Holistic Tarot - Benebell Wen

foolMoon said:

I do not have the book, but by reading the thread, if I may add a couple of points.

1. All good RWS and Thoth clone books need a good amount of material discussing about the Golden Dawn and Qabala, as these decks are based on / created by GD system and their ex members. I would have thought with 800 pages tome, good amount of discussion on these area would have been welcome, whether it resonated or not with you, because after all, books get written for public readers who are interested in the subject, not for the authors.

Click to expand...

I disagree. I think that tarot is a huge field of interconnected topics, and like in every discipline, a writer has to decide where his focus, his interest and expertise are. It's better to add a good bibliography and write about the things you feel competent than to copy somebody else's insights about a topic you didn't study yourself.

What's wrong with leaving topics like alchemy, Golden Dawn history and kabbalah to other writers? She didn't promise an encyclopedia - which by the way are always written by more than one author.

IMO good books get written because authors feel an inner drive to write them, not because they feel that the market is calling for X or Y. If we're lucky, our wish to know meets with the author's wish to tell.

But I think it's unreasonable to define expectations for Bell's book. Before you buy a book, have a good look at its table of contents, maybe download (for free) a reading sample (Kindle reading app is free, too) or take a good look at it in a shop.

I have read too many rehashed tarot history articles to need one more. If this is not her field of interest, why should she write about it? It's much more professional to leave that field to those who have original and well researched things to say.

And how can you criticize a book you didn't even read?

Nemia said:

I disagree. I think that tarot is a huge field of interconnected topics, and like in every discipline, a writer has to decide where his focus, his interest and expertise are. It's better to add a good bibliography and write about the things you feel competent than to copy somebody else's insights about a topic you didn't study yourself.

What's wrong with leaving topics like alchemy, Golden Dawn history and kabbalah to other writers? She didn't promise an encyclopedia - which by the way are always written by more than one author.

IMO good books get written because authors feel an inner drive to write them, not because they feel that the market is calling for X or Y. If we're lucky, our wish to know meets with the author's wish to tell.

But I think it's unreasonable to define expectations for Bell's book. Before you buy a book, have a good look at its table of contents, maybe download (for free) a reading sample (Kindle reading app is free, too) or take a good look at it in a shop.

I have read too many rehashed tarot history articles to need one more. If this is not her field of interest, why should she write about it? It's much more professional to leave that field to those who have original and well researched things to say.

And how can you criticize a book you didn't even read?

Click to expand...

If you care to read my post without prejudice and misunderstanding, I made crystal clear that I have not read or bought the book, but am adding my 2 cents worth based on the threads and her post.

No prejudice and no misunderstanding at all. If you postulate expectations from a book you didn't read and then criticize it for not fulfilling these expectations, you may get criticism in return.

I really don't think, no matter whether you read Wen's book or not, that she HAS to discuss Golden Dawn at length if this is not her focus. She gives end notes.

I honestly prefer writers to stick to the things they feel competent about and give reading recommendations where necessary.

But of course your're perfectly in your right to expect certain things in a book about tarot.

Nemia said:

No prejudice and no misunderstanding at all. If you postulate expectations from a book you didn't read and then criticize it for not fulfilling these expectations, you may get criticism in return.

I really don't think, no matter whether you read Wen's book or not, that she HAS to discuss Golden Dawn at length if this is not her focus. She gives end notes.

I honestly prefer writers to stick to the things they feel competent about and give reading recommendations where necessary.

But of course your're perfectly in your right to expect certain things in a book about tarot.

Click to expand...

Sure thanks I might be a Tarot learner, but I thought I can have my opinions about the subject, and can freely exchange feelings, opinions or ideas with other fellow forum friends.

My 2 cents worth of opinion to benebell was as a forum friend replying to her long post, but never as my criticism to the book. Of course I cannot criticise the book, I have not read it or even have it.

Of course you can! Sorry if you thought I wanted to shut you up, I didn't. I just said my opinion, just like you did.

I disagreed with your words "All good RWS and Thoth clone books need..." IMO there are no hard and fast rules what ALL books need. That's all.

I really didn't mean that my opinion was in any way more valuable than yours.

Sorry I thought you were trying to shut me up LOL. I still think RWS and Thoth clone books would look rootless and fleshless without good material on GD and Qabala in them unless they are targeting absolute beginners, but this is my 1.5 cents. Don't take it serious, I am only a student of Tarot, who just passed beginner stage.

foolMoon said:

I still think RWS and Thoth clone books would look rootless and fleshless without good material on GD and Qabala in them

Click to expand...

The RWS deck was deliberately designed so it doesn't have to be read with the GD and Qabala in mind - although you can easily incorporate them if you want to. Waite wasn't totally convinced of the GD's Tarot-Qabalah correspondences and Pixie Smith hadn't yet reached a grade level that taught these.

For Thoth, it's more essential.

If one is to teach GD materials with these decks it only confuses the matter when the teachings are not what the GD actually taught - or do your own thing, but don't mix the two in ways that can be confusing to those who hope to learn the GD system. Benebell crossed the line a little too much for my taste, although it may not bother others.

Again, my book did not purport to instruct on Golden Dawn tenets and wasn’t saying for Cards A, B, and C, follow the Golden Dawn and for Cards D, E, and F don’t follow. Rather, the Golden Dawn is referenced because its methods have become such a part of popular tarot practice that their attributions have in effect become the majority view and what most people follow, consciously or not. Where I hold a minority view on attributions, I state so and then explain why I’ve deviated from majority view. What’s more, many 19th and 20th century texts associated with the Golden Dawn often disagree with each other, given the many historical splits and factions within the order, and so cases where I've found contradicting texts, I note the disagreement and make my own judgment call.

If you’re referring to the OOTK, I make clear what parts are taken from the texts of Mathers, Crowley, and Case, what are my interpretations of practices that the oft vaguely worded sources leave a gap and thus open for interpretation, and then show methods that I’ll personally use in lieu of the original operation instructed from the cited texts, methods that integrate my heritage and esoteric principles.

However, my intentions are not as important as how the book is received, and so if a reader feels lines have been crossed by talking about the Golden Dawn but not adhering to their attributions exclusively, then that’s worth talking about and for sure, a valid critique of what I’ve done with my work.

benebell said:

many 19th and 20th century texts associated with the Golden Dawn often disagree with each other, given the many historical splits and factions within the order

Click to expand...

I'm unaware of *all the disagreements* about the GD Tarot due to the splits and factions within the order - except for Crowley's differences (renaming some of the cards, switching the Emperor and Star, and numbering Strength/Justice like the Marseille). The "Book T" instructions are remarkably clear, although Mathers' examples of actual readings (which clarifies much) is not found in most modern copies of the text. We also have examples of readings from Annie Horniman and WB Yeats.

You are the expert, Teheuti, and the reigning queen of tarot, so what you have to say on the topic definitely outweighs what I have to offer. I defer to your insights and research.