What's wrong with Rods and Coins?

[Zephyros]

I've been perusing Aeclectic's list of decks this morning, and I've noticed that in many decks instead of Rods or Wands or Coins or Pentacles the deck makers use Staves or Spheres or Skulls.

In my mind, the suit of pentacles connects with monetary or worldy associations, and Rods are... well, Rods. I've seen this in some of the more "serious" decks like the Servants of the Light Tarot and also in more "popular" tarot decks like the Vampyre Tarot.

Why is this? I mean, doesn't this fundamentally change what a suit means for the sake of what I see as an affectation? Some one grasping for coins makes a point; some one doing the same with spheres means nothing to me, and grasping for skulls is downright creepy. I have less of an issue with Wands/Rods/Staves since they mean the same thin, but the Servants of the Light calls Cups "crescents" which I can see having some esoteric meaning, even though I can't really see it myself. Any thoughts?

 

[nisaba]

Does it really matter what the suits are called, as long as the reader can identify them with an Element or a particular aspect of life?

 

[Zephyros]

I think sometimes it does. I'm not saying that every deck creator must follow the rules and have coins and swords and the like (I do love and respect originality in Tarot decks), but if things are changed then I like to see some thought as to why and to what. For example, the Victoria Regina has pocket watches in lieu of coins, which I could see as paralleling what the concept of "coins" means and it's relation to the imagery, readings and, well, life in general. The suit of wands is represented by pens, which, again, fits. Swords are guns.

On the other hand, calling the suit skulls or spheres for me lacks that emotional connection. I don't want skulls in my life and I can't eat spheres, so how can I connect with them in a reading? I'm not nitpicking about calling the Cups Chalices or other name changes, which, while I see them as superfluous, that's just my opinion and I can still connect with the elements and aspects.

Taken a step further, again taking example from the Servants of the Light, the spheres seem airy, spiritual and ethereal, far removed from the earthy materialistic nature of the coins. It seems a little new-agey.

 

[nisaba]

On the other hand, calling the suit skulls or spheres for me lacks that emotional connection.

I dunno - we usually bury skulls in Earth, and they are made of bone which is Earthy. Bones are the most honest part of the physical body - and Pentacles are about the physical world - as you can't disguise bones.

Spheres to me cn work in decks where the sphere is the Earth floating in space, but yes, like you with the SOL deck (which I love passionately) I had a problem with Spheres for the first couple of years. I saw the foliage-rich Wands as taking over some Earthy function and regarded Spheres as a fifth suit, its element being Light. I've become more pragmatic over the years and see them as Earth now, especially in those cards where the spheres are cracked eggs (the source of all life is eggs of one kind or another, eggs are Earth).

 

[tarotbear]

The 'Alice in Wonderland' deck has oysters and flamingoes!

 

[KMilliron]

Coins and pentacles are material things, correct? Skulls are matters of the physical world too, as they represent what used to be a material and functioning body. I see no issues with this, and as for being creepy, some decks are just darker is all.

 

[WolfyJames]

I don't understand what the fuss is about. I also do not understand the idea of restricting artists and authors about making tarot decks and force them to use specific elements. They already pretty much follow the RSW so they have to take their liberties elsewhere. If you don't like it don't buy it.

For example, the Victoria Regina has pocket watches in lieu of coins, which I could see as paralleling what the concept of "coins" means and it's relation to the imagery, readings and, well, life in general. The suit of wands is represented by pens, which, again, fits. Swords are guns.

Well see? You might get the Victoria Regina changes, I don't, and I didn't buy the deck.

On the other hand, calling the suit skulls or spheres for me lacks that emotional connection. I don't want skulls in my life and I can't eat spheres, so how can I connect with them in a reading?

You have a skull right now protecting your brain, we all do. I totally get the skull thing and I agree with Nisaba when she said:

I dunno - we usually bury skulls in Earth, and they are made of bone which is Earthy. Bones are the most honest part of the physical body - and Pentacles are about the physical world - as you can't disguise bones.

As for the spheres I figure they're probably made from some crystal, which is totally earthy. Crystals effectively come from deep below the earth, you have to dig to find them.

 

[greatdane]

Sounds like

it's not that much different than the reasons we all pick different decks. Some images resonate with us more than others. Whether it's the image of a particular card or the image of a particular suit, if it speaks to us, fine, if it doesn't we can move along.

I do understand your frustration, closrapexa, in wanting some sort of continuity in the symbolism and your reasons. I guess that would be handy to have elements not too different, at least for a portion of readers. On the other hand, there must be readers who embrace the differences, and perhaps it adds a new component to their reading, just as different decks may.

I agree with WolfyJames that an artist shouldn't be restricted in how they see their deck and the elements. With the WIDE variety of decks available that sell, it seems readers do want choices. A reader always has the option of buying, or not buying, a deck.

 

[Le Fanu]

Oddly, I find this easier to deal with than switching Cups to fire or Swords to water or whatever, though even with this I force myself to be flexible!

 

[Zephyros]

Interesting responses

I wouldn't call myself frustrated, only critical, and I wasn't suggesting that people be limited as to what to draw and how, only that they draw their conclusions from demonstrable elements in the deck itself.

Say you have a fairytale in a world where the kiss of a princess restores frogs to princes. Now, even in that world you have constructed, in the interest of plot, you know if the kiss restored only frogs, or also slugs, whether the frog has to be a prince beforehand. Can only a princess's kiss turn frogs into princes, or also horse kisses? So you see, in that short space we have already constructed an entire universe, and if a Tarot deck can be likened to a story, it should have organic development of its so-called "plot points." If our princess (or horse) decided at one point not to kiss the frog (or slug) you'd want to know why, and how this decision came as a result of her innate personality.

Now, like I said before, I like and want to see originality in decks, as much as possible, but I also want things to be grounded in the symbolic universe of the deck itself. You believe the spheres are crystals? Valid point and who am I to argue, but where in the deck does it say that, where in the deck am I told that they are indeed crystals and not, I don't know, fireflies? You want a deck with skulls representing the material element? I'm all for it, but show me, in the deck, why I want skulls and why my material progression revolves around them (for example in a zombie apocalypse tarot deck, skulls could easily be the new currency).

If we go back to the story writing metaphor, anyone can write a book about princesses and frogs and aliens and what have you, but we've all read good books, and we've all read bad books and know the differences between them for a variety of reasons, and what bugs me, in literature at least, is plot incoherency, as in, when the characters act like they do because of the plot, and not the other way 'round (speaking very generally, of course). Even Alice could have been lazy and slothful and not run after the rabbit, decided she wasn't thirsty and not drunk out of the bottle, and then we would have no story. This goes not only for the pips but for the scenes themselves. You could very easily draw Death as, oh, I don't know, a toothpick, and I'd cheer you on, but you'd better have a damn good demonstrable reason for doing so.

So in essence I am not seeking to restrict deck creators, but to urge them to "try harder." Pamela Coleman invented a whole new visual language for you, and while I'm not saying everyone should strive that high, deck creators should strive to reach as high as they can. It's just not enough to say "Hey, this is a vampire deck, right? Vampires are spooky. Know what else is? Skulls! yeah, let's use that, that'll be way cool!"