The worst tarot books you have come across

Tarot Classic by Stuart Kaplan. I don't get it i love his encyclopeadias but couldn't stand the book. Not sure if it was supposed to come with a deck but it just didn't do anything for me.

Tarot made Easy

Tarot made easy I thought was more confusing than making things "easy" and I thought I was the only one that felt that way until I read this thread!
I also found Tarot for Beginners was a little bit single minded and there are very little comments on the Minor Arcana's which the majority I found that I disagreed with and thought it was "just me" until I found this forum.

I'm new to the board i'm alrana Eris I have been reading tarot since i was 15(a calling of sorts) the worst book and all may not agree "everyday tarot magic by dorothy morrison."she wants you to destroy your cards. hey if that's your thing all power to you.she wants me to copy my deck at kinkos mind you. and then tear them up, put magic marker to deface them, flush them down the toilet.(hey that is what she sugggests) I found this book very destructive to tarot cards, and if you spend all this money on a nice deck why would you destroy them. maybe I have my bug up my butt, but mutliate and destory cards, some may disagree but, don't read this book.
bright blessings, alrana eris

Why the heck would anyone shell out money for a tarot deck, just to copy them at Kinko's, and then destroy them? This confuses me.

MM ~ Why do celebrities do off-the-wall things? Controversy! It gets people talking, and then they have to buy, to try to see what the fuss was all about. (Everyone thinks Paris Hilton is a ditz, but she plays the media like Madonna in her heyday.) I haven't read the Dorothy Morrison book, but it sounds like she's making a feeble attempt at something similar. Think about it: You have a million and one Tarot books: "Ch. 1, History of the Tarot (often bogus.) Ch. 2: Choosing a deck (usually tells you to get a RWS clone because the author doesn't have a clue how to use TdM), Ch. 3 Interpretations (often bad ones), Ch. 4: Sample readings". And then you have the "flush your deck" book. Which one are we talking about? BB, Stella

Alrana ERIS said:

I'm new to the board i'm alrana Eris I have been reading tarot since i was 15(a calling of sorts) the worst book and all may not agree "everyday tarot magic by dorothy morrison."she wants you to destroy your cards. hey if that's your thing all power to you.she wants me to copy my deck at kinkos mind you. and then tear them up, put magic marker to deface them, flush them down the toilet.(hey that is what she sugggests) I found this book very destructive to tarot cards, and if you spend all this money on a nice deck why would you destroy them. maybe I have my bug up my butt, but mutliate and destory cards, some may disagree but, don't read this book.
bright blessings, alrana eris

Click to expand...

What an odd book! lol! I can see doing that to the Kinkos copies, but to the original deck?? That's weird. :-/

I can't make up my mind whether Dr Irene Gad's book Tarot and Individuation is one of the worst or one of the best books I've read. A lot of it is extensive quotes, particularly from Jung. I prefer to read Jung in his own books ... he builds a picture paragraph by paragraph to present his theories, so slabs out of context can appear gobbledegookish.

Also, I don't know whether it his her use of language (or me), but I had to often stop and re-read sentences to find wherther there was actually any sense in them. Sometimes yes, sometimes no.

Mind you, I am quite willing to admit that the book may be beyond my level of knowledge and understanding, though I have a good working knowledge of Jung, a reasonable knowledge of the alchemists, a reasonable knowledge of cabbala, and a simple (but probably sufficient) knowledge of astrology. Maybe I lack the capacity, as yet, to create the integrated whole that she is trying to present. Now that is a definite possibility.

I'm not saying that there isn't a lot in it that is of value, but it seems that, even when presenting what is arguably her unique view on a card or process, I have the feeling of a first year uni essay that is merely a string of quotes, strung together, to answer the set question and designed to hide the fact that the writer really doesn't grasp the issues to be explored. Gosh, I've done that myself LOL. Of course, it may be a case of ... why rewrite in my own words, when someone has already done a better job, combined with a fear of being labelled as a plagarist.

I'll re-read it in 12 months and see how I feel about it then.

Get back to you
mythos

Hey, mythos! The feel I got from Gad's Tarot and Individuation (first edition, years ago . . .) was that she was saying every card meant everything. For each card, there is a discussion about "the eternal feminine" or something. If each card means EVERYTHING, then it really it means nothing! But then I've learned alot since I read it closely, so maybe I need to do another reading, like you suggest for yourself.

I'm getting the same feeling from Paul Foster Case's An Introduction to the Study of Tarot. So far, about half way through, each major card is correlated to both the corresponding sephiroth (by number) AND path (by Hebrew letter) AND a letter in the Tetragrammaton AND its regular Golden Dawn astrological attribution AND (for some) various geometrical shapes suggested by the figures on the cards AND/OR the numbers assigned! Whew! Oh, and various characters on the cards are identified with various characters on OTHER cards!

I start thinking that when each card is connected with TWO OR THREE different numbers and letters, they might was well not have any . . .

But then complex numerology and gematria always make me a bit giddy . . .

rachelcat said:

Hey, mythos! The feel I got from Gad's Tarot and Individuation (first edition, years ago . . .) was that she was saying every card meant everything. For each card, there is a discussion about "the eternal feminine" or something. If each card means EVERYTHING, then it really it means nothing! But then I've learned alot since I read it closely, so maybe I need to do another reading, like you suggest for yourself.

I'm getting the same feeling from Paul Foster Case's An Introduction to the Study of Tarot. So far, about half way through, each major card is correlated to both the corresponding sephiroth (by number) AND path (by Hebrew letter) AND a letter in the Tetragrammaton AND its regular Golden Dawn astrological attribution AND (for some) various geometrical shapes suggested by the figures on the cards AND/OR the numbers assigned! Whew! Oh, and various characters on the cards are identified with various characters on OTHER cards!

I start thinking that when each card is connected with TWO OR THREE different numbers and letters, they might was well not have any . . .

But then complex numerology and gematria always make me a bit giddy . . .

Click to expand...

Yep ... why can't a tarot card just be a tarot card, and not be connected with anything and everything. Oh I understand the theory of correspondences okay, but it is only a theory, and like all theories, if you stretch them too far, they break apart. Think of biodiversity and some new age fluff. A butterfly flaps its wings in the Amazon and a tsunami hits Japan.... if you are into guilt (or some metaphysical belief systems) it goes like this:

I sigh in Melbourne because my mood is down, which makes a butterfly flap it's wings in the Amazon which causes a tsunami in Japan killing 10's of 1000's of people, and if I hadn't been thinking negative thoughts, and thus sighed, all those people wouldn't have died. It is my responsibilit ... my fault!!!!! Must do my positive affirmations now!

Now I like Ockham's Razor : Quotes from old philosophy dictionary: The principle of ontological economy, usually formulated as 'Entities are not multiplied beyond necessity'. In other words, why overcomplicate matters when there is a simple explanation that covers all the bases.

Of course, if you stretch Ockham and his old rusty razor too far you end up with simplistic reductionism, and logical positivism (yeech!) But ... how about a touch of common sense ...when is tarot tarot?, and not qabalah, gemantria, numerology, geometry, astrology, alchemy, correspondences with angels, birds, crystals, and while we are at it, lets add dog droppings. See, stretch it and it breaks up in to gobbledegook.

I just realised that I feel really grumpy about this issue. ..... mythos better climb down from her high horse before she falls off, breaks a leg and misses out on the tarot conference

I will read it again in a year or so, and Case's book as well... maybe my mood will have improved by then

Glad to see I'm not the only one who feels Gad's work leaves a lot to be desired.

mythos

I couldn't figure it out either, but the book was most disturbing, look on amazon.com you can see samples pages of the book. But I am still disgusted on how dorothy mrorrison. tells us to destroy cards, and they rated her book with 5 stars on amazon. go-figure
bright blessings Alrana Eris