Andrew Brown – The Crusade – A Mind Reader’s ACAAN

Let me begin by apologizing. Yes, that’s right. I have to apologize – To say I’m sorry, and to

confess an awful truth.

Since the release of The Crusade, I have been (no, dammit, I’m not going to use the word

“bombarded” as that is an epic falsehood) in receipt of a few (six – just six, that isn’t a lot – you’re

misrepresenting things here) emails suggesting that the wording of a portion of The Crusade was

somewhat confusing.

And before I share the general content of these messages (which were, nearly to the letter almost

identical – possibly suggestive of some conspiracy…the fix was in), I must point out that I am

writing this introduction to you whilst arguing my position with one of my brothers. That’s right.

All these needless asides are to wittily and with devilish charm bat away a number of his

intellectually stale arguments (ouch, leave off the keyboard…knock that off, you’re hurting me!)

You see, what happened was this. I gave him a copy of the book to edit. Despite being a younger

sibling, he is not entirely without use. However, annoyingly, when he looks over my work, he

often attempts to alter my voice (and NO, I do not sound like a dillhole…whatever that is

supposed to be). So a great many of his suggestions are brushed aside as they should be.

Prior to the release of The Crusade, he made an argument which I handily and, if I may say so,

rather wittily rebuffed as being overly pedantic.

It is a dark truth, that every dog has his day.

Today is his, and I must apologize.

You see, shortly after the release of The Crusade, I got this email:

Good morning Atlas,

I have a question about Crusade, which is probably me being a bit dense, so apologies if I’m missing

something.

On page 17 of the PDF, when describing the second dealing phase, you say:

“Once again, take the packet face down in your left hand and begin dealing the cards one-by-one onto the

table. This time, however, you will flip each card over as you deal them and will set them onto the table face

up (See Figure 1).

“Again, you have reversed the order of the deck.”

The thing is, as far as I can see, that procedure (as described and as pictured in Figure 1) doesn’t reverse the

order of the deck. It maintains it in order.

The same is true of the third dealing procedure (pictured in Figure 2). This maintains the deck order, but the

text states: “After you have done this, you will see that the cards on the table are once more reversed”

Don’t get me wrong, it works fine as written, but stating that the card order is reversed by those deals really

confused me as it conflicts with the procedure described.

This is just a heads-up. I love the effect, I think the method is stunning, but that part of the description is a

bit confused / confusing.

I hope you don’t think I’m being picky.

The above email outlines the crux of my annoying brother’s argument. I was mildly concerned

that someone else on planet Earth was capable of seeing things his way. Surely not! I quickly

supplied my side of the discussion and considered the matter closed:

Hi there,

Don’t feel bad at all – in fact, you made me laugh as I had a similar conversation with my brother, who

sometimes proofreads for me (it turned into a debate, as most things do between brothers). He said

essentially the same thing.

I contended that it was written correctly from the perspective of the orientation of the packet as it sat in the

hand. He pointed out that, were the backs of the cards to be face up (so that the faces were hidden), it was

technically incorrect.

He will be very pleased that he was correct and that it was confusing as written and I will probably have to

mumble my excuses at him. You have my apologies!

You’ve genuinely made my day here – and, I suspect, his too!

And I’m glad that you like the effect as well, it plays very nicely – I’d love to hear how your performances

go!

Best,

Atlas

And that should have been that. Except that I received five more emails just like it. My mistake

was in mentioning this occurrence to my brother, who emphatically stated that for every one

email I got, there were about fifty people thinking it.

His persistence in this claim got annoying quickly, but he clung to it with the tenacity of a martyr.

In the end, I’m compelled to shamefacedly admit that I could have been more clear in my

instructions… but to be fair, it is a point that should have been more clearly communicated by my

editing staff (I just got a bruise for that one – we all suffer for our art).

My apologies to all who were confused, you are each like a brother to me.

And now, to some alternative handlings from some very brainy people who each offer an unique

and interesting take on The Crusade – A Mind Reader’s ACAAN.