Something wrong with majors only ?

[OctoberGwen]

I LIKE you.

I also like your decks. I think I have all of them. And the majors only ones are fantastic. (so are the others, but I am interested in 22 carders just now.... 23 with the Squirrel )

Hmmmm...are you talking to blue_fusion? So intriguing! ;-D

 

[gregory]

Yes, I am. He is Lynyrd Narciso !

 

[baba-prague]

From a maker's point of view, I (and I'm definitely not speaking for anyone else - it's just me) actually enjoy designing the Minors more than the Majors - there are less conventions that really HAVE to be adhered to and so there are a lot of possibilities to do something different - and maybe even put in a bit of wicked humour. I've found on almost every deck we've done that though I like to work on most of the cards, it's the Minors that are often the most fun.

So I suppose that I'm saying that I probably wouldn't design a Majors-only deck (we have considered it) and perhaps that's part of the reason why I also don't use them - I love what you can do with Minors in a reading. But it's purely a personal preference, I don't see anything "wrong" with Majors-only decks.

 

[JSNYC]

I think this is a (Jungian) thinkers vs. feelers debate.

I am a thinker, and my first thought is that I wouldn't buy a majors only deck. The reasons are essentially all the reasons that have been provided in this thread. First, it just seems... illogical. It is more money for a less useful deck. A majors only deck would only (theoretically) be used for deep, archetypical/spiritual readings, which would not be very often (depending on the person and the period they are going through obviously). So its utility value (a thinker's primary consideration) is much less. The art is the icing on the cake, so to speak. It is not the primary consideration, although an important one. So, I know that if I bought a majors only deck I would receive it, look through it and admire the artwork, maybe for a few days or weeks, and then put it on the shelf where it would collect dust indefinitely.

I think a minors only deck would make more sense. Reading for mundane issues would be much more common than reading for deep, spiritual issues, which is the utility value (again thinking) of a deck. And I would also think that statement itself possibly illuminates the schism between the thinkers and feelers. I would imagine that the initial reaction of the majors only proponents would disagree with my statement about a minors only deck, simply because that would diminish the artistic appeal (a feelers primary consideration) due to the fact that the most creative art is usually put into the majors.

Additionally, a majors only deck is not only illogical, it is almost an oxymoron. I want to say the majors (only) are a subset of a Tarot deck. However, the majors are not "sub", I feel an aversion to something that seems to demote or denigrate the importance of the major arcana. They are "super" not "sub", so a super subset? Illogical, an oxymoron.

And finally, it is simply not a "complete" deck. (Note: that reason would also give me the same aversion to buying a minors only deck, even though it may be more practical.)

However, looking at the cards in that first link you provided Gregory, I would be remiss if I didn't mention that I felt the prick of temptation. Those are nice looking cards. I always say, never say never. So my aversion to buying a majors only deck is not an absolute. If I saw one that really, really captured my attention. I could possibly make one or two exceptions, just to use those "special" decks for the uncommon times when I may want to use a majors only deck. (And I wouldn't have to separate one of my current decks, again a thinker's practical utility value.)

Oh, and I am not a collector and I have no intention of becoming one. I think if I were a collector I would probably be buying majors only decks. And one final thing, I feel the same way about oracle decks although to a lesser degree. They are not illogical or incomplete (although I do think they are “less than” a Tarot deck.), however, I also don’t really have any desire to use them so they would just take up space and collect dust. No matter how good the artwork, I have to be able to get some use from my purchase. I may make some exceptions, I really like Ciro Marchetti’s artwork so his oracle deck has some appeal, but I still doubt I will buy it.

 

[irmata]

I think this is a (Jungian) thinkers vs. feelers debate.

THINKER! ie. I think you make an excellent point here on the possible primary motivation for buying decks between different people. As a thinker, a lot of what you said rang true, although the art is so so so pretty... but have I laid out the cash? No.

I think a minors only deck would make more sense. Reading for mundane issues would be much more common than reading for deep, spiritual issues, which is the utility value (again thinking) of a deck.

Iiiiiiinteresting. This would take the deck back the playing card format (well, with Pages). And, like Baba said, the Minors allow an artist a lot more freedom to play with concepts. This thinker is going to be mulling this idea over for a good, long time!

 

[gregory]

Ah - USEFUL.

But art doesn't have to be useful. What use is the Mona Lisa ?

Yes - some people do read with majors only and some don't. But there is also the beauty thing, and you do learn a lot about the cards from looking at different ones - for that "usefulness" - 22 cards can teach a lot about the majors, whether or not you read with them....

Oh and oracle decks. I CANNOT collect anything else; my bank manager would disown me.... - but they don't have the tarotical side to them - so in fact do not interest me as DECKS - individual cards as works of art might - but they aren't decks I feel a desire to own, never mind use (oracles do not work for me... they work brilliantly for others. Fine !)

 

[WolfyJames]

I have nothing against majors only but I rarely buy them. So far I own two majors only deck, the I Tarocchi Delle Fiabe that I got as a gift and the Lorland Chen Tarot that I bought at a decent price. I got both for the art mostly. I think I have two majors only decks in my wishlist, the Giger Tarot and the Les Adorables Tarot by our own Lynryrd Narciso here.

Frankly, I think the minors are the red headed child no one likes and it saddens me when I see decks with beautiful majors and so so minors. I think the minors are as profound as the majors, just on a different level, the majors are not superior, they're different, they're different layers both as important. So to me doing a major only deck is even worse then doing so so minors, it's litterally eliminating elements of life as vital as air.

It's one of the reasons I've become Pagan because I think the here and now, the earth, is vital and important (which is reflected in the minors), not some imaginary world where we might end up when we die. That is why I take quite a liking to oracle cards that talk about everyday life like the Petit Lenormand and the sibillas, where they have so much history that I can imagine people from the last century asking the same questions we ask ourselves to the cards, time has passed but life hasn't.

And like JSNYC I don't use my majors only tarot decks because they're missing 56 vital cards. I'm a thinker and my logical and rational mind guides me.

The second reason why I don't buy them is the price, way too expensive. I prefer waiting for the minors to be completed and then buy the whole set. I don't mind paying 65-70$ CAD for a whole deck I might use, did it recently with the Maroon Tarot, but paying that price for majors only I won't use is out of the question. I'm happy for those who have money to spare but I don't.

 

[KafkasGhost]

From the FEELER camp

Irmata! You, a thinker??

I think this is a (Jungian) thinkers vs. feelers debate.

I wouldn't say it's a debate, more than a perspective, speaking as a FEELER.

I am a thinker, and my first thought is that I wouldn't buy a majors only deck. The reasons are essentially all the reasons that have been provided in this thread. First, it just seems... illogical. It is more money for a less useful deck. A majors only deck would only (theoretically) be used for deep, archetypical/spiritual readings, which would not be very often (depending on the person and the period they are going through obviously). So its utility value (a thinker's primary consideration) is much less. The art is the icing on the cake, so to speak. It is not the primary consideration, although an important one. So, I know that if I bought a majors only deck I would receive it, look through it and admire the artwork, maybe for a few days or weeks, and then put it on the shelf where it would collect dust indefinitely.

You present the Thinker argument very succinctly, and I appreciate that you maintain authenticity in your perspective. Everything is subject to interpretation and as a Feeler, I look at quality, not quantity. I'm sure everyone here is concerned with quality, of course (or else why fork over the money in the first place) but as a Feeler (and speaking only for myFeelingself) I don't think of the "more on the plate" = "better value" issue when considering purchasing a deck. And because I am a Feeler, the artwork is of utmost importance to me because I receive information visually, and I connect on a deeper level through images. So if I'm image-centric, I can get by on fewer images.

I think a minors only deck would make more sense. Reading for mundane issues would be much more common than reading for deep, spiritual issues, which is the utility value (again thinking) of a deck. And I would also think that statement itself possibly illuminates the schism between the thinkers and feelers. I would imagine that the initial reaction of the majors only proponents would disagree with my statement about a minors only deck, simply because that would diminish the artistic appeal (a feelers primary consideration) due to the fact that the most creative art is usually put into the majors.

For a Feeler, a deck's utility IS in its ability to offer deep, spiritual-oriented readings _as well as_ mundane, daily concerns. I appreciate being able to extrapolate from philosophical issues to day-to-day issues. It's a matter of application. Minors cards gives me additional visual clues for the day-to-day issues, but I can still glean those types of meanings from majors cards, and often do, when reading majors and minors together.

Additionally, a majors only deck is not only illogical, it is almost an oxymoron. I want to say the majors (only) are a subset of a Tarot deck. However, the majors are not "sub", I feel an aversion to something that seems to demote or denigrate the importance of the major arcana. They are "super" not "sub", so a super subset? Illogical, an oxymoron.

I view the majors as the chapters of a book, an outline, a guide, while the minors are the words and sentences in the chapters. They can work together, and I don't view majors as a "sub" of anything. I believe both are equally important, but one can also get by with just one or the other. Again, perhaps because Feelers have a tendency to extrapolate more meaning from less images, and because they draw from a visual vocabulary, rather than an auditive (thinker) one.

And finally, it is simply not a "complete" deck. (Note: that reason would also give me the same aversion to buying a minors only deck, even though it may be more practical.)

Definitely a matter of perspective. While technically a "complete" tarot deck can be considered the 78 cards, one can view anything as "complete." And a completionist here on AT would probably opine that one 78-card deck is not enough!

However, looking at the cards in that first link you provided Gregory, I would be remiss if I didn't mention that I felt the prick of temptation. Those are nice looking cards. I always say, never say never. So my aversion to buying a majors only deck is not an absolute. If I saw one that really, really captured my attention. I could possibly make one or two exceptions, just to use those "special" decks for the uncommon times when I may want to use a majors only deck. (And I wouldn't have to separate one of my current decks, again a thinker's practical utility value.)

My new motto for sure (never say never). I've realized that for me, nothing changes more quickly or more drastically than in tarot. That includes tastes and preferences.

Oh, and I am not a collector and I have no intention of becoming one. I think if I were a collector I would probably be buying majors only decks. And one final thing, I feel the same way about oracle decks although to a lesser degree. They are not illogical or incomplete (although I do think they are “less than” a Tarot deck.), however, I also don’t really have any desire to use them so they would just take up space and collect dust. No matter how good the artwork, I have to be able to get some use from my purchase. I may make some exceptions, I really like Ciro Marchetti’s artwork so his oracle deck has some appeal, but I still doubt I will buy it.

I didn't consider myself a collector either but here I am being drawn to the artwork and wanting to "have" little pieces of creative genius here and there. I am, however, a collector who does use all of her decks (or intends to). There are probably collectors (other threads to discuss this) who do not or do not intend to read all of their decks, they would probably need to clone themselves in order to do so in one lifetime.

To be clear, I'm not arguing with JSNYC, I just wanted to speak up as a Feeler.

 

[Aerin]

I'm a INFP who also happens to be good at logic when I want to...

I buy Majors decks for the art and for what they can teach me about the tarot. I rarely read with one. I mainly use them to study and to meditate on and also, of course, to sigh over. Not necessarily in that order.

 

[missy]

I have ordered the Ironwing Majors-only. I will be THRILLED to have it and will use it either by itself or as a clarifying card or two in conjunction with another reading with a 78-card deck. So, thanks, gregory, for the enablement for Majors-only decks.

Other than the Ironwing, I have one Majors-only deck, and I *love* it. If money were no object, I would collect all of them! Or, a great many of them! No question!

But, for most primary readings, I prefer to use 78-card decks. My reason is because I *like* using all the Minors to clarify issues. And if I do a reading with a 78-card deck and it pulls a disproportionately high number of Majors, or even all Majors, it tells me that those cards have particular meaning for the Querent.

Same with Court cards. A lot of Courts and Majors in a 78-card-deck reading are of huge significance in a reading to me.

Certain Majors-only decks seem much more inclined to be useful as primary reading decks in their own right. The Ironwing is such a deck. Each card of the 22 cards is so rich, with so much meaning, that a whole story could be built around one single card. I would be happy to do a primary reading with a deck such as the Ironwing Majors-only.

For the most part, I see the 22-card decks as art decks. And they are gorgeous and I appreciate them for that. But I do not know if I could properly shuffle most Majors-only decks. I have tried with my Beth Seilonen deck. It doesn't feel the same in the hand, as zan_chan said. However, I have very few Majors-only decks (only two, and one I have not yet received) so I cannot speak from experience as someone else who has many of them. I imagine the experience varies greatly, depending on cardstock. But I *will* find a way to shuffle my Ironwing, I promise! as it WILL immediately enter my working-horse-deck arena.

I mostly buy, on my limited income, decks I plan to use as workhorse decks. Full working decks that will be put to use regularly. Pulling 5 cards from a 22-card deck just doesn't seem like my reading will be as accurate. To be fair, I have not tried it, and I should before forming a definite opinion. I am definitely open to the possibility that I could get amazing readings from a Majors-only deck.

So, thanks to this thread, I am no longer saying I would *never* read with a Majors-only deck. If a certain 22-card deck seemed perfect, I would use it.

I could DEFINITELY see using a Majors-only deck to pull a clarifying card after using a 78-card deck to do the main reading.