Nemia
I've read this whole long thread over the last few days. My Thoth book shelf is slowly expanding and it's interesting to see what others think.
I bought Arrien's book some years ago but never got far with it - just like Ziegler, I couldn't even put my finger on why these books didn't help me with the Thoth. It seemed redundant in a way and didn't add depth to what I saw in the card images. Henry Ho was in parts interesting, in others problematic, Banzhaf/Akron was better and Milo Duquette was even better reading, and now I finally feel ready to start reading Crowley himself.
It seems likely that without the option of an individual, intuitive and personal approach to the tarot, it wouldn't have enjoyed that popularity that it enjoys today. Had I known when I started out with tarot, how complex and demanding it is, I'd probably have been discouraged from the start.
Not everybody is ready to jump in both feet first.
When I saw that Angeles Arrien had died, I was sorry to hear it. Her approach of exoteric symbol interpretation, based on Jungian theory, is valid and doesn't compete with esoteric traditions. It's an access road to a difficult terrain. And as such, even if we find fault with details or think she might have gone into more depth with the symbols themselves, her book has its merits. It reflects the spirit of the time when it was written, she would probably have written it differently at a later stage in her life, and it belongs to the generation of books that made the tarot what it is today.
Whatever one may say against popularization and commercialization - I can't regret that a wonderful and enriching tool like tarot has become more approachable, and that a multitude of books, tools, and cards is available to us today.
I bought Arrien's book some years ago but never got far with it - just like Ziegler, I couldn't even put my finger on why these books didn't help me with the Thoth. It seemed redundant in a way and didn't add depth to what I saw in the card images. Henry Ho was in parts interesting, in others problematic, Banzhaf/Akron was better and Milo Duquette was even better reading, and now I finally feel ready to start reading Crowley himself.
It seems likely that without the option of an individual, intuitive and personal approach to the tarot, it wouldn't have enjoyed that popularity that it enjoys today. Had I known when I started out with tarot, how complex and demanding it is, I'd probably have been discouraged from the start.
Not everybody is ready to jump in both feet first.
When I saw that Angeles Arrien had died, I was sorry to hear it. Her approach of exoteric symbol interpretation, based on Jungian theory, is valid and doesn't compete with esoteric traditions. It's an access road to a difficult terrain. And as such, even if we find fault with details or think she might have gone into more depth with the symbols themselves, her book has its merits. It reflects the spirit of the time when it was written, she would probably have written it differently at a later stage in her life, and it belongs to the generation of books that made the tarot what it is today.
Whatever one may say against popularization and commercialization - I can't regret that a wonderful and enriching tool like tarot has become more approachable, and that a multitude of books, tools, and cards is available to us today.