Deck preference: Plug-n-play vs. Study Required

So in another thread, we were discussing the Alchemical going out of print and Baba wondered if there is any place for decks that actually require full study these days and made the point that the line between decks requiring study and decks that read "instantly isn't always clear.

What do you think? Is there a distinction or is it purely perception?

Which type of deck do you prefer? And what decks fall into these ends of the spectrum. What do you think creates the perception that a deck is more "difficult" vs. a deck that's immediately "accessible? How much is the deck and how much is packaging/marketing/word-of-mouth?

Do you think there is a market for decks that are more demanding and require study or should every deck be readable right out of the box and follow the most popular model (presumably Waite-Smith) of symbol and meaning? Is there room for symbolic innovation in Tarot or are we just in a cycle of reiteration?

What do YOU think?

(crossing my fingers that strong opinions will pop up on both sides. )

Scion

I chose the second option, study and explore etc....but this is not the reason I prefer these decks, I like a certain type of deck (Marseille and in general non-scenic minors) and this type of deck happens to be fairly hard to read straight out of the box.

Hi Scion!

I picked 4!

While this is clearly subjective - I have very definitive tastes with regard to art, color, feel and expression and this is it for me! I go by gut! A difficult deck for me is one without movement and expression - one that is static! Nothing for me to work with intuitively.

I have the duquette book and thoth and have not found the time to study it. I intend to but finding the time to put into it right now has proved a challenge for me! I haven't read with it just yet because i really want to read the book and study it properly - I know thereare a lot of references to subjects I have only a cursory knowledge of.

But really you need to know who I am - I like to dive into things and figure them out on the fly (never read directions) - I like the challenge and I enjoy pushing my limits..... I don't want the whole thing written out for me to digest besides I have my own opinions - I want to discover it intuitively and that goes for everything not just the tarot.... So I typically will just get a deck and dive into a reading with it.....if a card puzzles me I may go to the book to see what the author and artist intended or I may just study it for a while longer and figure it out....

Some decks use historical or mythical references and they are wonderful to explore and learn - but many of the companion books are rehashing meanings that I know for the cards without adding anything more.... I want to know why a certain picture was picked or why a card was expressed in a different manner and what is the meaning of the necklace in the hand or whatever - not the textbook meaning for this card....

The basic decks bore me to tears.... I like depth - I need the deck to speak to me. I have no idea if this makes sense....but I don't always make sense anyway


f

I voted for the last option because readability is so subjective.

One deck or another may appear to be "plug n play" for some, but for others they are very much "plug n pray"......and at times, this is true even for veteran readers. If it were not so, this forum wouldn't have to bother with study groups and reading exchanges........and there would be no debate about whether the act of withholding love is the domain of the King/Cups or the King/Swords, as is being discussed another thread at this moment.

I'm not certain that any deck can be classified as plug n play because every major category of Tarot design and esoteric thought; Marseille, RWS, Thoth, Etteilla and certainly Alchemical, requires a certain amount of independent/extra-curricular study in order to reap the full benefits that system has to offer.

I think the concept of "plug n play" is more appropriate in describing the manner in which the mainstream Taroist chooses to read a particular deck.........it is unfair, in my view, to apply that classification to any particular deck and equally as important, the system from which it is derived.

If a mainstream reader chooses to rely solely on a foundation of learning from nothing but LWB's then I can say without hesitation that this is "plug n play" and it is regrettable.

I tend to lean toward "I prefer a mix of ease and challenge..." because of my experience with my current favorite, the Witches Tarot. It has offered me a wonderful balance of ease and challenge. I was ready for the challenge going in, knowing that there was the qabala, a new numbering system, and a distinctly pagan slant to grasp; however, the ease I discovered when reading the deck staight from the box came as a surprise.

I don't agree with the latter half of that option..."I don't think they can be separated." My own experience has shown me that several decks do offer only one or the other characteristic. In fact, IMO, it is more likely to find that than to find the 'mix of ease and challenge' like I have with my current favorite.

I also "prefer great decks, period." I don't agree, though, that "...decks can't be categorized schematically." As stated above, all the decks I've met have fallen into one category or the other; it is rare when I find both.

I'm with Logiatrix. I picked option 3, but I disagree that they can't be separated. There has to be a reason for me to pick a deck up--I have to have some sort of handle into the theme, some sort of idea about how to go about confronting it. I like to be able to read with a deck for a while, learn where its secrets are, and then go about trying to unlock them. I don't bother with decks that don't appear to have any secrets to speak of. They can be separated, all right, but I'd rather they not be.

I'm working with the Thoth at the moment, but actually at this particular moment I'm working with the I Ching to try to gain some insight into what Crowley saw in the courts. On the dock are the Navigators Tarot of the Mystic SEA, the Ironwing, and the Kazanlar, all of which will require serious study.

So what I'm saying is that there has to be some degree of plug-and-play, to draw me in, but I'm not afraid of study once I get there.

On my side, I pretty much agree with Papageno. I think we are all different and what may seem easy for one may be difficult for another and such a poll may dismiss some decks because they are viewed as too easy or too hard when they are all worthwhile. We also change ourselves and what we might have liked in the past we might dislike now and with so many decks it allows people to grow and to change. In my case, and for many I am sure, if Waite and Smith would have not done their deck, with illustrated scenics as well, and if that one would have not gotten the succes it has gotten, I would not be here today discussing about tarot. I know what it is, since I live in a french culture, to be told that only the Tarot de Marseille is "THE" deck and I dislike this attitude dismissing everything else and those who can't read with unillustrated pips. I am happy that we have so much diversity.

I like both.

I like a challenge, and if it means I might have to delve a little more deeply - well, for me that is part of the reason I like discovering new decks. It would be boring to be able to pick up every single deck and "get" it right away. I have fun studying for pleasure. Especially if I connect with the deck, it makes it all the more satisfying when I have done some work getting the most out of it.

It's also great to pick up a new deck and be able to read with it right away.

I also think new decks requireing a bit more work to learn add to my readings with all my decks - of any style.

Edited to add - so far, Marseille decks were my greatest challenge to learn - and I found it very rewarding when I learned how to read with them. I truly do like all the different styles and traditions - especially if the art speaks to me.

This may sound weird, given what I've read so far, but for me the deck doesn't matter. I don't really read the cards. I've been studying the tarot now for half my life, 15 years and I can read with any deck. What the cards mean to me is all in my head. It's all about having a system that works for you.

Of course, it all stands on your studies. I'm primarily RWS in thinking but I do have a Thoth and that did require further study. I will never touch a Marseilles because I hate the artwork. But I think further study helps no matter which deck you use. What I learned from the Thoth I keep with me when I read with my RWS based decks, and vice versa.

And I'm not afraid to admit that I prefer decks with pretty pictures.

I don't mind study, if it's something that already interests me. I have the Alchemical, bought it long before it went out of print because the artwork appealed to me and I have some interest in the subject. Unfortunately I've not had time to really study the deck- to many other competing interests!

My current deck is the Llewellyn, and I'm planning on doing some study of that. I'm already familiar with the Mabinogion, but a re-read with the deck beside me sounds good.