I don't think I could go back to Rider Waite

Leo77

I don't think I could go back to Rider Waite after using the TdM style with my Soprafino deck; it's just so much better.

The Soprafino is just so finely tuned into what's going on with me. I don't even need to ask a question and it will pin point exactly what's on my mind. I did a reading last night - first with the Rider Waite deck and then with the Soprafino - asking the same question; and the Soprafino reading was just so much better.

Sorry that I keep on saying "It's just so much better" LOL; I don't know how else to describe it. It just *is*.

The reading with the Rider Waite was so irrelevant and obscure that I put the cards away in the cupboard and said to myself "That's the last time I use the Rider Waite deck".

I think it's interesting how you can be so connected to/finely tuned into a deck and not others.


I've recently purchased two different TdM decks. I love them and they are very, very nice but the whole system seems very "large" to me. So I'm just dipping my toe in for now. If you don't mind a newbie question:

I looked up the Soprafino online and it looks like deck with non-scenic minors (in fact, most of the TdM decks I've seen are like that). So, if you don't mind my asking, what "style" or "source" do you use for interpretion, especially for non-scenic cards? Is there a sort of definitive text on the meanings of a TdM general/Soprafino specific deck that gives you such a clarity in your readings?

Unfortunately, both my decks have companion books in French and my French (I studied only for six years) is rustier than I thought! Is there an English translation of basic TdM card meanings or even just the Soprafino?
 

Richard

......Is there a sort of definitive text on the meanings of a TdM general/Soprafino specific deck that gives you such a clarity in your readings?.....
If I may butt in, there are no definitive meanings of the pips. Most people new to such decks pick and choose slick gimmicks popularized by modern commentators such as Jodorowsky, Ben-Dov, and Enriquez. It seems that anything goes, except that you go to hell if you dare use any pips meanings remotely related to Golden Dawn influenced decks, such as Rider-Waite or Thoth. For example, among new
TdM converts there is an almost fanatical obsession with avoiding even the slightest hint of Rider-Waite influence. I liken this to the deadly allergies to tobacco smoke which appear suddenly and mysteriously in ex smokers who have self righteously abandoned the habit. (As an ex pipe and cigar afficionado, I never developed an aversion to tobacco, just sincere regret that it is so toxic.)
 

Leo77

If I may butt in, there are no definitive meanings of the pips. Most people new to such decks pick and choose slick gimmicks popularized by modern commentators such as Jodorowsky, Ben-Dov, and Enriquez. It seems that anything goes, except that you go to hell if you dare use any pips meanings remotely related to Golden Dawn influenced decks, such as Rider-Waite or Thoth. For example, among new
TdM converts there is an almost fanatical obsession with avoiding even the slightest hint of Rider-Waite influence. I liken this to the deadly allergies to tobacco smoke which appear suddenly and mysteriously in ex smokers who have self righteously abandoned the habit. (As an ex pipe and cigar afficionado, I never developed an aversion to tobacco, just sincere regret that it is so toxic.)

Well "Definitive" would be a relative term when it comes to Tarot, of course. Surely there's at least some kind of generally agreed upon consensus of what the cards mean.
 

prudence

I've recently purchased two different TdM decks. I love them and they are very, very nice but the whole system seems very "large" to me. So I'm just dipping my toe in for now. If you don't mind a newbie question:

I looked up the Soprafino online and it looks like deck with non-scenic minors (in fact, most of the TdM decks I've seen are like that). So, if you don't mind my asking, what "style" or "source" do you use for interpretion, especially for non-scenic cards? Is there a sort of definitive text on the meanings of a TdM general/Soprafino specific deck that gives you such a clarity in your readings?

Unfortunately, both my decks have companion books in French and my French (I studied only for six years) is rustier than I thought! Is there an English translation of basic TdM card meanings or even just the Soprafino?
This system is incredibly well thought out, if you want to invest the time in reading the whole (very long) thread and practicing with it to see how it suits you. http://www.tarotforum.net/showthread.php?t=112327&highlight=melancholic&page=42 "Mel's Old fashioned Pips & Courts and Homemade Baked Goods". I would not consider it an "anything goes" approach. It is definitely a true "system" with a lot of structure and I found it to be a lot of fun to use. Complex, for sure, but worth the time spent learning and practicing it. Don't let the silly title fool you, Mel is a very intelligent man, with a lot of knowledge of the history of tarot, and what makes his perspective even more "out of the norm" for a tarot "scholar" (if you will) is that he actually does use the cards for readings! Predictive ones no less!
 

Zephyros

Well "Definitive" would be a relative term when it comes to Tarot, of course. Surely there's at least some kind of generally agreed upon consensus of what the cards mean.

LRichard is right, there is no consensus about TdM meanings. Modern Tarot underwent a revolution of sorts, and the GD system became the most popular through its most famous exemplar, the RWS. When it comes to pre-occult Tarot, there really is no dominant system. People used a variety of different methods, most especially folk numerology, cartomancy meanings (which were themselves regional) and other methods. Modern writers' concentration on color and composition may actually be that, modern.

Personally I see that as an attempt to see pre-existing occult where it simply isn't, but that's my opinion.
 

Richard

Waite, Crowley, and Case thought that there was a secret esoteric tradition underlying the trumps but not necessarily the minors, which, with the exception of the knights, are structurally identical to our modern 52 card game decks.
 

Richard

"Mel's Old fashioned Pips & Courts and Homemade Baked Goods" indeed! Mel would make a splendid used car salesman. His system is quite intricate and individualistic. Superficially, it looks super cool, and its name is irresistible: a down home traditional recipe for reading the TdM (add butter, eggs, sugar, and flour, etc.). However, for me it really seems too complex, inflexible, and systematic (in a paradoxically arbitrary way): a system for the sake of having a system. However, perhaps others may find it to their liking.
 

Richard

Well "Definitive" would be a relative term when it comes to Tarot, of course. Surely there's at least some kind of generally agreed upon consensus of what the cards mean.
There is not even agreement on the correlation between the suits and the elements (or whatever euphemism one wishes to use, such as spirit, soul, mind, body). I suppose Pythagorean number symbolism (or a variant thereof) may be fairly common, but I don't know for sure. Some purists insist that information that is not intrinsic to the deck (such as number symbolism) should not be used.

ETA: I am partial to "Pips as Trumps", which, although intrinsic, I use surrepticiously, for reasons which would be unacceptable to 99.99% of TdM readers. })
 

prudence

I don't think Mel's system is any more complex for the sake of it than Waite's or Crowley's. I think it is equally as inflexible as any other system. It can be flexed/bent to suit your style. It is still quite thorough and it does make sense the more you dig into it. (the numbers, the elements,the humors, the timing etc)
 

Zephyros

Well, of course there are systems, no one is disputing that. However, the question related to a consensus of meaning, that strictly speaking, does not exist. In modern decks such a consensus exists by default, simply because the RWS is the most popular. The same kind of default is absent among TdMs.