RWS suitability for beginners - Why?

[RiccardoLS]

I have seen in a recent Thread that most people would suggest as a "first" deck or as a "beginner" deck the RWS.
I don't agree with that, but anyway I would like to know the reason why. :)

1: I know the importance, beauty, completeness, etc... of the RWS deck. I Know it's a great deck.
2: I realize it's the most important deck around.
3: I know as well there are a hundreads of books on the RWS or tailored on the RWS meanings.

What I would like to know is why the best deck, the most important deck, and the most written about deck should also be the best deck for a beginner.
I see the RWS as a must along the path of the Tarot person, but I would hardly think it to be the best first step.

Riccardo

[fairyhedgehog]

I started with a RWS clone (the Hanson Roberts) and it was the best deck for me :) I couldn't have connected with the RWS itself at first - it's too cerebral for me. But a RWS or its clones does have a lot of literature about it and for me at least scenes on the pips was an easy place to start.

What would be your ideal beginner's deck instead?

[Trogon]

Hi Riccardo,

To begin... I would be willing to bet that there will be quite a few people who disagree with your statement that the Rider-Waite deck is "the most important deck around." :D I'm guessing there are a lot of Tarot of Marseilles "fans" that would strongly disagree... ;)

However, that wasn't really the point of your posting. My feeling on this issue is that the RWS is so often recommended as a deck for beginners for 2 reasons. One of these is your #3; "... there are a hundreads of books on the RWS or tailored on the RWS meanings." This means there is a large base from which a person can start their journey in the Tarot. They will have many resources in many different formats from which they can learn the basic symbolisms and card meanings, if this is the method by which they chose to learn.

Of course the drawback to this is the confusion which we occasionally see here at Aeclectic when a person who is just beginning their journey into Tarot becomes confused by this avalanche of information. It can become difficult for the Tarot prospector to pan out and refine the nuggets of knowledge for which they are searching.

I think that another reason that the RWS is often recommended as a deck for the beginner is that it gives a very good introduction to Tarot symbolism. Many of the symbols seen in the cards are fairly easy to understand with a little bit of study. And, as one begins to understand some of the symbolism, new symbols are taken note of and understood. This allows the Tarot student to continue to learn and expand on the knowledge gained in their earlier endeavors. They can continue to find nuances and new depths as they continue their studies.

Then, as they expand and learn, they can start branching out into other decks and learning new symbolisms used in those decks. For instance... I always recommend the Röhrig Tarot... but I'm not sure I would recommend it as a deck for the beginner because of the myriad of differing symbolisms used by the artist and the depths which it explores.

[Silverlotus]

I've never really used a RWS deck. I have the Tiny Universal Waite, which I have used once. All my other decks have been clones. And in all honestly, I think I would suggest a clone to a beginner before I would suggest a RWS deck.

Why? Well, the pictures are not very attractive. This may sound silly, but it can be difficult to connect to a deck and stick with tarot if you don't like the pictures. Also, some of the symbolism is a bit to esoteric for a beginner. Will they even notice the yods falling from the Tower, and will they even care?

There are a lot of books available for the RWS deck, but if a beginner buys a good clone, the books can be easily tailored to the deck they are using. I also think it's a good idea to buy the book for your deck because it lets you know the artist was thinking when they designed the deck. I'm actually thinking about buying a Tarot deck as a gift for my mother, and it won't be a RWS deck. But it will be a clone that uses clear symbols and follows the RWS tradition, perhaps the Robin Wood or Hanson-Roberts.

[Minos]

There's about three different ways that people read tarot, and three general categories of deck that suit them best.

Most people seem to read more or less intuitively. RWS clones, art decks, etc. are all very good for this style of reading.

Some people use esoteric attributions, astrology, qabalah, etc. Thoth, BOTA, the various Golden Dawn decks tend to be best suited for this.

For others, the tarot as a tradition with a history is important, and they tend to favor Marseilles and other 'classic' decks.

Of course, everyone mixes and matches a bit of all these styles, but most people tend to favor one over the others in practice.

RWS bridges all three of these categories. The pips have scenes, and the deck is perfectly well suited to intuitive reading, but there's also plenty of occult symbolism to delve into. It isn't as close to the Marseilles tradition as it could be, but it is closer than most clones, art decks and occult decks.

So with RWS, you can keep your options open and explore all kinds of different angles.

Therefore if I have no other information about someone, I think that RWS is the safest recommendation.

However:

If I know something about the beginner in question, that might change.

If I know they devour weird books by the truckful and love to get into tangled paradoxes, I'd recommend Thoth.

If I know they're a history freak, I'd say Marseilles.

If I was reasonably certain they'd just throw the book away and roll with it, I'd say go with whatever grabs you.

But for all of them, I'd recommend RWS as at least a second choice.

There's also something to be said for having a tarot lingua franca, however arbitrary. For better or worse, RWS is that lingua franca in at least the English-speaking tarot world.

Just my $0.02

[RiccardoLS]

Originally posted by Trogon
I think that another reason that the RWS is often recommended as a deck for the beginner is that it gives a very good introduction to Tarot symbolism.

I'm beginning to realize that this may well be the reason I don't like the RWS as a first deck. Tarot symbolism is just one of the many facets of Tarot.
As the RWS - and all the literature behind it - gives so much weight to the "symbols", that so powerful imprinting would risk to just blind the newbie to the other different facets.

Oh well... :) I would never suggest the Thoth as a beginner deck either, even if I could be sure the person I'm suggesting it too, will love it. I think that person will evenually came to the Thoth... but actually starting there?

It seem to me like suggesting the RWS is like saying: "as you will eventually get to the RWS, it's better to save time and skip passages". I think that like most things, the journey is more important that the end. I would rather suggest a deck that gives questions rather than offering the answers. For instance I would probably suggest an RWS clone - one without too much presumption - so that a person may beneft of most of the literature on the RWS, but at the same time learning there are more decks, and more path to walk with. Having to adapt the generic RWS menaing to his slightly different deck will be his first exercise in finding his own way.
I would not suggest the Marseille, as well, because one should begin to work from images, and later - if that suits him - he will get to the systhesis of historical tarot readings.

Riccardo
(the usual confused self) :)

[Major Tom]

Originally posted by RiccardoLS
I think that like most things, the journey is more important than the end.

I knew I liked you Riccardo and now I know the reason. :)

Because I agree with you, I'd have to recommend that a beginner create their own deck. And for that journey, I'd give them each a Marseilles, an RWS and a Thoth - maybe even a copy of the Book of Tokens. ;)

[Diana]

Originally posted by RiccardoLS
I would not suggest the Marseille, as well, because one should begin to work from images, and later - if that suits him - he will get to the systhesis of historical tarot readings.


Why should one begin to work from images?

The reason I would highly recommend a Marseilles to a beginner, would be because it would precisely allow him to avoid images altogether to start with - images that will imprint in his/her mind forever and ever. To me, this is a great advantage when one starts to learn Tarot - no remote controlled/micro-wave kind of images that remove a lot of the thinking process.

I would say: start out with a Marseilles and then if you want to, go and explore all the other decks.

[Aoife]

Originally posted by Diana
The reason I would highly recommend a Marseilles to a beginner, would be because it would precisely allow him to avoid images altogether to start with - images that will imprint in his/her mind forever and ever.

Diana, you'll recall that a couple of weeks ago I decided to focus on learning the Marseilles system - but in recent days the 'image decks' have seduced me back.

I seem to veer from one extreme to the other - wanting hardly any symbolism to a deck crammed full of it!

I think the main problems for me with the Marseilles are
- the dearth of material I can research
- a problem with pinning down an understanding of the correlation with numbers - or a framework upon which to build.

I need a framework if I am to blot out the images and think for myself. I would love to concentrate on the Marseilles but I need an overview.

Do you have any suggestions for written material? I know you've said before that most is written in French - but do you know of any English translations?

Eve

[Mimers]

Wow, a lot of different opinions and all have valid points.

I started out with the RW deck and Mary Greer's book Tarot for Yourself. It was really quite by chance I picked these 2, not based on any recomendations. I went to B&N, saw they sold tarot cards, browsed through their selection, and picked the Universal Rider Waite. I had no idea it was the most popular deck. It just happened to be the one that appealed to me most. I almost bought the Hanson-Roberts, but opted for RW because it was less "fairytailish". I looked through the LWB, I just thought, "what the heck??? I don't want to memorize key words" and went and selected Tarot for Yourself. I chose this book because it was a workbook, and I wanted to become involved with the cards not just learn the meanings.

I tend to lean towards Riccardo's opinion. I really think that by learning with Mary Greer's book, you can use just about any deck. I think it is more important for the new Tarot reader to feel something with their deck rather than memorize meanings of established symbols. That can come later.

That doesn't change the fact that I prefer the RW next to any other deck except maybe my Osho Zen. Vision Quest is a close runner up too.

I think that now, 8 months later, if someone asked me for a recomendation, I would recomend highly Mary K Greer's book and for the person to browse sights like this one or Passages, Wicce, etc... until they saw a deck that appealed to them personally.

Mimers

[Maan]

I never though about this much but i might suggest a beginner to first start with an oracle deck. So they would learn the aspects of reading etc without getting to fixed on the images and the structure of tarot. When they will finally transfer to tarot they will know how to open them selfs and they will like Riccardo and Major Tom al ready stated see that the journey is the most importent part.

But thats just a thought and maybe i see this as a good way because it was my way ;)

[Macavity]

I wonder how many people might be slightly put off Tarot if their first experience is a RWS... with Waite's little book? :) OK, it's not really THAT bad, but having gone the route RWS, then Thoth (deck only, later with Book of Thoth) it was only dogged persistance that kept me hanging in there! I'd suggest any alternative route with e.g. an RWS clone BUT complete with a reasonable modern "book of the deck". I was amazed just how different the Tarot experience was with simple, well written and relevant documentation. Were it an RWS clone and not a Thoth-alike, I'd firmly recommend Barrett's AE Tarot+book. But thanks to this latter, I can now e.g. (mentally) blaze through the Thoth minors - A process that might've taken me years(?) with the "standard" document. :D I do realise the original and venerable documents are THE references, but imo often hardly beginner material!

Macavity

[Umbrae]

Originally posted by Maan
…but i might suggest a beginner to first start with an oracle deck. So they would learn the aspects of reading etc without getting to fixed on the images and the structure of tarot

To paraphrase Laurel who said something like, “Tarot is like divination with training wheels”. A Waite Colman Smith deck adds the helmet and body protection.

[Violet Gargoyle]

I guess my opinion is a bit skewed. I always believed a good beginner deck in terms of meditations and habits was using a regular deck of playing cards, or a pinnicle deck.....

[jmd]

I don't think I've ever articulated my view of the RWCS deck as consisely as I'm about to, and certainly do not mean to offend anyone.

In my opinion, the Marseilles contains the 'pattern' which determines a deck as Tarot. The greater the deviation, the more difficult its classification - irrespective of how wonderful the deck is.

In the 19th century, probably the most influential deck was the Eteilla - and though still regarded very highly by some, its 'rectifications' have been, as far as I'm concerned, abandoned (by most) for the better.

In the 20th century, that same title goes without a doubt to the Waite/Colman-Smith, but I also see its modifications as erroneous 'rectifications'.

It does seem that the Crowley/Harris 'Thoth' deck is beginning to get an incredible amount of attention, and wonder if this will form the 'basis' for the most influential deck in the 21st century... only time will tell :)

Going to the question of beginners, I personally think that a deck which is liked by the beginner is more likely to engender early studies. If a person wants scenic pips, then the RWCS is as good as any, and sufficient cross-references are easy to obtain. The problem, of course, is that (as has been mentioned in this forum a number of times) it will then be more difficult to see the ten of swords as ten swords - without its RWCS (limiting) imagery!

As mentioned above, I would personally prefer that a beginner have a number of decks, including a Marseilles, a Wirth, a RWCS, an Eteilla, an Egyptian Falconnier, a Crowley/Harris 'Thoth', and another of their choice. I would then mention that each is a modification of the Marseilles, and that the scenic pips, though giving the appearance of making it simpler to read, may in the long run limit - after all, providing an interpreter for a journey doesn't lead, of itself, to a person learning a new language.

The difficulty in obtaining good material for the Marseilles decks will, I suspect, continue - and that is both a salutary and unfortunate situation: salutary for it encourages the reliance more on the cards than someone else's interpretations, but unfortunate as it will continue to make the deck seemingly heavily veiled from the eyes of those who wish to see.

[Moongold]

Riccardo,

Your friend will get good suggestions from you and then w/he will probably get what the intuition directs :

I started with the Witches Tarot (Cannon Reid) and 78DW but soon switched to Rider Waite because simply couldn't get the Witches initially. Switched to Morgan Greer because I preferred the images. Learned a lot from that (and love the deck).

Then I consciously chose others for a fresh perspective - Mythic, Old English, Osho Zen, Old Path. Particularly chose Shining Tribe for personal work and Tarot of the Sephiroth because I want to understand more about Qabbalah.

After 6 months studying Tarot I've become more interested in the elements and numerology and this changes how one reads a little I reckon. I can now use the Old English with ease, although it doesn't have pictures on the pips to anywhere near the same degree as many of the others and soon I think that I might get a Marseilles deck. My first response to the Marseilles is that I'm not really drawn to the images.

For me it has been a progression. I'm one of those people who have needed to establish a foundation of knowledge to enhance the intuitive response. I could have told stories just from the pictures but I came to Tarot thinking the symbology WAS the key.

Everyone is different. Now I love to use various decks because they do speak differently at an intuitive level.

Moongold

[ihcoyc]

Originally posted by jmd
Going to the question of beginners, I personally think that a deck which is liked by the beginner is more likely to engender early studies. If a person wants scenic pips, then the RWCS is as good as any, and sufficient cross-references are easy to obtain. The problem, of course, is that (as has been mentioned in this forum a number of times) it will then be more difficult to see the ten of swords as ten swords - without its RWCS (limiting) imagery!Any more, I suspect I was lucky learning Tarot in a small town in which few decks were available. All were acquired in a local shopping mall, at a bookstore, or at a Spencer's Gifts.

I learned by teaching myself to relate the meanings given by Eden Gray to the Swiss 1JJ deck I was lucky enough to actually own. Eden Gray was the most easily had manual at the time, and the Swiss the easiest to find deck. I remembered wishing at the time that it would have been nice to have had the deck that illustrated the book, but I did not have that luxury, nor did I have access to a credit card such as would have enabled me to send away for the deck advertised in the back of the book.

Eden Gray struck me in any case as being more serious-minded than the other book I could have chosen, Kaplan's "Tarot Cards for Fun and Fortune Telling." Indeed, compared to that thing, she was an ocean of depth.

By the time I actually acquired a RWS deck, I really didn't need it, and found myself using the Swiss deck more and more in any case.

[firemaiden]

Originally posted by Umbrae
To paraphrase Laurel who said something like, “Tarot is like divination with training wheels”. A Waite Colman Smith deck adds the helmet and body protection.

Umbrae this is intriguing, it makes sense to me, but I am not sure why. Care to elaborate? How does it add a helmet and body protection? Is it because the cards are so completely thought out and planned, so (for tarot cards) explicit?

[Karenwhe]

I started out with regular playing cards, got introduced to the RSW that is how I learnt tarot and I don't know what a beginner should choose or not, but that is how it worked out for me, and it was just fine.

I think that a beginner would be attracted intuitively to what works best for them, unless someone has other influences on the persona. For example a family member or friend who already knows deck “x” and they learn from them.

I really don't think that there is a right deck or wrong deck, there is only what works best for the specific person.

I also think that the RSW is so widely advised for beginners because it just became at one point famous/standard/default, why it is irrelevant (many people use the RSW and have no clue of its history etc., etc) it just became standard and there are so many resources and illustrations on the web of this deck…….. also courses I have seen online are all based on the RSW.

I can see that now or lately there are other decks not only the RSW discussed/interpreted and introduced that I think this will change in a few years. I guess it goes like any other fashion.

Will the next fashion be the Thoth deck? I wonder?

[firemaiden]

Originally posted by Karenwhe
Will the next fashion be the Thoth deck? I wonder?

To be honest with you, I thought it already was. Here in Berlin, when I was first interested in tarot, it appeared to me, knowing nothing, and from browsing bookshops, that the Thoth was the standard.

[Karenwhe]

Where I come from RSW is still the standard and has been for longer than I can remember.

But I am mostly referring to the web.

Most of the articles I read on the web still have RSW illustrations (almost none have Thoth) some have new decks, but again like I said it is starting to change.

[Dark Inquisitor]

Originally posted by RiccardoLS
I have seen in a recent Thread that most people would suggest as a "first" deck or as a "beginner" deck the RWS.
I don't agree with that, but anyway I would like to know the reason why. :)
Riccardo


It is simple,-(deceptively simple) ,with fully illustrated minors. The illustrations are not muddied up with a lot of added on interpretations & changes that some of the modern artists like to layer on to suit themselves.

If you are going to learn a new language, most likely you would start with simple texts & representations.

Tarotphelia

[RiccardoLS]

Originally posted by firemaiden
To be honest with you, I thought it already was. Here in Berlin, when I was first interested in tarot, it appeared to me, knowing nothing, and from browsing bookshops, that the Thoth was the standard.

From what I know, it is said that Thoth is the Standard in Germany, while the Marseille is the standard in France. The RWS is the standard in English speaking countries, and that weights a lot, as most of web publishing and books are in English.

Ric

[Diana]

Originally posted by Tarotphelia
The illustrations are not muddied up with a lot of added on interpretations & changes that some of the modern artists like to layer on to suit themselves.


Of course they are muddied with interpretations (I mean the Rider-Waite-Smith deck). And this was done to suit themselves. What's the difference?

[Dark Inquisitor]

Originally posted by Diana
Of course they are muddied with interpretations (I mean the Rider-Waite-Smith deck). And this was done to suit themselves. What's the difference?


Clarity. The more modern artists you have adding on their own interpretations, some of them completley opposite to the generally accepted meanings, the harder it becomes for a beginner to understand anything & make progress. It is just a base to progress from if you want to.

Tarotphelia

[firemaiden]

Originally posted by RiccardoLS
From what I know, it is said that Thoth is the Standard in Germany, while the Marseille is the standard in France. Absolutely true! And the reasons that Thoth is standard in Germany may be fascinating to go into, a legacy of Crowley's time spent in Germany no doubt.

Originally posted by RiccardoLS
The RWS is the standard in English speaking countries, and that weighs a lot, as most of web publishing and books are in English.
Thank goodness there is Lo Scarabeo!

[Aerin]

Interesting thread.

For myself, I find that having a deck with images expands my intuition and allows my imagination to flow far more than a pips deck. Words can cage and mutilate thoughts, images are for me far more multi-dimensional and evocative. I agree that certain pictures can as well, and yet for myself if I'd started with a pips deck I would have had to rote learn key words with no context. As for images getting in the way, I find that for me the more images decks I get the more they help me to get my own image of the card. Now, this may differ from the interpretation of whoever wrote the first meaning attributed to the card, I don't care.

The RWS has pictures. For me, essential when I was a complete begnner. Also, lots of books use it. So again, for me, I wanted the deck to go with the books. Now, I also had a couple of other decks which I just loved, and comparing them with the RWS was useful. However, trying to learn with just a deck I loved and a book which referenced another deck - very hard. And Thoth? yep, tried that too, as a beginner Book of Thoth + Thoth = complete confusion and switching off.

Aerin

[Moongold]

Originally posted by Aerin
Interesting thread.

For myself, I find that having a deck with images expands my intuition and allows my imagination to flow far more than a pips deck...........

The RWS has pictures. For me, essential when I was a complete begnner. .



As a rank beginner I found it easier to learn with RWS and switched to that from the Witches Tarot (my first deck). As others have said here, most of the literature in English refers to RWS. I moved later to Morgan Greer for a different perspective but this deck is a close clone to RWS.

I needed illustrations as well to begin with and still prefer them although after eight months I can manage without them.

Now that I know more about the history of Tarot I frequently go back to RWS and with the recent anniversary of Pamela Colman Smith's birth, I see this deck in a completely new light.

I'd like to quote from another web site (unfortunately I've lost the reference):

Today the deck is published by US Games Systems, Inc. and still manages to sell like the proverbial hotcakes. I frequently recommend it to beginners (even if they're not that keen on the artwork initially) as it forms an excellent basis for tarot study. I like to think of it as a tarot 'textbook' and am of the opinion that it is an endless source of information, inspiration and interpretation. I believe that the artwork is very easy to 'connect' with and Stuart Kaplan states that it exemplifies "the mysticism, ritual, imagination, fantasy and deep emotions of the artist" (The Encyclopaedia Of Tarot Volume 3).

The history of the deck is tinged by a little sadness. It remains one of the few remaining pieces of Colman Smith's work (she died penniless and obscure in 1951) and I find the fact that it has become the 'standard' deck in the tarot world deeply ironic, given that Colman Smith had little success in her lifetime and that she was only ever paid a nominal fee for completing the artwork in the first instance. I join Stuart Kaplan in lamenting the fact that Colman Smith never lived to enjoy the fruits of her success.



Moongold

[Stacie Doll]

RWS deck never appealed to me. Vision Quest was the first deck I was able to and read with.

[Sakura Murasaki]

It was only after I had started using my first deck, the Aquarian Tarot, before I heard that the RWS deck was the one for beginners. But the Aquarian is another clone, and I'm glad that it was my first deck. I'm sure that I'll eventually buy the RWS and other classics to add to my current collection ;) I would recommend a "clone" I know as well as the RWS - it all depends on the person.

[Alan Ross]

For a complete beginner, I would recommend a deck fairly close to the RWS standard that appeals aesthetically to the beginner. I believe aesthetic appeal is important in aiding the process of connecting with a deck and maintaining motivation. As has already been mentioned, following the RWS standard assures that plenty of resources for learning are available, and illustrated pips definitely makes it easier for a beginner to assimilate card interpretations. The Hanson-Roberts Tarot, the Universal Waite Tarot, the original RWS Tarot, the Universal Tarot, the Sharman-Caselli Tarot, the Morgan Greer, the Aquarian, the Gilded, the Robin Wood, the New Palladini, and the Fenestra are some of the decks I'm familiar with that I would feel comfortable recommending to beginners. Since it comes with a wonderful book, I would even recommend the Druidcraft tarot for a beginner (preferably one with large hands) on a Wiccan/Pagan path. I would also recommend that the beginner get a deck as part of a deck/book kit (the Gilded is excellent), or buy a book with the deck that is specific to that particular deck.

Personally, I started with a Rider Waite deck and a copy of Eden Gray's "The Complete Guide to the Tarot" back in the '70's. If I had started with the Thoth deck and Crowley's Book of Thoth, I would now probably be collecting stamps or coins instead of Tarot decks. I'm still most comfortable reading with RWS-based decks, although I also read occasionally with Thoth-based decks (Rohrig, Cosmic Tribe, Norbert Losche's Cosmic).

[Little Hare]

erg. I got my first set of cards when i was 12 and didn't even look at a rider-waite deck till one month ago when i purchased the universal-waite deck and in all honesty that was only because of the stars on the back :D (i have an obsession with stars). Its definatly not a deck i would recommed for a beginner. I feel a beginner needs to look around and find a deck of cards that resonates within thier heart.

Just my two cents!

[Psychebleu]

I haven't read the whole thread, so I'm sure someone has already said, in one way or another what I'm about to say.

The only statement of the 3 in your original post that I agree is objectively true, is the one stating that there are the most books written using the RWS as the illustrative deck. And, that's the only reason I believe it's the best for beginners, as a place to start, as there are so many available aids/resources. IMO, that's all there is to it.
In fact, if you aren't of a Christian/Judeo bent or culture, the deck and books are probably of no use whatsoever. As I am, as are most of the people I read for, it was the best beginning deck for me, and still the most easily understood deck for my querents.

[rebecca-smiles]

I can only comment on the RWS deck as it is the only one i've used (only being tarot-ing for a few months). Apart from many of the reasons given here, there is one not quite mentioned as yet, i think:

Its not just that there are pictures and symbols, i've seen lots of decks that mimick what goes on in the waite; but its the threatrical style of it that i think makes it so easy to read. It doesn't take much learning or explaining to the sitter when you can see this dramatic posturing of a knight, or the two of pents, or the the sun. They are almost self explanetory, and when they are not they are easily understood and remembered with little reading. plus because the images are not beautiful aesthetically (i hated them when i first saw them) they are not distracting.


Well, the pictures are not very attractive. This may sound silly, but it can be difficult to connect to a deck and stick with tarot if you don't like the pictures. Also, some of the symbolism is a bit to esoteric for a beginner. Will they even notice the yods falling from the Tower, and will they even care?



I think the images are simple enough that, well maybe this is just showing my ignorance here - the overall image strikes the reader first; a cursory understanding of the card will do to start praticing, so that the beginer reader can develop their own understanding of the cards. Maybe in my ignorance i didn't notice the yods until i had already started reading for other people and giving interpretations of the Tower. But as i read for people an individual symbol would strike me and i would go and look it up. So i don't think that it has to be a difficult deck in that respect; just take it in slowly.