Playing Card Oracles ~ Alchemy Edition

[Lee]

Thanks for the responses! This discussion is actually making me think about getting out the original PCO (I have it in both sizes) and the book and having another go at it. I've been putting in a lot of work on Lenormand lately, but I'm unable to sustain that kind of focus on one thing for very long, so this might be just the thing to refresh my batteries with something else for a while.

Lark, I agree that the Alchemy images seem deeper, more spiritually significant, and more mythologically resonant. The PCO images seem more sort of ordinary and everyday, but that's what I like about them. They're more dialed down. I've always liked chamber music rather than orchestras, and that's why I like Lenormand too, the idea of finding significance in everyday scenes and objects is intriguing to me.

Madrigal and kalliope, I agree that the PCO's people cards seem more dynamic and dramatic, with more sharply-drawn personalities than in the Alchemy. That's why despite the more satisfying color of the Alchemy, I think I actually do prefer the PCO. The more interesting people cards combined with the cooler, more objective pip cards call to me more. It's all individual, though, obviously - I can certainly see why many folks would prefer the Alchemy, it looks like a great deck.

Madrigal, I just read what Ana said about the 8 of Spades (Greatdane sent me the link - thanks GD!), and it did help me understand where she's coming from. I did think it was interesting when she says in that interview that the Alchemy images were actually created before the PCO ones. So although the Alchemy deck is published later, it looks like it was the original PCO images that were her dad's final word, so to speak, on the subject, if I'm understanding the chronology correctly.

Finally, thanks to Greatdane whose enthusiasm made me take another look at Ana's cards and system!

 

[Madrigal]

Madrigal, I just read what Ana said about the 8 of Spades (Greatdane sent me the link - thanks GD!), and it did help me understand where she's coming from. I did think it was interesting when she says in that interview that the Alchemy images were actually created before the PCO ones. So although the Alchemy deck is published later, it looks like it was the original PCO images that were her dad's final word, so to speak, on the subject, if I'm understanding the chronology correctly.

That's a fascinating bit of information and situates the "original" PCO in a very interesting context for me. I wonder why the name 'original' is attached to a version that came later than the Alchemy edition.

 

[greatdane]

Lee

Oh so glad you're giving the first one a chance again . We will at least have info on both decks now and can compare images, even if online.

Reading Ana's explanation of especially the 8's also confirmed what I was feeling, there was more there and a reason why they were the way they were.

I am so excited to start this new journey. Got book, now, c'mon CARDS )). I hope to have the Alchemy in about a week.

I hope this deck will spark a lot more discussion and I thank our dear MADAME SQUEEEE for starting this thread!

 

[kalliope]

Lee, I'm glad to hear you're going to give the PCO another go! The thread inspired me to get out the deck again for a reading, too. We should get some posts going about it.

That's a fascinating bit of information and situates the "original" PCO in a very interesting context for me. I wonder why the name 'original' is attached to a version that came later than the Alchemy edition.

Madrigal, I think it's mostly users of the deck here on AT who call the first one the "original," simply because it was published first, and it's therefore the original to us, in our minds.

The Alchemy Edition just seems like an alternative version to me, although it's interesting to find out that the paintings were the first versions of the card art he created. But I can't help but think of the PCO (not the PCO-AE) as the "real thing!"

 

[Madrigal]

I hope this deck will spark a lot more discussion and I thank our dear MADAME SQUEEEE for starting this thread!

I agree, GD, discussion of this deck and the PCO here is engaging.

Lee, I'm glad to hear you're going to give the PCO another go! The thread inspired me to get out the deck again for a reading, too. We should get some posts going about it.

I wondered if we should start a separate, current (there are old threads on it) PCO 'original' edition thread but the discussion here has segued back and forth so seamlessly and it's fun to compare and contrast as well. Either way I'm up for more discussion

Madrigal, I think it's mostly users of the deck here on AT who call the first one the "original," simply because it was published first, and it's therefore the original to us, in our minds.

The Alchemy Edition just seems like an alternative version to me, although it's interesting to find out that the paintings were the first versions of the card art he created. But I can't help but think of the PCO (not the PCO-AE) as the "real thing!"

Thanks for clarifying, kalliope. And I feel similarly re your thoughts above. Perhaps it's because the AE has such sumptuous, rich colors, fleshed out characters and the PCO has a more austere, line-drawn look.

 

[Lee]

I wondered if we should start a separate, current (there are old threads on it) PCO 'original' edition thread but the discussion here has segued back and forth so seamlessly and it's fun to compare and contrast as well. Either way I'm up for more discussion

I'm up for more discussion on PCO - but one question I'd have is whether a Playing Card Oracles thread should be in the Oracles forum or the Playing Card Study Groups subforum.

 

[greatdane]

If I may offer my preference, Lee

I hope it stays in oracles JUST because this isn't your standard playing card deck or system. The Playing Card ORACLE seems to say it all. I mean just it does have the symbols of a playing card deck, but it's like no deck I've seen and her system seems so unique. I see it more as an oracle. But that's just my thought. Whatever one thinks of it or calls or categorizes it, a rose by any other name.....)).

 

[Madrigal]

Greatdane and Lee, I don't know enough about the differences between Ana's system and a regular playing card system (I'm thinking of hedgewytch system) to know where discussion should go.

I'm curious as to how everyone is deepening their interface with the cards. Do you all do daily draws or journal with them? Practice on friends? Do weekly spreads? What are you all doing to go deeper with them?

 

[kalliope]

Yeah, I'm kind of at a loss for where to put PCO threads, too. On the one hand, the deck and system are very firmly based upon a regular 52-card deck and the associated suits. The PCO is all about playing cards, and one can't remove or ignore that aspect to read them properly. It is, at its base, a way to read a regular pack of cards, and she herself says that you can read someone's random, ordinary poker deck once you learn her meanings.

And yet I feel like the deck reads more like an oracle, especially due to the images and the stories behind them. Most other popular PC systems are more oriented towards card-combining to get nitty-gritty details (i.e. getting cards to tell you about specific appliances, or that one will receive a phone call about money from a man, etc...) At least I see Regina Russell, Hedgewytchery, and even Kapherus/CardSeer as such.

The PCO isn't like that, so it feels very different. The meanings are broader and looser, more psychological and oracle-like. But I doubt that this perception should be enough to justify moving it to Oracles. I don't think having "Oracles" in the deck title is enough in itself either, since technically ALL playing cards are oracles... And just to be extra annoying , I'll add that one could even argue that the addition of geomancy throws us into Divination instead. I just don't know!

(You know what I DO know? That I really want a :shrug: emoticon! )

Anyway!
Madrigal, I don't have any routine for getting to know the cards. But my lack of discipline or study plans is simply a fault of mine across the board. For me, though, using the cards for readings is more educational than just contemplating them in isolation, so I would focus on whichever spreads appeal to you. Maybe at least a monthly 4-card elemental Cat spread to get to know the whole geomancy system, and also practice those on friends (or yourself) for specific questions. Maybe shorter, 3-5 card Lost Man spreads for weekly readings?

 

[Madrigal]

Anyway!
Madrigal, I don't have any routine for getting to know the cards. But my lack of discipline or study plans is simply a fault of mine across the board. For me, though, using the cards for readings is more educational than just contemplating them in isolation, so I would focus on whichever spreads appeal to you. Maybe at least a monthly 4-card elemental Cat spread to get to know the whole geomancy system, and also practice those on friends (or yourself) for specific questions. Maybe shorter, 3-5 card Lost Man spreads for weekly readings?

Thanks, kalliope. I was thinking a weekly 4 card spread would probably be a good way to start and then see which card from that four card spread wants more of a voice. Once that card speaks up then I'd do a 'lost-man' spread for it specifically. That way I'd be getting some regular interaction with the cards and their stories as well as a deepening with at least one of them once a week.

My little fantasy is a monthly PCO reading circle exchange