Article about Tarot Cards Are Having A Moment With Help From Pandemic

[katrinka]

16 minutes ago, gregory said:

The Guardian ? where ? (just curious.)

 

The last paragraph at this link:
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2018/aug/19/new-generation-follows-pack-tarot-makes-comeback

 

 

And "a good Tarot reader doesn't tell you what's going to happen?" Who is this noob to decide what a "good Tarot reader" does? They bought a deck and wrote a story about it. A lot of us were doing paid readings when they were still hopping back and forth in their daddy's ***sack trying to keep from going in a street worker.

It's all offensive AF.

 

Edited December 14, 2021 by katrinka

[gregory]

She says she was wrong. What issue do you have with that ? Yes OK she also says they don't tell you what's going to happen - but she does NOT say we are all hooey. She says she came into it thinking that.

[katrinka]

1 hour ago, gregory said:

She says she was wrong. What issue do you have with that ? Yes OK she also says they don't tell you what's going to happen - but she does NOT say we are all hooey. She says she came into it thinking that.

She draws a false equivalence between "telling the future and predictions", "hooey", and "making money off peoples' fears." She then goes on to say that "a GOOD Tarot reader doesn't tell you what's going to happen." It's very clear what she means.

Attempting to destroy business rivals is nothing new in this game. I remember the certification rackets being really bad about that. But what's disturbing about this is that it's is not some fly-by-night blog or website. It's the Guardian, the WaPo, etc. It lends these bimbos a false air of legitimacy. And these publications are purposely not talking to people like us, or established Tarot writers. You certainly won't see them featuring someone like Paul Hughes-Barlow (who also has a youtube channel BTW.) God forbid they give equal time to anyone who actually knows what they're talking about. They're giving a bully pulpit to these wannabe Kardashians.

Edited December 14, 2021 by katrinka

[devin]

Ware is basically saying, "I thought Tarot reading was about telling the future and predictions. Telling the future and predictions is making money off people's fears. Telling the future and predictions is hooey. I was wrong. Tarot reading is about navel gazing. Navel gazing is not hooey."

 

Honestly, though, I don't really care what the Guardian (or my local version of it) thinks. Some good investigative work notwithstanding, they're a bunch of snides catering to the overeducated middlebrow classes, and nobody reads the bloody thing.

 

Oh dear, my undereducated self is sound very vinegary. 

 

EDIT: Katrinka posted while I was typing. Her post makes the above a little redundant.

Edited December 14, 2021 by devin

[katrinka]

11 minutes ago, devin said:

Ware is basically saying, "I thought Tarot reading was about telling the future and predictions. Telling the future and predictions is making money off people's fears. Telling the future and predictions is hooey. I was wrong. Tarot reading is about navel gazing. Navel gazing is not hooey."

 

Honestly, though, I don't really care what the Guardian (or my local version of it) thinks. Some good investigative work notwithstanding, they're a bunch of snides catering to  the overeducated middlebrow classes, and nobody reads the bloody thing.

 

Oh dear, my undereducated self is sound very vinegary. 

 

EDIT: Katrinka posted while I was typing. Her post makes the above a little redundant.

 

No, it's a wonderful post. You summed it up perfectly.

And I like the thought that nobody reads the Guardian. The WaPo is the same way. You can't even SEE much of the article if you don't know how to get around paywalls.

[devin]

8 minutes ago, katrinka said:

And I like the thought that nobody reads the Guardian.

 

Except I just realised I was rather outdatedly talking about the print version! There online/app stuff could be very popular for all I know. 

 

[gregory]

12 minutes ago, katrinka said:

 

No, it's a wonderful post. You summed it up perfectly.

And I like the thought that nobody reads the Guardian. The WaPo is the same way. You can't even SEE much of the article if you don't know how to get around paywalls.

 

The Guardian on line is free to all, no paywall. Just pointing that out.

 

It also - to its credit - publishes articles from both extremes of issues. That's real balance. But also means you can't say "The Guardian says this" of an opinion piece, which this was, only that Sarah Hughes says it in the Guardian.

 

They also published this wonderful  gallery:

https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/gallery/2020/aug/04/occult-following-tarot-cards-in-pictures

 

as well as this - which I agree doesn't say much about prediction - but is entirely supportive of tarot in general.

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2021/oct/27/tarot-cards-self-care-jessica-dore-interview

[katrinka]

@devin Their links get shared on social media quite a bit.
That doesn't indicate that many people are actually reading the full articles, though. Social media is full of distractions.

[gregory]

Back with some more - here's one that is ALL ABOUT predictions:

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2020/dec/26/im-getting-clarity-a-time-that-will-feel-lighter-psychics-share-their-2021-predictions

One that doesn't take sides (though the comments do...)

https://www.theguardian.com/small-business-network/2018/jan/18/crystals-potions-and-tarot-cards-the-mystical-rise-of-new-age-businesses

 

 

[katrinka]

3 minutes ago, gregory said:

The Guardian on line is free to all, no paywall. Just pointing that out.

 

I was talking about the WaPo. I mentioned it by name just prior to the paywall comment.
 

3 minutes ago, gregory said:

It also - to its credit - publishes articles from both extremes of issues. That's real balance. But also means you can't say "The Guardian says this" of an opinion piece, which this was, only that Sarah Hughes says it in the Guardian.

 

The article about that Dore person was less blatantly insulting than the Hughes one, but still very biased and one sided.

Also - this is "cerebral writing"? She's restating the cliche (badly) about the glass being half empty or half full. And she says "u".

 

The other link is just a deck showcase. Nothing about reading or readers.

I'm NOT seeing "both extremes of the issue" or "real balance." There is no representation of what reading cards traditionally is, unless you count Dore's mother (we really don't know her reading style.) And she's painted as an embarrassment.

[gregory]

49 minutes ago, katrinka said:

And I like the thought that nobody reads the Guardian. The WaPo is the same way. You can't even SEE much of the article if you don't know how to get around paywalls.

 

That phrasing suggested otherwise. "The WaPO is the same". Sorry !

[katrinka]

57 minutes ago, gregory said:

Back with some more - here's one that is ALL ABOUT predictions:

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2020/dec/26/im-getting-clarity-a-time-that-will-feel-lighter-psychics-share-their-2021-predictions

 

Well I'll be. That one actually does mention someone making predictions with Tarot.
Of course she's dead last, lumped in with disreputable D-list "celebs" who bill themselves as psychics. She claims to access the Akashic records, doesn't seem to have progressed beyond single card draws, and relies heavily on cold reading techniques for the first two cards. The third one shows a very poor grasp of both the Magician, a card of potential but nothing more, and COVID. It's not going away that soon or that easy.

Welp. Now we're in a box with fraudulent TV mediums and the like.
 

57 minutes ago, gregory said:

One that doesn't take sides (though the comments do...)

https://www.theguardian.com/small-business-network/2018/jan/18/crystals-potions-and-tarot-cards-the-mystical-rise-of-new-age-businesses

 

That one makes passing mention of Tarot as a kind of adjunct to "influencers" who brand themselves as wiccan or pagan. More of the same.

I did like a lot of the comments, though. It's good to see people calling this crap out. 😁

Edited December 14, 2021 by katrinka

[devin]

30 minutes ago, gregory said:

That phrasing suggested otherwise. "The WaPO is the same". Sorry !

 

I'm the one that made the (probably/possibly) incorrect assertion about the Guardian's readership, or lack thereof. The parallel mentioned by Katrinka was to do with said lack of readership and not paywalls. That's the way I read it, anyway.

 

Mistakes aside, and not specifically concerning their views on the Tarot, I stand by my take on the Grauniad. But this is not the forum to go into why. I will only add that while the paper may cater to overeducated middlebrows, I know for a fact that at least some of their readership are Tarot collecting cats of great learning and distinction.

Edited December 14, 2021 by devin

[devin]

29 minutes ago, Wildcard said:

If it is possible to predict using cards ... which big newspaper would popularise that?

 

I think most of the really mass-market papers do, and for economic reasons. Which just goes to show that the majority of the population, to some degree of seriousness or other, are on the fortune-teller's side. This is why I don't really care what pseudo high-brows think.

 

Here's one from the gregory archives. A Guardian journalist doing a brutal takedown of Rachel Pollack. (It's the second piece entitled How a body can bamboozle the Tarot.)

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ieqj7xuc4mlmxq6/Dali article - Copy.pdf?dl=0

 

Ouch.

Edited December 14, 2021 by devin

[katrinka]

46 minutes ago, devin said:

Mistakes aside, and not specifically concerning their views on the Tarot, I stand by my take on the Grauniad.

 

I am scepticle that Grauniad is a corect spalling. 🤣

 

39 minutes ago, devin said:

Here's one from the gregory archives. A Guardian journalist doing a brutal takedown of Rachel Pollack. (It's the second piece entitled How a body can bamboozle the Tarot.)

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ieqj7xuc4mlmxq6/Dali article - Copy.pdf?dl=0

 

Ouch.

 

I'm only surprised that at one time they actually talked to any respected Tarot author, even for the purpose of doing a hatchet job.

 

[gregory]

1 hour ago, devin said:

 

I think most of the really mass-market papers do, and for economic reasons. Which just goes to show that the majority of the population, to some degree of seriousness or other, are on the fortune-teller's side. This is why I don't really care what pseudo high-brows think.

 

Here's one from the gregory archives. A Guardian journalist doing a brutal takedown of Rachel Pollack. (It's the second piece entitled How a body can bamboozle the Tarot.)

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ieqj7xuc4mlmxq6/Dali article - Copy.pdf?dl=0

 

Ouch.

 

That's a real oldie and ties in with the borderline fraud of the Dali tarot, much of which was done by Amanda Lear and Pollack was sucked in. Very unfortunate all round. If no-one had pretended that Dali actually created the deck, what followed would - not have followed !

 

But have a challenge - you want a "cerebral" - your word, I think katrinka - article on tarot - submit one yourself. You've nothing to lose. Let's face it - your average journalist doesn't know which of us to trust on this. It's not the easiest thing to test accuracy on - just as readings are hard to test for accuracy, too.

 

As to the Grauniad (we used to call it the Granuida in this house) they were indeed FAMOUS for typos - but those days are past, I rather miss them.

Edited December 14, 2021 by gregory

[katrinka]

4 hours ago, gregory said:

That's a real oldie and ties in with the borderline fraud of the Dali tarot, much of which was done by Amanda Lear and Pollack was sucked in. Very unfortunate all round. If no-one had pretended that Dali actually created the deck, what followed would - not have followed !

 

1985, I looked up the book and deck. 36 years ago. Is that the last time they mentioned an actual Tarot author?
After that hatchet job, I'm wondering if everybody just decided to have nothing to do with the Grunion.
Maybe she did give a bad reading. I wasn't there, obviously. But I got a strong Amazing Randi vibe, like his intent all along was to make Rachel look bad.
 

4 hours ago, gregory said:

But have a challenge - you want a "cerebral" - your word, I think katrinka

 

Actually it's the Gruntian's word - right under that harebrained tweet about the 5 of Cups:

 

I'm not sure if they're being sarcastic or they really don't know what the word means.

 

4 hours ago, gregory said:

- article on tarot - submit one yourself. You've nothing to lose. Let's face it - your average journalist doesn't know which of us to trust on this. It's not the easiest thing to test accuracy on - just as readings are hard to test for accuracy, too.

 

I'll look into it. I could always use the money.
I expect they'd reject it - it wouldn't fit the narrative they're pushing. Tarot, as far as they're concerned, isn't something people have to work at learning. It exists to sell crap to the gullible. Bad self-help books, ugly lavender lipsticks and Gwyneth Paltrow vagina candles. Stuff for people like this guy's talking about:
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=10152505750508202

But I could always submit it elsewhere if it comes to that.

 

4 hours ago, gregory said:

As to the Grauniad (we used to call it the Granuida in this house) they were indeed FAMOUS for typos - but those days are past, I rather miss them.

 

No, they're not.
The first article linked ITT said "sceptical." There's probably a lot more, but that one jumped out.

[devin]

9 hours ago, Wildcard said:

I am pretty local in my knowledge on newspapers, and apart from the astro-column and the weather-forecast, I never found anything related to predicting stuff, especially by cards - but I guess you refer to international papers?

 

The astro column is kinda what I'm talking about, that and a general openness to psychics, strange tales, etc. I'm not saying it's all sensible stuff, far from it, but it shows a degree of belief or at least interest on behalf of the general public. This chimes with my personal experience. Anyway, it was very late when I wrote that (and I was in a bad mood).... so don't hold me to it! 🙂 

Edited December 15, 2021 by devin

[gregory]

6 hours ago, katrinka said:

 

1985, I looked up the book and deck. 36 years ago. Is that the last time they mentioned an actual Tarot author?

 NO - within the last two years, for one, they did an excellent article on Leonora Carrington if you count that. And I only said about the Dali thing because it was a huge row at the time and someone cited it as evidence that they had it in  for Pollack - who was unlucky enough to get sucked into something decidedly suss. There's nothing wrong with her book or the deck itself, but the hype used tarnished everyone involved..

 

6 hours ago, katrinka said:

Actually it's the Gruntian's word - right under that harebrained tweet about the 5 of Cups:

 

I'm not sure if they're being sarcastic or they really don't know what the word means.

You are missing the point. It isn't "The Guardian's" view; It is that individual columnist's view. Hell, my mother had an article in the Guardian once. I found inaccuracies in there - but they were hers, not theirs. And I am certain sure I have read perfectly balanced book reviews in there - IIRC one of those was what had me buy Alfred Douglas' book, years and years ago.

 

6 hours ago, katrinka said:

I'll look into it. I could always use the money.
I expect they'd reject it - it wouldn't fit the narrative they're pushing. Tarot, as far as they're concerned, isn't something people have to work at learning. It exists to sell crap to the gullible. Bad self-help books, ugly lavender lipsticks and Gwyneth Paltrow vagina candles. Stuff for people like this guy's talking about:

AS A PAPER "they" aren't pushing any agenda on this. I think you are being a little (lot ?  ) unfair here.

 

6 hours ago, katrinka said:

No, they're not.
The first article linked ITT said "sceptical." There's probably a lot more, but that one jumped out.

 

Whet's wrong with that ? (no time to go back to the article at the moment, but that is the correct UK spelling.)

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/sceptic

I never said they never had typos these days - every single paper in the world does. But they used to have many, every day. There used even to be a col;um in the Guardian itself where readers sent in their favourites.

 

Katrinka - you know I like and respect you - but you are pushing your own agenda too hard here. We all know many people in this world - probably the majority - think tarot is woowoo, silly and evil. We also know loads of people think believing in Jesus Christ is the be-all and end-all; that evolution didn't happen, that climate change is a myth, that being gay is a choice, that all vegans are nuts. There have been articles in that paper from all those points of view - as well as some very nasty anti-religion ones from Richard Dawkins, whose polemics are almost offensive enough to make me - as irreligious as they get - sign up as a nun. 

 

As has been said many many times, we don't have the right to expect everyone to see things from our POV. Or for newspapers to post OPINION PIECES that fit our POV just because we want them. If we want them enough we will write them; if only the people with views we don't like write for them, that is all that will be printed. (And I don't know that they would pay you - they didn't pay my mother; she just wanted to say her piece about something. It was even - in theory - a factual article...!)

 

And what about this story - no-one took the piss:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/brighton-man-confesses-to-killing-flatmate-after-drawing-the-devil-card-in-tarot-reading-a7051576.html

 

(It was in the Guardian as well, but I haven't the energy.) And follow-ups showed her business REALLY take off...

Edited December 15, 2021 by gregory

[Aoife]

I’m wondering if there is, or needs to be such a clear divide between those readers who use tarot primarily as a future-forecasting tool, and those who use it to focus on unravelling issues in the present? Is there not room for difference?

 

I’ve never subscribed to the future-forecasting model. I don’t believe the future is fixed. That’s not to say that I don’t greatly respect some who read cards in that way. But I pay closer attention to their interpretations, and if they veer wildly away from established meanings I’d be much more sceptical.

 

I’ve always liked the idea of tarot being the poor wo/man’s therapy. My preferred approach is to brainstorm, in dialogue with the sitter. I use knowledge of the cards to indicate unexplored avenues, but the sitter’s intuitive reaction to the cards is equally important in determining the route the reading takes. It does mean though that I can’t use Thoth for these readings, and TdM only when the sitter is conversant with TdM. 

[devin]

25 minutes ago, Aoife said:

I’m wondering if there is, or needs to be such a clear divide between those readers who use tarot primarily as a future-forecasting tool, and those who use it to focus on unravelling issues in the present? Is there not room for difference?

 

I’ve never subscribed to the future-forecasting model. I don’t believe the future is fixed. That’s not to say that I don’t greatly respect some who read cards in that way. But I pay closer attention to their interpretations, and if they veer wildly away from established meanings I’d be much more sceptical.

 

I’ve always liked the idea of tarot being the poor wo/man’s therapy. My preferred approach is to brainstorm, in dialogue with the sitter. I use knowledge of the cards to indicate unexplored avenues, but the sitter’s intuitive reaction to the cards is equally important in determining the route the reading takes. It does mean though that I can’t use Thoth for these readings, and TdM only when the sitter is conversant with TdM. 

 

Totally. There's room for both and any mix of the two. I think it just gets up some peoples' noses when one side makes out the other as a bunch of unscrupulous hacks. It works both ways, of course, but fortune-tellers do seem to take the majority of stick.

Edited December 15, 2021 by devin

[gregory]

But that's kind of what's happening here. The people who believe that it IS all about fortune telling/prediction are mad at the papers for saying no it isn't. Sure there are articles denouncing us all as con artists - but that's the same as we see for loads of stuff, from horoscopes to prayer. (in both of while I trust less than I do in tarot.)

[katrinka]

On 12/15/2021 at 2:32 AM, gregory said:

 NO - within the last two years, for one, they did an excellent article on Leonora Carrington if you count that.

 

I don't. (And I REALLY like her work,)
Lenora painted a set of Majors that was discovered after she died, and somebody put them into a book. She was an artist.
I wasn't talking about artists, I was talking about reputable Tarot authors. People who write about the history, reading techniques, etc.
 

On 12/15/2021 at 2:32 AM, gregory said:

And I only said about the Dali thing because it was a huge row at the time and someone cited it as evidence that they had it in  for Pollack - who was unlucky enough to get sucked into something decidedly suss. There's nothing wrong with her book or the deck itself, but the hype used tarnished everyone involved..

 

I would imagine.
 

On 12/15/2021 at 2:32 AM, gregory said:

You are missing the point. It isn't "The Guardian's" view; It is that individual columnist's view. Hell, my mother had an article in the Guardian once. I found inaccuracies in there - but they were hers, not theirs. And I am certain sure I have read perfectly balanced book reviews in there - IIRC one of those was what had me buy Alfred Douglas' book, years and years ago.

 

No, I'm not "missing the point."

 

When a piece is in the Opinion section, it's being presented as an individual's opinion and not the position of the publication. When it's under Religion, Lifestyle, etc., the publication IS endorsing that view.

 

While the Baylor Lariat article is presented as an opinion piece, the WaPo article linked in the OP is under "Religion". (Which is absurd in itself.) That section is supposedly for factual reporting on religion. They can quote people saying nutty things, but the piece itself should be from a sane and balanced perspective. For example, it's fine to quote members of a fringe sect saying that Jesus is going to appear at a WalMart parking lot next Friday. It is not OK to present that as something accepted by Christians in general, or as a tenet of the faith. Nor is it OK to imply that any Christians who don't buy into that are "hooey" and "making money off peoples fears."

 

The Guardian piece is under "Lifestyle" , not Opinion. Lifestyle sections used to be called "Women" in the prefeminist days when we were assumed to be concerned with fashion and housekeeping matters rather than world affairs. While that's changed, it's still a place for fluff pieces. But even those should be factual. They can't say, for instance, that everyone who wears Revlon thinks vaccines contain 5G tracking devices, and if any don't believe that, they must be criminals. It may be legal to do so, but it shows them to be disreputable and undermines any credibility they may have.

It's very easy to fact check things in this day and age, but the Guardian doesn't really concern itself with that:

 

Why would they not bother to verify their information? (That was rhetorical, BTW.)

To recap: It was a horribly unbalanced piece. Again, how did they manage to miss people who use common spreads like the Celtic Cross if not purposely turning a blind eye? Ask yourself that. And the Guardian has a rotten track record.

I really can't see a political agenda here unless they are assuming that we lefties are followers of the aforementioned Ms. Paltrow (which would be terribly insulting in itself.) I think, though, that it comes down to their advertisers. Follow the money.
 

On 12/15/2021 at 2:32 AM, gregory said:

AS A PAPER "they" aren't pushing any agenda on this. I think you are being a little (lot ?  ) unfair here.

 

Nope. See above.
 

On 12/15/2021 at 2:32 AM, gregory said:

Whet's wrong with that ? (no time to go back to the article at the moment, but that is the correct UK spelling.)

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/sceptic

I never said they never had typos these days - every single paper in the world does. But they used to have many, every day. There used even to be a col;um in the Guardian itself where readers sent in their favourites.

 

OK, you're right about that one, I'll give you that.
I don't recall seeing it before, though. It doesn't seem to be as commonly used as some other UK spelling.

 

On 12/15/2021 at 2:32 AM, gregory said:

Katrinka - you know I like and respect you - but you are pushing your own agenda too hard here.

 

No. They're libeling us, painting us all as new age flakes and Kardashian worshipping idiots. Or, if we traditional readers are acknowledged at all, it's as "hooey" and fraudsters. Clapping back is not an "agenda."
There is no reason for anyone to sit still for that.
 

On 12/15/2021 at 2:32 AM, gregory said:

We all know many people in this world - probably the majority - think tarot is woowoo, silly and evil. We also know loads of people think believing in Jesus Christ is the be-all and end-all; that evolution didn't happen, that climate change is a myth, that being gay is a choice, that all vegans are nuts. There have been articles in that paper from all those points of view - as well as some very nasty anti-religion ones from Richard Dawkins, whose polemics are almost offensive enough to make me - as irreligious as they get - sign up as a nun. 

 

As has been said many many times, we don't have the right to expect everyone to see things from our POV. Or for newspapers to post OPINION PIECES

 

Again, a lot of these are not being published as "opinion pieces."

And it's not about my POV. It's about major publications presenting us as predatory liars in order to build up the reputations of people with room temperature IQs pretending to be therapists. 
 

On 12/15/2021 at 2:32 AM, gregory said:

that fit our POV just because we want them. If we want them enough we will write them; if only the people with views we don't like write for them, that is all that will be printed. (And I don't know that they would pay you - they didn't pay my mother; she just wanted to say her piece about something. It was even - in theory - a factual article...!)

 

In that case they get a comment or a letter to the editor. I don't work free. Especially for a shysty rag like that.

 

On 12/15/2021 at 2:32 AM, gregory said:

And what about this story - no-one took the piss:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/brighton-man-confesses-to-killing-flatmate-after-drawing-the-devil-card-in-tarot-reading-a7051576.html

 

(It was in the Guardian as well, but I haven't the energy.) And follow-ups showed her business REALLY take off...

What about it? The cards nailed the guy, and the reader certainly wasn't presented as an idiot.

But if it ever ran in the Guardian, they seem to have taken it down:

Edited December 16, 2021 by katrinka

[katrinka]

39 minutes ago, devin said:

 

Totally. There's room for both and any mix of the two. I think it just gets up some peoples' noses when one side makes out the other as a bunch of unscrupulous hacks. It works both ways, of course, but fortune-tellers do seem to take the majority of stick.

 

THIS. 100%.

BTW, I want to mention that the UK edition of the Guardian has also killed the story of the cards and the reader nailing the murderer, if they ever ran it at all.

 

[katrinka]

4 hours ago, Aoife said:

I’m wondering if there is, or needs to be such a clear divide between those readers who use tarot primarily as a future-forecasting tool, and those who use it to focus on unravelling issues in the present? Is there not room for difference?

This is one of those things where we really need better words. We use "predictive" as a kind of shorthand for traditional and nontherapeutic.
I do look into the present, but it's to see what's going on behind the scenes.