After Tarot by Lo Scarabeo

[Le Fanu]

I'll be skipping this one.

For me, the charm, utility, and downright genius of the RWS artwork is its delicious ambiguity. That's what makes readings with it so effective. Whatever one thinks of Pamela Colman Smith's draftsmanship skills, the ineffable mystery she imbued in the cards is, in my opinion, what accounts for the popular success of the deck (and of tarot in general).

Thus, I would prefer to keep my brain uncluttered and free of images that purport to show me what happened in front of, behind, above, below, in the future, or in the past of the RWS cards. As the reader, that's my job.

To be honest, I don't think it's purporting exactly to do that. The name might be a little misjudged. But all those RWS clones that we love (I assume that's a *we*, maybe just *I* if you prefer) are showing different moments, different perspectives, different concepts of a single slice of PCS' ideas for a card. The Llewellyn or Hanson Roberts or - insert-favourite-deck-here are not showing the exact same RWS moment. We can still read with them.

I think to judge this deck on a yardstick of "it's-just-the-next-moment" is a shame. I think that as a reading deck it works better than that. At least for me. It's more a case of shifting the stress slightly and still seeing the same scene. Some cards are imperceptibly different. There are a couple I can't quite see such a significant difference. But I keep coming back to it. I felt that, since 1983 when I first started using the RWS, I've been getting a little staid with it. I love this new shift - much better than the New Vision, which didn't work for me at all. I admit that there is loads in PCS´ artwork, but not sure that after three decades it still surprises me. It doesn't. I'll be honest. I don't think I'm a philistine but I don't actually think that PCS' artwork is inexhaustible.

I like it (PCS' artwork) but I've been looking at it for a long time. I'll come back to it afresh sometime soon. Honestly Lee, I think if you could have a play with it and do a reading for someone, I bet you'd quite like it... It isn't sacrilege, really I do think there's more to it as a reading deck than just "what comes next".

 

[starlightexp]

I'll be skipping this one.

For me, the charm, utility, and downright genius of the RWS artwork is its delicious ambiguity. That's what makes readings with it so effective. Whatever one thinks of Pamela Colman Smith's draftsmanship skills, the ineffable mystery she imbued in the cards is, in my opinion, what accounts for the popular success of the deck (and of tarot in general).

Thus, I would prefer to keep my brain uncluttered and free of images that purport to show me what happened in front of, behind, above, below, in the future, or in the past of the RWS cards. As the reader, that's my job.

marry me.... these are my thoughts exactly

 

[Lee]

But all those RWS clones that we love (I assume that's a *we*, maybe just *I* if you prefer) [...]

I love RWS clones! Whether they're "close" clones like the recolorings or "medium" clones like the Aquarian, Morgan-Greer, etc., or more indirect clones like the Touchstone, they're all wonderfully creative and usable.

The New Vision and After Tarot are, I think, a different category due to the mimicking of PCS's artwork.

It isn't sacrilege, really

I'm actually not a dogmatic purist. Really, I'm not! I love modern takes on the TdM, and if I were that much of an RWS purist, I wouldn't like RWS clones.

Let me see if I can explain my viewpoint. I don't claim that that viewpoint is necessarily completely rational or logical, but it's the way I feel.

The RWS recolorings are OK, in my mind, because they still qualify as PCS's work. Even though the linework is technically new, nothing except colors has really been added.

The "medium" clones (Handon-Roberts, etc.) are OK in my mind because while they're clearly using PCS's work as a jumping-off point, they still are the work of the various artists and not of PCS. They may show slightly different scenes and perspectives but that's OK because they're not aping or mimicking PCS's work.

The New Vision and After Tarot decks, in my mind, are a different animal altogether because of the aping/mimicking. Sure, they're creative, in a way, but there's something that seems dishonest or disreputable about it. To me it feels the same as when the Mythic Tarot publisher released the New Mythic, with the artist copying Tricia Newell's original image compositions (without even asking her). Or like when Gus Van Sant directed a shot-for-shot remake of "Psycho." Are these works truly creative? Maybe in some meta way they are, but they seem disrespectful to the works and artists they're ripping off.

As far as the nitty-gritty of reading, I really don't want to end up with a situation where I'm reading with the RWS and I look at a card and the corresponding image from the After Tarot jumps unbidden into my mind, contaminating my reading process (sorry for the melodramatic language but that's the best word I can think of).

If RWS readings were going stale for me, I would try to counter that by reading for a while with a different deck, a clone or a TdM or even focus for a while on Lenormand or playing cards.

Your mileage, as with everything in tarot, may vary, of course! That's just my take on it.

 

[Le Fanu]

The New Vision and After Tarot decks, in my mind, are a different animal altogether because of the aping/mimicking. Sure, they're creative, in a way, but there's something that seems dishonest or disreputable about it. To me it feels the same as when the Mythic Tarot publisher released the New Mythic, with the artist copying Tricia Newell's original image compositions (without even asking her). Or like when Gus Van Sant directed a shot-for-shot remake of "Psycho." Are these works truly creative? Maybe in some meta way they are, but they seem disrespectful to the works and artists they're ripping off.

As far as the nitty-gritty of reading, I really don't want to end up with a situation where I'm reading with the RWS and I look at a card and the corresponding image from the After Tarot jumps unbidden into my mind, contaminating my reading process (sorry for the melodramatic language but that's the best word I can think of).

Interesting perspective. Not one I had thought of, but I'd never thought of them as disreputable. One of the things I like about the After Tarot is the very familiar scenes done with a very fine line to the artwork. It feels cleaned up, almost RWS but not quite. And the colouring has an old, faded fairy tale book feel to it. For me, the New Vision feels gimmicky and distractingly unreadable. This one doesn't. It gives me a very pleasing sense of a "shift" from overly-familiar artwork.

 

[rylla]

I THINK so; I will get it out later... busy just now. Remind me if I don't tell you at some point today (GMT) !

ETA OK, I got it out ANYWAY.

The book is by Corrine Kenner - not one of my favourites, but to each their own. That does mean it is decently written. I quite like it, but while it does deal with the images on the cards, and meanings in terms of the changed image (as in "the fool will land on his feet" !) and has loads of stuff about symbols and connections - but on the other hand, a non-beginner like you will actually know most of that, and would also be able to figure out the progressions shown on the cards, and how the changed images affect it all.

I bought the kit, and I'm not sorry; I do find it interesting and I enjoyed reading it - but it isn't VITAL for someone as experienced as you are, rylla. That said - I don't know about where you are, but the kit costs little more than the deck on its own, and I DO like their magnetic boxes....

Thanks so much for the enlightening information Gregory!

 

[magicjack]

I have been working with this deck now for about 5 weeks since I received it and I have to say I am pleasantly surprised with it. Your really able to use your original meanings from your original RWS but I'm also enjoying finding new meanings to the cards. A few of the cards have me scratching my head still but I think that is what I am enjoying about it. I still think the name of the deck should have been called something else. I don't think I will get the book because it's kind of fun figuring out your own meanings. Something I really didn't do with the RWS.

 

[rwcarter]

Interesting. I pre-ordered the kit from Amazon and have an estimated delivery date of 2/14-18. A friend told me this morning that she picked up a kit in a Southern California Barnes & Noble this week. But bn.com shows a pre-order with available date of 2/8.

It's available in the stores, but not online? That just seems strange.

Rodney

 

[magicjack]

I just saw the kit on Book Depository. It didn't say anything about pre order. Might show up after you order but it doesn't on the main page.

 

[gregory]

Interesting. I pre-ordered the kit from Amazon and have an estimated delivery date of 2/14-18. A friend told me this morning that she picked up a kit in a Southern California Barnes & Noble this week. But bn.com shows a pre-order with available date of 2/8.

It's available in the stores, but not online? That just seems strange.

Rodney

I bought mine on line AGES ago....

 

[rwcarter]

I bought mine on line AGES ago....

In Europe hopefully and not Canada? Since US online vendors show pre-orders, I figured the sets were still on their slow boat from Europe. But if the sets are available in stores in the US, it doesn't make sense that they're not available online in the US yet.