Dumb Question: do Different Decks Elicit Different Interpretations?

[Halcyon]

My guess is they do.  I am mostly sticking with decks based on Rider Waite,  but purchased the Goddess Deck today,  and after perusing it I am struck that a number of the cards would give a different reading than straight RWS.  

[JustPeachy]

I'm new too, but from what I've read, people say decks can be straightforward or "softer" in their answers. So, I'd say yes, I guess it does depend on the deck. I know lots of folks use different decks depending on the reading they are doing. All the more reason to purchase what you like. 😉

[Saturn Celeste]

44 minutes ago, Halcyon said:

My guess is they do.

Sure they do!  That's why I prefer to start students on RW decks OR at least give me pictures!  I go nuts trying to figure out what decks some people are talking about!

[Barleywine]

Absolutely. Compare the Thoth 6 of Disks to the RWS 6 of Pentacles. The former means "material success" and little more, while the latter has accrued the ideas of charity and generosity, which are more the ideal consequences of accumulated wealth than the thing itself. The scenic images in the RWS deck have generated all kinds of story-telling assumptions (I call them "narrative vignettes") that the Thoth barely hints at, if at all. And the TdM pips are silent on almost everything.

[JustPeachy]

8 minutes ago, Barleywine said:

 And the TdM pips are silent on almost everything.

Can you expound on that a bit? I've had this popping up on my radar several times over the last couple of weeks.

[fire cat pickles]

Correlating the Majors with the minors is a method that has been lobbied around for years, and codified Lee Bursten on AT:

https://www.tarotforum.net/showthread.php?t=165645

(if you're interested in studying it). 

 

Without much to go on in terms of artwork or scenes it's much more of a challenge to read non-pictorial pips. For me the challenge always was to get away from other systems that I would normally use in cartomancy or even Lenormand (since I use inserts) when I see the pips in TdM minors. 

[Barleywine]

28 minutes ago, JustPeachy said:

Can you expound on that a bit? I've had this popping up on my radar several times over the last couple of weeks.

Sure. You have to work at it to extract narrative content from the TdM pip cards. For the most part they're just different arrangements of suit emblems and various - mostly floral - decorative embellishments. In my experience, most people go at them from the angle of suit-and-number theory, which will only take you so far. Others have gotten really anal about trying to parse all the little bits of foliage (Is that bud closed or fully open? Is that one red while the other one is blue?) and obtain nuances of meaning from it. It can be like diving to the bottom of a deep pool and never resurfacing. I made my own stab at it which comes down somewhere in the middle, with a series of 16 or 17 posts on my blog.

 

Here is a compilation of my brief divinatory meanings for the pips, which are elaborated in the other posts:

 

https://parsifalswheeldivination.com/2019/06/06/the-tarot-de-marseille-pips-a-divinatory-tabulation/

Edited June 27, 2019 by Barleywine

[Barleywine]

7 minutes ago, fire cat pickles said:

Correlating the Majors with the minors is a method that has been lobbied around for years, and codified Lee Bursten on AT:

https://www.tarotforum.net/showthread.php?t=165645

(if you're interested in studying it). 

 

Without much to go on in terms of artwork or scenes it's much more of a challenge to read non-pictorial pips. For me the challenge always was to get away from other systems that I would normally use in cartomancy or even Lenormand (since I use inserts) when I see the pips in TdM minors. 

I recently had a number of interesting email conversations with Lee about my approach to the pips (he keeps chiding me to write a book). I still have his pip material, and Scion's. Regarding the pips-as-trumps model, sometime later this year I'm most likely going to have an article in The Cartomancer on my own exploration of the subject.

Edited June 27, 2019 by Barleywine

[Grandma]

Not a dumb question, and they absolutely do.

 

Here's a way to tell: take two different decks, if possible two that elicit different overall feelings when you look at them.  They can even both be traditionally RWS based.  Formulate a question and read for it with each deck, using the same spread.  The two readings will most likely be perhaps subtly, but definitely significantly, different.

 

I feel so strongly about this that I won't read for someone in the Exchanges unless I know which deck they used and can replicate the spread myself if I have the deck, or by looking the cards up and creating the spread in PowerPoint. 

 

Think about it this way - if all decks elicited the same interpretations, we wouldn't even need decks.  We could just write the names of the cards on 78 pieces of paper and be done with it!

[Halcyon]

4 hours ago, JustPeachy said:

I'm new too, but from what I've read, people say decks can be straightforward or "softer" in their answers. So, I'd say yes, I guess it does depend on the deck. I know lots of folks use different decks depending on the reading they are doing. All the more reason to purchase what you like. 😉

Well that's a good thing since I just bought another deck today,  the Goddess Deck.... 🤣

[Halcyon]

3 hours ago, Barleywine said:

Sure. You have to work at it to extract narrative content from the TdM pip cards. For the most part they're just different arrangements of suit emblems and various - mostly floral - decorative embellishments. In my experience, most people go at them from the angle of suit-and-number theory, which will only take you so far. Others have gotten really anal about trying to parse all the little bits of foliage (Is that bud closed or fully open? Is that one red while the other one is blue?) and obtain nuances of meaning from it. It can be like diving to the bottom of a deep pool and never resurfacing. I made my own stab at it which comes down somewhere in the middle, with a series of 16 or 17 posts on my blog.

 

Here is a compilation of my brief divinatory meanings for the pips, which are elaborated in the other posts:

 

https://parsifalswheeldivination.com/2019/06/06/the-tarot-de-marseille-pips-a-divinatory-tabulation/

This is very interesting.  Thank you for the link to your blog.  I have much to learn! 

[Halcyon]

2 hours ago, Grandma said:

 

 

Think about it this way - if all decks elicited the same interpretations, we wouldn't even need decks.  We could just write the names of the cards on 78 pieces of paper and be done with it!

But decks are preeettttty lol.  

[DevonCarter]

15 hours ago, Halcyon said:

But decks are preeettttty lol.  

Aren't they? 

I have found so far that when I read I consider the "book" interpretation, but also look at the images on the specific card - and it seems often what I get from the images is more accurate than the book meaning might be. So each deck definitely would read a bit differently that way!

[Marigold]

If each deck can give different interpretations, then they're more oracles than The Tarot. The Tarot has an inherent structure to it. You can't just change it to suit your fancy. It would be like saying "2 and 2 is 4, but not in the system of maths that I use."

 

So what's the difference between Tarot and an oracle ? If I design a deck with 78 cards, with 22 majors and 56 minors (along with the usual amount of Court cards), and put any old picture on them, is this a Tarot ?

 

 

[Marigold]

18 hours ago, Grandma said:

We could just write the names of the cards on 78 pieces of paper and be done with it!

Indeed you could. Try it sometime.

[Raggydoll]

8 minutes ago, Marigold said:

If each deck can give different interpretations, then they're more oracles than The Tarot. The Tarot has an inherent structure to it. You can't just change it to suit your fancy. It would be like saying "2 and 2 is 4, but not in the system of maths that I use."

 

So what's the difference between Tarot and an oracle ? If I design a deck with 78 cards, with 22 majors and 56 minors (along with the usual amount of Court cards), and put any old picture on them, is this a Tarot ?

 

 

I see it a bit differently 🙂 There is no ‘one’ tarot tradition that translates to every deck. There are several traditions and countless variations of them, based on the ideas of the creator(s). Plus there is an abundance of intuitive or psychic readers too, and they will naturally veer beyond the more common card meanings based on what they pick up from the querent. Does that mean that there is no rhyme or reason to tarot? No, absolutely not. There is a structure and a definition to what tarot is and isn’t, as far as card numbers, order, suits and titles. But there are no fixed meanings that go with every single deck. So it means that there is a great deal of flexibility and that different personalities will approach it in different ways. For me, my studies of symbolism and different tarot traditions will always lay as the foundation for each reading but my experience in the moment (the visual impressions of the imagery of the deck(s) used and the interactions of the cards, plus my own psychic inputs), will make up the total sum of the reading. I know that not everyone reads this way but a lot of people definitely do, and that is why I feel it is incorrect to say that different decks cannot have different meanings. The depictions vary greatly and I think it would be unhelpful to ignore the pictures and just look at the titles. The depictions help us to understand the intentions of the creator but many of us also believe that symbols and images can help us to tap into the collective unconscious or to our higher knowledge (whatever you wish to call it). And, if you decide to compare cards in decks of different traditions/styles - like, let’s say the Thoth, the RWS, the Marseille, the grand Etteilla and - why not - the Mary El. Will you then still say that every one of those decks has the same meanings?  

 

Also, what is an ‘oracle’ in your opinion? To me, it’s an act of divination or a person performing said act (a diviner). I would put tarot cards as a sub category of oracle decks when they are used for divination. 

[katrinka]

Yes, there's a lot of semantics and personal technique involved here.
There's the big three: RWS, Thoth, and TdM. RWS is altered enough that it appears quite different from the Thoth, at least on the surface, but they're rooted in the same system. TdM might be interpreted according to number and suit, retrofitted to RWS, or by some combination of those or something else, it's harder to pin down. And then there are the other types such as Etteilla, Minchiate, etc. So there's a number of reading systems used with various categories of decks. And then there is reading off the pictures. Some people do this to the exclusion of everything else. That will certainly give you something different with each deck.

And then you have all the theme decks, etc., based on one or another of the main systems. So let's look at this Hierophant from The Alice Tarot:

 

It's RWS-based, so you can use the standard PKT-type interpretation https://www.sacred-texts.com/tarot/pkt/pktar05.htm

You can go a little deeper with Thoth https://www.corax.com/tarot/cards/hierophant.html

But you can also consider the passage in Alice that it refers to https://sabian.org/alice_in_wonderland5.php

The guidebook for the deck does a great job of consolidating the GD idea of the Hierophant with the Alice theme: "Someone who thinks they 'know it all'. Someone who gives advice. A cryptic or puzzling piece of information."
Additionally, you can pick out the details on the card: "There's a lot of blue here...", "Mushrooms, poppies, and smoking refer to drugs..." If it's compatible with the card's essence, it's useful.
And then there are people who ignore the meaning and riff on the details: "He has a lot of hands. I'm reminded of the phrase 'Many hands do light work'..." "Alice's puffed sleeves remind me of Dorothy in The Wizard of Oz. Have you lost your dog?" Personally, I don't find this to be accurate or helpful, but it's a technique that's out there.
I have a book by Leo Louis Martello, Understanding The Tarot. His interpretations are pretty identical to his playing card interpretations (very effective with TdM!) but it's illustrated with RWS. And some people do that, learn one system and use it with whatever happens to be on the table.

So the answer really depends on who's reading the cards.

Edited June 28, 2019 by katrinka

[katrinka]

As an aside, I was just looking at the card and it occurred to be that it would be quite different if it was based in Texas. The psychedelic mushrooms here grow out of cow patties. So it would carry an additional meaning: BS. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
 

Apologies for the thread drift. Back to the matter at hand!

Edited June 28, 2019 by katrinka

[Saturn Celeste]

22 minutes ago, katrinka said:

As an aside, I was just looking at the card and it occurred to be that it would be quite different if it was based in Texas. The psychedelic mushrooms here grow out of cow patties. So it would carry an additional meaning: BS. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
 

Apologies for the thread drift. Back to the matter at hand!

  I'm in Florida and same here for the 'shrooms in cowpies!

[FLizarraga]

Gosh, this is an interesting thread!

 

Most of us seem to agree on the short answer here: yes, most definitely. Though I am with Marigold in the sense that those differences are not absolute and arbitrary. There is a basic structure common to all Tarot decks, even those belonging to vastly different styles and schools. Otherwise, of course, they couldn't all be recognized as Tarot. Still, at the very, very least, different decks will show you subtly different nuances of the same card.

 

There's a book on the subject, Valerie Sim's Tarot Outside the Box: https://www.llewellyn.com/product.php?ean=9780738702773https://www.llewellyn.com/product.php?ean=9780738702773 (I'm pretty sure it can be found cheaper elsewhere, this is just for information. I have it, though I confess I haven't read it yet.) She also created a deck for this purpose called the Comparative Tarot, a review of which can be found here: http://www.tarotpassages.com/ct-js.htm.

 

Cowpies! 🤣🤣🤣

 

 

 

Edited June 29, 2019 by FLizarraga

[Barleywine]

18 minutes ago, FLizarraga said:

Gosh, this is an interesting thread!

 

Most of us seem to agree on the short answer here: yes, most definitely. Though I am with Marigold in the sense that those differences are not absolute and arbitrary. There is a basic structure common to all Tarot decks, even those belonging to vastly different styles and schools. Otherwise, of course, they couldn't all be recognized as Tarot. Still, at the very, very least, different decks will show you subtly different nuances of the same card.

 

There's a book on the subject, Valerie Sim's Tarot Outside the Box: https://www.llewellyn.com/product.php?ean=9780738702773https://www.llewellyn.com/product.php?ean=9780738702773 (I'm pretty sure it can be found cheaper elsewhere, this is just for information. I have it, though I confess I haven't read it yet.) She also created a deck for this purpose called the Comparative Tarot, a review of which can be found here: http://www.tarotpassages.com/ct-js.htm.

 

Cowpies! 🤣🤣🤣

 

 

 

Back in the '70s, Bill Butler compiled a decent Dictionary of the Tarot that compared card meanings from a host of different authors. I believe it's still available used.

[FLizarraga]

2 minutes ago, Barleywine said:

Back in the '70s, Bill Butler compiled a decent Dictionary of the Tarot that compared card meanings from a host of different authors. I believe it's still available used.

Thanks for the reference, Barleywine! I have that one, too, and it can still be found for about $5, what it cost me a few years back.

[Raggydoll]

6 hours ago, FLizarraga said:

Gosh, this is an interesting thread!

 

Most of us seem to agree on the short answer here: yes, most definitely. Though I am with Marigold in the sense that those differences are not absolute and arbitrary. There is a basic structure common to all Tarot decks, even those belonging to vastly different styles and schools. Otherwise, of course, they couldn't all be recognized as Tarot. Still, at the very, very least, different decks will show you subtly different nuances of the same card.

 

There's a book on the subject, Valerie Sim's Tarot Outside the Box: https://www.llewellyn.com/product.php?ean=9780738702773https://www.llewellyn.com/product.php?ean=9780738702773 (I'm pretty sure it can be found cheaper elsewhere, this is just for information. I have it, though I confess I haven't read it yet.) She also created a deck for this purpose called the Comparative Tarot, a review of which can be found here: http://www.tarotpassages.com/ct-js.htm.

 

Cowpies! 🤣🤣🤣

 

 

 

I agree in that the majority of modern decks will share a similar range of basic meanings (I put this definition to mean decks printed in the last century, post-RWS). But that historical reproductions will be a different ball game, as will all the ‘reconstructive/“unique” decks. So for the non psychic reader then sure, a three of swords will mean pretty much the same from reading to reading (it will at least remain in its broad range of commonly noted  interpretations)

 

(I differentiate psychic from intuitive here because I feel that an intuitive person will use their intuition to determine which of all the possible card meanings that apply to the querent situation while the psychic person will receive input beyond what the cards themselves hold. That’s just how it works for me so I’m using that as my own definition)

[McFaire]

11 hours ago, Marigold said:

If each deck can give different interpretations, then they're more oracles than The Tarot. The Tarot has an inherent structure to it. You can't just change it to suit your fancy. It would be like saying "2 and 2 is 4, but not in the system of maths that I use."

 

So what's the difference between Tarot and an oracle ? If I design a deck with 78 cards, with 22 majors and 56 minors (along with the usual amount of Court cards), and put any old picture on them, is this a Tarot ?

 

 

Yes, I agree that tarot has a specific structure. So, putting "any old picture" on them--random images--wouldn't still be a tarot. The images have meaning, and the meaning is organized in a certain way. The warp and weave of tarot is deeper than 22 majors, 40 pips, 16 courts. The numbers and suits and have meaning, the underlying structure of the majors has meaning, and so on, and the imagery reflects that.

 

So no, a random collection of images wouldn't comprise a tarot just because is has the corresponding number of pips, court, majors.

 

That said, the different schools or genres are read somewhat differently, especially with respect to individual cards. But a deeper structure is common among them. An oracle is a different animal.

 

 

[Guest]

Quote: "So what's the difference between Tarot and an oracle ?"

 

A tarot card could be defined as a playing card that forms part of a series of playing cards that comprises a variable number of pip cards and coat cards that are most often divided into French or Latin suits, a fifth suit that comprises a variable number of cards that serve exclusively as trump cards in every known example of the trick-taking card games for which such a variety of playing cards is required, and, in most examples, an additional card that is variously titled The Fool, The Madman, or The Excuse (in most of the applicable card games, The Fool exempts a player from the obligation to follow suit).

 

One primary difference, therefore, between tarot cards and oracle cards is that the former are playing cards and the latter are not.

 

Regards

KevinM