A Deck "Reading Well"?

Hi

I was just wondering by what it means for a deck to "Read Well" or not because I've used many many decks which I like and don't like and I've always been able to read with them no matter the artwork

-uraszz

If you're referring to when reviewers describe a deck that way, I pretty much ignore that pronouncement in a review. A deck has to be readable to me, so someone else's opinion on how well a deck reads for them is a moot point, especially since most of those reviews seem to base readability on how well traditional symbolism is depicted. I read intuitively, always, so I don't pay attention to what any symbols or numbers are "supposed to" mean. Therefore, for me, a deck is more readable if it has a lot of strong and/or interesting imagery and strays as far from RWS as possible. I can read with traditional decks, but it's just not as enjoyable for me to do so. So, I prefer non-traditional. Plus, for me to use my intuition and not rely on the expected recipe for numbers in the suits, the minor arcana needs imagery. Can't read just pips. Well, I know I'm not the typical tarot reader, but that's what readability means for me.

I find that "reads well" as more to do with flow of the cards with each other. How well do figures interact when they are laid in a spread? If I get a deck and notice things like all the court cards facing the same way or all the faces are looking forward, those are things that would make a deck hard to read because the cards don't connect with each other.

When it comes to decks I have very specific tastes, to the point where I haven't actually bought a new one in years and years. I can read both intuitively as well as traditionally but I prefer the latter so what reads well for other people leaves me cold. I need all the esoteric symbolism packed into every card like in the Thoth or Hermetic, although those decks are un-readable for others.

So it's really a matter of personal preference.

I feel that "the deck reads well" or "the deck is accurate" are two very over-used phrases in reviews nowadays. It's such a personal perspective on a deck really... When I purchased the Japaridze Tarot I was afraid it wouldn't "read well" because I had come across at least two reviews that stated it was a deck with nice art, but unreadable. Well, from the first reading that deck has given me nothing but super clear, "accurate", wise readings.
So I'm with Geoxena, I ignore those phrases when researching a deck.

For me, "reading well" as applied to a deck falls into the "I don't know what it is but I know it when I see it" category. As mentioned, this usually means how clearly it captures (or at least originates from) recognizable symbolic archetypes and how intellectually and emotionally compelling the imagery is from an artistic standpoint. Leaving the expected "road-map" too far behind often results in a deck like the Chrysalis Tarot which reads better as an oracle than as a conventional tarot. I don't mind having my mental agility and syncretic acumen taxed a bit, as long as I'm not taken completely "down a rabbit-hole." A pack of cards presented to an experienced reader as "tarot" has at least a few structural as well as philosophical antecedents that should be honored.

Anything that incites a favorable response in the reader and fires the imagination, inspiration and ingenuity to produce insight (notice how carefully I dance around the over-used and under-examined term "intuition" ) can be said to be "readable" for all practical purposes. A good example is the Voyager Tarot, which proudly flaunts its departures from conventional tarot wisdom while still being broadly based on the creator's Thoth background. I'm about to participate in an intensive study group on this challenging deck because, as a trained artist who has done a fair amount of collage work (manual paste-up, not digital) in the past, I can safely say that "one person's art is another person's 'fruit salad,' even if detailed written guidance is provided. There is so much going on visually that it can create "analysis paralysis." (Come to think of it, that might well be an uninitiated reaction to the Thoth Major Arcana).

Barleywine said:

For me, "reading well" as applied to a deck falls into the "I don't know what it is but I know it when I see it" category.

Anything that incites a favorable response in the reader and fires the imagination, inspiration and ingenuity to produce insight.

Click to expand...

These two statements get exactly to what I think of "it reads well". To me for example, a deck that gets me in a meditative mood reads well. I think it has a lot to do with your personal taste, going farther than just liking or disliking the artwork.

It can also be a question of the situation. Some decks "read well" for me in specific contexts.

Barleywine nailed it for me. I also think that it's such a personal matter -- it may not be very helpful to anyone else. I usually include it, though,

I am always interested to read about how a deck reads to someone else *provided* they explain what that means for them. For example foolonajourney explained that to them it means there is flow between cards. This is so for me some of the time as well. So there is a basis for comparison. Geoxena talked about wanting departures from RWS and imagery that gives the intuition something to work with.

I read different ways with different decks so appreciate a lot of points of view. I don't see the point of reviews that *don't* talk about how the deck reads, and find them frustrating. Like reviewing a restaurant and only talking about how the food looks. But you have to mention what you mean by reads well or doesn't.

For me a deck "reads well" if the images make sense and match the traditional meanings in some way.