The neo deck

[mywildbunch]

Ok...so there is so much thrown at me here so I will do my best to explain the appeal this had for me. As I said in a previous post I understand the controversy, but as I read the response from everyone I don't think that the concept is being completely understood.

For me when I was a beginner I had no idea where to start and no one to call for advice and I was so confused. I had books and my personal journal and a few decks but it was hard to flip flop and keep my focus and truly understand the information I was reading.

This deck would have been an amazing starting point for me. I can study the name and meaning and focus on keywords so much better than reading paragraphs and still feeling lost. Knowing a basic starting point and expanding to an illustrated deck at my own pace and in my own way would have been perfect for someone who learns the way I do.

Bonebeach really hit the nail on the head with everything she has said. Is this deck for everyone? No. It's just a starting point that can help people begin the learning process and expand on as they feel comfortable doing so.

No this is not my project. And yes tarot is symbolic, this is only an aid to help people learn. Having adhd and 3 children (in my case) make learning a little difficult at times no matter how much you want to or how disciplined you may be. Everyone is unique.

 

[rylla]

Great aiding tool? Maybe (depending which system one wants to learn - 2 keywords only is very limiting though). A reading deck? "Reading" keywords? No way! Doing a spread with a tarot deck than looking for the corresponding cards from this deck and placing them beside the tarot cards? Way to much work! (time consuming). I'd use a graph for that instead.

mywildbunch, I don't believe anyone wants to throw something on you - we are discussing the project - as you say everyone is unique. We are expressing our thoughts, feelings about the project not you. As I understand it isn't even your project. Has nothing to do with you.

 

[mywildbunch]

I was simply referring to all of the questions and etc. I in no way meant to come across as being ill mannered. I do apologize if that is how it reads.

 

[gregory]

I was simply referring to all of the questions and etc. I in no way meant to come across as being ill mannered. I do apologize if that is how it reads.

You don't come across as rude at all - I just wondered if it was your project - in which case different things might need to be said (things like what kind of card stock are you using and how big are the cards and so on !) We are only talking about the concept, then (and bonebeach, I do agree about the Tarot of Color, actually - it was the amount of info I thought was useful, in a way...)

I totally get the points about non-visual learning and so on. BUT - Tarot is all about images, and without the image to refer to, I don't think any amount of key words can cut it. WITH the image - and maybe with only that much text, rather than the Quick and Easy paragraphs ! - I can see this as useful, but if you are going to READ the cards, you need the images - much can hang on which person a card is facing in relation to the next card, and things like that. And as soon as you have the images - what is to tie them to those memorised words ?

If this deck is to be useful, it needs to come WITH the images - if necessary as a second deck, to lay out with these cards while learning. So that you can see - for instance - the risk the fool takes close to that cliff, the calmness in the Hanged Man's face and so on. Without those images why would the keywords stick in your mind - what's to anchor them ? You may as well memorise them from the pages of a book as if you were learning your part in a play. Actually that's a useful analogy. When you learn your part in a play, you still have to take in what is going on around you, or you won't have the cues you need to come in with your lines. Same thing here, I think - without the visual clues before you when you memorise the words, those same words may well desert you when you have that Fool on your table. You'll see the dog and the cliff, and...

 

[Metafizzypop]

I find this deck to be a little on the boring side, and I've a hunch I'm not alone. But this comment gave me an idea.

If this deck is to be useful, it needs to come WITH the images - if necessary as a second deck, to lay out with these cards while learning.

The pictures could be in a companion book. That's what would make this deck more interesting. Let the cards show just words, and have the book show just pictures. So it would be the reverse of what you usually get with a tarot deck. The reader would get to see the pictures, but the deck would still have a new idea.

I realize it wouldn't happen for this particular deck, but maybe in the future someone might want to make a deck like that. It would just need a good gimmick-y name, lol.

But, as it is, I still find the Neo deck really boring.

 

[rylla]

Without those images why would the keywords stick in your mind - what's to anchor them ?

That's the point!

 

[Laura Borealis]

This project, and the reaction to it, is interesting to me because I'm working on something sort of similar. Though not really. Mine is not a deck with keywords, but more like flashcards with meanings for associations - astrological, mainly, as I can never remember what are the characteristics of Capricorn, for instance, or whether a sign is cardinal, fixed or mutable. I don't intend mine for publication though, and would never do a Kickstarter regardless.

Personally I don't want or need a deck like the Neo Deck. If I wanted something like it, I'd write up my own set on file cards, which I also think would be a better aid to learning than reading someone else's keywords off the cards. I know I learn more easily when I do my own research, synthesize it, and write it down. But, different people have their own learning styles, and I'm sure this deck will be useful to many. Especially if they think the cards have set meanings (some people do).

One thing I didn't see on the Kickstarter page is what system the deck is based on. Is it RWS-based? Justice isn't numbered, so it's hard to tell. Also, it's not clear what elemental correspondences the deck uses. Swords are probably air from the example given, but I'm just assuming, and it doesn't tell me if cups are water, etc. When a deck switches correspondences (like the Silicon Dawn's fire=pentacles and wands=earth) a lot of people get up in arms. It's confusing when they are switched around, even when it makes internal sense.

So if I were the creator, I'd go into more detail about these things. Maybe they aren't using any elemental correspondences at all (but their keywords must still be pulled from an existing system, one would think!)

 

[gregory]

Good point about make your own. Decks of plain cards are dirt cheap. Never mind the "tarot" ones on amazon, which I admit are very nice - when I was planning math activities, I got several sets of 100 blank playing card style cards (as in with decent coloured backs) for about $5 a pop.

What I also can't see is why they need a kickstarter at all. Why not chuck it up on TGC or printerstudio - they don't need to pay an artist or anything. Where's the need for money ?

 

[gregory]

Good grief. This is VERY not OK. I asked about the system they are using:

Hi, It's not a specific system that we are using. For Someone new to tarot, it can be daunting to figure out meaning, having to flip thru a book or google the cards for meanings. This is meant to be simple, to get use to key words and gain a feel for the readings. We could've added numbers and more ingo, but didnt want to clutter it up.
Hope this helps, dale

To my mind we have just hit the Useless Big Time button.

There's more - I was so horrified I enquired further:

The actual main words, i.e. fool, empress etc. is based on the waite system. The keywords themselves are a generalized mixture of what the meanings are. This deck is meant for the brand new initiate to tarot. Those that are interested in learning how to lay the cards and start to have an idea what the cards meanings are. It's a very simplistic approach for someone to grow from and then get into a Waite or Thoth etc.

I am also not impressed by grammar and spelling - it looks sloppier by the minute.

 

[Laura Borealis]

Well, not everyone is good at grammar and spelling (my dad was quite intelligent but not book-smart, and he had terrible spelling and punctuation). I rely on spellcheckers myself

Anyway, Dale appears to be their design/layout person, probably not responsible for the card meanings? So I wouldn't necessarily expect the cards themselves to be ungrammatical.

The deck not being grounded in an established system is a little odd though. I wish they'd show a few more cards. And I wonder what the court names are. I bet it is RWS based, despite the denial.