on multiple occasions that behaviour such as you presented is not only unprofessional, but even if accurate, not helpful at all. Sure, everyone is entitled to a rant and rave a bit, but I am very disappointed that you have done so without the proper research. For shame....

 

[Craig Browning]

Ferox. . . don't know who you are, don't care. Just don't poke the old bear.

I've not "attacked" Spidey, I stated that I was disappointed because I couldn't find credits given on something, I even took the bump that I may have just missed it. My critique of his performance was just that, my opinion as to what he could do to improve the reactions he gets when doing Mentalism. So I don't see where I've trespassed or been hypocritical to anything I've encouraged or discouraged over the years.