Help with some patter?

[RonPatrick]

Good day to you all!

I've recently begun scripting patter for the first trick in what I hope to be my first full card routine.
a little background about myself. I'm 20 years old and have been interested in magic for about ten years now. More seriously in the last four however, two of which have been devoted to merely working on the sleights needed to finish and get my ACR to a point in which I would be confident performing. I have come to the conclusion now, and after reading these forums in the past two days, that I am by no means ready to perform purely based on my lack of cohesive and entertaining premise through which these tricks should/would flow together. I have spent all my time practicing the sleights to the point that I can do the routine with my eyes closed, but unfortunately, I don't have a big loud "Penn" to distract my audience from burning my hands.

A little more about myself...
Considering I am seriously lacking in the confidence department, I know that if I were to try to perform while being ill prepared in terms of patter, then I would manage to bore the spectators as I mumble and stutter my way through the routine. And this would reflect poorly upon myself, and the magic community. Ultimately, I'm beginning to realize that I can use my magic to benefit myself, in terms of opening the door to what would appear to be my ever increasingly shrinking world. But at the same time, have something worthwhile to offer other people.

So here it goes..
After producing a deck of cards from my hat, I would like to proceed with Chicago surprise/opener?
I think this effect will go nicely with a bizarre premise from the the field of quantum theory(known as the observer effect) which suggests that, merely through the act of observation, the observer effects the observed reality. Which if you are familiar with the effect, I think will go nicely with the first phase. (The first card is then left in sight but out of mind.)

The second phase is to have second card selected, but instead of relating this phase of the trick to the "observer effect." I would suggest that the "observer effect" in terms of psychology/sociology is known as the "Hawthorne effect" Which is when a person changes their behavior based on the information that they are being studied/observed. Most notably behavior changes through our mannerisms as we try to change the momentary perception other people have about us.

Now let us assume that these playing cards are intelligently aware of their surroundings. Well,.. your selected card (the now 2nd selection) knows that it is being observed, and therefor, will change its behavior. But it will do so in such a way as to try and impress us...considering this is indeed a magic trick. And with that the final phase, where the first selection becomes the second.

So I suppose this is my question. Did any of the above make any sense? And is it by any means a good premise for a card trick? I know there are probably many other tricks that would fit here, but I just don't have a very large repertoire. Not only that, but do you think it is at all a good idea to use such a theory? I mean will most laypeople be bored by it, or just not understand?

all feedback is greatly appreciated!
Much obliged.

 

[WitchDocIsIn]

It make sense (ish). However, to be completely honest, I think it's too much for a card trick. You're trying to make it more than it is, but at the same time you're trying to make it less. You're trying to take a grand premise (that a card trick can demonstrate quantum physics and psychology/sociology) but you're also calling it a trick. As soon as you refer to the cards as intelligent, you're losing some of your audience's engagement.

Try being more oblique. Try not to refer to the props at all if you can help it.

This is my opinion, of course. In text this just seems kind of pretentious. It could play completely differently in person or on video, though and I acknowledge that.

 

[RonPatrick]

Thanks for the feedback.

I understand that it is indeed a grand premise for something as simple as a card trick. But I wouldnt go so far to say that I'm trying to make it bigger than it is, but rather trying to convey/demonstrate something that fascinates me through artistic expression. (which I hope doesnt come across as being pretentious.)

I do however understand what you mean in terms of it being called a trick, and that it being associated with mere trickery discredits the premise I'm trying to convey. I am also aware that I'm not going to find out if this works or not by posting on forums. So I will continue to revise it, and ultimately perform it and see how it plays out.

Thanks again for your advice.

 

[WitchDocIsIn]

Thanks for the feedback.

I understand that it is indeed a grand premise for something as simple as a card trick. But I wouldnt go so far to say that I'm trying to make it bigger than it is, but rather trying to convey/demonstrate something that fascinates me through artistic expression. (which I hope doesnt come across as being pretentious.)

I do however understand what you mean in terms of it being called a trick, and that it being associated with mere trickery discredits the premise I'm trying to convey. I am also aware that I'm not going to find out if this works or not by posting on forums. So I will continue to revise it, and ultimately perform it and see how it plays out.

Thanks again for your advice.

Well, the final test will always be how your desired audience responds. In the end, I don't matter because I will, most likely, never be your audience. However I would like to think I have a decent hand at figuring out at least a good starting point for a script.

The first thing I really suggest is to remove any reference to the cards themselves. I feel that it's a bit stretched for the second reveal (Which never actually made sense to me in C.O. anyway, it's very much a "look what I can do" phase) but maybe some rewording can make it seem more internally logical.

 

[RonPatrick]

As I go back and read what I've worked out, I would have to agree that the patter really doesnt suit the second reveal. I personally (obviously) understand what I was trying to get at. Though, by having a second selection, I have inadvertently disrupted the congruence of the effect and desired premise. So I thank you for pointing this out. And I'll remember to not reference the cards as well.

Thanks again, I really do appreciate the input.