The Tarot of Vampyres

[shadowdancer]

Good point regarding when it will be used. I tend not to be seasonal with decks, but know some are. So may pop back in 6 months, and again in 9 months

I have a sneaky feeling, when I do check back that very, very owners will be using it regularly. I hope I am wrong. If it is a good reading deck in the long run, then it deserves to see the light of day (very unvampyre like I know) if anything for that stunning artwork. As I have said - I am open to using it but only IF it lends itself to be a valid working deck, and one that does not rely on the user making frequent references to the book due to the fact the card image is not straight forward with regards symbolism, story telling etc.

Davina

[irisa]

Originally Posted by Chiriku

QUESTION: does it bother anyone that many of the Minors appear not to have the number of cups, knives, etc. illustrated on the card? (For other reasons, I already suspected that many images started life as stand-alone paintings that were conscripted into service for this deck).

Doesn't bother me - in fact I hadn't even found it worth a thought that's how spellbound I am! I wasn't sure about the court card arrangement but again after first glance I've not noticed it at all. I'm sure you're right many were stand alone paintings but I'm impressed with Ian Daniels both for his tarot and his art.

Now ungodly picky Chiriku lol I'm curious are you wanting to like every single card and approve of everyone's bone structure in a deck to buy and enjoy it?

Can't honestly say I've ever really been bothered by bone structure But I've bought decks on the strength of one card before now and not been disappointed. So I'm just thinking if that were my criteria how many decks would I own.... not many. As an example the BG the 6 of Cups children look like little chuckies to me and the 10 of cups has always slightly bothered me I can't shake the impression that the baby is dead and the small girl sadly neglected or worse! And Deviant Moon (which I don't think of as dark) has the novice witch hammering nails into trees and making them bleed, poor trees! But there are no cards that make me feel like that in Vampyres.

irisa

[Le Fanu]

Originally Posted by shadowdancer

well, I am still not sure about this deck I fell for the gushing over the Deviant Moon, and kicked myself for it. I want to know in 6 months time
...........................
So, if anyone cares to pop back in 6 months and let me know, I promise I am open enough to reconsider my thoughts.

But even if you asked about the Deviant Moon now, people would still gush over it. People will still love the Vampyres in 6 months. depends if you feel an affinity with their tastes or not!

[shadowdancer]

Fair point Le Fanu. And I think there are a fair few who do read with the DM, and successfully.

Not a case of taste affinity - just that I love the artwork, feel the appeal but am just wanting to keep my collection a working one now. If this is a good reader (and I love the artwork so sold on that score believe me) I may well give it a go. Those who read with it over time will be the opinions I will be looking out for I guess.

Davina

PS If I have come across as grouchy and out of character I apologise. I am not judging peoples tastes - heck we are all different, and what is one persons vanilla, is another person's double choc mint

[Le Fanu]

I can see what you're getting at. It is possible to ask about a deck 6 months later which no-one reads with, yes. You chose a bad example - the DM continues to be loved and read with!

And that tells us something!

[AineFoley]

Originally Posted by Le Fanu

As I was reading it, I have to say, I was thinking "either this deck is indeed very, very good, or she has friends at Llewellyn"

Well she (Boyer) may have friends there but I've heard her somewhat negative things about particular Llewellyn writers...um, well, one Llewellyn writer...

I can't believe she thinks this deck is better than the Bogo (and that's how I read it) - but I'm kinda glad she didn't like the first edition - she sold her silver to me!

[Le Fanu]

Well she does talk about the Vampyres as not showing a shallow understanding of tarot (and promptly) cites Llewellyn.

Interestingly, I went to her other reviews to try and gauge the barometer, i.e if she gushes about decks I don't like, I can prepare myself. However, her other reviews (the one I read; Noblet, Tarot of Angels... ) were much more calm and objective than this one!

[AineFoley]

True, her reviews are usually more even-handed - she appears very enthused by the Vampyre deck. I think it's a nice deck but I'm not sure it merits some of the comments she's made about it...maybe I'll get her to write a blurb for my (non-tarot) book!

[Chiriku]

I've always liked Boyer's reviews.

She doesn't appear to be crippled by loyalty to deck creators, which is a plus in my book, and I also like that she always states clearly what she does and does not like in a deck.

In fact, there were a few decks I dismissed despite others' glowing reviews but later reconsidered and/or bought because, even though her review was negative, the very things she disliked were things that appealed to me!

shadowdancer, I'm sorry to hear you regretted your Deviant Moon purchase.

I suspect that what really leads to 6-month regrets for a lot of people--and this will apply to Vampyres,too--is not that the deck itself is inherently too shallow or too abstract or otherwise unuseable. After all, ANY deck--even names written on 78 Post-It notes---can be readable and useful to someone.

Rather, there is a probably a higher proportion of regrets when a deck has been hyped to the skies (inevitable expectation let-down) and when many people have let themselves be persuaded to buy a deck that, left to their own devices, they mightn't ever have purchased.

Originally Posted by irisa

Now ungodly picky Chiriku lol I'm curious are you wanting to like every single card and approve of everyone's bone structure in a deck to buy and enjoy it?

Can't honestly say I've ever really been bothered by bone structure

Ha! No, you are absolutely correct--some of my criteria are more than faintly absurd!

Or maybe not so very absurd if you consider that something like a shape of a character's jaw and the way he's opening his mouth can just tug at one's subconscious in a very unpleasant fashion that, for whatever reason, makes one recoil every time s/he sees it. And that can put one off a deck.

I must be honest--in the age of scanners, the internet and review sites, and in light of my determination to transform my collection into a "working" or viable one, I *do* require the majority of cards in a deck to be, at the least, acceptable to me.

Another thing that gives me twinges with this deck is that I *know* that many of the images were inserted into a tarot paradigm after the fact. I don't blame Daniels or any artist or publisher for this at all, mind. And I know this has been done with many decks besides this one.

But it does leave me with a slight uneasiness. Makes my subconscious carry on its own unwanted narratives: "Oh, this is an attractive painting of a woman staring into a large cauldron--I bet I could fit this into a 7 of Cups RWS-ish meaning! There we are: the 7 of Grails. Lovely."

[irisa]

Originally Posted by Chiriku

Ha! No, you are absolutely correct--some of my criteria are more than faintly absurd!

Or maybe not so very absurd if you consider that something like a shape of a character's jaw and the way he's opening his mouth can just tug at one's subconscious in a very unpleasant fashion that, for whatever reason, makes one recoil every time s/he sees it. And that can put one off a deck.

I must be honest--in the age of scanners, the internet and review sites, and in light of my determination to transform my collection into a "working" or viable one, I *do* require the majority of cards in a deck to be, at the least, acceptable to me.

Another thing that gives me twinges with this deck is that I *know* that many of the images were inserted into a tarot paradigm after the fact. I don't blame Daniels or any artist or publisher for this at all, mind. And I know this has been done with many decks besides this one.

But it does leave me with a slight uneasiness. Makes my subconscious carry on its own unwanted narratives: "Oh, this is an attractive painting of a woman staring into a large cauldron--I bet I could fit this into a 7 of Cups RWS-ish meaning! There we are: the 7 of Grails. Lovely."

Yes, but he doesn't seem to me to be trying to put square pegs in round holes or twist to fit. The images actually do fit and make sense (to me at least). For a start he didn't just supply a bunch of images and leave a staff writer to write a dry one fits all book or come up with a bunch of whacky meanings to explain the cards. Daniels goes much deeper. I like his take on the symbolism much as I enjoy Patrick's take on his Deviant Moon images.

But although I was teasing a bit about the bone structure (it made me laugh) I do know what you mean I'm primarily image driven and I suppose I'm always delighted when artwork I like turns out to read excellently as well and the two don't naturally follow. A deck has to speak on a personal level or it's not worth buying and I'm finding as I suspected that for me this one really does.

irisa