Top Ten essential tarot titles

Alan Ross

Le Fanu said:
Im gonna come clean; I don't really like "touchy-feely, visualise your spirit guide and swim with the dolphin-fairy whilst massaging your ancestors' chakras" approach to tarot. Im not knocking it, I just can't do it. My question is;

is "Tarot Wisdom" like this?

I want something that sanely orientates me without having to jump through all kinds of wooky hoops. This is the kind of Tarot Book/reading methodology book I'm looking for.

(there. Ive said it)

I'm not seeing much in the way of dolphins, fairies, or getting in touch with your spirit guide sort of thing in this book. What I am seeing is quite a lot of Kabbalah (her spelling), Golden Dawn astrological decan correspondences, and laundry lists of interpretations from different sources quoted from Paul Huson's book. She actually refers to Huson and quotes from him fairly often. There's also a fair amount of mythological references here as well. It's a dense book and she packs a lot into its 450 plus pages. It's a book that's best digested in small bites. And I definitely wouldn't recommend it for beginners.

Alan
 

sapienza

Le Fanu said:
Yes I have read both of the Haindl books (for those who were doubting my intellectual capacity. LOL)
I certainly wasn't doubting your intellectual capacity, just in admiration that you made it through the books because I've found them so hard to get into. Perhaps it's my intellectual capacity that's the problem :)

Le Fanu said:
Im gonna come clean; I don't really like "touchy-feely, visualise your spirit guide and swim with the dolphin-fairy whilst massaging your ancestors' chakras" approach to tarot. Im not knocking it, I just can't do it. My question is;

is "Tarot Wisdom" like this?

I want something that sanely orientates me without having to jump through all kinds of wooky hoops. This is the kind of Tarot Book/reading methodology book I'm looking for.

(there. Ive said it)

:laugh: This has really brightened up my day. I love it. Honestly, I feel the same. It's not my style either. I really think 'Mystical Origins' is a great choice for you. I hope you love it and find it 'wooky hoop' free.

Also, I'd forgotten that Pollack quotes so heavily from Huson. I remember now flicking through the book and seeing large chunks of his book quoted. I also seem to remember that she includes a lot of examples of things people have done and said. I don't know how helpful I'd find that style. I am curious about the book, but not enough to buy a copy at this stage.
 

Morgane_49

Alan Ross said:
I'm not seeing much in the way of dolphins, fairies, or getting in touch with your spirit guide sort of thing in this book. What I am seeing is quite a lot of Kabbalah (her spelling), Golden Dawn astrological decan correspondences, and laundry lists of interpretations from different sources quoted from Paul Huson's book. She actually refers to Huson and quotes from him fairly often. There's also a fair amount of mythological references here as well. It's a dense book and she packs a lot into its 450 plus pages. It's a book that's best digested in small bites. And I definitely wouldn't recommend it for beginners.

Alan

I agree with Alan.

It took me a long time to wade through this book...Probably about a month, and that's rare for me to take that long reading through anything. It's alot to absorb.

She also references her tarot deck (The Shining Tribe) alot, but that's understandable.

I did enjoy all of the numerology references, but I'm very interested in numerology - it might not be as interesting to someone else.
 

sapienza

Morgane_49 said:
She also references her tarot deck (The Shining Tribe) alot, but that's understandable.

I just remembered why I struggled so much with 'Forest of Souls'.
 

Bernice

Originally Posted by Le Fanu
Im gonna come clean; I don't really like "touchy-feely, visualise your spirit guide and swim with the dolphin-fairy whilst massaging your ancestors' chakras" approach to tarot. Im not knocking it, I just can't do it.
You took the words right out of my mouth - but said them better :grin:

Bee :love:
 

victoria.star

The Huson book is one of the only tarot books I have read from cover to cover.
Maybe the only one.

The only thing that I wonder about it is that I believe I read, somewhere on AT perhaps, that some of his information might be faulty?

I loved the book! I don't mean to disparage anyone at all. I guess it is like all history books--subject to criticism, etc and all that.

My best recommendation is that it is the ONLY tarot book I read in its entirety.

Good luck, enjoy!
 

sapienza

victoria.star said:
The only thing that I wonder about it is that I believe I read, somewhere on AT perhaps, that some of his information might be faulty?

Yes, I have heard this as well. To date I've not been able to get anyone to respond in regard to which parts are actually incorrect. I've also heard criticism of the acuracy of Place's 'Tarot: History, Symbolism & Divination" as well as 'Tarot Symbolism' by O'Niell. I guess tarot history is still a work in progress in many ways any authors put forward ideas and theories that often have errors. It's frustrating, but what else to we have? I'd still like to know what bits of Huson's book are supposedly incorrect though :)
 

Le Fanu

sapienza said:
Yes, I have heard this as well. To date I've not been able to get anyone to respond in regard to which parts are actually incorrect. I've also heard criticism of the acuracy of Place's 'Tarot: History, Symbolism & Divination" as well as 'Tarot Symbolism' by O'Niell. I guess tarot history is still a work in progress in many ways any authors put forward ideas and theories that often have errors. It's frustrating, but what else to we have? I'd still like to know what bits of Huson's book are supposedly incorrect though :)
Gregory mentioned a book recently with inaccuracies. Was it this one? Id take the whole concept of tarot "inaccuracies" with a pinch of salt. Tarot history is full of "inaccuracies" which we all know and love. What someone calls inaccuracies may well be academic bickering to the tune of "it wasn't in Egypt, it was the Romani gypsies" i.e impossible to prove anyway. One of the biggest inaccuracies for me is that the RWS is the "traditional" tarot deck and that tarot was used for divination before the 18th Century. But who's to say I'm inaccurate?
 

Greg Stanton

If there are inaccuracies in these books, people should tell us what they are. There are mistakes in most books. "Tarot Symbolism" is an older book, and contains a considerable amount of speculation — rather like the newer "Origins of the Tarot" by Dal Leon. Huson and Place, however, are fairly meticulous in their research, so I'd be surprised that there are any fatal inaccuracies — probably just nit picks and differences of opinion.
 

gregory

Le Fanu said:
Gregory mentioned a book recently with inaccuracies. Was it this one? Id take the whole concept of tarot "inaccuracies" with a pinch of salt. Tarot history is full of "inaccuracies" which we all know and love. What someone calls inaccuracies may well be academic bickering to the tune of "it wasn't in Egypt, it was the Romani gypsies" i.e impossible to prove anyway. One of the biggest inaccuracies for me is that the RWS is the "traditional" tarot deck and that tarot was used for divination before the 18th Century. But who's to say I'm inaccurate?
No; that was the one published by Watkins. The Authentic Tarot. It's the PICTURES !!! Disaster !

Though someone (a solid tarot historian who I will not name here, being as he doesn't post here any more) did tell me there are errors in Huson, but I am not clever enough to know what they are :confused:. I think I did say that here once.... as a caveat to point out that NO-ONE agrees 100% with anything when it comes to Tarot.