A Vargo Gothic Book!

But I still question where the Madame Endora factors in on all of this. People talk about ripping or tossing that one out, too, or refusing to use it. Okay, it was published by the same people, but is that the fault of the artist who chose them and probably had nothing to do with this matter? Is it fair to condemn them, as well? Shall we hate all Muslims because of 9/11 and all Germans because of WWII and all Japanese because of Pearl Harbour? Jeepers, we did some pretty horrendous stuff ourselves. It is one thing if a deck does not click with you, or doesn't click anymore, but be sure you stop using a deck for the right reasons and no, mulching decks isn't going to fix the problem. Besides, once the Bohemian Gothic comes out, isn't the Vargo going to be put on the backburner, anyhow? How do you beat a MRP deck??

HearthCricket said:

Okay, it was published by the same people, but is that the fault of the artist who chose them and probably had nothing to do with this matter?

Click to expand...

If I understand correctly, the publisher is a tiny company that is owned by the two artists, one being the creater of the Gothic Tarot and one the creater of Madame Endora, although to some extent they've worked together on both projects. So in a way the decks and book are self-published.

I don't think it's a matter of condemning the deck. This is more on the order of sanctions; we as the tarot community can effect change by making our opinions known economically.

Like Fudu says, I don't like the idea of putting money in a thief's pocket. The Endora profits him, directly. Truth be told, AT doesn't carry enbough market swing to matter much, but word spreads and I'm not one to sit at the back of the bus for anyone.

As for your historical examples; I think America is as horrific a political animal as any world power. We don't need to condemn all Germans for WWII etc., but if a hysterical, charismatic opportunist starts standing in pulpits in front of shrieking, bigoted mobs insisting that murder is their birthright and that genocide is a good idea, I'm not going to stand around and applaud. But that's a little extended for a metaphor in this case. No one, I think, was suggesting that Vargo was making a calculated bid for world power . This is more oon the order of gay people boycotting Colorado or union members refusing to support scabs. A request for change through united effort.

Frankly I think his art is amateurish and the deck is shite. I didn't read with it before I knew the saga. But theft is theft and work is work. My money is already in the man's hands, and I can grok that because it wasn't a payment for Alissa's stolen work. If it WAS for her book, there would be serious hell to pay. If I can help some scumbag starve a little and eventually think a bit by telling people the truth about his mode of operation, I'm down with that, big time.

Scion

I've always liked my Madame Endora cards. The Gothic is a hard one to read, I've never been able to read it - so when there was talk of a book, I was looking forward to it but I won't pay good money when we know that Alissa wasn't paid for her work on it. So really they picked her brains then tossed her out - no I won't be bothering with the book.

Mariana said:

If I understand correctly, the publisher is a tiny company that is owned by the two artists, one being the creater of the Gothic Tarot and one the creater of Madame Endora, although to some extent they've worked together on both projects. So in a way the decks and book are self-published.

Click to expand...

Here is the bio info from the Monolith Graphics website:


http://www.monolithgraphics.com/pages/artist.html


It does sound to me like the publishers and artists are one and the same.

Although I have no plans for destroying either one of my decks, I probably will not be supporting MG with any future purchases, based on these (alleged) violations and their deplorable behavior toward Alissa. Disgusting.

I rarely use the Gothic anymore, but I still like Madame Endora, and it is one of my most accurate oracle decks.

~Luna

I get what all of you are saying, I really do. It's the principle of the thing. I totally understand- I refuse to give the Rock band Metallica any more of my money ever based on their issues, but- I still think they are incredibly talented band and I'm not going to burn the "album" of theirs I paid for all those years ago. That's all I'm saying here. I have the deck, I have the book- I bought them prior to any knowledge of this, I would like to still be able to use what I paid for. To be sure I will think twice before giving any more of my money to Monolith Graphics, but what's done is done. People should be able to still discuss the deck and book if they want to without being told to be careful of what they say due to this whole issue.

Disa

Oh Disa!

I wasn't talking about people using something they'd bought! Sorry if that was implied. I was talking more about the way I'll handle Monolith in the future and the story I'd tell if people asked me about this deck.

I know people get a lot out of this deck and I'm certain the book is useful to anyone working with the images. (Hence my indignation about Alissa's treatment). I don't think anyone was suggesting an Anti-Vargo squad would come stomping therough study threads with pitchforks.

If this were a Universal Studios Frankenstein film, I'd say we're all the villagers, the deck is the creature, and Alissa is the brain he stole to animate it, both as he was creating the deck out of his preexisting artwork (reanimating!) and co-opting the book's intellectual lightning without credit... It's worth remembering that Frankenstein was the name of the demented creator/monster. The creature's name was Adam.

Disa said:

I get what all of you are saying, I really do. It's the principle of the thing. I totally understand- I refuse to give the Rock band Metallica any more of my money ever based on their issues, but- I still think they are incredibly talented band and I'm not going to burn the "album" of theirs I paid for all those years ago. That's all I'm saying here. I have the deck, I have the book- I bought them prior to any knowledge of this, I would like to still be able to use what I paid for. To be sure I will think twice before giving any more of my money to Monolith Graphics, but what's done is done. People should be able to still discuss the deck and book if they want to without being told to be careful of what they say due to this whole issue.

Disa

Click to expand...

I hear you, Disa, and I think I am coming from the same place you are, or close to it. I don't feel the need to destroy or stop using my decks either, but the way I feel about the creators/publishers has changed, and I will not be supportive of them in the future.

However, I see no reason why people cannot continue to discuss and study the decks here....I liked Scion's response, and I don't think you need to worry about pitchforks (at least I hope not! LOL).

Luna

This thread, might suggest otherwise :

http://www.tarotforum.net/showthread.php?t=84786&page=3&pp=10&highlight=autumn

I'm not trying to fuel the fire here, just making observations about how this can go.

Disa

Scion said:

If this were a Universal Studios Frankenstein film, I'd say we're all the villagers, the deck is the creature, and Alissa is the brain he stole to animate it, both as he was creating the deck out of his preexisting artwork (reanimating!) and co-opting the book's intellectual lightning without credit... It's worth remembering that Frankenstein was the name of the demented creator/monster. The creature's name was Adam.

Click to expand...

Sorry, Mods, but the English major just has to come out of me, for a brief moment. The monster only referred to himself as an Adam. He officially had no name.

"Frankenstein's monster (or Frankenstein or Frankenstein's creature) is a fictional character that first appeared in Mary Shelley's novel, Frankenstein, or The Modern Prometheus. In the novel, the creature has no specific formal name but does address himself to his creator as the "Adam of your labours".

Wikipedia