Writing Good Deck Reviews

Thread originally posted on the Aeclectic Tarot Forum on 24 Nov 2002, and now archived in the Forum Library.

Kiama	24 Nov 2002
I am looking to writing lots more deck reviews, but noticed that I tend to comment on the same things about a deck: The Majors, Minors, Courts, symbolism, artwork, backs, size, and who would benefit most from using the deck. So, I thought I'd ask... What would YOU want to know from a Tarot review? Kiama

Kaz	24 Nov 2002
i would like to know what your experience was when you used the deck, a more personal approach added to it. dont omit the things you mentioned yourself but add this to it. kaz

fairyhedgehog	24 Nov 2002
I always want to know everything I can't get from looking at the pictures online: 1) Size, texture, the way the cards feel in your hands, quality of cardstock, ease of shuffling ... 2) I'm also particularly interested in differences between the images online (using lights) as opposed to in real life (using pigments) eg intensity of colour etc. Some decks seem very like their online reproduction, others don't, and I like to know :) But I am also interested in the reviewer's personal response to the deck, as Kaz suggests. Plus all the stuff you usually put in :)

Silverlotus	24 Nov 2002
I'm not sure if you cover this under symbolism or not, but I like to know if there are any changes to the "traditional" RW numbering and elemental attributions. Sometimes a change in the numbering or a huge change in the naming of the Majors can really turn me off.

Lee	24 Nov 2002
I agree with Kaz, in fact nowadays when I write reviews I usually don't even bother listing the Court titles, names of suits, small differences in Major titles, exact card dimensions, etc. I find myself quite bored when I read lists of attributes in reviews. Like Kaz, when I read a review I want to know what the reviewer's experiences with and attitudes about the deck were. I want to read anecdotes, observations, anything which will tell me something about the reviewer's interactions with the deck. -- Lee

Small-tree	24 Nov 2002
Would like to read both negative and positive reviews about the deck. Most reviews mention only the wonderful things about the deck which is not exactly helpful........i've read a few reviews and basically most say the same thing.....1) its a great deck, 2) it has great illustrations 3) and has great symbolism..... would like to hear more abt the experiences pple have with using the deck.

Teal	24 Nov 2002
I'd like knowing whether it's got Strength and Justice (is that the two?) reversed, whether it's got good visual prompts going on, whether there are meanings written on the cards, how much the author departs from traditional meanings, and such things as that. It's very disappointing to see a deck online and think you can't live without it, only to find there are big obstacles to using it once you get it. I know this is a problem especially for beginners. For instance, in some of the theme decks, it's almost impossible to associate the art work with anything suggestive of the traditional meanings. I found the meanings at the bottom of the Haindl deck so distracting that I actually trimmed the border off all the cards last night . (Don't tar and feather me----I'm gonna get another intact deck to save for posterity.) The difference after the borders are all off was phenomenal! Not only can I read with the deck fantastically better, but the art work just came alive drastically. Also, this makes the deck smaller so I can shuffle much more easily, since I have small hands and the original deck was killing my hands. My only regret is that now it doesn't have nice smooth edges that feel great in shuffling, but the difference in making this a fabulous deck for my own use was worth the sacrifice in that respect. I wish they'd actually put out a Haindl deck without the borders. In case anyone is wondering, removing the borders with those distracting meanings on them hasn't detracted at all from being able to learn the deck's unique symbolism and the meanings Haindl intended. It makes it possible now to really make use of the added knowledge, to integrate it into my other knowledge of tarot I've gained so far. In fact, it makes it easier for me.

MystiqueMoonlight	24 Nov 2002
I'd like to see a review which states:- card size, card stock type, perhaps a brief comparison to RW or Thoth where relevant (which would include numberings of the majors, changes in court titles etc), if there is any information pertaining to that deck as opposed to a LWB, comments on the artwork (colours, technique etc), comparison to the creators other decks if indeed others were ever created.

Fuzzmello	24 Nov 2002
I'd really appreciate hearing about how hard or easy the deck is to handle and shuffle. I have a disability affecting my hands (my thumbs are just about useless when it comes to handling cards)and large, slick, stiff or thick cardstock decks get little use until I can loosen them up. Fuzz

raeanne	24 Nov 2002
Quote: Originally posted by Fuzzmello I'd really appreciate hearing about how hard or easy the deck is to handle and shuffle. I have a disability affecting my hands (my thumbs are just about useless when it comes to handling cards)and large, slick, stiff or thick cardstock decks get little use until I can loosen them up. Fuzz Fuzzmello, Good suggestion! I have small hands with an occasional bout of arthritis. If the cards are sticky, stiff or too large, it is really hard to get comfortable with the deck. If I like the deck well enough I will go ahead and put the time into making them flexible enough for me but if it is a so-so deck I probably wouldn't waste the time. I also like everyone else's suggestions as well. I like to know if there are pips or pictures on the minors, the names for the courts, the numbering of the majors for Strength and Justice, and whether there is I-ching, runes, astrology, or other major divination symbols on the cards. I'm sure there are other things I like to know but just can't think of right now. One thing that is VERY HELPFUL is pictures....lots of pictures.

HudsonGray	25 Nov 2002
Also, your gut reaction to the deck first when you go through it for the first time, then how it handles in a reading. And why you thought that way about it.

RiccardoLS	25 Nov 2002
I would like to be guided inside the deck. How could I explain... I would like to be able see the deck not with my eyes, but with yours, and to able to recognize any reason why that deck may be special. Riccardo

jmd	25 Nov 2002
What great responses - and it certainly highlights the weak points of my own (two) reviews. When I read a review, I like to get a sense as to where the person is coming from - their own preference or orientation - as this may indicate why they may make a comment (for example, someone who works GD-type ritual may make a comment which is suddenly 'explained' by the reader knowing this - or my own preference for the Marseilles may suddenly 'illuminate' a critical remark about, for example, the Fool being numbered!); I also like to know if there are significant deviations from a well known deck (here I would only include the Marseilles, the Waite/Colman-Smith and the Crowley/Harris), and also whether the deck in question seems to take after any of these in any particular way; Though their card size is important, I prefer to know whether they seem easy or difficult to shuffle, and the apparent quality of the stock ; Finally, I actually like to get a sense for the person's initial reaction to the deck.

Trogon	25 Nov 2002
Hi Kiama... I would like to add my votes for a brief explanation of what more "traditional" deck (if any) the reviewed deck might be based upon. Your personal impressions, what you like/dislike about the deck and why, are also, to me, important in a review. Also the useability or readability of the deck (again, in your opinion) and why you felt that way is something I would be interested in reading.

lupo138	25 Nov 2002
I would like to know the background of the style the designer of the specific deck used/was working within and if he/she did well with that. For in´stance if it was a "Witches Tarot" and you got the Queen of Wands without a cat - that wouldn´t be a recommendation ;)

Mystica	25 Nov 2002
I agree with what's been said, include all the info you usually do, and I do like to know about the quality/weight of the cardstock.

Kyrielle	25 Nov 2002
The thing that makes a review different from a summary is that a review contains the author's opinion. I too am more interested in reading someone's opinion about a deck, good or bad, than just a bunch of facts. Do include the facts -- they're important too, but if you really want to write a REVIEW, don't be neutral! -- Kyrielle

Talisman	01 Dec 2002
'Lo all, "Whilst a review, naturally, will be subject to some amount of the writer's viewpoint, it should also be mostly objective, telling the reader what is on the cards, if there is any symbolism, what numbering tradition is used, etc... That way, the reader can decide for themselves whether or not this deck would be good for them, without being hindred by somebody else's opinion." -- Kiama Okay, I begin by being terribly unfair. I tunneled into the archives and extracted the above quote from the dim and distant past. At the time, I disagreed with Kiama. I still disagree with the quote. (Read Kiama's reviews, here on Aeclectic. They are a joy. You won't be surprised to learn Kiama has an opinion or two.) I am a reader of reviews. And a good review is a thing unto itself. Sometimes the review, as literary history has shown us, has more lasting quality than the thing being reviewed. Give me opinions. Raw, red meat opinions. I wanna know where you are coming from. Tell me what'cha think, and I'll make up my own mind. If you don't like pastels, or excessive religious symbolism, or erotica, blast away with both barrels of your shotgun. If I disagree, I'll attempt to dodge the charge. But, spare me wishy-washy, fill-in-the-blanks objectivity. Then Lee, who actually thinks about things and has an opinion or two, comes along and says he doesn't want to write about Court titles, names of suites, card dimensions, etc. Well, these mundane things are important, and if you're going to review something, the reader has a right to know what you are reviewing. If you go to Tarot Passages, and read Lee's reviews, you'll discover that if a Tarot deck varies from the "standard" or "traditional," he'll let you know, regardless of what he says. ** If you can educate me, so I walk away after reading the review knowing something I didn't know before, wonderful. ** If you tell me a compelling story about your reactions to the Tarot deck, wonderful. ** If you can point to what might have been, and isn't, wonderful. ** And, if you can voice strong objections in such a powerful, intriguing way it forces me to go look up the deck, do my own research, and thus forces me to find my own opinions, terrific. Jeeze, Kiama, if you insist on "objectivity," I'll create a form for you to fill in the blanks, check off the categories, and you'll be able to review thousands of decks. What I want is the Kiama I've read, the Kiama who tells us stories. (I said at the start I wasn't playing fair.) So. What's a great review? Only a little piece of great, enduring literature. Well, that may be so far out of reach it is impossible to reach. So. A GREAT DECK REVIEW: **Something that is entertaining to read whether we ever see the deck or not.** (I wanted to respond to this on day one, but deliberately waited until it slipped below the surface so as not to clog up a great thread with a typical windy rant.) Talisman

Kiama	01 Dec 2002
Talisman: You make me laugh, and I was thinking about that thread when I posted the original post here... When I wrote that, I hadn't written very many reviews. Now you will be surprised to find a very opinionated review of the One World Tarot hopefully being sent to Solandia soon... Needless to say, I have an opinion too. But I do still remain by my original 'objectivity' point. Whilst it is nice to know about the persons individual reactions to a deck, it would also be nice if they added all sides of the possible story. Instead of saying 'Well, I hate this deck', they could say, 'Well, I hate this deck, but that's because I do not like nudity/barbie doll figures/difficult to read Courts: Others may find it useful.' And hey, remember: Our views and beliefs are always open to change. Take it as granted then, that the quote you quoted form me, which was around 6 months old, has changed. My life is never static, and thus neither are my views, opinions, and beliefs. Kiama

Maan	01 Dec 2002
Wheb i read a review i always look up other reviews by the same person to see the other decks they liked..if its any of my favo decks i know that the person has the same taste as i do and that means i'm in the marked for an other deck ;)

Demonesse	01 Dec 2002
I like to know both the technical, opinion-based details of a deck as well as how well it reads - technical being the size, card stock, quality, numbering, card names (if changes have been made), and so on. Opinion-based details would be the art, borders and backs. Most importantly, I really like reading about an individual reaction to a deck, something that draws me to both the text of the review as well as the deck itself, as well as any details/quirks unique to that deck alone; reviews for me should be interesting, rather than objective.

Violet Gargoyle	02 Dec 2002
Being sort of technically oriented, I do read the reviews before getting any tarot deck, whether they be a formal one on places like Aeclectic's review sections or Amazon's customer reviews, or informal ones like the discussions in the board. There will be the occasional decks that followed me home otherwise known the "shiny object" or the "ooooh, pretteeeeeee" syndrome, but I would say that most of the decks that I have got have been the result of the things said about it and finding it later, even those things that other people may find boring in reviews. I am interested in the specs. How big the cards are, the medium used, how traditional or non-traditional the deck is (I own many of both, but I still like to know) how much the cards "stretch it" when it comes to placing archtypes, what other decks do the cards remind you of. Kinda like buying a computer really, you want to know that it (the new deck) will be compatable with the other hardware (you) before forking over the cash. I like finding the pros and cons so I do agree that negative reviews, even that of the "Decks you dont want" threads that you see here are helpful before forking over the cash for something that wasnt what you expected. I like the reviews that sound honest and are thought out, more than a two sentence "liked it" or "hated it" declaration. Since I don't like reading one person's opinion alone, I like trying to find multiple reviews for the sake of balance.

Kiama	03 Dec 2002
Quote: Originally posted by Violet Gargoyle There will be the occasional decks that followed me home otherwise known the "shiny object" or the "ooooh, pretteeeeeee" syndrome, Violet Gargoyle: I like it, very much! I think most of us here on Aeclectic suffer from the 'ooooh, pretteeeee' syndrome! Kiama

Logiatrix	04 Dec 2002
...when it's TAROT! if it's about tarot, i'll read it. if it sucks, i'll still read it. i like opinions, and i especially enjoy the opinions on aeclectic... so, whatever it is, i want to--i HAVE to--read it! :)

Kiama	05 Dec 2002
Quote: Originally posted by metaz [bif it sucks, i'll still read it. [/b] *Phew* It's people like you Metaz, that make writing these things so much easier! :D:* Kiama

Logiatrix	09 Dec 2002
nothing sucks here!!! in fact, when i don't have anything specific to look up, i log on to aeclectic and STAY PUT! it's all here, especially if it's about tarot--and then some! it's thanks to people like you, kiama, even if it DOES come down to "let's see, eat or buy a tarot deck, eat or buy a tarot deck, hmmmmm..." :D

Logiatrix	09 Dec 2002
i really have nothing to add, i just wanted to get to my THREE-HUNDREDTH post! WOO-HOO!!! ;)

Jewel	09 Dec 2002
Kiama I am so glad you posted this. I have also wanted to get more involved in writting reviews as I love collecting decks (I think I suffer more from Tarot Gollumness "my ppprecssssssious" than the "oohhhhh pretteeeeee" syndrome *LOL*) and I like writting. Things I like to know and will try to include in my reviews: - 1st impression of reviewer - # of cards, if it follows or deviates from standard decks (i.e. RWS based, blah, blah) - any changes to Majors. Variations in court card names if they are different. - Elemental correspondences. - Quality of card stock - Main points of interest of a deck to the reviewer (good and bad)with pictures of various cards in the deck that you discuss as examples to illustrate your points. - Readability or other great uses for the deck (i.e. reading, meditation, pathworking, art, etc.). - Difficulty of use (i.e. recommended for tarot enthusiats of all levels, begginers, advanced, etc). - Who should really think twice about or avoid using the deck if you find it controversial. - If it comes with a text, and if it does then a few words about the book.

Demonesse	10 Dec 2002
Perhaps as examples in this thread you could cite your favourite reviews/reviewers, whether on aeclectic or other sites like tarotpassages. And may the fellowship of the Tarotgollums endure forever, my preciousssssesss!

The Writing Good Deck Reviews thread was originally posted on 24 Nov 2002 in the Talking Tarot board, and is now archived in the Forum Library. Read the active threads in Talking Tarot, or read more archived threads.