Variant approaches to the Thoth: Angeles Arrien's book

mosaica

<content applicable to source thread removed by moderator>

What about The Tarot Handbook, by Arrien? (I know she departs from Crowley, but I'm thinking that maybe she's helpful in creating one's own interpretations of the cards.)
 

Scion

Gack!

Arrien's book is HIDEOUS. My advice? Avoid like syphilitic zombie IRS agents. :bugeyed: She will literally do nothing but misguide and confuse you. Some of her ideas about the deck are comical in ineptitude and self-involvement. Her subtitle is "Practical Applications of Ancient Visual Symbols" but her ideas are about as ancient as scented handiwipes. My favorite logical disconnect is that she wrote a dippy new age book about the Thoth without learning anything about the Thoth and then gives you her own mushy, psychologized "interpretative insights" and "growth symbols" by way of encouraging you to do the same. About as sensible as learning calculus by eating a cheeseburger. In essence, "Don't pay the slightest attention to the man who understood it and designed it, but pay attention to ME-ME-ME."

I'm not sure why people would want to ignore Crowley's writings on his own deck, but I know some people do. Still, if you want to create your own interpretations why would you want HERS?! Isn't the idea of intuitive meanings that you arrive at them on your own? Which makes her book categorically pointless... like a car without seats, or a steering wheel, or an engine. This book exists only to declare that you don't need to read anything to interpret the deck. :confused: I'm not even going to get into her butchering of archetypal psychology, but let's just say her readings of Jung are about as solid as her grasp of Crowley.

I cannot think of a single reason to recommend this book other than the fact that it's attractively designed and printed. The woman hasn't done the most basic homework and some of the out-and-out errors are mind-boggling. Leaving aside the belief that she should have done some (ahem) research of her own, if she had even bothered to read Crowley ONCE she would have saved herself some howlers. Such was new age publishing in the 80s and the feel-good dumbing down of poor Carl Jung. Bizarre. I guess the book is good as a doorstop. Or mulch. But I'd feel bad for the flowers.

I know others are going to enter and give you the thumbsup, but I thought it was important enough to mention. Only my opinion, but do a search on her name and you'll find a legion of other Thoth users who agree.

Scion
 

Aeon418

I completely agree with Scion regarding Arrien's book. Do yourself a favour and avoid it at all costs.

Unfortunately P.C. Tarantino's book is practically more of the same new age pap served up by Arrien. At the beginning of the book she says that she respects the original spirit of Crowley's work but has made it more accessible to modern readers. That's a round about way of saying she threw the original intent and ideas out and replaced them with her own.

At the back of the book it says that P.C. Tarantino has studied Aleister Crowley's work for 28 years. Which leads me to believe that her first name is Pinocchio. :laugh:
 

mosaica

Scion said:
Gack! Arrien's book is HIDEOUS.

Scion

Aeon418 said:
Unfortunately P.C. Tarantino's book is practically more of the same new age pap served up by Arrien.

Okay, then! Thanks, Scion and Aeon. I will content myself with reading DuQuette and BoT over and over and over. I guess I will consider myself very fortunate that I read DuQuette first, and none of those "other" books. :)

Mosaica
 

Teheuti

Have to say I don't agree about Angie Arrien's book. It can be a wonderful way to establish a personal relationship to the cards themselves. Sure, there are many misleading things in it, but when you've finally read Crowley deeply then these should fall by the wayside (where the misconceptions belong). To me Arrien can be a good introduction for those who find the deck (and Crowley) impenetrable. Her ideas add another layer to my way of seeing the deck, and many of them are very rich.

To my mind the best book, by far, is Crowley's, followed by DuQuette, and with Banzhaf's two books to add possibilities to the mix. Arrien's book is something completely different—from a creatively inspired mind that approaches the deck in a totally unique way.

We're lucky at this point to have so many different choices for working with the Thoth deck.

Mary
 

mosaica

Thank you, Mary. I will just have to get a copy of Arrien's book at some point and judge for myself. I have one of Banzhof's (Keywords) and it has been helpful with the symbolism.
 

Aeon418

Teheuti said:
Have to say I don't agree about Angie Arrien's book. It can be a wonderful way to establish a personal relationship to the cards themselves. Sure, there are many misleading things in it, but when you've finally read Crowley deeply then these should fall by the wayside (where the misconceptions belong).
I'm somewhat confused by what you've just said there, Teheuti. The logical conclusion drawn from it is that someone moving on from Arrien's book to Crowley's will realise that The Tarot Handbook itself is one big misconception. This is based on the fact that Arrien does not like Crowley or his ideas and decided to throw them all away in favour of her own. I think it's disturbing and dishonest that someone can blithely divorce a creator from their creation and not even acknowledge the primacy their ideas. Arrien's attitude is that Crowley and his ideas get in the way, so dump 'em.

It's no secret that the political climate of the late 80's and into the 90's was one of intense hatred against Crowley and his views on Tarot. There was a concerted effort to erase Crowley's contribution to the Thoth Tarot and replace it with something else, anything else, as long as it wasn't Crowley. Arrien's book is a classic example of that attitude. An attitude that has been echoed by other authors like Wanless and Banzhaf.
 

Mariana

Aeon418 said:
I'm somewhat confused by what you've just said there, Teheuti. The logical conclusion drawn from it is that someone moving on from Arrien's book to Crowley's will realise that The Tarot Handbook itself is one big misconception. This is based on the fact that Arrien does not like Crowley or his ideas and decided to throw them all away in favour of her own. I think it's disturbing and dishonest that someone can blithely divorce a creator from their creation and not even acknowledge the primacy their ideas. Arrien's attitude is that Crowley and his ideas get in the way, so dump 'em.

It's no secret that the political climate of the late 80's and into the 90's was one of intense hatred against Crowley and his views on Tarot. There was a concerted effort to erase Crowley's contribution to the Thoth Tarot and replace it with something else, anything else, as long as it wasn't Crowley. Arrien's book is a classic example of that attitude. An attitude that has been echoed by other authors like Wanless and Banzhaf.

I'm not an expert on the Thoth, but this discussion does remind me of the dynamics within literary theory. There are many different paradigms or schools within literary theory, some for instance focusing on how a work of literature (or art) has grown from its background, others taking the work as an independent entity, like a child with a life of its own, creating new meanings in new interactions (and new historical contexts) that go beyond what the author had planned, etc. I think it's perhaps possible that Arrien wanted to approach the 'work of art' of the Thoth as just that, independent of any background and open to interaction, without necessarily having anything against Crowley. It would then just be a specific (80s?) approach to art - one of the many possible approaches and not necessarily the best (or the worst) or the one that you'd prefer.
 

Aeon418

Mariana said:
I'm not an expert on the Thoth, but this discussion does remind me of the dynamics within literary theory.
I see your point, but how many literary theories are drawn up with the express intention of burying or erasing the orginal creators ideas?

Elements within the 80's-90's Tarot movement would have much prefered it if Crowley and his ideas had never existed. This is why they promoted the idea that the Thoth was solely the creation of Frieda Harris. That's not a reinterpretation. It's a political agenda.
 

Lillie

Aeon418 said:
Elements within the 80's-90's Tarot movement would have much prefered it if Crowley and his ideas had never existed. This is why they promoted the idea that the Thoth was solely the creation of Frieda Harris. That's not a reinterpretation. It's a political agenda.

:) :D :)

That's funny.