Wildwood Tarot

[Wendywu]

She put her own handbook up on-line, which for me "goes" with the deck much better than Mark Ryan's book did. But his frustration at not being able to utilise his book because the artwork wasn't available must have been immense. I don't blame him one bit for this project, and indeed I like the cards. I just wish they'd let it stand on its own merits, because it has many.

[gregory]

What I mean, kind of, but more polite

[Aerin]

Originally Posted by Mi-Shell

The Deer and the reindeer, the antlered female was/ is Chesca Potter's Animal Spirit Guide and actually THE muse that inspired her to create the Greenwood deck in the first place.
Chesca sees this Creature as the mythical Ellen of the Ways. Not to include Deer or Reindeer is a direct hit towards Chesca...

From a past thread, my understanding was that Chesca Potter had become a born again Christian and had completely distanced herself from her former beliefs and work. {ETA to delete a bit after gregory's post but the following point still stands.}

So if you wanted to, you could claim that including them would have been far, far more disrespectful and offensive to her.

I'm not claiming that, just wanted to point it out.

[gregory]

She had refused to allow the deck to be reprinted before that - as Sidhe-Ra has pointed out. (Just a reminder, as the born again business didn't apparently actually have anything to do with it all. and it's sad to see that resurfacing as the reason.)

[Aerin]

I'm not claiming that is the reason - just pointing out that there's a lot of mind reading going on here. The most likely thing is that she couldn't care less.

But who knows?

No-one but the people involved.

[lark]

I was wondering for the people who have the Greenwood book and Wildwood book...does Mark Ryan use a lot of the same wording in the card descriptions as he used in the Greenwood book?

[oak_woman]

Originally Posted by Sophie

Well you see, Chesca Potter brought back those images from her explorations between the worlds - they are images of the otherworld and of the underlying forces of the ancient European greenwood; that's how she could bring to life the ancient pre-celtic lore. So her art cannot, in any way, be copied. The result would be flat and without life. The line would can be copied, but not the soul and the heartbeat of the art. You'd end up with something that was neither the Greenwood - because it would not in any way have its depth of purpose and intensity - nor something original.

The artist of the Wildwood will - if she is concerned at producing similar results - be following the same shamanic/visionary approach, and closeness to the land and its lore. It can't be done otherwise. It also can only be done by someone with close contact with and knowledge of the European greenwood.


For example, an American artist in America couldn't do it - they would have to have lived on this side of the Atlantic for a while to be filled with the energy of the land; as well as be a visionary/shaman. On the other hand, a European artist who was not a visionary couldn't do it either.

I suddenly noticed that I was the one who started this thread all that time ago!

And looking back at some of the early posts, I noticed this one which I think is now quite pertinent to the issues being discussed.

I have bought the Wildwood, but haven't yet posted my thoughts as they are still in flux. However, I do think that part of the divide between those who like the new deck and those who don't, rests on how far one is willing to accept art that, for the most part, is without question based on the same imagery as the Greenwood yet was painted by an artist who doesn't have the visionary qualities of Chesca Potter. As others have pointed out, it might have worked better as a stand-alone concept if Will Worthington had been given free rein to illustrate the cards without reference to the Greenwood at all.

[oak_woman]

Originally Posted by lark

I was wondering for the people who have the Greenwood book and Wildwood book...does Mark Ryan use a lot of the same wording in the card descriptions as he used in the Greenwood book?

To some extent he does, yes - and I have to admit to finding it overly 'preachy' myself. Another thing I noticed is that the visualisation at the end of the book doesn't quite fit where the Wildwood has changed a few of the Majors and reverted to the 'traditional' ordering of the cards - it looks as if large chunks of it have been repeated verbatim from the Greenwood book. Also, one of the three spreads is repeated from the Greenwood - the Bow Spread.

[lark]

Originally Posted by oak_woman

To some extent he does, yes - and I have to admit to finding it overly 'preachy' myself. Another thing I noticed is that the visualisation at the end of the book doesn't quite fit where the Wildwood has changed a few of the Majors and reverted to the 'traditional' ordering of the cards - it looks as if large chunks of it have been repeated verbatim from the Greenwood book. Also, one of the three spreads is repeated from the Greenwood - the Bow Spread.

Thank you, that's what I was afraid of.....his Greenwood book definitely is not the best...Cheska's meanings on her web site are much better.

[Carla]

Originally Posted by oak_woman

and I have to admit to finding it overly 'preachy' myself.

Oh, I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought that.