but ultimately the talent, intuition and wisdom lie within the user, not in the cards.
I think it is healthy to perpetually question this. It gets repeated again and again that it has become one of those things that nobody dare disagree with.
But - change of analogy - imagine if we said that it is what we bring to books that matters, not the book itself. Forget the language of Shakespeare or Tolstoy - that doesn't really matter; what matters is what
you bring to the book. Of course we all bring *stuff* to whatever we do but it is a tiny proportion of the wider picture.
Most of the greatness of great artwork comes from it and not us,
surely? Perhaps we're just too vain to admit it. I do think of tarot and what it does to our subconsciousness as simply another form of reading.
As to the question of "better", if we can argue that Austen or Henry James or Proust wrote great literature, - better than something pulpy that you might pick up at the airport - then I'm sure there are decks that are better (assuming better means with more content, richer, well thought out). But I question it a lot - I mean, can we honestly say that the wisdom and talent of great literature is what
we bring to it and that the greatness of great literature is in us? I just don't buy it. That's why I question the adage that "the magic is in us."
Better or not better, I can't define it but yes there are decks that are well thought out and ones that are rushed, empty and formulaic. But can a rushed, empty and formulaic deck give good readings? I guess it can. I'd rather use the best tools at my disposal. But that's just me.