Zephyros
I think there is a certain misconception that learning all these things will necessarily make you a better reader and that that is why people study in this fashion. The fact is that although it is easy to begin reading Tarot, becoming good at it is quite a different thing. Many people just aren't good at it, and it has nothing to do with however "spot on" they are.
Put another way, if Sulis's reading was awful, then it was because the reader wasn't that good and spouted "book meanings" without being able to connect it all together. A reading is more than what you know, it also takes a lot of imagination. I've known intuitive readers that also lacked it, their readings were dull, mundane, lacked any "flights of fancy" or anything like that, their reasoning was simplistic and their conclusions were flawed. This may or may not have had anything to do with their reading style, but it certainly had much to do with who and what they were. It could be argued that intuitive reading is subject to too many biases and personal whims and is a collection of glorified first impressions, but there are still readers who take that and get great results.
What I sense is being suggested here is akin to meeting one rude foreigner and concluding they are all like that. As LRichard suggested esoteric minutiae isn't very welcome outside of this forum, but obviously in a learning forum we would go into dry, theoretical discussions. That would obviously be the case in this setting.
I think something is missed when Tarot is dealt with only in practical terms. Just as in any language I think there is worth in studying its grammar, its "high literature" rather than simply its slang. And we really are talking about modern Tarot's essential grammar. The RWS that people use divorced from its roots was built upon exactly the same base as the Thoth (contrary to what I heard people say about it, that kabbalah was "added" to it).
No one expects anybody to constantly talk like a grammarian, but one cannot deny that that the grammar is there.
Put another way, if Sulis's reading was awful, then it was because the reader wasn't that good and spouted "book meanings" without being able to connect it all together. A reading is more than what you know, it also takes a lot of imagination. I've known intuitive readers that also lacked it, their readings were dull, mundane, lacked any "flights of fancy" or anything like that, their reasoning was simplistic and their conclusions were flawed. This may or may not have had anything to do with their reading style, but it certainly had much to do with who and what they were. It could be argued that intuitive reading is subject to too many biases and personal whims and is a collection of glorified first impressions, but there are still readers who take that and get great results.
What I sense is being suggested here is akin to meeting one rude foreigner and concluding they are all like that. As LRichard suggested esoteric minutiae isn't very welcome outside of this forum, but obviously in a learning forum we would go into dry, theoretical discussions. That would obviously be the case in this setting.
I think something is missed when Tarot is dealt with only in practical terms. Just as in any language I think there is worth in studying its grammar, its "high literature" rather than simply its slang. And we really are talking about modern Tarot's essential grammar. The RWS that people use divorced from its roots was built upon exactly the same base as the Thoth (contrary to what I heard people say about it, that kabbalah was "added" to it).
No one expects anybody to constantly talk like a grammarian, but one cannot deny that that the grammar is there.