Haindl Tarot: Minor Arcana. Thought it was too good to be true!

Honestly, this deck is a really fantastic deck. I don't want to give anyone the impression that the deck itself isn't just on the basis of the companion books and my negative opinon of them.

I have trouble translating written words into useful information sometimes. For instance, I can't read the directions to how to play a game and then play the game. I can catch on in a flash if I'm shown how to play the game, but I can't fathom it from the written directions. Therefore, making sense of all the information Pollack put into the two books was just way over my head. Me, personally, not that it would be for everyone.

I can read anything else and make good sense of it. My reading comprehension is great. But there are just some areas where I have dumb spots. The two books for the Haindl probably just fall into that category----they hit one of my dumb spots. But other people don't have my "dumb spots" and can get everything they need out of those two books with no problem.

So in summary, my problem with Rachel Pollack's work in general and with the two Haindl books in particular, I've always attributed to my difficulty with reading comprehension with regard to certain writers' styles and certain types of information. So rather than just saying "I don't like Pollack's books" (even though I don't) I feel I should elaborate on why I don't like them. That it's a personal preference and that there are reasons for that preference peculiar to me.

This is what the person meant who said "it says more about you than about Rachel Pollack" or words to that effect.

Oh, Lyric. Thanks for the tip on the other book. I will keep an eye out for that one.

LB

LittleBuddha said:

In terms of an accompanying book, I expect facts. Simple as that.

Click to expand...

There are many "facts" in the book.

LB said:

I don't need bullet meanings. But I do like an idea of why the image was made as it is. Clearly, the minor arcana paintings were not created with a tarot deck in mind. Reading the book, it feels as though they are being steered in that direction and made to fit like the wrong pieces of a jigsaw puzzle. LB

Click to expand...

I'm far from expert on this deck and its origins. I purchased it because of the art and Rachel Pollack's involvement. It is on my "waiting" list for exploration.

Looking through the cards and the book, however, I am not sure where you get the idea that the minor arcana were not designed as Tarot.

Looking at the "Stones" suite alone it seems that those cards were conceived as tarot. I could be wrong.

LittleBuddha, I've read many of your posts and have a sense of your style - only a sense - mind you. I think you do seem to find comfort in concrete facts and boundaries. I can see that a deck like this one just doesn't offer that, and that Rachel Pollack's writing would perhaps not appeal to you.

Why not spend time with just one or two decks and get to know them really well? I think that is an essential part of tarot. Forgive me the gratuitous advice. If you feel hurt or offended by this suggestion, I am sorry.

Edited to add You do seem to jump from one deck to another quite quickly and perhaps are at risk of missing out on the depth in some.

Of course I am not offended, Northwind It's good to chat about this kind of stuff. I do like a boundary or two, but on occasion, I do like to smash my own extablished ideas down as well. You are right, in many ways. I think that a more relaxed way of working would be good for me.

In terms of the minor cards, the paintings are part of Haindl's archive. They were created way before the deck was considered, so were not painted with the cards in mind. In some cases, the same painting has been used for at least four cards - just different details have been enlarged for the card backgrounds. The swords, cups, stones and wands were added at a later date, after the minors were completed. I did find this a little disappointing, also. However, they do make for wonderful atmospheric images and regardless of their history, add a lovely flavour to the deck. I can see why your friend can work with the deck intuitively. The backgrounds and arrangement of symbols would make it easier to do so, than in a deck like the Marseille, I think. Their mood is very powerful.

Forgive me, but this is really hard to explain. You are also right that I like to find the concrete in things such as this. I like to be able to fly but in this case, if a book is there, then it would be nice to let me know where I am flying from. I don't want something that is set in stone completely. But I do like a little structure. I would like just a little understanding of what the card 'means'. The problem with the style of Pollack, here, is that se gives me an understanding of what she thinks it means, which is quite different. Things don't need to be completely rigid but for me, personally, I like a little foundation to work from. Otherwise, it may as well just be an oracle with no structure.

I hope that explains a little better. But I will be taking your advice. I like the Haindl very much and hope to stick with it for some time. Finding my own meanings and taking as little or much from other sources as I can.

With that in mind, are you interested in talking some more in the study group?

LB

Northwind said:

I'm far from expert on this deck and its origins. I purchased it because of the art and Rachel Pollack's involvement. It is on my "waiting" list for exploration.

Looking through the cards and the book, however, I am not sure where you get the idea that the minor arcana were not designed as Tarot.

Click to expand...

It's easy to get that idea since Rachel Pollack states that in the books. Once you do get around to exploring it, you'll see for yourself.

Well, to stick my oar in and make myself a marked woman, I have to say that I dislike the deck. I think it's ugly and depressing. I do like the courts as art, and it seems a shame to me that the artist did not choose to do the rest of the deck in that lively and interesting style. Instead, it's all sludge and mud.

I found Pollack's 2 book set impenetrable, but the 3rd book "Haindl Tarot- A Readers Handbook" useful. Especially the I Ching & Rune stuff, which make a lot more sense to me than anything else in either book or deck. Since I'm not any good at either of them, that's really saying something. I really don't understand why I have wasted as much time and energy on this deck as I have...I think it was mostly because of all the rave reviews about the deck I've heard. Just goes to show ya it's not for everyone--like Pollack's writing.

I kind of felt sorry for Pollack in these books. I thought that she had been given--or taken on-- an impossible task, making something coherent and meaningful out of the sludge of this deck. But then, I do like her writing, even though I have to read it very very s-l-o-w-l-y sometimes.

............................magpie runs for cover.................................

LittleBuddha said:

With that in mind, are you interested in talking some more in the study group?

LB

Click to expand...

Thank you kindly for the suggestion, Little Buddha. But I've pledged my troth to a few other decks and want to keep faith .

Pollack

I remember when I first started tarot 78 degrees of wisdom was the book I used.It was good for me and it got me started.A few years later when I reviewed it again I found that my card interpetations had all changed from what her book said.And thats how it should be.When you first do the tarot you need a starting point and from there your connection with your deck will take on a life of its own.Her books are about her conversations with the cards.What made Rachells books different from those published in the past(Eden Gray)was that instead of a book full of standered interpetations you had a book about her life experience(spirituality)with the tarot.(Thus the bible)She stresses intuitive interpetation over traditional interpatations found in 'this is what the card means books'.Yes her books are a bit airy Forest of the Souls was a hard read for me.The Handle tarot is neat looking but it didn't resonate with me for readings.The decks need to speak to me...............

Thank you, LB, for launching this wonderful discussion. Like many of you, I find the Haindl compelling but very difficult to work with. I think Magpie makes a wonderful point that the people-portraits of the Courts are much more accessible and appealing than the landscapes of the Minors. It's hard to relate to a scene with no people (or anthropomorphized animals) in it! Someone somewhere told me that these are called Moody Minors because they're not entirely non-scenic, but neither are they entirely scenic.

You know, LB, about the way that some of each suit are excerpts from larger paintings - I think in a way it's pretty nifty. Don't get me wrong - I still find them almost impossible to relate to. But on an intellectual level, I love the idea of the numbers moving through a fixed landscape. If you ever read Paula Gibby's accompanying book to The Blue Rose Tarot, she treats each Ace through Ten as a journey. So you move through the landscape, experiencing the challenges of the fives, the harmony of the sixes, etc. I like the idea that all these very different experiences occur within one realm. The five isn't in a separate universe from the six. Does that make any sense?

Since we're discussing the book, I thought I'd put in a thought about the Courts. Like you, LB, I can't make much use of the material given for the Minors. But as you know I've really enjoyed delving into the Courts. (How do you know? Because I've posted excerpts in the study group!) In this deck, I think the Courts play a deeper role than in most decks. Because they are gods and goddesses, they work much more as we tend to use the Major Arcana in other decks. They show us attributes of ourselves and the people in our lives. What role, then, for Haindl's Majors? Obviously, a discussion for after we tackle that book!!

LittleBuddha ~

I've taken more time to browse through the Haindl minors (in the broad light of day, not dawn) and I can see how the suit symbols have been superimposed on the background paintings. I get the sense, however, that this has not been done without considerable thought. The cards could be read using the elements and numerology but also insightfully, using the background material for context and impressions.

It would be interesting to throw a CC or other large spread to see how the connections are made - the whole picture. The minors may make more sense as part of a whole than they do alone.

I also looked at Rachel Pollack's homilies about each card and don't mind them at all but I am familiar with her other work and know people who speak like this as well. It is a very INFP thing to do . Pollack does give a lot of information about each card, however.

The I Ching hexagrams bother me more than anything else because I know very little about I Ching. I've always sensed I Ching to be a tool based very much on verbal and metaphoric imagery and don't feel all that comfortable with it on the cards. I would probably ignore the hexagrams if reading with the Haindl.

All in all, I think the Haindl is a deck which calls for a lot of time and practice unless one is especially gifted intuitively. It would give some very interesting readings.

I very much enjoyed spending some time with i the Haindl - the majors are quite amazing, as are the courts. You could follow a time honoured European custon, LB, and read with these two groups of cards alone if the minors really deter you from enjoying the deck. You would get some powerful readings, especially about archetypal energies around the question or issue.

Best wishes