Sidhe-Ra
Thank you! I am honoured 
Thoth Books?
December Fairy
Sidhe-Ra said:Thank you! I am honoured
It's only ummm how would you say it???Gorgeous!!! lol
catlin
Yes, go for the DuQuette book and later for Mr Thoth himself. That'll do.
Sandman
Thoth book.
I must say I am a bit surprised that no one mentioned Suzanne Wagner's Integral Tarot - Decoding the Essence.
http://www.aeclectic.net/tarot/books/integral/
For someone just starting to use the Thoth deck, the concise information put forth in her book (or audio version) does what it says in the title. Having read the afore mentioned texts and owning them as well, I still like the clarity and easy reading format of Wagner's book.
Sandman
I must say I am a bit surprised that no one mentioned Suzanne Wagner's Integral Tarot - Decoding the Essence.
http://www.aeclectic.net/tarot/books/integral/
For someone just starting to use the Thoth deck, the concise information put forth in her book (or audio version) does what it says in the title. Having read the afore mentioned texts and owning them as well, I still like the clarity and easy reading format of Wagner's book.
Sandman
Scion
Hey Sandman,
I didn't list Integral Tarot for a couple reasons, and I would urgently, strenuously steer any Thoth beginner away from it as an introduction. Clear perhaps, Thoth no.
I won't comment on Suzanne Wagner's VERY dodgy speculative Tarot/Templar/Cathar history of the Dan Brown ilk. But I will point out that she is apparently aware of the existence of an "Ancient Egyptian Book of Angels" prefiguring the Tarot, which the infamous Knights managed to locate in Jerusalem. What!?! It's fine to speculate/fantasize, but in an introductory book it's unacceptable. At least present the accepted history. And please get the geography right... Templars in Egypt?? That's the opener and it's downhill from there.
Like Arrien and other fluffy New Agers, Wagner treats the images as if they dropped from the sky and have nothing to do with Harris, Crowley or Thelema. She catalogs the symbols, but in a framework divorced from context. Which is like decoding the symbolism of Notre Dames using the blueprints for a McDonald's because they're both buildings with windows that many people visit. The simplest proof of this is the weird sidestepping of all of Harris' Thelemic symbols and the fact that the book is based on the Thoth but "useful for any deck"...
Also like Arrien, Wagner favors the (as Rachel Pollack puts it) fluffy, pastel psychologizing of Tarot that became more and more common in the 80s and 90s. And for someone wanting something in that vein I'd point them to Arrien first. At least Tarot Handbook doesn't graft another mythology to the already complicated matrix of symbols in the Thoth. Mnemonics are useful, but this is Crowley's deck; the idea of offering a Christian parable to describe the "feel" of each Thoth Major is an idea upon which it's simply too bizarre to dwell. She just ignores the omnipresent elements of the deck that don't support her perspective. Which is frankly more McDonald's than Notres Dames.
Wagner's Templar/Cathar/Egyptian-Angel fantasia may support her strange Angelic/Christian take on the Thoth, but it is intellectually dishonest. Each Major is an Angel? Okay... but she's done zero research on Angelic lore, which ironically is a topic Crowley covered intelligently and at length. But not this breed of Angel; Wagner seems to see Angel as a Synonym for "active mood" We get Angels of Communication, Sacrifice, or Sexual Energy etc., so apparently Angel is a fancy name for Keyword. While this Angelic breakdown may be appealing to some, it has little or nothing to do with the deck's creators or symbolic structure. How does it add to understanding of the deck? I could write an intro text to teach the RWS to beginners using Inuit mythology or Tupperware sales brochures, but why? What purpose would it serve that wouldn't be misguided or misleading?
The weird thing is, this innocuous little book is a perfectly charming, New Agey guide for reading almost any Golden Dawn based deck. Her presentation is clear and accessible, if adamantly fluffly. Fair enough. But for the Thoth? Integral Tarot wouldn't seem so annoying if it didn't use a deck that already has a rich, complicated, carefully woven symbolic structure and then ignore it completely. The mind boggles. Perhaps after swinging by Egypt the Templars timetravelled to Utah and told Suzanne that Master Therion wouldn't mind if she hijacked his deck to invoke the Angel of Mystical Opportunism.
Blah blah. I realize this may seem strident, but I take book recommendations seriously. I just don't like to see mushy books like this supported because doing so misleads beginners, furthers shoddy scholarship, and whittles away at the public perception of "Occult Study," such as it is. Obviously, only my own opinion, but not blindly.
Scion
I didn't list Integral Tarot for a couple reasons, and I would urgently, strenuously steer any Thoth beginner away from it as an introduction. Clear perhaps, Thoth no.
I won't comment on Suzanne Wagner's VERY dodgy speculative Tarot/Templar/Cathar history of the Dan Brown ilk. But I will point out that she is apparently aware of the existence of an "Ancient Egyptian Book of Angels" prefiguring the Tarot, which the infamous Knights managed to locate in Jerusalem. What!?! It's fine to speculate/fantasize, but in an introductory book it's unacceptable. At least present the accepted history. And please get the geography right... Templars in Egypt?? That's the opener and it's downhill from there.
Like Arrien and other fluffy New Agers, Wagner treats the images as if they dropped from the sky and have nothing to do with Harris, Crowley or Thelema. She catalogs the symbols, but in a framework divorced from context. Which is like decoding the symbolism of Notre Dames using the blueprints for a McDonald's because they're both buildings with windows that many people visit. The simplest proof of this is the weird sidestepping of all of Harris' Thelemic symbols and the fact that the book is based on the Thoth but "useful for any deck"...
Also like Arrien, Wagner favors the (as Rachel Pollack puts it) fluffy, pastel psychologizing of Tarot that became more and more common in the 80s and 90s. And for someone wanting something in that vein I'd point them to Arrien first. At least Tarot Handbook doesn't graft another mythology to the already complicated matrix of symbols in the Thoth. Mnemonics are useful, but this is Crowley's deck; the idea of offering a Christian parable to describe the "feel" of each Thoth Major is an idea upon which it's simply too bizarre to dwell. She just ignores the omnipresent elements of the deck that don't support her perspective. Which is frankly more McDonald's than Notres Dames.
Wagner's Templar/Cathar/Egyptian-Angel fantasia may support her strange Angelic/Christian take on the Thoth, but it is intellectually dishonest. Each Major is an Angel? Okay... but she's done zero research on Angelic lore, which ironically is a topic Crowley covered intelligently and at length. But not this breed of Angel; Wagner seems to see Angel as a Synonym for "active mood" We get Angels of Communication, Sacrifice, or Sexual Energy etc., so apparently Angel is a fancy name for Keyword. While this Angelic breakdown may be appealing to some, it has little or nothing to do with the deck's creators or symbolic structure. How does it add to understanding of the deck? I could write an intro text to teach the RWS to beginners using Inuit mythology or Tupperware sales brochures, but why? What purpose would it serve that wouldn't be misguided or misleading?
The weird thing is, this innocuous little book is a perfectly charming, New Agey guide for reading almost any Golden Dawn based deck. Her presentation is clear and accessible, if adamantly fluffly. Fair enough. But for the Thoth? Integral Tarot wouldn't seem so annoying if it didn't use a deck that already has a rich, complicated, carefully woven symbolic structure and then ignore it completely. The mind boggles. Perhaps after swinging by Egypt the Templars timetravelled to Utah and told Suzanne that Master Therion wouldn't mind if she hijacked his deck to invoke the Angel of Mystical Opportunism.
Blah blah. I realize this may seem strident, but I take book recommendations seriously. I just don't like to see mushy books like this supported because doing so misleads beginners, furthers shoddy scholarship, and whittles away at the public perception of "Occult Study," such as it is. Obviously, only my own opinion, but not blindly.
Scion
Sandman
Scion,
I must say I am truly in awe of your phenomenal knowledge and understanding of the Thoth Tarot and, more importantly, your ability to render an authoritative critique of a book that such know-nothings as Ms. Cehovet, with her meager decade as a professional Tarot reader, sees as a "stunning success". I can only guess it comes from many years of in depth study. It boggles my mind that you did it all so quickly, though, considering I obtained my first Tarot deck when you were 2 years old.
There are very few true authorities who can lay claim to "all" the knowledge of the esoteric realm. My position still stands that a person should be allowed to know all the resources available and I actually believe that people are intelligent enough to sort the good from the bad as they learn.
I would imagine if December Fairy had orginally posted that they wanted to know more about "Occult Study" rather than the Tarot deck itself, my response would have been different. If they were looking for a accurate history of the Knights Templar, the same applies. As it is, this is a book about the Thoth Tarot, it does contain information useful and concise. For a beginner, it is easier to read than the other books referenced.
As a noted authority on Thelema, I am sure you could guide December Fairy to becoming a Frater Superior or, more likely, Outer Head of the Order, but belittling other's suggestions betrays the very basis of "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law".
I agree that your opinion was not derived blindly, but your approach to expressing it was rather near sighted.
Sandman
I must say I am truly in awe of your phenomenal knowledge and understanding of the Thoth Tarot and, more importantly, your ability to render an authoritative critique of a book that such know-nothings as Ms. Cehovet, with her meager decade as a professional Tarot reader, sees as a "stunning success". I can only guess it comes from many years of in depth study. It boggles my mind that you did it all so quickly, though, considering I obtained my first Tarot deck when you were 2 years old.
There are very few true authorities who can lay claim to "all" the knowledge of the esoteric realm. My position still stands that a person should be allowed to know all the resources available and I actually believe that people are intelligent enough to sort the good from the bad as they learn.
I would imagine if December Fairy had orginally posted that they wanted to know more about "Occult Study" rather than the Tarot deck itself, my response would have been different. If they were looking for a accurate history of the Knights Templar, the same applies. As it is, this is a book about the Thoth Tarot, it does contain information useful and concise. For a beginner, it is easier to read than the other books referenced.
As a noted authority on Thelema, I am sure you could guide December Fairy to becoming a Frater Superior or, more likely, Outer Head of the Order, but belittling other's suggestions betrays the very basis of "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law".
I agree that your opinion was not derived blindly, but your approach to expressing it was rather near sighted.
Sandman
Scion
Actually, I reviewed the book.
I commented neither on my own knowledge of the Thoth, Thelema, or Crowley, nor on the suitability of others to critique Wagner's book. It's strange that you should be so excoriating about my personal assertions when I made none. For that matter, no one possessed of experiential or magickal authority needs to make claims to it.
Many people search this forum for book suggestions, months after a thread has died. Since the only reviews available on Integral Tarot at the moment either derive from regions within driving distance of Wagner's seminars or from a single trusted reviewer with a soft-spot for "fluffier" books, I offered my opinion of the book with facts to support that opinion. Disagreeing with your suggestion was not personal, and I explained my reasoning at some length, addressing the perceived oversight. There are not enough books about the Thoth, but I suppose Angels rush in where Fools are wise to wait...
You expressed surprise above that no one had recommended the book to a beginner, and I offered one explanation for the willful silence.
Scion
I commented neither on my own knowledge of the Thoth, Thelema, or Crowley, nor on the suitability of others to critique Wagner's book. It's strange that you should be so excoriating about my personal assertions when I made none. For that matter, no one possessed of experiential or magickal authority needs to make claims to it.
Many people search this forum for book suggestions, months after a thread has died. Since the only reviews available on Integral Tarot at the moment either derive from regions within driving distance of Wagner's seminars or from a single trusted reviewer with a soft-spot for "fluffier" books, I offered my opinion of the book with facts to support that opinion. Disagreeing with your suggestion was not personal, and I explained my reasoning at some length, addressing the perceived oversight. There are not enough books about the Thoth, but I suppose Angels rush in where Fools are wise to wait...
You expressed surprise above that no one had recommended the book to a beginner, and I offered one explanation for the willful silence.
Scion
Sandman
Which, if you claim no authority in this area, invalidates the above statements.Scion said:
If you mean regarding your knowledge of the subject, I merely assumed, by your post, that you had some.
If you mean regarding the book, you had plenty.
I do apologize if you lost skin over this. It is rare you meet a thin skinned "rabble rouser".
And with those who are not, it is evident.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/09...9119-4847111?_encoding=UTF8&v=glance&n=283155
16 reviews, all 5 stars.
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?z=y&isbn=0976333104&itm=1
1 review, 5 stars
Perhaps a good way to show that is to address the querent rather than a person who offers a valid (whether you see it or not) response.
If you were the only person with the ability to post a reply, I would have not been surprised.
Understand that I am not disagreeing with your critique of the book as it has as much vailidity as anyone else's. There are parts of it I would agree, in the company of those who have studied extensively, that are totally correct. However, all that was originally asked was to find a book. I am sure we could debate this issue ad nauseum, but rather than waste the time, all I ask is: if you see a post by me, ignore it.
Sandman
Simone
Moderator note:
please let's keep this thread on track and not turn it into a discussion of who is right or wrong.
Many thanks.
please let's keep this thread on track and not turn it into a discussion of who is right or wrong.
Many thanks.
Sophie
Personally, I am only too pleased to come across a book review (in a thread or stand-alone) that is honest in its critique, likes and dislikes. I am fed up with reading review after gushing review of the same book only to find out that the book has, to my mind, some serious drawbacks. That's how I ended up with Arrien's book - because I saw no review telling me it was gentle and pretty fluff, not for me.
Potential Thoth students should be given a chance to read all opinions on a Thoth book. I bought the DuQuette having read reviews praising it, and others dismissing it. The reasons for the dismissal made me realise that I would not miss what those reviewers missed. In the case of the Wagner book, and after comparing what Scion wrote to what Bonnie Cehovet wrote, I would not want that book, because what annoyed Scion (dodgy history and illogical analysis of the symbols) would in all likelihood annoy me. But it might not annoy someone else - they might think the clarity and charm of the book compensate for its poor scholarship.
For my money - I would go for the DuQuette, because it's a good introduction, and the Bahnzaf, because although it's fairly dense, it has some good material. And of course, Mr Crowley's Book of Thoth. I started with that one, actually, and though there are still parts of it I am learning to understand, its obscurity is overstated IMO. It's a beautifully witty and poetic book, in the vein of the White Goddess with more smokes and mirrors, and I love it for that (I didn't always feel that way, btw)
Potential Thoth students should be given a chance to read all opinions on a Thoth book. I bought the DuQuette having read reviews praising it, and others dismissing it. The reasons for the dismissal made me realise that I would not miss what those reviewers missed. In the case of the Wagner book, and after comparing what Scion wrote to what Bonnie Cehovet wrote, I would not want that book, because what annoyed Scion (dodgy history and illogical analysis of the symbols) would in all likelihood annoy me. But it might not annoy someone else - they might think the clarity and charm of the book compensate for its poor scholarship.
For my money - I would go for the DuQuette, because it's a good introduction, and the Bahnzaf, because although it's fairly dense, it has some good material. And of course, Mr Crowley's Book of Thoth. I started with that one, actually, and though there are still parts of it I am learning to understand, its obscurity is overstated IMO. It's a beautifully witty and poetic book, in the vein of the White Goddess with more smokes and mirrors, and I love it for that (I didn't always feel that way, btw
)