Wildwood Tarot

Cat, your passion makes me long to get my hands on a Greenwood deck, just to examine it, mull over it. I, too, find it hard to understand why they would change the animals between the two decks. There is no explanation at all for the changes in the companion book. I am struggling to find a way to get to grips with the courts. I have compared the meanings in the companion book to the Druid Animal Oracle book, because both claim to reference Celtic lore. But they hardly ever agree.

Cat* - I'm with you on this one. As a standalone deck the Wildwood would have done well, and it should have had a chance to earn its own reputation without the unnecessary false advertising.

It is not and can never be the Greenwood. I have a home made Greenwood (it's an amazingly good copy) and love it to bits. The Greenwood is unique. There is no way the Wildwood compares - I bought it because I like Will Worthington's work, but really I prefer his Druidcraft to the Wildwood. And I prefer the Greenwood to either....

Cat* said:

Why on Earth did they delete both Deer and Reindeer? Surely Deer were more central too pre-Celtic life than Eel?

Also, the other changes (switching Kingfisher from Page of Cups to King of Arrows, or Lynx from King of Arrows to Page of Stones, or changing the places of Horse and Wolf) make it nearly impossible for people familiar with the Greenwood animals to adapt to the Wildwood system. I wonder of there is any explanation for these more drastic changes in the companion book?

Click to expand...

King of Arrows just says "Position on the Wheel: Departing Imbolc towards the Spring Equinox" and then says that the Kingfisher has been symbolic of ancient wisdom and love for centuries.

For instance. Not particularly helpful. Deer - I suppose we do have a Stag... And the book refers to the Ancestor as a reindeer...

Cat* said:

And just because I found this on the BookDepository page for the deck again and it still makes me angry (emphasis mine):

In this eye-catching deck, previously known as "The Greenwood Tarot", Mark Ryan and John Matthews reawaken the classic forest archetypes of the Green Man and Woman, the Archer, the Hooded Man and the Blasted Oak.

Click to expand...

No, no, NO! This is FALSE ADVERTISING. The Wildwood is NOT "The Deck Formerly Known As The Greenwood". It's merely a new deck that is based on the same system (as far as I know). There have been major changes to the cards, and we're not just talking different art styles here.

I'm not saying people shouldn't like this deck. But reading these Greenwood references really makes me want to spit. To me, this feels like an attempt to betray the buyers, and have them believe they get a reprint or at least a close redrawing of the Greenwood. And THAT makes me wonder about the integrity of the people who claim to be able to teach us something about spirituality and a respectful attitude towards the Earth and her inhabitants (among which humans surely also count)...

Click to expand...

Yes yes yes. It is - IMHO and not that of all here - a nice deck. But the sales pitch is deceitful, and that is what has annoyed me from the start. That is also right up there on amazon - and in several bookstores in the UK, at least.

Ryan's intro to the book contains the delightful (not) sentence:

I am delighted to present to a new generation of readers a unique, fresh and re-energized version of the Greenwood Tarot, now the WildwoodTarot.

Click to expand...

The Greenwood is not "now the Wildwood tarot". At least John Matthews does acknowledge Chesca Potter in HIS foreword. Oddly though - after that the Greenwood is little mentioned in the book - certainly I haven't yet seen any explanations of the changes you refer to (though as I have a book to read for my book club, I can't say I have read the whole thing yet..

Satori said:

Apparently, since no one commented on my post, the info wasn't useful. Oh well.

Click to expand...

It was interesting - I don't know enough to say anything sensible about it, which was why I didn't ! Don't feel useless, Satori

Well my copy arrived today. Impressions;

I don't think it is my favourite deck, but there are things I like about it. The things I like about it have nothing to do with the Greenwood. Size, colouring, cardstock (like The Paulina), that slightly fibrous but stiff kind.

However, first impressions; it feels like an easy, paint-by-numbers version of the Greenwood. A Greenwood made less challenging. Greenwood without the inner journeying, without the abstraction. It is an attempt to make a more literal Greenwood. In the Greenwood, the images have an otherworldly glow, a peculiar abstraction. This feels like an attempt to create a Greenwood with all the imaginative flights removed. In the Wildwood, for example, the Archer is simply an archer, simply a person pulling a bow. In the Wildwood Guardian (the Greenwood Devil card), we have a skeleton standing at the entrance to a tomb barrow. In the Greenwood it is so much more than its literal counterpart in the Wildwood. The "Breath of Life" / the Ace of Arrows, in Chesca's version is a strange visionary experience. Here it is smoke rising from a lawn. The prehistoric starkness of the Greenwood 5 of Arrows is made comical here. A smiling goat cheekily dodging arrows.

I like some images but it has shot itself in the foot with its Greenwood claims and it ends up looking like a Greenwood for people who find the Greenwood a bit too difficult (no disrespect to anyone who likes the Wildwood; there is much I also like in it). By taking the images and making them literal, it feels a bit elementary.

And his artwork is not at all like the Druid Craft or the Plant or Animal Oracle or the Greenman Tree Oracle. It must be a different medium. There is no lushness. The colouring feels thinner (I'm guessing this must be watercolour whereas the other decks are acrylic on canvas??) Also his style is sketchier. You could argue that his art has evolved and become more economical, or you could argue that it has become sketchier.

But the literalness strikes me above all. Some of the cards I like a lot. I like the Queen of Bows (Hare). This feels like the old Worthington, as does the World Tree. I like a lot of its images enough to actually want to have a play and read with it and read the book, but it does feel like pretend shamanism. Cleaned up druidry for the suburbs. These characters wouldn't last 15 minutes in the pre-Celtic "Mythic" forest.

Le Fanu said:

I like some images but it has shot itself in the foot with its Greenwood claims and it ends up looking like a Greenwood for people who find the Greenwood a bit too difficult

Click to expand...

I wondered about this when discussion first came up about this deck. I do not have a Greenwood, but I've seen all of the images and I have Chesca's Celtic Shaman Pack, so I do understand the otherworldly quality of her art that you refer to. Moral questions aside, there is no way in hell anyone can look at the Wildwood and think it's a "new and improved" Greenwood. IMO.

Le Fanu said:

And his artwork is not at all like the Druid Craft or the Plant or Animal Oracle or the Greenman Tree Oracle.

Click to expand...

Well, that is really unfortunate because I was willing to give the deck a chance based solely on WW's art. If it's nothing like WW's art, well.

Perhaps already regretting spending my $22, but we shall see....

OctoberGwen said:

Perhaps already regretting spending my $22, but we shall see....

Click to expand...

No.. you'll find things to like in it. It's different enough for that. I think it's probably very readable. It feels easy.

Carla said:

Arrows--

King--kingfisher
Queen--Swan
Knight--Hawk
Page--Wren

Bows--
King--Adder
Queen-Hare
Knight--Fox
Page--Stoat

Stones--
King--Wolf
Queen--Bear
Knight--Horse
Page--Lynx

Vessels--
King--Heron
Queen--Salmon
Knight--Eel
Page--Otter

Cat, which Wildwood cards do you particularly hate? I'm curious.

Click to expand...

Ah, this gets better every time I check the thread. I can compare scans. Mine is winging its way still.
Most helpful so thanks
GMB

Hmmm ... ok, after reading all this - esp. posts from people whose opinions I respect - I'll pass on this one. The scans look sketchy indeed, almost cartoony. And have nothing like the quality of WW's Druidcraft, Tree, Animal & Plant oracles. Thanks, friends! (If only the Greenwood were re-printed!)

I went through every single card last night and tried to do my first reading with it. I couldn`t complete it because I just could not get past the style of the art!

I took a closer look at some of the images, especially the faces, and I noticed that Will used cross-hatching (not sure of the correct artistic term) in order to achieve shading! To me this feels `comic book` like to me and nothing like the high artistic level he achieved in the DruidCraft!

The only thing in this deck that even *slightly* retains Will`s style, is the trees twisty branches and roots - but thats very slightly!

Maybe it is a different artistic style Will has experimented with, but I do find it *cartoony* and rushed.

I`ll stick with my DruidCraft and mourn the loss that was Wildwood....

Since mine is still in transit I can't really say much about this deck with any authority. But I have to say the false advertising of the deck as the renewed Greenwood only hurts it's chances of making it on it's own. There is no way Will's realistic style could incorporate the magic that Chesca's art brought to it. If they were actually serious about it being a GW renewed, they would have picked a visionary artist, not a realistic one. The magic is what makes the GW so special, so deep, so precious.
Some of the changes I see in the scans trouble me. The Shaman in particular is pure LoS machismo sensationalism---buggy bloodshot eyes, his stance--he looks like the mad homeless monster people fear running ino in dark alleys. that's not a shaman--it's testosterone poisoning in action. What were they thinking? And hearthfire as a bunch of hunters hanging out together--where's the hearth? Hearth is home, not the men's longhouse or hunting camp.
And why the eel, and no deer or reindeer? That's just nuts. Reindeer and later, deer kept early northern European peoples alive. they were vital for survival. Eel is vital for Sushi.
When mine comes I hope to accept and enjoy it on it's own terms, for what it brings to the table. And it probably is a perfectly good deck if separated from the GW mystique. If Ryan and Co. have any brains at all they will be tracking what we say here and will change their advertising in time to give the deck a chance on it's own merits.