Tarot Turn (Reversals) by Marcus Katz

[shadowdancer]

I have been made aware of this book that is volume 1 of a 3 volume set looking at reversals. And it looks huge!!

http://www.lulu.com/shop/marcus-katz...productDetails

It focuses on the Major arcana in this volume. According to the author there are over 190,000 words in this volume alone. Having looked through the preview, each card has 20 or so pages dedicated. I have had some feedback from Marcus, and each major is paired with each of the remaining 77 cards. It is then looked at in the pairing as reversed/upright, and reversed/reversed.

I am not going to go into maths mode as it could get mind blowing!! But, that is comprehensive. If the remaining volumes do the same for the Minor arcana it should be possible to have a real sense of context for reversals, as opposed to just seeing them as a stand alone. That could prove to be invaluable. Reading a reversal as part of a pair does make sense. After all if it appears in a spread, we are used to linking cards with neighbouring cards, so it sort of does make sense to do it with a reversed card also. I know many here do that already, but for those who tend to not use reversals, that may be something that would not be easy to do, especially if what they have read on the subject has related to the card alone and not in context with another card.

I don't tend to use reversals that often, but for those who do this book or set of books, may be something to consider. I can also see this as being something that would grace a book collection, and could prove to be a valuable resource, even if it is only used on the odd occasion. Serious students of tarot may be more than interested.

And for those who know Dan Donche, he has given a one card reversed 'inappropriate' definition for all 78 cards which is included in the first section of the book. That alone, will be worth a read

I am not sure when the next 2 volumes are being made available, nor do I know anything about the likely format or content, but may try this one in the meantime.

[closrapexa]

That sounds cool. I don't use reversals, but any book that devotes tens of pages to single cards is worth a read, I have never seen a book that comprehensive.

[jema]

Looks like something I wanna add to my tarot library, might wait until I can get all three volumes thought due to postage costs.

[Le Fanu]

mmm.. 3 volumes for tarot reversals?

I tend to think that the main thing with tarot reversals is that you really have to think them through yourself. I simply cannot see any other way...

You have to think what a naturally "inverted" (I don't mean negative) reversal means for your cards.

[LRichard]

Sounds like a possibly interesting book. However, I don't use reversals, as I find upside-down images to be distracting and disorienting.

[shadowdancer]

Looks like the next two volumes will be available in June/July. If the same format is followed they will also be huge. (28 cards per volume?)

The postage looked fairly reasonable to NZ, bearing in mind the book weighs around 3lb in weight, so will be more than reasonable if I wait until all 3 volumes are available.

Talk about a collaboration. 150 + people contributing.

[starlightexp]

Just an FYI for those that don't know. This was a project farmed out to the Tarot Town and FB groups that Marcus runs. People could sign up to do a card send in there stuff. While I think that's great I wonder as to the nature of continuity in this book. Everyone has a different take on things when things are upright let alone reversed. I have one friend that reads reversed as going on inside and upright as going on in the real world. Here you have one person telling you what The Fool upright and the Moon reversed is and another telling you what the Moon upright and the Fool reversed is. It could be interesting to see what other people do as a reading style, but sometimes in might be like reading a herd of cats. Consistency could be an issue here.

[ribbitcat]

And following on from the previous post, it is a *collaboration*. Katz has merely collated all the information and perhaps edited it. (text removed by Moderator) It would be more honest for the book to say that he is the editor, as opposed to it being 'by' him - he is not the author.

[jema]

Originally Posted by ribbitcat

And following on from the previous post, it is a *collaboration*. Katz has merely collated all the information and perhaps edited it. (text removed by Moderator) It would be more honest for the book to say that he is the editor, as opposed to it being 'by' him - he is not the author.

To be perfectly fair: It clearly states that on both the front and back covers though.

[ribbitcat]

Originally Posted by jema

To be perfectly fair: It clearly states that on both the front and back covers though.

That's good to know - I couldn't see it, but I do have somewhat bad eyesight.