The Secret of the Tarot by Robert Swiryn

[Scion]

Sounds like you just don't like the idea either way - first, because it's unsupported, and then secondly, because it's not inventive. Say what? If it's not supported with enough facts, then it would be - by default - an invention, no? I guess you just can't win with some people.

Ummm. Sophistry doesn't count for much, Foolish. Especially when you are well aware of the shortcomings of the book's research, as evinced in the recent thread discussing same.

What I meant is that your content is neither supported by real research nor original in its borrowings of other people's wild, and uncontextualized theorizing. The book is a disorganized hodgepodge of deliberate misunderstandings and the kind of haphazard "soundbites" you denigrate in your post above. Just because something is not supported with facts does not make it inventive; absence of fact makes it facile and false, not creative by any stretch. Plenty of falsehoods are regurgitated by the lazy and inept. That is not to say that you are lazy and inept, but this book, without question, is.

I'm pretty sure you were well aware of what I was saying and why I was saying it. But if that's how you need to process criticism, you should feel free to characterize my comments however you wish.

 

[foolish]

What's amazing to me is the amount of defensiveness and over-the-top reactions the book is getting from some people. The fact is that the book was never meant to be, nor was it presented as, a historical treatise, concerned soley with an exploration of facts. However, it IS is a creative exercise in the interpretation of the images of the TdM within a certain historical context. Why is that so hard to deal with? Perhaps the reason why this theme comes up occassionally and hasn't just died off is that the associations between the tarot and the heretical culture of the time remains a possibility that some people (not just a bunch of wackos) recognize. If you want to dissmiss it as nonsense because there is no absolute proof, then that's your perrogotive. But why does it seem to be so threatening to allow others to discuss these possibilities?

Also, if you've actually read my book and not just accepted the opinions of others in this forum, you should at least realize that I have not just rehashed the existing literature out there, but attempted to present new interpretations of the images on the cards within the context of the Cathar history. Some people have found this to be interesting.

 

[gregory]

Could this not be combined with the OTHER thread about this book ? where the same things are being said by all...

 

[foolish]

I have to plead guilty based on my original lack of familiarity with these forums. I was initially told to place information about the book in the "books and media" section, since the other areas are not meant for promotional purposes. It was then suggested to me that I present some of the information in the history forum to see what kind of response I would get. It soon became questionable whether the idea was even acceptable for discussion in the history section. So, some of my ideas about the cards were posted on individual threads about those cards.

It does seem a bit scattered. But if people are going to post comments under the book section, then it only seems reasonable to respond in that thread.

 

[foolish]

Just to let everyone know that Bonnie has reviewed my book and has posted it here http://www.aeclectic.net/tarot/books/secret-of-the-tarot/

I believe it's very fair in its assessment.

 

[Debra]

"Food for thought" gets my vote.

 

[foolish]

Thanks Debra. Actually, I'm pretty satisfied with all the responses I've gotten so far. I am hoping that more people will enjoy it.

 

[gregory]

"Food for thought" gets my vote.

Mine too - a good review, and balanced, which is more than can be said for some of the commentary here.

I wonder how many of the people blasting the book here have actually read it. I await my copy, but think I may not bother to post my opinion in threads. It seems that I would be shot down if I see merit in the book ! I'd rather read the book itself than polemics about it and its author.

ETA and as a matter of interest - except for the author - has anyone in this thread actually read it ? I haven't but I shall when I get it. Only then shall I fell qualified to pass judgement.

 

[Teheuti]

I wonder how many of the people blasting the book here have actually read it.

I've read it and offered pretty extensive comments both through email and here at aeclectic in the history section.

 

[gregory]

I've read it and offered pretty extensive comments both through email and here at aeclectic in the history section.

YOU I know about.

And as you know, I know you have written about the THEORY in the history section; that rather more than the book, in a way - and fair enough - that isn't the BOOK REVIEW section !