Poll: At what point does a tarot-based deck cease to be a true tarot?

Thread originally posted on the Aeclectic Tarot Forum on 31 Oct 2004, and now archived in the Forum Library.

Rusty Neon	31 Oct 2004
Please reading the voting choices carefully. You CAN select more than one choice. Vote for each and any factor that you feel is an important factor in deciding whether the deck is not a 'true Tarot'.

HOLMES	31 Oct 2004
if even one card is added to the 22 major arcana if two or more cards are added to the major arcana if five or more cards are added to the major arcana if suits are eliminated altogether (so that each minor arcanum instead has a keyword and/or sequential number in the series 1 to 56 or 1 to 78) ** One of the above factors on its own would render the deck not to be a 'true Tarot'. and i would add if a suit is added or taken away as well

Ace	31 Oct 2004
I don't mind what you call each card. But to me, a tarot deck as 22 Major Arcana (isn't the Fool almost always numbered 0?) and 56 minor cards in 4 suits, Ace through 10 and four courts. I can't wait to hear other responses!

Alta	31 Oct 2004
Okay, I removed the option: ** One of the above factors on its own would render the deck not to be a 'true Tarot'. Trust that is what you wanted.

Rusty Neon	31 Oct 2004
Thanks, Marion!

Diana	31 Oct 2004
Quote: Originally posted by Marion Okay, I removed the option: ** One of the above factors on its own would render the deck not to be a 'true Tarot'. Trust that is what you wanted. I have therefore had my vote cancelled and I cannot vote again, because it says I have already voted in this poll. But it doesn't matter. It's not going to stop the sun from rising tomorrow morning. :D It just shows that voting can be a flawed business... as well as the results that they provide. ;) (I hope it's not a warning sign of something... a kind of a Premonition of "things" to come :eek: )

WolfSpirit	31 Oct 2004
OK now my head hurts from thinking, LOL. I basically voted: when extra cards (extra court, extra major) are added, when the minors are revisioned, courts become abstract nouns, the minors have no suits, or if several factors of the poll apply. I tried to think of my own decks, and which I consider tarot and which more as oracle.

jmd	31 Oct 2004
Is what determines a deck which 'deviates from some specimen' to be a Tarot deck a quantitative, or a qualitative consideration? If I asked 'at what point does a human being cease to be a human being?', perhaps the physicalist may indeed be able to answer in terms of part or parts addition or omission (extra fingers, eye loss, baldness, removed arm, etc.). For myself, however, the answer lies in the spiritual being which inhabits the human form - and of course we may have differing views about possible incarnation options, but for myself claim that a human does not incarnate within animal or botanical specimen. Similarly with Tarot. Of course, I may very well be asked how I am then going to determine whether a deck is or is not Tarot - and would then reply that my epistemological methodology would indeed be by looking at its form, acknowledgeing that as a consequence a possible error on my determinations may indeed be the result. An epistemological consideration is different to an ontological one.

Rusty Neon	31 Oct 2004
Diana ... You can ask the local or cross-board moderator of your choice to enter your voting choice(s) for you. As non-moderators don't have poll-editing rights, I asked a moderator to delete the voting option in question as I realized right after posting that that voting option was ambiguous/confusing. Poll-writing is quite a difficult art which I haven't mastered and probably will never master; but I try my best. If you wish to discuss the question further with me, please PM me. Thanks.

amyel	31 Oct 2004
Where's the option for "You're making my head hurt with so much thinking"???? :) I'm pretty basic. I think anything with more then a total of 78 cards is not a tarot. But I don't claim to be an expert in any of this....

OakDragon	31 Oct 2004
This is a tough question. I voted that it would take several of the above to make a deck not a true tarot, but beyond that (or for that matter, even elaborating on that) it gets difficult. For me, it has to be determined on a case by case basis. I know a tarot deck when I see one. This is a tarot deck and that is not. More importantly, beyond the fact that I am more comfortable with "tarot decks" than "oracle decks" (because I'm more familiar with the format), I don't care whether a deck is a tarot deck or an oracle deck or whether anyone makes one or the other or uses one or the other. What you do is up to you and what I do is up to me. Oh, one other thing. I don't distinguish significantly between RWS, Thoth, Marseilles, Minchiate, etc. decks. To me, they're all "true tarot" decks, if one insists that such a term be used. The term is rather redundant, in my opinion.

Tarot Sparrow	31 Oct 2004
I voted: - if even one card is added to the 22 major arcana - if the court cards aren't named king, queen, knight and knave/page/valet - if a fifth court card is added to the existing four court cards of each suit - if the four suits are revisioned (e.g., Painting, Science, Music, Poetry - as in the Blake Tarot) - if suits are eliminated altogether (so that each minor arcanum instead has a keyword and/or sequential number in the series 1 to 56 or 1 to 78) That's just what I think. A true tarot has 78 total cards, 22 major arcana, and 4 minor suits each with traditional court cards that actually are named like court cards. Otherwise the meanings change. I don't think naming suits things like hearts and water instead of cups changes anything, because they are all principally the same meaning (hearts, water, and cups all being connected--cups represent water and emotions). But changing suit names to abstracts changes the meaning altogether. Any extra cards are not traditional, simple as that. I don't think renaming the majors has any effect on the meaning unless they are also changed entirely to mean something different (meaning if you name the Tower something like Disaster it's still the same thing, but if you totally throw out the Tower and replace it with a different card with a different meaning that's not a true tarot card). Well that's my opinion :D Interesting poll. Although I'd like to add that just because this is what I think represents a true tarot, that doesn't mean that I wouldn't read with any non-true tarot deck or that I dislike them! In fact I quite like many of them, that is unless they are way too hard to understand.

Cerulean	31 Oct 2004
I voted that it would take several of the above to make a deck not a true tarot. I do count some prototype tarocchi and triumphi style decks as tarot...perhaps wrongly...as some might say Milanese and Ferrarra variants might be to their French Marseilles choices as the proto-human Homo Erectus to modern Homo Sapiens... ...Papessa from long time ago winks at me from her delicate veil... Cerulean

rabble	31 Oct 2004
If I'm using it, and I say it's Tarot, it's Tarot. It's what you see in the cards that counts. Not any rules they may or may not conform to :) The only rule - is the exception :) a motto of mine.

jmd	01 Nov 2004
rabble, does this mean that if you're drinking it, and you say it is water (or wine), it is water (or wine)? It is really this fine distinction in what I find a quite difficult question - determining whether a deck is or is not a Tarot deck, irrespective as to my desire for it to so be. How are one's discernment and one's faculties of discriminating between the actual and the apparent developed? and do these really apply to whether or not a deck is Tarot in any case?

TemperanceAngel	01 Nov 2004
Quote: Originally posted by amyel I'm pretty basic. I think anything with more then a total of 78 cards is not a tarot. But I don't claim to be an expert in any of this.... Yep, I think the same as that, I think... LOL, rabble, your post is funny. Is that like calling a spade, a spade?

rabble	01 Nov 2004
Quote: Originally posted by jmd rabble, does this mean that if you're drinking it, and you say it is water (or wine), it is water (or wine)? LOL.. no. What you are drining is able to be defined by it's chemical makeup. Water and wine are not the same. However. Tarot is a highly intuitive thing. It's results are really entirely based on what the reader sees in the cards. Therefore, if we see Tarot, it's Tarot! :) I know that many may argue differently, but that's the whole idea of this poll! :) My deck-in-progress has "several of the above" - so by definition, anyone who sets those particular rules deigns that my deck is not a tarot. If that's the case... what, then, is it? :) (That's why I have to vote the way I did! That plus I'm not particularly fond of having to comply with a certain set of rules to be considered "normal" - if that makes sense.)

Diana	01 Nov 2004
Quote: Originally posted by Dead Star I don't think renaming the majors has any effect on the meaning unless they are also changed entirely to mean something different (meaning if you name the Tower something like Disaster it's still the same thing, but if you totally throw out the Tower and replace it with a different card with a different meaning that's not a true tarot card). See... that's where I would shake my head and say: "Well that proves it's not a "true" Tarot". Because since when has the Tower implied disaster??? This is a rhetorical question..... but my answer to this rhetorical question for a newcomer to Tarot would be: since Waite and Smith painted a dark gloomy picture, replacing the bright confetti-celebration of enlightenment depicted on the traditional and original Tarot..... - which doesn't mean that enlightenment is always fun and games, but oh my, when it is... WHAT FUN!!!!! Did you know that the Maison-Dieu (Tower) can also represent in some relationship readings a perfectly harmonious and fulfilling sexual partnership? (Rusty Neon: I have contacted a moderator. I think they have not read my PM yet. I know that polling is a difficult thing - I also made mistakes in my "What is Your Favourite Meal poll - Food for Thought" poll in the Chat forum.) edited to add: A kind moderator has fixed this problem.

Major Tom	01 Nov 2004
Quote: Originally posted by rabble If I'm using it, and I say it's Tarot, it's Tarot. How can something be whatever anyone calls it? How can Tarot be anything anyone says? Quote: Originally posted by rabble It's what you see in the cards that counts. Not any rules they may or may not conform to :) In a thread on the Tarot Deck Creation board called Where do you start? I addressed this issue at length. Certainly the issue deserves to be discussed by everyone interested in Tarot. When you say it's what you see in the cards that counts, aren't you really talking about an oracle? Quote: Originally posted by rabble Tarot is a highly intuitive thing. It's results are really entirely based on what the reader sees in the cards. Therefore, if we see Tarot, it's Tarot! :) Are you certain the results of Tarot are entirely what the reader sees in the cards? :eek: You see, like my friend Jmd, I am convinced that there is a spiritual impluse inherent in Tarot that has little to do with Tarot's oracular power. So it doesn't follow that if you successfully use an oracle that the oracle is Tarot. I think this is an especially important consideration for anyone creating a Tarot deck. The most basic question: What is Tarot? How can you create a Tarot Deck if you don't know what Tarot is? You can't. Now I hope no one can accuse me of not encouraging diversity. You only need look at any of the Tarot Lovers' Calendars to know I embrace diversity. But I must say that many of the decks produced that their creator calls Tarot are actually oracle decks.

rabble	01 Nov 2004
Quote: Originally posted by Major Tom quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by rabble If I'm using it, and I say it's Tarot, it's Tarot. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- How can something be whatever anyone calls it? How can Tarot be anything anyone says? . I wouldn't say that Tarot can be *anything* anyone says, but regardless of the points listed in the poll, why should a deck that is called Tarot by it's creator, and seen as Tarot by it's reader be judged by someone else to be not Tarot? Quote: Originally posted by Major Tom quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by rabble It's what you see in the cards that counts. Not any rules they may or may not conform to -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In a thread on the Tarot Deck Creation board called Where do you start? I addressed this issue at length. Certainly the issue deserves to be discussed by everyone interested in Tarot. When you say it's what you see in the cards that counts, aren't you really talking about an oracle? No. Why does seeing something in the cards make the cards an oracle? Do you not see what your Tarot are showing you? Quote: Originally posted by Major Tom quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by rabble Tarot is a highly intuitive thing. It's results are really entirely based on what the reader sees in the cards. Therefore, if we see Tarot, it's Tarot! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Are you certain the results of Tarot are entirely what the reader sees in the cards? You see, like my friend Jmd, I am convinced that there is a spiritual impluse inherent in Tarot that has little to do with Tarot's oracular power. So it doesn't follow that if you successfully use an oracle that the oracle is Tarot. I sort of agree with that one :) I have the NatureSpeaks Tarot, but I don't think I would really classify it as a Tarot. I'm not sure I'd actually classify it as an oracle either, though, for that matter! I've never actually thought about what else I might call it! Quote: Originally posted by Major Tom I think this is an especially important consideration for anyone creating a Tarot deck. The most basic question: What is Tarot? How can you create a Tarot Deck if you don't know what Tarot is? You can't. Now I hope no one can accuse me of not encouraging diversity. You only need look at any of the Tarot Lovers' Calendars to know I embrace diversity. But I must say that many of the decks produced that their creator calls Tarot are actually oracle decks. And I agree with you on this one too. But you only need look at the fact that we have this poll, and this forum itself, to know that our ideas of what Tarot is are as diverse as we are! I wouldn't accuse you of discouraging diversity - I love your calendar, btw - saw it on Saturday at TofT! My favourite reading deck at the moment is the Osho Zen. Is that Tarot? It doesn't have 78 cards. The suits are renamed. The majors are renamed. The courts are renamed. They have keywords....

Kiama	01 Nov 2004
Now, I've seen quite a few decks. (Hell, I've owned quite a few decks!) And there are decks out there that have more than 78 cards that I would definitely class as Tarot. Why? Well, show me the Osho Zen Tarot, with that added Major Arcana, 'The Master'. So, it's no longer got 22 Major Arcana. But if you take that card out... Hey Presto! Tarot again. Show me the William Blake, and yes- it has renamed the suits. But they keep the essence of the suits nonetheless. Ask me to compare the RWS and the Marseilles Tower cards- and despite Smith having painted a 'gloomy picture' it doesn't take much imagination or intuition to see the positive aspects of this card. So, you've got an extra suit there, Deva Tarot? Here, let me take you out... Tarot once more. And what's this- there's a few cards in this deck that don't conform to the traditional interpretation of the cards. To hell with that. What on earth is the traditional interpretation of the cards anyway? What's so important and authoritative about some guy saying, 300 years ago, that 'this card means this...'? Now, I'm not saying that we can see anything we like in the cards. But what I am asking, and what I have been asking -alongside others- for many years now is... What on Earth is Tarot? Because until we can say 'this is the definition of Tarot', we cannot class decks as Tarot or non-Tarot. This is evidenced in this very thread, where we see many different techniques of defining Tarot coming into play, from the umber of cards a deck has, to whether the cards stick to certain imagery and meanings. Personally, I feel we're ignoring the bigger picture if we class Tarot and non-Tarot by whether the deck still has 78 cards and if the cards have the same titles. There's more to Tarot than that. Blessings, Kiama

Chronata	01 Nov 2004
This is a very fascinating subject. Very fascinating indeed. I enjoyed looking at all the answers. And I really had to think hard about this question. (Incidently, I voted for...Takes several of the above before I consider it to be not a true tarot) But voting on the precise qualifications was a lot harder for me to do...because it really does depend on the deck. Osho Zen's renaming everything doesn't bother me at all...it still feels enough like tarot for me to consider it living on the tarot side of my bookcase, and not on the oracle side. However, something like the Master Tarot...renaming AND renumbering the cards, made it much more oracle than true tarot. After some consideration...I found a way to answer this question without the poll questions... For me, any deck that I can still USE as a tarot...ie with all the differences involved I can still look at the card and see the Major archetype in it(regardless of what it looks like or what it's called)...or I can look at a minor, and see that it fits into the 4 suit/4court system I know and love... then that is a True Tarot.

M-Press	01 Nov 2004
i voted ** It would take several of the above factors to render the deck not to be a 'true Tarot'. I think that what makes tarot -Tarot is the ability to create within the same framework, but to do so as creatively as possible, and to let our culture, personal experiences & stories and imagination, to play a part. Our interpretation is a part of the game. Our ability to emphasize one thing, or decide another, is also a part of tarot. the key issue to my opinion, is "communication". can i make a tarot and communicate it as such to others? can one use with this tarot the knowledge they have from other tarots? can they add insights and combine the meanings? To me, this is Tarot-this synthesis. so, I take it case to case. Sometimes i connect with an idea, and this is tarot, sometimes I think "how dare they", and let someone else look at it... But, just for the record, in the Sakki-Sakki, I did add an extra card, The Artist, but it's not added to the Major arcana, as an equal card with the rest. I'm very much a structure person, and it was important for me to keep the original frame. BUT, I was inspired FROM the tarot, and thus this addition. To make this my deck, to be able to serve a certain point, to shed light to a corner I looked at differently. So again, to me, communication is the key...

rabble	01 Nov 2004
Quote: Originally posted by Chronata After some consideration...I found a way to answer this question without the poll questions... For me, any deck that I can still USE as a tarot...ie with all the differences involved I can still look at the card and see the Major archetype in it(regardless of what it looks like or what it's called)...or I can look at a minor, and see that it fits into the 4 suit/4court system I know and love... then that is a True Tarot. What a brilliant answer!! I love it, Chronata. Quote: Originally posted by M-Press I think that what makes tarot -Tarot is the ability to create within the same framework, but to do so as creatively as possible, and to let our culture, personal experiences & stories and imagination, to play a part. Our interpretation is a part of the game. Our ability to emphasize one thing, or decide another, is also a part of tarot. the key issue to my opinion, is "communication". can i make a tarot and communicate it as such to others? can one use with this tarot the knowledge they have from other tarots? can they add insights and combine the meanings? To me, this is Tarot-this synthesis. And I love this too! :)

gareth.	01 Nov 2004
Tarot is a language.It speaks on many levels but like all languages it has core meanings and basics.Retain those and you keep the ability to communicate.So the question is to know what these are.It may be subjective but then again the fascination is that the cards hold the key.

April	01 Nov 2004
None of these things are going to keep me from calling it a Tarot. Most of these seem unfairly strict. Okay, I have a motorcycle (just for the sake of argument). It doesn't have pedals or a banana seat but I can still call it a bike, right? My friend has a motorcycle but it's not a Harley Davidson. I'm not going to deny that it's a motorcycle. I could rattle off a thousand more examples, but then you'd all stop reading. My point is that you can have different versions of the same thing but they are still essentially the same. And how can we judge what is and is not a Tarot when none of us were around to see it invented? We can only guess what the intention was. Also, are some of you saying that a Minchiate is not a Tarot? Is a majors only deck not a tarot? Peace, April P.S. I try not to argue with dictionaries, but everyone else feel free. :) tar·ot n. a. Any of a set of usually 78 playing cards including 22 cards depicting vices, virtues, and elemental forces, used in fortunetelling. b. Any of these 22 pictoral cards used as trump in tarok.

Satori	01 Nov 2004
I started to click on my choices and then stopped. I don't think I will vote on the poll, but will make a comment, if you all don't mind. I think there are many wonderful responses on the thread, and many that make you go, "HMMM". Personally, what Chronata said is pretty close to what I think makes a tarot a tarot. But way in the back of my mind there is a place that says, "Hold on now." jmd began to touch on it with his "what makes a human being a human being" talk. That post made me think of Commander Data (Star Trek Next Generation) and his attempt to be seen as a sentient being rather than a machine. And there is the rub. Should we really judge what makes a tarot a tarot? Do any of us in any honest way really know what a tarot is? We can look at the early decks and see some kind of system but we really don't know what the system truly is or means, so we copy it, we emulate the symbol sets, we engage in passionate discourse about what is a true tarot, but no one here really knows... We think we know, but do we?

Major Tom	02 Nov 2004
Quote: Originally posted by Chronata For me, any deck that I can still USE as a tarot...ie with all the differences involved I can still look at the card and see the Major archetype in it(regardless of what it looks like or what it's called)...or I can look at a minor, and see that it fits into the 4 suit/4court system I know and love... then that is a True Tarot. We aren't that far apart here. When I asked the question of a tarot deck creator: Where do you start? This is a fair and honest answer. I had, in the earlier linked thread postulated that if you started with the RWS, the Thoth or the Marseilles as an accepted pattern, a tarot deck creator would be more likely to produce a tarot deck than say another deck creator who started with a theme like the Sacred Circle Tarot or the Fairy, Angel, Gyspie Tarot. Quote: Originally posted by elf And there is the rub. Should we really judge what makes a tarot a tarot? Do any of us in any honest way really know what a tarot is? We can look at the early decks and see some kind of system but we really don't know what the system truly is or means, so we copy it, we emulate the symbol sets, we engage in passionate discourse about what is a true tarot, but no one here really knows... We think we know, but do we? :laugh: How dare we even attempt to create our own version! :eek: How dare we know what we're talking about! :laugh: You're absolutely right that there's no proof for the essentially spiritual nature of tarot. :) But if there is no one here who can speak with any authority about a True Tarot, why then, not only is this community in serious difficulties but Tarot itself is in serious danger. :eek: Now I still haven't voted in the poll, but I have been watching the results. Seems to me there's a lot of folk who're pretty strict with their definitions. ;)

Satori	02 Nov 2004
Quote: Originally posted by Major Tom But if there is no one here who can speak with any authority about a True Tarot, why then, not only is this community in serious difficulties but Tarot itself is in serious danger. :eek: ROFLMAO Yup Major Tom. We are willingly kidding ourselves. I think the confusing part for me is that everyone is trying to make these distinctions and I wonder if it really matters. Whether runes, tarot or bones does it matter if the end result gets us to the place we were aiming for? As for the True Tarot, I'm not sure it is even in the cards, no matter the deck. I think True Tarot is in the eye, the soul, the Universe.

RedMaple	02 Nov 2004
Great discussion. I love the Buddha Tarot, which has an extra Major card, but it is a card that expands the Majors beyond the European cultural context, and I can easily accept it as another archetype. Chronata's criteria, that it's Tarot if we can use it as Tarot, is one I like. And I definitely can use the Buddha Tarot as Tarot -- plus it brings it to another level, and expands my understanding of Tarot, of the World, of Buddhism, of spiritual journeys, and I hope of myself and other people. I'd like my definitions to be fluid enough to invite lots of innovation, yet still have respect for those who've gone before, and I see that in most decks, even the decks I don't personally like. Of course, I'd love the deck that would be big enough to include everyone, in the way Dostoyevsky longed to create a literature that would include everyone....but I suspect I will have a lot of decks that will each have their specialties, many of them quite spiritually large, but none the "unified field" of decks. RedMaple

lunakasha	02 Nov 2004
Quote: Originally posted by Kiama What on Earth is Tarot? Because until we can say 'this is the definition of Tarot', we cannot class decks as Tarot or non-Tarot. This is evidenced in this very thread, where we see many different techniques of defining Tarot coming into play, from the umber of cards a deck has, to whether the cards stick to certain imagery and meanings. Personally, I feel we're ignoring the bigger picture if we class Tarot and non-Tarot by whether the deck still has 78 cards and if the cards have the same titles. There's more to Tarot than that. I voted that it would take several factors for a deck to be considered "non-tarot"....but then again, as Kiama pointed out so well in her post....it all depends on our being able to define tarot and have everyone in agreement of *what* tarot is. Since that is unlikely to happen...I guess I would say that it is up to us individually to decide whether or not a deck is *tarot*, and to choose the deck(s) that speak to us, whether they are tarot, oracle or *other* :) Luna

HOLMES	02 Nov 2004
i consider the osho zen tarot a tarot,, even with the extra master card.. i consider the soul tidings card a tarot, even though it is not conisidered a tarot, ( two extra major cards, and one extra card for the minor cards ) after talking to solandia about it two weeks ago, she said yes, but the makers themselves claims it is a oracle and not a tarot. and so i could find no point to disagree there .. so the soul tidings wasn't called a tarot eheh. yet the enochian tarot for me isnt' a tarot, (although based on the tarot system ) for there is too many major arcana cards. it is for that reason i didn't buy the healing earth tarot for it had an whole extra suit,, too many for my little mind. eheh. so i am more lenient then i want to admit. i heard someone mentioned the master tarot. yes i agree it isn't a tarot for it is all numbered 1 to 40 , and the court cards are not elementized. it is far out of the "standards" what is the standards ? for me anything that adheres to the basics of the toth, waite, and marsielles tarot. anything else that comes after is tarot based,, but not a tarot IT DOENST' MAKE IT BAD. anything that comes too far from the blues , is blues based but jazz, or blues based but country.. and in the end we have a myraid of styles (rock and roll was made from a mixture after all ) . i would debate any thing that calls itself a tarot and is too far out of the system .. and not out of anger but out of fun for it helps me to see other side of the sea.

moonmyst	03 Nov 2004
Quote: Originally posted by Kiama What's so important and authoritative about some guy saying, 300 years ago, that 'this card means this...'? Not a thing...and in view that most people believe tarot originated somewhere between 700 and 1000 years ago when life didn't vary much under the feudal system and people couldn't figure out what was causing their plagues, I very much doubt they had any more "wisdom" than in any other point in history. It's not exactly inconceivable that after 10,000 years of existence, humans were able to come up with archtypes of the human condition. I think it all comes down to the fact that people believe whatever they need to believe to make themselves feel better about whatever it is they need to feel better about. Some need to hairsplit and categorize to make sense of life and some feel insecure in a shaky world and need to believe they are being "watched over" by people or times gone by. Whatever. I would think after 1000 years, give or take a few, of such absolute, unvarying truth and wisdom :D, the world would be in a much better place.

April	03 Nov 2004
Quote: Originally posted by HOLMES anything that comes too far from the blues , is blues based but jazz, or blues based but country.. and in the end we have a myraid of styles (rock and roll was made from a mixture after all ) . I'm stealing your example and running away with it. :) Acid jazz and smooth jazz are very different musical styles, but they are both jazz. They both came from the same origin which was also jazz but still sounds different from either of these. Music like tarot, both being art, can't help to evolve or it will lose it's relevance. Evolution makes these things attractive to a larger group of people. Where do we draw the line and stop calling it jazz? When someone comes up with a better name that everyone accepts, when it becomes it's own thing. Rock & roll wasn't called rock & roll from the minute it was invented. It took some time for someone to say "Hey it's rock & roll". And then there was a little more time before everyone else accepted that. I don't see that happening in any of the examples of decks given in this thread. Until that happens the Osho Zen and many others are still a tarots. They just has a slightly different beat played with different instruments. One last thought. I don't speak Marseilles, but luckily others translated the Tarot into other languages that I do understand. Peace, April (president of metaphor mixing)

Diana	03 Nov 2004
Quote: Originally posted by April but luckily others translated the Tarot into other languages that I do understand. Of course, to translate something (whether it be a book, a poem or the Tarot), it is hoped that the translator has a good knowledge of the language that he/she is translating from. And interpretation is another cup of tea altogether.

spoonbender	03 Nov 2004
Quote: Originally posted by Marion Okay, I removed the option: ** One of the above factors on its own would render the deck not to be a 'true Tarot'. Well, I am one of the members here who would have used that option if it had not been deleted (why it has been deleted I personally don't understand). Yes, I think the Tarot de Marseille is Tarot in its most true form. This does not mean, of course, that I think other decks can't be tarot - that wasn't the question. Spoon

Rusty Neon	03 Nov 2004
Hi spoonbender, As I have learned from both constructing polls and answering polls, it's difficult to construct a poll. I am sure that I will never master the art of constructing polls but hopefully I'll make some improvements to my skill over time.

Shalott	06 Nov 2004
spoonbender wrote: Well, I am one of the members here who would have used that option if it had not been deleted (respectfully snipped) Yes, I think the Tarot de Marseille is Tarot in its most true form. This does not mean, of course, that I think other decks can't be tarot - that wasn't the question. Spoon I gotta agree...I'm one of those crazy ppl who are purists regarding just about anything I end up caring about. But then, some of the more modern decks I can't bring myself to call NOT tarot, but I also can't bring myself to call them all Tarot. Perhaps the capitalization: Marseille is Tarot...RWS, Old English (which is even closer to Marseille than RWS) are tarot...but then, Goddess (Waldherr) goes too far for me, relabeling some of the majors, beyond just Anglophying them. Now that I'm learning numerology, the Strength/Justice swap is starting to bother me (to the point of not wanting to use those decks myself, not gonna try to tell anyone else they shouldn't). So, I voted if the Small Cards (2 to 10 of each suit) have illustrations to illustrate divinatory meanings, taking the question "At what point..." bcuz this seems to be the first BIG difference between Marseille (purest form) and most others. Maybe I should've voted the Strength/Justice swap...ah well. Either one. I'm not gonna be all disenfranchised over this. :D

Astra	07 Nov 2004
If I were asked whether a Bridge deck would be the same if any of those changes were made I would rise up and shout NO! So, I suppose I should feel the same way about a Tarot deck, even though I've never played Tarocchi. But I have to say that as long as the cards are generally in the framework of past decks (I'd like to feel that whoever did them at least knew the Tarot to start with), I'm not inclined to worry about it, or to nit-pick the individual cards. Of course, I've played with some of the meanings in the WorldTree deck, so too much nitpicking would turn and bite me, but hey...

ihcoyc	07 Nov 2004
I put some of my thoughts about this subject in a thread in the Marseilles area called Intégrisme; I suppose the title I gave it may not be self explanatory. (I want my ampersand codes back! :( ) My strong preference is for unillustrated pips, but only because I tend to feel shoehorned by illustrated pips. I generally don't like a whole lot of explicit esotericism in a deck. It ought also to be suitable for playing card games with. These are perhaps eccentric preferences, born of political predilections as much as any sort of doctrine, but I generally like a certain "folkie" and homely quality in a deck. The cards should be at home on the tables of a café or the back room of a bar. If they look to me to have been made by people who are wont to start carrying on about Isis-Urania or Neo-Platonism, if they have heavy-handed Qabalistic or Rosicrucian symbolism --- this strikes me as getting away from what's "authentic" in the "heart of the cards," as Yugi-Oh! puts it. A Tarot deck is not scripture or a sacred object. It's a deck for a card game that includes a collection of intriguing traditional symbols.

The Poll: At what point does a tarot-based deck cease to be a true tarot? thread was originally posted on 31 Oct 2004 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.