How to handle deck differences?

[SilverLeaf]

Hi Everyone,

 

New to this group and loving it. I'm wondering how experienced readers handle deck differences, for example the 5 of Vessels from the Wildwood Tarot vs. the RWS 5 of cups? And...what do these differences say about the underpinnings if why Tarot works, is it like speaking two similar languages, but one has a slightly different alphabet? All perspectives welcome!

[blue_crow_laura]

Hi SilverLeaf! I'm also new to the community and wouldn't call myself an experienced reader at all, but I am very interested in this topic. I've been actively journaling about this for several months, doing side-by-side comparisons of certain cards, all to get at some sort of answer to the question you've asked.

 

For me, I have a hard time completely ignoring my traditional meanings and correspondences (RWS, Thoth) and just focusing on intuitive reads or alternate systems. This means I've had trouble with some decks in some spots; the Mary-El was/is still the deck I stumble on most (that 8 of Cups still annoys me!) The compromise I've come to looks something like this: I start with the traditional correspondences, regardless of what the card depicts, and then add the actual deck-specific card imagery or wording on top, like another layer of connotation. This is working out moderately well for me, but again, I still have serious trouble spots.

 

Now, analyzing the cards visually is something I do too, to find patterns in color or form or design- that's why I collect decks, I think, because I am so visual- but that's often just another way to connect up the basic given meanings of a card or card position. It rarely changes the base meanings, if you get what I mean.

 

In short, I'd also love to hear what others think about this. Thanks for bringing it up. 🙂

[legendaryelement]

I would not claim the status of “experienced reader” but I do collect decks and systems of metaphysical information. Sometimes a difference is clearly explained and specifically chosen by the author/creator’s view on associations for correspondences; ie. planets and numerology, astrology, etc. Other times, the artist includes something they want or feel

for the card, regardless of any system or standard. In the absence of a companion book or interview/article, your interaction & response as the reader brings your own personal experience for possible meanings. Have fun with it!

[SilverLeaf]

Thank you both for your thoughts...I will definitely be spending more time explicitly comparing the Wildwood cards 1-1 with more traditional decks. Appreciate the engagement!

[ilweran]

The Wildwood and the Greenwood before it are their own system, though you will see influences from the RWS and the Thoth if you look.

 

Grab a notebook (or your notetaking device of choice) and have a closer look is what I would do - whether a comparison or studying each Wildwood card there's a lot there to discover.

 

[katrinka]

5 hours ago, SilverLeaf said:

Hi Everyone,

 

New to this group and loving it. I'm wondering how experienced readers handle deck differences, for example the 5 of Vessels from the Wildwood Tarot vs. the RWS 5 of cups? And...what do these differences say about the underpinnings if why Tarot works, is it like speaking two similar languages, but one has a slightly different alphabet? All perspectives welcome!

 
I never purchased the Wildwood, but it's known to be based on the Greenwood. The Greenwood is not a Golden Dawn type deck, but a system of Chesca's own design:

 

https://voicewithinthecards.wordpress.com/greenwood-tarot-book/ 

So it's another system to be studied, it shouldn't be forcefitted to RWS. (BTW, Chesca's writings are often said to be clearer than Ryan's, and you may find them helpful with the Wildwood, as well.)

The RWS is a Golden Dawn based deck. It essentially follows the same conventions as the Thoth. Waite obscured some things (a lucrative magical order needs secrets, lol) but they're similar enough that Thoth study is very helpful with RWS:

https://www.corax.com/tarot/cards/cups-5.html

 

Likewise, most theme decks are based on RWS, due to its popularity. Some theme decks are done well, some aren't. The Baba Studios decks are expertly done. Here's the 5 of Cups from the Bohemian Gothic:

 

While it looks different from the spilled and upright chalices on the RWS card, the core message is the same. We see a woman with uncombed hair who is transfixed by an overgrown grave, much the way the RWS person is transfixed by the spilled cups. 

 

On the other hand, one of my favorite decks, the Vamp, takes the Majors meanings from The Symbolism of the Tarot by P.D. Ouspensky published in 1913. The Minors are from the fifteenth century Tarot poetry of Count Matteo Boiardo, with the suits split into the Four Passions of Fear, Jealousy, Hope and Love.
https://fennario.wordpress.com/2019/04/12/vamp-the-theda-bara-tarot-from-jook-art/
While the deck was designed in recent years, the Minors meanings obviously predate the Golden Dawn by several centuries.

 

Another favorite, the Tarot Fortune Cards (aka the Thomson Leng) published in the 1930's, is based on continental sources like Eudes Picard. We have some threads on it here. Some of the cards look very similar to RWS, but it would be a mistake to treat them as interchangeable. The elements have been switched around, as well: 

There's no one Tarot tradition or set of meanings. I'd even venture to say that if anything could be termed "traditional", it's the continental methods, not the Golden Dawn stuff. And if one is going to read Marseilles with RWS meanings, why not simply use RWS? Even within occult Tarot, there is a lot of divergence - Wirth and Crowley, for instance. RWS is one little deck out of the UK that happened to have a lot of commercial success in recent decades, but it doesn't even begin to speak for the whole of Tarot. 

Study RWS for RWS based decks. For decks that use another system, study that system. 😉
 

Edited January 1, 2021 by katrinka

[ilweran]

3 minutes ago, katrinka said:

So it's another system to be studied, it shouldn't be forcefitted to RWS. (BTW, Chesca's writings are often said to be clearer than Ryan's, and you may find them helpful with the Wildwood, as well.)

A comparison can still be enlightening though for where there are similarities.

 

The Wildwood differs in some important ways to the Greenwood, but I'd say Chesca's book is worth looking at to help understand the background to the Wildwood and why some of the cards are the way they are.  

[Guest]

The Tarot is an optical dialect and each individual pack is its own world. You cannot compare. The Wildwood is one realm and the Harris-Crowley, for example, another realm entirely.  

 

You are best to keep them distinct — as individual cards, within each deck, has layers, or dimensions, which unfolds as one acquaints themselves with the deck’s essence.

 

Over time, the idea of standard or ’traditional’ meanings (often referencing the tarot of Smith-Waite) for cards has been cultivated.  Yet this owes more to late twentieth century marketing than a tradition. For example, although Waite and Smith were both members of the GD their cards do not always reflect the Order’s interpretation. In addition, some of the popular Smith-Waite “meanings,” such as apprenticeships with the Eight of Pentacles, are not attested at all (beyond a cursory remark about preparatory stages). 

Often readers (through study and reading), bond with a style or school of thought. I prefer the older styles, such as Sopraffino or Marseille. I have no interest in Hermeticism — but I do like the Harris-Crowley cards. 
 

The Wildwood is based on the Greenwood Tarot — to avoid copyright infringement, certain cards are swapped. For example, Chesca had the Salmon as the Knight not Queen. There is a reason.  If you want to study that deck, it’s still best to read Chesca’s writings preserved online. I love the Greenwood and Chesca’s writings were far more in sync with the cards than Ryan’s. 

Edited January 1, 2021 by Guest
Typo and clarity

[SilverLeaf]

Thank you all for the valuable input, very grateful and will look into Chesca's writing!

[katrinka]

2 minutes ago, ilweran said:

A comparison can still be enlightening though for where there are similarities.

 

True. These decks are on a spectrum rather than being clearly defined little islands unto themselves. One will often see a bit of overlap. But:

 

3 minutes ago, timtoldrum said:

The Tarot is an optical dialect and each individual pack is its own world. You cannot compare. The Wildwood is one realm and the Harris-Crowley (for example) another.  

 

You are best to keep them distinct — as cards have layers, or dimensions, which unfolds as one acquaints themselves with the deck’s essence.

 

 

3 minutes ago, timtoldrum said:

Often readers (through study and reading), bond with a style or school of thought. I prefer the older styles, such as Sopraffino or Marseille. I have no interest in Hermeticism — but I do like the Harris-Crowley cards. 

 

They're wonderful, aren't they?
I think all those correspondences for each card are just different inflections of the same message. The deck reads perfectly well for us non-Thelemites. 😉
 

3 minutes ago, timtoldrum said:

The Wildwood is based on the Greenwood Tarot — to avoid copyright infringement, certain cards are swapped. For example, Chesca had the Salmon as the Knight not Queen. There is a reason.  If you want to study that deck, it’s still best to read Chesca’s writings preserved online. I love the Greenwood and Chesca’s writings were far more in sync with the cards than Ryan’s. 

I have to question whether swapping cards really avoids copyright infringement, at least according to the spirit (rather than the letter) of the law, lol.

 

10 minutes ago, SilverLeaf said:

Thank you all for the valuable input, very grateful and will look into Chesca's writing!

Our pleasure. And the bonus at that site is images of the Greenwood that you can have printed up, with the full permission of the artist!

[LogicalHue]

I seem to have a very similar way of reading to @blue_crow_laura; I pull the cards and I have a very simple kind of key-word definition for each card that I think over first. Since I am usually using an RWS deck, the keywords are usually the RWS definition, sometimes its something I've come to associate with the card. Personally I'm super into the booklets that come with the decks, I think of them as extensions of the cards. So the second thing I do is read through all of that and make notes. Then I look over the cards and see if anything visual seems to suggest anything further (though, of course, if its something that really stands out that could be what I notice first).

 

The definition of a card from one deck to another deck, for me, are very influenced by how they look and what the LWB says.

 

So I look at the same card from different decks as being generally connected but still individual to that deck. However, that only applies to RWS - RWS. If you're looking at something like Mary-El - that's not an RWS system but it has similarities; so personally when I'm using Mary-El I might still have some idea of whatever definition I consider "typical" in my brain but it may just not apply at all. And from what I can find if you go older than RWS the minors seem to be on completely different systems, so they don't compare.

[SilverLeaf]

1 minute ago, LogicalHue said:

I seem to have a very similar way of reading to @blue_crow_laura; I pull the cards and I have a very simple kind of key-word definition for each card that I think over first. Since I am usually using an RWS deck, the keywords are usually the RWS definition, sometimes its something I've come to associate with the card. Personally I'm super into the booklets that come with the decks, I think of them as extensions of the cards. So the second thing I do is read through all of that and make notes. Then I look over the cards and see if anything visual seems to suggest anything further (though, of course, if its something that really stands out that could be what I notice first).

 

The definition of a card from one deck to another deck, for me, are very influenced by how they look and what the LWB says.

 

So I look at the same card from different decks as being generally connected but still individual to that deck. However, that only applies to RWS - RWS. If you're looking at something like Mary-El - that's not an RWS system but it has similarities; so personally when I'm using Mary-El I might still have some idea of whatever definition I consider "typical" in my brain but it may just not apply at all. And from what I can find if you go older than RWS the minors seem to be on completely different systems, so they don't compare.

Thank you for these perspectives!

[ilweran]

7 minutes ago, katrinka said:

I have to question whether swapping cards really avoids copyright infringement, at least according to the spirit (rather than the letter) of the law, lol.

As a dedicated Greenwood fan I think certain of the changes are nonsensical and make the deck lose some meaning. Some of the changes can be ignored, others can't. I can't see they make a difference copyright wise as some of the cards are straightforward copies of the original.

 

I think Chesca had her idea of the deck and Mark Ryan had his. The Wildwood is perhaps more representative of his idea, along with changes in the beliefs around Elen of the Ways (I don't know if the OP knows this, but The Ancestor card shows the goddess Elen as seen in a vision by Chesca) such as the importance of the constellation Cygnus which is why there is now a swan in the Court cards.

 

@SilverLeaf there is a bit of a rabbit hole to fall down here (I'm happily wandering around in a whole warren...) if you find yourself down here as well take a look at my Greenwood journal. Bunch of links and info there, mostly Greenwood related, but some may be relevant if you end up following certain threads 

 

 

[katrinka]

53 minutes ago, ilweran said:

I think Chesca had her idea of the deck and Mark Ryan had his.

I don't really see Ryan as an idea man. He did the title lettering on the Greenwood, and the Wildwood is just a rehash of the Greenwood. 
Last year he was talking about flat-out reprinting the Greenwood, but Chesca can't be found to give the OK. I won't go into a lot of detail here as I don't want to derail the thread, but there are some relevant things saved at this group:
https://www.facebook.com/Chesca-Potter-Art-Fan-Club-997732667081594

[Guest]

2 hours ago, katrinka said:

They're wonderful, aren't they?
I think all those correspondences for each card are just different inflections of the same message. The deck reads perfectly well for us non-Thelemites. 😉

It does. For me, the art has always been captivating and I remember the first time I saw it. I’ve read Crowley, and DuQuette, as wanted to understand the system that underpins it. But it is all there in the cards. Harris was remarkable — it was she who conceived the deck, Crowley didn’t envision a whole new deck just a rectified one. But Harris was devoted to the Great Work and it tells.
 

2 hours ago, katrinka said:

I have to question whether swapping cards really avoids copyright infringement, at least according to the spirit (rather than the letter) of the law, lol.

That — and several other changes — were discussed at the time. There was a strong emphasis on the Wildwood not being a redrawing of the Greenwood à la the new Mythic Tarot. 
 

The strength of the Greenwood is that it was Chesca’s vision — a personal gnosis. Whatever it’s initial genesis, Ryan never had that insight. When you review Chesca’s writings and compare to Ryan’s, that is clear.
 

Caitlín and I discussed some of the changes (on release), such as the Salmon v. Eel, and so on and she gave very considered responses for the changes. However, it didn’t seem to work (for me, anyway). 

 

[katrinka]

7 hours ago, timtoldrum said:

It does. For me, the art has always been captivating and I remember the first time I saw it. I’ve read Crowley, and DuQuette, as wanted to understand the system that underpins it. But it is all there in the cards. Harris was remarkable — it was she who conceived the deck, Crowley didn’t envision a whole new deck just a rectified one. But Harris was devoted to the Great Work and it tells.

 

Yes!
One should definitely read Crowley (and DuQuette!) Otherwise the cards alone could lead to an Angeles Arrien style set of misconceived ideas about misapprehended images. If the background information is so easily available, why turn a blind eye? 

But the images stand on their own. Once you know that the pelican is NOT a swan, you're on your way. 

I do admire people who can run around the Qabalah. But it isn't needed. And if I was going to invest that much effort, I'd concentrate on authentic Jewish Kabbalah..

 

Quote

That — and several other changes — were discussed at the time. There was a strong emphasis on the Wildwood not being a redrawing of the Greenwood à la the new Mythic Tarot. 
 

The strength of the Greenwood is that it was Chesca’s vision — a personal gnosis. Whatever it’s initial genesis, Ryan never had that insight. When you review Chesca’s writings and compare to Ryan’s, that is clear.
 

Caitlín and I discussed some of the changes (on release), such as the Salmon v. Eel, and so on and she gave very considered responses for the changes. However, it didn’t seem to work (for me, anyway). 

 

Caitlin does what's good for Caitlin. And I understand that writing isn't the most lucrative hustle these days. She's grasping at straws. I get that.
But what I don't get is SO MANY prominent Tarot people who are backing Ryan. He's nobody, and they're throwing their credibility away.

Are they ALL grasping at straws? Would it be the end of the world to get a day job?

Edited January 1, 2021 by katrinka

[ilweran]

8 hours ago, katrinka said:

I don't really see Ryan as an idea man. He did the title lettering on the Greenwood, and the Wildwood is just a rehash of the Greenwood. 

I think he did have the idea that the Greenwood should be more Robin Hood than pre-Celtic Shamanism (the latter is from the publisher, but fits the deck better than calling it Robin Hood themed). Whether that was his idea or someone else's - and it could have been his given Robin of Sherwood - I don't know. But it certainly feels significant that when Chesca put her book on her website one of the parts she edited out was reference to Robin of Sherwood under Justice, while other changes were mostly rewording. But that's just speculation.

 

The Wildwood iirc, specifically says the Lovers are Robin and Marion, for example.

[SilverLeaf]

1 hour ago, ilweran said:

I think he did have the idea that the Greenwood should be more Robin Hood than pre-Celtic Shamanism (the latter is from the publisher, but fits the deck better than calling it Robin Hood themed). Whether that was his idea or someone else's - and it could have been his given Robin of Sherwood - I don't know. But it certainly feels significant that when Chesca put her book on her website one of the parts she edited out was reference to Robin of Sherwood under Justice, while other changes were mostly rewording. But that's just speculation.

 

The Wildwood iirc, specifically says the Lovers are Robin and Marion, for example.

The Robinhood reference in the companion literature companion feel forced to me, I don't "feel" that in working with the Wildwood at all...

[Wanderer]

I actually think that focusing on the Greenwood to understand the Wildwood is a mistake. Sure, it's based on the same system, and there are arguments that it's a rehashed version in terms of its origin... but what resulted is actually a very different deck in feel. Where the Greenwood is shamanic, the Wildwood is not. It's much more literal and immediate, and whatever one may feel about its creators, the deck captures something pretty profound. It may have some elements of Robin of Sherwood in philosophy (although I don't really see that, except in a few cards like The Forest Lovers and The Stag), but I think that's largely incidental. I suspect that was mostly a marketing tool, more than anything else, and that may be why Chesca seems to have backed away from it.

 

Is the Wildwood pre-Celtic or Medieval..? Not specifically. It takes bits of various ages, but that doesn't matter, because the concepts are timeless. When Robin of Sherwood is relevent, it uses him. When Iron Age shamans are relevant, they're included. When something perhaps deeper and more ancienct still is hinted at... that's there too. I often make the comparison with folk songs; we can sing songs from hundreds or thousands of years ago without any regard to their origins, and they still keep their meaning and relevance. The melding of ages and origins for the card concepts is just something we accept when using it.

 

17 hours ago, SilverLeaf said:

And...what do these differences say about the underpinnings if why Tarot works,

I'm aware that some people disagree with me profoundly, but here's my take on what I think is a critical question...

     Tarot works through a feedback between our conscious and subconscious understanding of the card concepts, the images themselves, and unconscious knowledge of the situation (through being part of a conscious universe). When we are drawing cards, we are drawn unconsciously to cards whose images encapsulate the situation in terms of our own understanding. When we then study the cards, they act as prompts that all us to draw on our unconscious awareness of the situation... which lets us read. This is how people have personal associations for particular cards, unique to themselves. It's not a meaning innate to the card that matters (although that's a critical starting point that allows people to learn Tarot in the first place... and part of why so many decks follow a similar pattern!); it's how the meaning applies in our minds.

     So, the cards being different in each deck doesn't matter; it is differences in how we understand the cards that will change the reading. What makes a good deck is the way in which it covers the full range of human experience, while revealing relationships and interactions between the cards. Continuity of concept through the suits is another factor. There are lots of things one can point to, but a lot is personal preference; ultimately, if the deck speaks to us directly, then it is a  good deck for us.

[SilverLeaf]

37 minutes ago, Wanderer said:

I actually think that focusing on the Greenwood to understand the Wildwood is a mistake. Sure, it's based on the same system, and there are arguments that it's a rehashed version in terms of its origin... but what resulted is actually a very different deck in feel. Where the Greenwood is shamanic, the Wildwood is not. It's much more literal and immediate, and whatever one may feel about its creators, the deck captures something pretty profound. It

 

     So, the cards being different in each deck doesn't matter; it is differences in how we understand the cards that will change the reading. What makes a good deck is the way in which it covers the full range of human experience, while revealing relationships and interactions between the cards. Continuity of concept through the suits is another factor.

Thank you, Wanderer, for the thoughtful reply, it really resonates on my end, a lot to meditate on!

[vague-whisperings]

Probably not super experienced but personally, the way I read my decks is dependent on the deck itself. The Normal Tarot is super easy to read at a glance, but it also heavily diverges from the RWS structure and is borderline Not Tarot; I rely mostly on the given descriptions for it, since they're clear and concise. My RWS deck is more fragmented and requires more of a look at the narrative in the spread, reading the book and seeing what metaphors jump out at me, and looking at the symbolism in the cards. It takes more time to read it, and it can be really easy to miss things since the deck works subtly. The Adventurer's deck generally is really hard to read since the meanings are short and there's not very much background information to help augment the meanings. I still haven't finished defining the cards >w<

 

But tldr; it's really based on the deck. Mostly I just kinda roll with it :'D

[ilweran]

1 hour ago, Wanderer said:

I actually think that focusing on the Greenwood to understand the Wildwood is a mistake. Sure, it's based on the same system, and there are arguments that it's a rehashed version in terms of its origin... but what resulted is actually a very different deck in feel.

I partially agree actually, but I suppose it depends the approach the individual Wildwood user wants to take.

 

There are a number of paths the Wildwood and/or the Greenwood can take you on, which ones you follow, and what you get sidetracked by, are up to you.

[Wanderer]

1 minute ago, ilweran said:

There are a number of paths the Wildwood and/or the Greenwood can take you on, which ones you follow, and what you get sidetracked by, are up to you.

That's probably true... but then, they each seem to hold open different doors, and I suspect I would have to deliberately force my way through a 'Greenwood' door to read the Wildwood in the same way as I would that. The deck feels very different, and that influences not just the meanings that I would see, but also the light in which I would see them. The big caveat is that I haven't actually read with the GW - just followed your work, and studied the imagery!

[SilverLeaf]

Really loving all of these perspectives, thank you all for sharing!

[ilweran]

1 hour ago, Wanderer said:

That's probably true... but then, they each seem to hold open different doors, and I suspect I would have to deliberately force my way through a 'Greenwood' door to read the Wildwood in the same way as I would that.

I didn't mean in a reading way, or not just that. I was thinking more, perhaps, of how Batchicken on AT was lead to looking at the influence of William Blake on the Greenwood - something I admire greatly, though not a path I've been tempted down.

 

I started off just wanting to understand the Greenwood better. I now have an Altar again for the first time since 2008, with Elen on it alongside Bast. I've read about so many different topics, not long finished a book on Silbury now reading about Labyrinths, and have a rapidly expanding reading list (I mean I always have had, but the rate at which it grows has accelerated greatly.) I've made jewellery inspired by the GW, collaged, needle felted The Ancestor and just finished needfelting the Uffington Horse.

 

Oh, and on top of that, I've also found that I'm better at reading other decks.