[arcange]

Originally Posted by Ace

I have always seen him as an adult walking away from Childish pursuits. In his hand is a staff---a symbol of power. I like to think he is the guy in the 8 of cups--walking away from what he CAN'T finish and up the mountain (Ascending) of enlightenment.

barb

This makes sense to me and fits with what Barleywine says below.

Originally Posted by Barleywine

Frankly, I dodge the whole issue and just go with the Thoth meaning: pleasure, pure and simple, regardless of what deck I'm using. I do that with many of the RWS cards, but mostly the Sixes.

I don't have the Toth. It's on my wish list.

[DJP]

I don't know if I'm on my own here, but, keeping in mind the children and surrounds, I see the card as representing giving of yourself with a childlike openness and innocence.... vulnerability, even.

Y'know, like we do before life's dastardly chiropractic gets to work whacking us out of shape.

Or maybe the card means something else and this interpretation represents my being a schmaltzy schmuck!

Anyway, regarding the quality of the artwork, I have great sympathy for any artist having to churn out such a large number of illustrations on what was probably a tight deadline and skimpy budget.

[Abrac]

The man can basically be anyone you want him to be, or whoever your intuition suggests he might be. The minors have stated divinatory meanings, but there's a lot of flexibility within the basic framework. From what sources Pamela drew inspiration (even if such sources could be determined with a reasonable degree of certainty), what plays she was in, what the cat's name is, etc., etc., might be of interest to those who are drawn to such trivia, but it doesn't add one thing to a persons ability to use the cards. The same could be said for the majors if a person is using them strictly as a divinatory tool in mundane matters.

[DJP]

One more thing....

arcange, I do sympathize with your view of the card's visuals as deeply strange.

In fact, if I were to push the boat out even further.... I could say that the central characters remind me of the creatures often described in fairy encounters, some alien abductions, and certain psychedelic experiences (DMT in particular).

These oddities are frequently reported as straddling a fine-line between cutesy and menacing.

Now it's worth mentioning that I have no experience with any of the above, and I suspect I have left the realm of sensible/helpful thought far behind.

Peace.

[arcange]

Originally Posted by DJP

One more thing....



arcange, I do sympathize with your view of the card's visuals as deeply strange...



These oddities are frequently reported as straddling a fine-line between cutesy and menacing....

DJP, I agree. In response to your other comments I think Pamela was a good illustrator.

[FLizarraga]

I commend you on your sagacious eye, arcange. You see what most people overlook --including silly me.

Oh, and as for any links between the 6 of Cups, Ellen Terry and the play Nance Oldfield, just disregard them. They are pure poppycock. (I would happily use a much stronger word.)

[FLizarraga]

Originally Posted by Abrac

The man can basically be anyone you want him to be, or whoever your intuition suggests he might be. The minors have stated divinatory meanings, but there's a lot of flexibility within the basic framework. From what sources Pamela drew inspiration (even if such sources could be determined with a reasonable degree of certainty), what plays she was in, what the cat's name is, etc., etc., might be of interest to those who are drawn to such trivia, but it doesn't add one thing to a persons ability to use the cards. The same could be said for the majors if a person is using them strictly as a divinatory tool in mundane matters.

I do think that in some cases, like in thematic Tarot decks, knowing the source can add a lot to a reading, but of course thematic decks -- like say, one of the Fairytale decks, or one that alludes to a myth -- are designed that way. Otherwise I agree it would be meaningless trivia.

In this case I can safely say, after reading both what the Secrets of Tarot website says about the card and the play itself, that there's not a thing to connect them other than Pamela Smith. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Niechievo. Niente. (For instance, the period setting is wrong, and the child looks NOTHING like Smith's own illustration of Ellen Terry in that play, contrary to what the writer says.) It's an absurd, unsubstantiated claim.