Anthony Louis "Tarot Beyond the Basics"

aliceinwonderland

It is DEFINITELY worth buying. HOWEVER, you must approach it differently than Tarot Plain and Simple. I guess Mr. Louis sys it like it is. His first book was simple, direct. You have a card, here are the meanings. Tarot beyond the Basics is a VERY meaty book with an immense amount of information. It is not one to be read in one sitting and does require some time. Just to mention the chapters:

Reflections on the Celtic Cross; Astrology 101 for Tarot Readers; The Topsy-Turvy World of tarot Reversals; The role of intuition in divination; Number symbolism and the Tarot; The four elements; The elemntal personalities of the court cards; The major arcana; The anatomy of the four suits

His prose is always a delight to read. He explains things in a nice way so you won´t feel like you're preparing a PhD. thesis on Tarot :D As in TP&S he provides anecdotes and stories to illustrate the teachings, with pictures of cards from various decks. To be honest, the astrology bit did not interest me much but it can be someone's treasure (there is a lot of information on this area). I guess the main difference is that instead of giving the reader the meaning, he scrutinizes the card symbols and history with the reader to teach him how to LOOK FOR meanings. (does it make sense?) There are 70 pages of appendix info alone with a HUGE compillation of keywords , planets, elemnts, houses, etc.
Tarot Beyond the Basics is Tarot Plain and simple's older brother.

This is an amazing review, AL. Thanks so much for taking the time in giving us these little nuggets from the book. Like you said, I liked very much his narrative style, very plain and it comes across very heartfelt to me. The only thing I found lacking on his book (tarot plain and simple) was that the meanings were very inspired by the suits (pentacles: money matters, for example) and I found it lacking to make sense in other contexts. I only like to read love questions, lol. I guess is my own responsibility to get into a wider scope of reading. I just don't feel it. My forte and what I truly enjoy looking into is human relationships....

I am not overly visual with the cards. I guess is because my first deck was Marseilles....

I certainly would enjoy the astrological aspect, would help me grasp the use of reversals and to put personality to court cards.

Thanks so much for the time you have spent typing this!

Big hug xxx
 

ana luisa

This is an amazing review, AL. Thanks so much for taking the time in giving us these little nuggets from the book. Like you said, I liked very much his narrative style, very plain and it comes across very heartfelt to me. The only thing I found lacking on his book (tarot plain and simple) was that the meanings were very inspired by the suits (pentacles: money matters, for example) and I found it lacking to make sense in other contexts. I only like to read love questions, lol. I guess is my own responsibility to get into a wider scope of reading. I just don't feel it. My forte and what I truly enjoy looking into is human relationships....

I am not overly visual with the cards. I guess is because my first deck was Marseilles....

I certainly would enjoy the astrological aspect, would help me grasp the use of reversals and to put personality to court cards.

Thanks so much for the time you have spent typing this!

Big hug xxx

You're welcome :) Now, not make things even costlier, a book I bought a while ago (quite cheap) and that is VERY good for relationships (in fact, that's ALL it deals with) is this one:
http://www.amazon.com/Tarot-Love-Re...words=tarot+for+love+and+relationships+jacobi

It is VERY well detailed and goes card by card upright AND reversed for a general meaning and solid relationships. I learned about this book while watching one of akirafist's videos on YouTube. You can skip the other books and go to 5:28 to see what is looks like:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuaVEHDUXpI&index=1&list=PL7Yk6hQPntTEvbOvXz6gpwl3Uf255YZVj

Have fun !! :thumbsup:
 

rwcarter

This book has a very unfortunate typo in it that's repeated at least twice (and I don't remember where I saw it the first time):
In Crowley's system, the Thoth Princes (Waite's Kings).... p 157
Crowley's Knights are equivalent to Waite's Kings from everything I've ever read unless my memory is seriously failing me....

I'm reading the book out of order, so if I find the other instance of the typo, I'll post it here.
 

Le Fanu

I think I'll get this.

Those chapters are all - without exception - areas which I feel I'd like to know a little more about. Or at least be exposed to another perspective.
 

Cocobird55

I learned a lot from this book. I'm glad that I have it.
 

avalonian

This book has a very unfortunate typo in it that's repeated at least twice (and I don't remember where I saw it the first time):Crowley's Knights are equivalent to Waite's Kings from everything I've ever read unless my memory is seriously failing me....

I'm reading the book out of order, so if I find the other instance of the typo, I'll post it here.

I'm sure I've read somewhere, someone saying the Thoth Princes = Waite Kings, it really confused me. I seem to remember the reasoning being that a Prince and a King are both Royal, that the Thoth Queen would not be married to a Knight, but a Prince could be married to a Queen (as in Queen Elizabeth and Prince Phillip). Maybe someone else here will remember.

So I'm not sure if it is a typo, especially if it is repeated. Wonder if we could contact him and ask??

:) :) :)
 

Astraea

In his book, Understanding Aleister Crowley's Thoth Tarot, Lon Milo DuQuette explains that Crowley's Knights (not Princes, per Louis) = Waite's Kings.

On p. 76, DuQuette states that "In the imagery of cosmic chivalry, the knight on horseback wins his queen, the old king's daughter, and replaces the old king on the throne…Crowley considered the more active, virile concept of the Knight to be the most appropriate title and character for the court card that represents the Yod in YHVH."

Chapter 11 of DuQuette's book is dedicated to explaining the court card hierarchy. He does this in a very engaging manner, by placing it in the context of a "Qabalistic Romance." At any rate, according to DuQuette it is the Knights who assume the role of Waite's Kings - not the Princes.
 

3ill.yazi

What an odd mistake.
 

magicjack

This book has a very unfortunate typo in it that's repeated at least twice (and I don't remember where I saw it the first time):Crowley's Knights are equivalent to Waite's Kings from everything I've ever read unless my memory is seriously failing me....

I'm reading the book out of order, so if I find the other instance of the typo, I'll post it here.

In chapter 7, p 233, titled "The Confusion Caused by the Golden Dawn" attempts to explain this a little better. It is interesting to note how he says, "Waite saw his Knights as men over 40" but the deck doesn't seem to look that way. As far as hierachy, in the golden dawn, the steed trumps the chariot (throne?) If you take a look at the Hermetic Tarot you will see the Prince on a chariot titled King (older man) and the Lord on the steed is titled Knight (younger man). Now how should I interpret that in a reading? (now I am going off topic here)

Anyway, I found this book at the library and am enjoying it very much because it is like the title says, "beyond the basics".
 

gregory

In his book, Understanding Aleister Crowley's Thoth Tarot, Lon Milo DuQuette explains that Crowley's Knights (not Princes, per Louis) = Waite's Kings.

On p. 76, DuQuette states that "In the imagery of cosmic chivalry, the knight on horseback wins his queen, the old king's daughter, and replaces the old king on the throne…Crowley considered the more active, virile concept of the Knight to be the most appropriate title and character for the court card that represents the Yod in YHVH."

Chapter 11 of DuQuette's book is dedicated to explaining the court card hierarchy. He does this in a very engaging manner, by placing it in the context of a "Qabalistic Romance." At any rate, according to DuQuette it is the Knights who assume the role of Waite's Kings - not the Princes.

I'm with you, Rodney and Astraea. I don't think it's a mistake. There ARE a variety of views on this, and clearly Louis takes the Prince as King one.