What makes a tarot deck a tarot deck?

Thread originally posted on the Aeclectic Tarot Forum on 28 Mar 2002, and now archived in the Forum Library.

Talisman	28 Mar 2002
'Lo all, Just finished reading a fine review here on Aeclectic by Bonnie Cehovet of the book "Exploring the Tarot" by Carl Japikse. According to the review, Japikse would certainly simplify things for all you collectors. The only two decks he deems to be "true" tarot are the Rider deck and the Aquarian by David Palladini. I can already hear the "thunk, thunk's" as your beautiful decks hit the trash can. And I thought I was cranky and opinionated when it came to tarot decks. Seems printing presses are cranking 'em out at an astonishing rate. While I have to applaud the creativity involved, many, many of these decks I don't consider tarot at all. I remember, children, way back when gasolene hadn't been invented yet and we had to push our cars everywhere we went. Wasn't so much traffic congestion then. This was in the last century. So, when you went to a magic bookstore to select a deck, you faced a bewildering choice of five or six different decks! Okay, maybe that's hyperbole, but in memory it doesn't seem like much of an exaggeration. Still, in spite of the limited choice, there was joy and excitement in obaining that very first deck. Sigh. Guess one cannot convey the pleasures of a long soak in a hot tub by pouring a thimbleful of warm water over someone's finger. Even when many new decks fit the parameters of a tarot deck (78 cards, major/minor arcana, four suits, etc., etc.) I reject them as tarot 'cause of the "flavor of the month" feel. Sometimes seems archtypes are something invented yesterday, okay today, then relegated to the dustbin tomorrow for something new. Feeling cranky. Still, I'm lovin' Kiama's thread on "You know you're a collector . . ." In fact, there's just tons of good stuff to read on Aeclectic now. Exercising discipline, you know. Reading, and not posting. Pretend I've posted a thousand "Well said's . . . etc." And ArizonaGirl showed me how magic can work! Talisman

Lee	28 Mar 2002
Well said! Personally, I'm happiest with decks that show some recognizable version of the traditional archetypes. The Nigel Jackson is one of my favorites right now. -- Lee

Liliana	28 Mar 2002
To me they have to have the traditional number of cards or if theres an extra it has to be able to be removed from the deck without interupting the numbering. It probably should have the classic suits and courts (tho Princess is an acceptable substitute for Page), or maybe i wont go that far since i do consider World Spirit a Tarot deck.It should have some modem of similar names for Majors too I dont consider Osho Zen Tarot really, sorry) OfcourseIknow one person who says only Marsaielles decks are reallyTarot lol

Kiama	29 Mar 2002
I am pretty much with Lili: Aeck with less than 78 cards is not really arot. Something is missing. A deck with more can be verified, by not using those extra cards (Faery Wicca applies here) However, I do not think that just because a deck doesn't stick to the trad. archetypes it should be classed as non-Tarot. This is because Tarot is not a static, cold science to be studied... It is a growing and evolving art, which inevitably will be carried through to the present day. It is part of the learning curve of Tarot-ers, and the evolution of Tarot, for its cards to be renamed, to be assigned a extra meaning or two, to be drawn differently. This is different creator's views of each card, so it will always be different! Times change. People change. You can't expect a child of say, the 22nd century to completely comprehend some medieval figure, which has been dragged into that day and age kicking and screaming! Its not gonna work! The archetypes may look as though they have changed, but really they haven't, they have merely evolved to it in to our present day understanding. The Devil card for example, is seeing a major re-think. Many people nowadys do not see this card as representing what it did when the Tarot was first created, and indeed, they have no need to. Some archetypes are becoming different, and giving way to a modern understanding of them... The Devil may become Chains, Addiction, or the Horned God... It is also interesting to note that the RW and Aquarian are not the original Tarot decks, and even they changed much of what Tarot started out as to get where they were. It wasn't until Alliete (His pen-name was Etiella) that the Fool was numbered 0, and certainly wasn't until Golden Dawn day until the Fool became the journey-man of the Tarot. Originally, the Tarot cards of HPS and Wheel had no Egyptian references until the RW! There are so many other examples! I'd love to know what Mr Japiske would say to this! Renaming Majors, re-designing them, etc is just another attempt to understand Tarot. Each person understands the Universe differently: The image I see when I look at the Moon is not the same that you may see when you look at the same Moon. The whole Universe is subject to change, interpretation, and individual preferences, and the Tarot is not exempt. *Kiama's feeling better now!* Kiama

Emily	29 Mar 2002
I'm learning with the Rider Waite so, at the moment, a tarot deck for me has to have at least some of the symbolism of the Rider Waite - The Spiral for instance, is a sort of clone - but some of the cards are different but the essence of the R/W is there so I can read easily with it. I know many other tarot decks, like the Thoth, have their own meanings for each card but I wouldn't be able to work with these decks - Its took me long enough to get comfortable with R/W meanings lol , so I'm not about to start confusing myself with a whole new set of interpretations lol :)

Umbrae	29 Mar 2002
There are a lot of folks out there who can justify an opinion to death. Many of the write books. Others work in television. Kiama is absolutely correct. Tarot is evolving, studies are taking it out of the box it sat in for too many years. Personally, I am not a flavor of the month kinda guy. I bend towards the traditional (mainly because in my experience, I have found that it is what the sitters expect). Your writer is a writer, and knows little about Tarot (IMHO).

jmd	30 Mar 2002
(jauntily:)) Liliana, I wonder who you might be referring to when you say: 'Of course I know one person who says only Marseilles decks are really Tarot' As for myself... though I personally judge the accuracy of a deck by its closeness to the Marseilles, I do think that its variety of expression only gives richness to our world!

truthsayer	30 Mar 2002
this thread reminds me of a new branch of biblical study called,"process theology". the theory behind this is that god/dess is not static but is ever evolving and changing. god learns and grows as human beings grow and learn thru experience. fundamentalists argue that god spoke his mind about the right values and right way to think many millenia ago and hasn't changed his mind since. it appears to me we are breaking down into 2 different tarot camps here: the liberals and the fundamentalists. the liberals believe that tarot is ever evolving and changing. human beings are constantly reinventing ourselves so why can't the tarot? fundamentalists believe that tarot is basically static and follows a traditional set of tarot meanings/illustrations that started many years ago. i do agree that some decks called tarot aren't really tarot to me. 2 examples are the osho zen and the other is the shapeshifter. however, i really like some of the new tarot interpretations like the rohrig and matt myers art noveau. if the marseilles or the traditional rws were the bible, they would remind me of the king james version. i tend to like the NIV and other more liberal biblical interps. ;) even tho king james version(rws)has its own special appeal. please don't burn me at the metaphorical stake for the biblical references. just meant in fun and being a good devil's advocate. ;)

Talisman	30 Mar 2002
Oh, truthsayer, I was only reporting, and you plumb out flat nailed me to the wall. I thought it was amusing that someone would consider only two decks "real tarot." Sorry, I haven't seen the book, only read the review. I'm runnin' around with a sharp truthsayer spear through my side, and I'm howlin' at the moon when you say I'm a fundamentalist. And I really hate to continue your bibical intrepretations 'cause I'm sure people will misunderstand, but, I'm a KJV guy. Not sure what NIV is. But, if you have a feel for language, the KJV is the very best. Cain't fight, 'cause I don't pick on people who are tone deaf. Talisman

truthsayer	30 Mar 2002
Quote: Originally posted by Talisman Oh, truthsayer, I was only reporting, and you plumb out flat nailed me to the wall. I thought it was amusing that someone would consider only two decks "real tarot." Sorry, I haven't seen the book, only read the review. I'm runnin' around with a sharp truthsayer spear through my side, and I'm howlin' at the moon when you say I'm a fundamentalist. And I really hate to continue your bibical intrepretations 'cause I'm sure people will misunderstand, but, I'm a KJV guy. Not sure what NIV is. But, if you have a feel for language, the KJV is the very best. Cain't fight, 'cause I don't pick on people who are tone deaf. Talisman ROLMAO!!!!!!!! sorry, talisman, but everyone has their cross to bear! not only did i nail you to the wall but any chance the cross, too? didn't a roman soldier put a spear thru christ's side while he was on the cross? (pun intended and how timely a topic for Easter tomorrow!) NIV is the New International Version. easier to understand if you're tone deaf. ;) the language of the KJV is beautiful poetrythough. i know i'm pushing the envelope w/ all the christian metaphors and puns here. therefore, i shall shut up and behave for right now. i don't want to damage your quite honorable pagan reputation among your friends at aeclectic so please return to the previously scheduled werewolf howling at the moon in progress!

Talisman	30 Mar 2002
truthsayer, You see right through me! MeeWah sees right through everyone. Everytime. Mojo could see right through everyone. If he wanted to. I called upon the Delphi Oracle. You know: "Know Thyself." Said to me, "Do not take thyself too seriously." 'S'all I got. Talisman

Diana	31 Mar 2002
edited

Major Tom	02 Apr 2002
I'm afraid I'm a bit of a traditionalist... It isn't tarot to me if it has more or less than 78 cards or if the titles of the cards are changed too much or the names of the suits have changed without reason.... Having said that - I have to agree that tarot is also evolving. I guess to me - some of the things tarot has evolved into aren't tarot anymore. })

Talisman	02 Apr 2002
'Lo all, Well, you know, I use the World Spirit deck. In this deck, the courts have been renamed, Seer, Seeker, Sibyl and Sage, and are "not meant to be hierachical; rather they speak to different stages of development." The World has been renamed "The Universe." Some traditionally (RWS) male figures are female, example "The Fool." (Still, the deck has 78 cards, and follows traditional structure, titles, suites.) Not a deck review, just to let you know where I'm at when I say I whole heartedly agree with Major Tom who wrote: "Having said that - I have to agree that tarot is also evolving. I guess to me - some of the things tarot has evolved into aren't tarot anymore. " When a fish crawls out of the water, grows legs and fur, learns to make fire by friction or flint, and invents thumbscrews, Scotch whiskey, traffic congestion and tarot, it just ain't a fish no more. I don't care if in its embryonic form it still has gills and a tail." Talisman :THERM (just testing)

Zhritza	02 Apr 2002
I find myself somewhere between "liberal" and "fundie." I agree that there must be the 22 + 56 cards, and I feel that renaming any of the majors is sensible only if the spirit of the original arcanum is retained. Crowley's Lust replacement for Strength squeaks by in this reckoning, because we wrangle with our lusts, our baseness, and must to some extent "tame" them - or at least make them work for us, rather than vice versa. I am usually put off by new suits. This is the main reason I am talking myself out of getting the Dante. (I have to talk myself out of decks all the time, while buying other ones; if I bought them all I'd be sleeping under a newspaper somewhere.) A deck with invented suits, to me, is essentially an oracle deck, not a tarot.

The What makes a tarot deck a tarot deck? thread was originally posted on 28 Mar 2002 in the Tarot Decks board, and is now archived in the Forum Library. Read the active threads in Tarot Decks, or read more archived threads.