Wildwood?

Smiling

gregory said:
It's a fine deck - on its own. Forget the Greenwood thing. And forget the book that comes with it, as that is more about the Greenwood than about this. There are actual descriptions of Greenwood cards rather than Wildwood cards - it is REALLY tacky, and the poor thing was part of a very silly and destructive marketing campaign.

As a deck in its own right - it's nice, the artwork is good and it reads well. The backs are disappointing, though !

Just found this thread, and am new to the Wildwood deck, so curious here about what you say about the book being more about the Greenwood deck...would you be able to give an example of that?

gregory

Smiling said:
Just found this thread, and am new to the Wildwood deck, so curious here about what you say about the book being more about the Greenwood deck...would you be able to give an example of that?

There is, for instance, the description of the archer which says she is pointing her arrow at the sky (as the Greenwood card shows her) - and in the Wildwood deck she is aiming at the ground. That's the classic example, but there are lots more (there are threads...)

http://www.tarotforum.net/showthread.php?p=3758665

http://www.tarotforum.net/showthread.php?t=111244

It is very unfair to Worthington that his artwork was so very badly treated. There's nothing wrong with the deck as a deck; they just wanted to try and cash in on the Greenwood, and blew it.

Smiling

gregory said:
There is, for instance, the description of the archer which says she is pointing her arrow at the sky (as the Greenwood card shows her) - and in the Wildwood deck she is aiming at the ground. That's the classic example, but there are lots more (there are threads...)

http://www.tarotforum.net/showthread.php?p=3758665

http://www.tarotforum.net/showthread.php?t=111244

It is very unfair to Worthington that his artwork was so very badly treated. There's nothing wrong with the deck as a deck; they just wanted to try and cash in on the Greenwood, and blew it.

Ah, thanks so much for this info. The book not matching up to the deck? Nothing like adding a little more confusion to a deck that is already somewhat mysterious! I appreciate you posting the links, and I will take a look.

Do you have a preference for how to read the Wildwood, then? I'm reading them almost like an animal medicine/nature tarot deck, but I know there's more to them, since they reference the Wheel of the Year. I don't practice paganism, so I'm still exploring how to connect to some of the card symbolism. But I do love animals and nature, and I feel that love of nature reflected in the cards. They do intrigue me!

Smiling

And I'd be interested to hear how anyone else approaches reading this deck -thanks

nisaba

Smiling said:
Do you have a preference for how to read the Wildwood, then? I'm reading them almost like an animal medicine/nature tarot deck, but I know there's more to them, since they reference the Wheel of the Year. I don't practice paganism, so I'm still exploring how to connect to some of the card symbolism. But I do love animals and nature, and I feel that love of nature reflected in the cards. They do intrigue me!

I read them the way I read most decks: I scry into the images. I don't consciously translate the images in front of me into what I think they ought to be about based on their Tarot card names, I actually look at the images. Like every other deck, it responds best to that.

The rider is that like everyone who's been around for a while, I have a large and growing background of "tarot knowledge", and I'm sure that subconsciously flavours my readings. but if I wanted to read "traditional" meanings, I'd be looking at decks (and I have them) that were made in the fifteenth century. If I'm using a different deck, I respond to that different deck individually.

nisaba

Smiling said:
And I'd be interested to hear how anyone else approaches reading this deck -thanks

<grin> I think I assumed that if you hadn't taken it to a private message, you were interested in all replies.

Smiling

nisaba said:
I read them the way I read most decks: I scry into the images. I don't consciously translate the images in front of me into what I think they ought to be about based on their Tarot card names, I actually look at the images. Like every other deck, it responds best to that.

The rider is that like everyone who's been around for a while, I have a large and growing background of "tarot knowledge", and I'm sure that subconsciously flavours my readings. but if I wanted to read "traditional" meanings, I'd be looking at decks (and I have them) that were made in the fifteenth century. If I'm using a different deck, I respond to that different deck individually.

Thanks for sharing this, and I like what you say about scrying into the images-yes, that sounds right!

And makes sense to read each individual deck in a way that uniquely fits the deck. :thumbsup:

I only use this and the RWS for tarot, so still building my confidence, as I don't have experience reading different decks in general. What I'm still trying to sort out with the Wildwood is how sometimes the message I get for others in a card leans towards a "traditional" meaning, and sometimes (most times!) not, and my intuitive take seems to fit instead. But I guess it's part of the process of becoming a better reader by knowing my deck, and knowing when/how to follow my intuition.

Smiling

nisaba said:
<grin> I think I assumed that if you hadn't taken it to a private message, you were interested in all replies.

haha yes, true! :laugh:

danieljuk

Hi Smiling,
I bought this deck last year and I really approach it by intuition and looking at the images. Of all my decks I find the book pretty useless! (which is hilarious really because there is so much writing about each card). Some of the pages are the earlier deck as discussed before but also when I look at the images I really feel a disconnection between the writing and card art, even on the cards that do match! I mostly ignore what the author intended on this when I read from it.

This is my first deck in this sort of genre and it's an area I feel I have a connection with, plus it has British historical areas that I have visited myself which are cute

I didn't understand the Wheel of the Year very well which the book talks about a lot. I think as a beginner to the deck it's not vitally important but you can research and understand about it as you go, it's basically a very large spread in the book but also a pagan calendar of annual festivals and each card has a 'season' or event association to it for that purpose.

My suggestion on reading it, is to look at the cards and make your own interpretations first and then look it up in the book. I find I largely ignore what the author intended and go with my own take! However the historical meaning in the book is useful, explain about Avalon or Arthur or what this bird means etc. If you get stuck search google for more historical background or look up the symbols that way. There is also a study group for it on AT here. Sadly it looks like the study group never completed every card and it's not easy to find the study group links, so bookmark that link for the index of cards that are discussed. It has helped me in the past.

I think Nisaba is right, scrying or reading the cards intuitively really has given me excellent readings with it so far

I have found a little background or history to the card themes does help though, what was the basis of the legend in this card? sort of idea! Oh one final thing, try to ignore learnt tarot meanings and RWS meanings, this deck is so different I think it's very difficult (and confusing) to apply "generic RWS meanings" to it. Read the cards as they are, try not to compare them to the usual card equivalent. Enjoy getting to know them Smiling

Smiling

danieljuk said:
Hi Smiling,
I bought this deck last year and I really approach it by intuition and looking at the images. Of all my decks I find the book pretty useless! (which is hilarious really because there is so much writing about each card). Some of the pages are the earlier deck as discussed before but also when I look at the images I really feel a disconnection between the writing and card art, even on the cards that do match! I mostly ignore what the author intended on this when I read from it.

This is my first deck in this sort of genre and it's an area I feel I have a connection with, plus it has British historical areas that I have visited myself which are cute I didn't understand the Wheel of the Year very well which the book talks about a lot. I think as a beginner to the deck it's not vitally important but you can research and understand about it as you go, it's basically a very large spread in the book but also a pagan calendar of annual festivals and each card has a 'season' or event association to it for that purpose.

My suggestion on reading it, is to look at the cards and make your own interpretations first and then look it up in the book. I find I largely ignore what the author intended and go with my own take! However the historical meaning in the book is useful, explain about Avalon or Arthur or what this bird means etc. If you get stuck search google for more historical background or look up the symbols that way. There is also a study group for it on AT here. Sadly it looks like the study group never completed every card and it's not easy to find the study group links, so bookmark that link for the index of cards that are discussed. It has helped me in the past.

I think Nisaba is right, scrying or reading the cards intuitively really has given me excellent readings with it so far I have found a little background or history to the card themes does help though, what was the basis of the legend in this card? sort of idea! Oh one final thing, try to ignore learnt tarot meanings and RWS meanings, this deck is so different I think it's very difficult (and confusing) to apply "generic RWS meanings" to it. Read the cards as they are, try not to compare them to the usual card equivalent. Enjoy getting to know them Smiling

Hi Daniel,

Thanks for all of your helpful notes. I feel I'm getting a clearer picture about the shortcomings of the book, sheesh!

Confusing, right? :laugh:

But I do enjoy the deck because of all the mystery and beauty of nature that it holds.

The British references are something else interesting to research about this deck. I think I read somewhere in the book that there were American references as well? Anyway, to be continued...