"Making the Tarot Literary Again"

Debra

A book review in the New Yorker. Begins like this:

Making the Tarot Literary Again
By Peter Bebergal
Jessa Crispin’s “The Creative Tarot: A Modern Guide to an Inspired Life” aims to show that tarot cards, long associated with the occult, can be useful for creative pursuits.​

The idea is that that tarot imagery can aid imagination in both creating new work and interpreting the work of others. I'm having trouble seeing this as a new insight but maybe I'm just cranky.

The rest of the article is here: http://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/making-the-tarot-literary-again

Note: The New Yorker limits the number of articles you can read online free each month, so if you want to read this later, best to copy and save it.
 

FaintlyMacabre

I just read it because it came up in my Google search.

Ah, I am glad you are cranky too. I was wishing I could feel more positive about this.

Diana
 

Cocobird55

i think that any review of tarot that is not about fortune telling is positive. i enjoyed the article.
 

Le Fanu

Cocobird55 said:
i think that any review of tarot that is not about fortune telling is positive. i enjoyed the article.
Click to expand...
I agree. Moreover, I have always found that tarot reading as "story telling" feels like a distinct approach to me. I think it is interesting as an approach - I personally don't do it - but do think of it as "another" use of tarot. Hardly new, as you say. And certainly widely known about (for ages) in the right circles.

I don't feel entirely comfortable with the undercurrent of "hey - guess what - some intelligent people have been interested in tarot at certain points in the past." But I enoyed seeing the article in a mainstream publication.
 

FaintlyMacabre

It is a book review not really an article about tarot though.

Diana
 

JackofWands

Le Fanu said:
Hardly new, as you say. And certainly widely known about (for ages) in the right circles.
Click to expand...

Ah, but that's the thing, isn't it? In the right circles. This review was written for a general audience, not a Tarot-specific one. And for that, I think it's a good piece.
 

FaintlyMacabre

JackofWands said:
Ah, but that's the thing, isn't it? In the right circles. This review was written for a general audience, not a Tarot-specific one. And for that, I think it's a good piece.
Click to expand...

I guess I have no issue with the book review; it was the book itself that made me feel like it was not exactly anything new and interesting.

Diana
 

FLizarraga

FaintlyMacabre said:
I guess I have no issue with the book review; it was the book itself that made me feel like it was not exactly anything new and interesting.

Diana
Click to expand...

That's sort of like I feel. And, to be frank, the review's highest point for me was making me aware of Kathleen Raine's study.

Le Fanu said:
I don't feel entirely comfortable with the undercurrent of "hey - guess what - some intelligent people have been interested in tarot at certain points in the past." But I enoyed seeing the article in a mainstream publication.
Click to expand...

Agree on both counts, only probably in reverse order: I'm glad to see the article there, but that undercurrent really got to me.
 

the11thOctopus

While the framing of "Tarot is for crazy people" was kind of a turn off for me, it is an effective turn for engaging a mainstream audience, it is the NYT after all, and really anything that might pique an interest in Tarot is probably a good thing for the community.
 

Shade

Yes, the tone was slightly off-putting. I couldn't put my finger on what the issue was but Thalassa summed it up in a social media post - the article maintains a sort of bemused tone throughout. I'm sure it's the correct tone for the audience but my overly-sensitive tarot-loving self didn't love it. But then, it's not for the deeply tarot entrenched.

The book seems interesting.
 
Astrological elements association to pip cards Learning Tarot - Journaling