Hey Sandman,
I didn't list Integral Tarot for a couple reasons, and I would urgently, strenuously steer any Thoth beginner away from it as an introduction. Clear perhaps, Thoth no.
I won't comment on Suzanne Wagner's VERY dodgy speculative Tarot/Templar/Cathar history of the Dan Brown ilk. But I will point out that she is apparently aware of the existence of an "Ancient Egyptian Book of Angels" prefiguring the Tarot, which the infamous Knights managed to locate in Jerusalem. What!?! It's fine to speculate/fantasize, but in an introductory book it's unacceptable. At least present the accepted history. And please get the geography right... Templars in Egypt?? That's the opener and it's downhill from there.
Like Arrien and other fluffy New Agers, Wagner treats the images as if they dropped from the sky and have nothing to do with Harris, Crowley or Thelema. She catalogs the symbols, but in a framework divorced from context. Which is like decoding the symbolism of Notre Dames using the blueprints for a McDonald's because they're both buildings with windows that many people visit. The simplest proof of this is the weird sidestepping of all of Harris' Thelemic symbols and the fact that the book is based on the Thoth but "useful for any deck"...
Also like Arrien, Wagner favors the (as Rachel Pollack puts it) fluffy, pastel psychologizing of Tarot that became more and more common in the 80s and 90s. And for someone wanting something in that vein I'd point them to Arrien first. At least Tarot Handbook doesn't graft another mythology to the already complicated matrix of symbols in the Thoth. Mnemonics are useful, but this is Crowley's deck; the idea of offering a Christian parable to describe the "feel" of each Thoth Major is an idea upon which it's simply too bizarre to dwell. She just ignores the omnipresent elements of the deck that don't support her perspective. Which is frankly more McDonald's than Notres Dames.
Wagner's Templar/Cathar/Egyptian-Angel fantasia may support her strange Angelic/Christian take on the Thoth, but it is intellectually dishonest. Each Major is an Angel? Okay... but she's done zero research on Angelic lore, which ironically is a topic Crowley covered intelligently and at length. But not this breed of Angel; Wagner seems to see Angel as a Synonym for "active mood" We get Angels of Communication, Sacrifice, or Sexual Energy etc., so apparently Angel is a fancy name for Keyword. While this Angelic breakdown may be appealing to some, it has little or nothing to do with the deck's creators or symbolic structure. How does it add to understanding of the deck? I could write an intro text to teach the RWS to beginners using Inuit mythology or Tupperware sales brochures, but why? What purpose would it serve that wouldn't be misguided or misleading?
The weird thing is, this innocuous little book is a perfectly charming, New Agey guide for reading almost any Golden Dawn based deck. Her presentation is clear and accessible, if adamantly fluffly. Fair enough. But for the Thoth? Integral Tarot wouldn't seem so annoying if it didn't use a deck that already has a rich, complicated, carefully woven symbolic structure and then ignore it completely. The mind boggles. Perhaps after swinging by Egypt the Templars timetravelled to Utah and told Suzanne that Master Therion wouldn't mind if she hijacked his deck to invoke the Angel of Mystical Opportunism.
Blah blah. I realize this may seem strident, but I take book recommendations seriously. I just don't like to see mushy books like this supported because doing so misleads beginners, furthers shoddy scholarship, and whittles away at the public perception of "Occult Study," such as it is. Obviously, only my own opinion, but not blindly.
Scion
