Deviance: How different is too different?

When creating a tarot deck, it's fun to deviate. To do your own thing within the limits. But what are the limits? I think they differ for everyone, hence, this thread.

What things do you think have to stay the same or you don't think you could recognize it as tarot? Maybe for some, it's not even particular changes, but how many are made? Some things I can think of that could be experimented with:
- numbers (of cards in a suit, court cards per suit, major arcana, number of suits)
- symbols
- meanings
- switched/new positions
- names

Also, what kind of changes are you making in your deck, if you are? What kind would you never consider?


Personally I could still recognize a deck as tarot if all it had in common with other decks was having a structure of major (an oracle-like suit) and minor arcana (complimentary suits including a court structure), but that's me. I generally don't connect well to symbolism or 'get' the positions or names, so I tend to be very welcoming to those kinds of changes in a deck. I know not everyone is.

The main deck I'm working on will have new names, some altered meanings, waaaay different symbolism, and I haven't decided yet if I want to make other changes. I'm ok if it ends up not being tarot. It's a deck I'm making for me that I'll always be able to relate to, so that's what's most important for it. I'm also making a 'gag' pixel art deck on the side, which won't change much other than symbolism. Swapping shoes for pentacles and silly things like that.

As long as the artist/author give it meaning that can be conveyed then the sky's the limit. The problem is, when does it cease to become tarot?

If you decided to have 11 pip cards/suit but preserved the meaning of the majors, that would still be tarot to me. If you wanted to add extra majors that would still be tarot as long as they had 'purpose' in the deck, useable for readings if they can't be omitted.

If you want to change the meanings of the majors that's fine as long as your meanings are conveyed and are useable for whatever purpose but herein likes another problem - the thing has to cohere. Does your 'system' work as a whole? Does the theme appeal?

In looking for a new deck recently I found so many that were very well intended but superficial and arbitrary. Let's face it, with 1000 new decks every week now (well, almost!) some are bound to be. Even so, the shallower ones may appeal through the art, the theme or a lightness of spirit and tarot does seems susceptible to collecting.

Of course the views of experienced, seasoned tarot readers are of greater worth than mine but as I use the cards meditatively rather than for divination I look to the symbolism, the coherence of at least the majors, and the art.

Yeah, that's the context I meant, when does it cease to be tarot?

I have also noticed that many, maybe most, decks rely solely on in-built archetypes of tarot, typically RW structure and symbolism, and only add a theme or artistic style. I think those are the superficial and arbitrary ones you mean? I avoid them because I can't work with them, because I can't really connect with RW's structure or symbolism, and that's all they're really made of. There are RW decks I work well with, though, because they really do so much more with it.

Personally for me, Tarot needs to have 22 Majors and 56 Minors organized in 4 suits. New/switched Majors usually still make it Tarot, like in Etteilla decks, and so do added Court cards, as in Cary Yale Visconti. I'm not sure about added suits, though. Traditional Indian pre-Tarot decks used to have lots of suits for the sake of the game, but they're not used for divination, as far as I know. And when modern authors add a suit or two to their decks, it doesn't really make sense to me.

Actually, any changes are OK if they make sense, like Rhapsodin said, especially if you're making a 100% personal, not-for-publishing deck. In that case, however, if it's not 22+56 or very close by, I'd rather call it an Oracle deck.

As for meanings of the cards, if you believe Tarot was created as a game and was used for divination only a bit later, then any meanings of the cards are 'arbitrary'. So, if RW structure or meanings still don't make sense to you after a long and earnest study, then why not research other methods/'schools', like Tarot de Marseilles or Thoth/Crowley or Etteilla?

thoughtprism said:

Yeah, that's the context I meant, when does it cease to be tarot?

I have also noticed that many, maybe most, decks rely solely on in-built archetypes of tarot, typically RW structure and symbolism, and only add a theme or artistic style. I think those are the superficial and arbitrary ones you mean? I avoid them because I can't work with them, because I can't really connect with RW's structure or symbolism, and that's all they're really made of. There are RW decks I work well with, though, because they really do so much more with it.

Click to expand...

Not entirely. But here I speak more as a meditator than a reader:-
The RW and Thoth decks developed along with the Kabbalah embodying various spiritual and aesthetic meanings/principles and in some ways they are the modern tarot. Artists can attach more or less symbolism and interpret their "meaning" as they will, but interfere too much with the basics and they may be useless for many. There are still arguments about the positions of Strength and Justice! But if someone were to say "No, I want the Fool as trump No.4," they'd be making a seriously revolutionary gesture!

However, some readers here (I gather) are less concerned about the actual numbering of the trumps than the meanings they trigger in the context of a reading.

For superficial artists, I'm thinking of people like Doreen virtue who apparently slaps tarots together often borrowing/stealing others' art, just to push out another deck. Profit before the sincere aim to offer new or deeper insights.

I see nothing amiss with inventing a new set of meanings provided they cohere; or reinterpreting the traditional meanings with different symbols. They may be of limited use in Kabbalistic work but could appeal to readers. The point is, do they then become oracle cards rather than tarot? It doesn't mean they're any less value. (I do most of my work with the Majors which I'll bet some readers would regard as oracular rather than tarot).

But as long as they cohere and can be used as a tarot deck, it's up to the artist.

The further from the Rider Waite you go the more likely it is that your deck will be a nice collector item that the owner will use once or twice a year unless they connect with it so deeply that it is THE deck they use. The Voyager Tarot for example was a complete zag in presentation for its time but for many it clicked so thoroughly that it is THE deck for them.

Lo Scarabeo is not afraid to zag when it comes to the meanings for some cards. Example, The Dream Enchantress 7 of cups is a fairy/spirit/woman growing out of a lily pad holding two babies: http://www.tarotgarden.com/database/images/thumbnails/adthumb/dreamenchantresssample.gif

This is a lovely take on the card but it will make people work harder than yet another rendition of "Castles in the sky" or "Illusions"

I'm sorry for taking so long to get back to this

dancing_moon said:

Personally for me, Tarot needs to have 22 Majors and 56 Minors organized in 4 suits. New/switched Majors usually still make it Tarot, like in Etteilla decks, and so do added Court cards, as in Cary Yale Visconti. I'm not sure about added suits, though. Traditional Indian pre-Tarot decks used to have lots of suits for the sake of the game, but they're not used for divination, as far as I know. And when modern authors add a suit or two to their decks, it doesn't really make sense to me.

Actually, any changes are OK if they make sense, like Rhapsodin said, especially if you're making a 100% personal, not-for-publishing deck. In that case, however, if it's not 22+56 or very close by, I'd rather call it an Oracle deck.

As for meanings of the cards, if you believe Tarot was created as a game and was used for divination only a bit later, then any meanings of the cards are 'arbitrary'. So, if RW structure or meanings still don't make sense to you after a long and earnest study, then why not research other methods/'schools', like Tarot de Marseilles or Thoth/Crowley or Etteilla?

Click to expand...

I understand.

Yes, I do believe the meanings are pretty arbitrary, I have done some light research into tarot history. IIRC the exact number of majors and positions were also arbitrary until it began to be used for divination. I have looked at Marseilles and Thoth a little, and I feel like I'd be no better with them.

Rhapsodin said:

Not entirely. But here I speak more as a meditator than a reader:-
The RW and Thoth decks developed along with the Kabbalah embodying various spiritual and aesthetic meanings/principles and in some ways they are the modern tarot. Artists can attach more or less symbolism and interpret their "meaning" as they will, but interfere too much with the basics and they may be useless for many. There are still arguments about the positions of Strength and Justice! But if someone were to say "No, I want the Fool as trump No.4," they'd be making a seriously revolutionary gesture!

However, some readers here (I gather) are less concerned about the actual numbering of the trumps than the meanings they trigger in the context of a reading.

For superficial artists, I'm thinking of people like Doreen virtue who apparently slaps tarots together often borrowing/stealing others' art, just to push out another deck. Profit before the sincere aim to offer new or deeper insights.

I see nothing amiss with inventing a new set of meanings provided they cohere; or reinterpreting the traditional meanings with different symbols. They may be of limited use in Kabbalistic work but could appeal to readers. The point is, do they then become oracle cards rather than tarot? It doesn't mean they're any less value. (I do most of my work with the Majors which I'll bet some readers would regard as oracular rather than tarot).

But as long as they cohere and can be used as a tarot deck, it's up to the artist.

Click to expand...

That's rather terrible, my gag deck already has more effort put in than that.

I don't know a lot of (any) oracles with suits, though. Maybe it sort of bothers me that we have tarot, and very close variations of tarot, and then everything else gets lumped into oracle, which arguably has developed a flavor of it's own.

Shade said:

The further from the Rider Waite you go the more likely it is that your deck will be a nice collector item that the owner will use once or twice a year unless they connect with it so deeply that it is THE deck they use. The Voyager Tarot for example was a complete zag in presentation for its time but for many it clicked so thoroughly that it is THE deck for them.

Lo Scarabeo is not afraid to zag when it comes to the meanings for some cards. Example, The Dream Enchantress 7 of cups is a fairy/spirit/woman growing out of a lily pad holding two babies: http://www.tarotgarden.com/database/images/thumbnails/adthumb/dreamenchantresssample.gif

This is a lovely take on the card but it will make people work harder than yet another rendition of "Castles in the sky" or "Illusions"

Click to expand...

I have to admit, I don't really understand the appeal of using a deck you don't deeply connect with, or that is just a different art style of every other deck you own with the near exact same image and meanings. Why have more than one at all, if you're not willing to WORK with a deck that could give you vastly different messages?

Going against the grain here. Why would a reader be worried about the deck being a TAROT deck or taracle or and oracle ? Readability is key imo. The deck below is named a tarot deck. It reads wonderfully but is completely different from all tarot decks you may have used. Does the name matter ?
http://www.aeclectic.net/tarot/cards/morgans/

ana luisa said:

Going against the grain here. Why would a reader be worried about the deck being a TAROT deck or taracle or and oracle ? Readability is key imo. The deck below is named a tarot deck. It reads wonderfully but is completely different from all tarot decks you may have used. Does the name matter ?
http://www.aeclectic.net/tarot/cards/morgans/

Click to expand...

It probably matters an awful lot to readers that don't want to work hard with it, like Shade was saying, and no doubt matters to tarot 'purists' for whatever reason, like the arguers of Strength and Justice's positions mentioned by Rhapsodin. It matters to me when I shop for new decks because it tells me a little bit about the general structure to expect of the deck and what kind of variations and flavors I should look for to establish as best I can if it's a deck that will work well with me. Structure does play a lot into a decks readability for me, and the kind of messages I can get from a deck.

I do like that you brought it up from the readers perspective.

Well, I'm a stick in the mud so I'm picky about my Tarot decks sticking hard by the original structure ([14X4] + [21+1]). I'm sure there are great Oracles and Tarot-inspired/nearly-Tarots ('taracles'? I hadn't heard that before, but it's a nifty word to describe them!), and it's not that I think I couldn't learn to read with them - I just don't want to. (And while I've learned to research my decks as thoroughly as possible before buying, I would be pretty annoyed if I picked up a deck advertising itself as 'Tarot' in a shop, only to get it home and find it's no such thing...)

It's not really about unwillingness to learn a new system (though there is that too I suppose)... An integral part of the pleasure I've always taken in Tarot is seeing how each artist/creator is able to provide a slightly different perspective on an established theme. Without this, I'd have no motivation to own multiple decks! Once people wander away from the guidelines and start doing their own thing, I start losing interest. It's apples and oranges: neither is "better", and some people love both, but I only like apples.

Probably the only thing I actively look forward to seeing (slightly) changed is the court cards. I appreciate when a creator has put thought into handling not only the gender imbalance (turning Pages into Princesses is better than nothing, but often feels like it's missing the point) but also the 'hierarchy' - and how those things are best expressed according to the theme of the deck. For historical-flavoured decks, the traditional denominations are generally fine, but in decks with a more modern feel they will likely grate. (The Minors are supposed to represent our everyday experiences, and how many of us really relate to royal court structures on a daily basis? I certainly don't. The Majors on the other hand are archetypes, so seeing things like Empress or Hierophant won't bother me the same way.)

A couple of examples - decks I don't yet own, but have wishlisted - would be the Gaian Tarot, and the Celestial Stick People. In the former, the court cards become Child, Explorer, Guardian, Elder; in the latter, they are Dreamer, Zealot, Paragon, Mentor. Of course some people might quibble with what these word choices imply, but I like them. The two sets of words have some quite different connotations, but you can still see how each arose from the cards' traditional meanings.

And that probably illustrates quite well all the tweaks that I'm prepared to embrace within what I'd still consider a standard Tarot structure - changes to card names, altered meanings, non-standard artistic interpretations... As long as they're somewhat rooted to the traditional meaning of the cards, it's all fine. (Yes, one might say, "what is this 'traditional meaning' of which you speak?", but that's a whole other argument! Personally I'm another one on the RWS boat, but from what I've seen all the main systems - Marseilles, RWS, Thoth - still have a lot of common ground.) Think of it as like using a Thesaurus: look up any common word, and you'll probably find 20+ words listed as 'synonyms'. In truth, only 2-3 of these are likely to mean pretty much exactly the same thing as the word you looked up; another half-dozen might mean close to the same thing, but all have slightly differing interpretations/contextual uses; the rest are likely only be loosely related. Likewise different decks can have different emphases, different connotations, all sorts of shades of one broad meaning/theme, but still fall within what I'd consider "Tarot".