Illustrated Pips VS Non-Illustrated

But my point (and I do have one!) is that the moment we say that fours represent stability and manifestation, in that very instant we have forced a fixed divinatory meaning on the cards, a meaning which is no more and no less fixed, or forced, than any RWS-derived meaning we might give the cards.

-- Lee

Mmm, dunno about Marseille decks not having their own voices. Mine do. Most of them speak French, bien sûr , except the Fournier and the Rodes-Sanchez - they speak Spanish. Dodal has an avuncular, scholarly voice, a retired gentleman with time on his hands, who might give some of it to you, but is actually happier spending it reading a good book - so he doesn't take forever to deliver his message. The modern Jodo-Camoin is flashy, a bit of a self-taught wide boy who'll bore you rigid sometimes with all the detail, and sometimes will make you laugh or gasp or think that much further. A Dodal 3 of Cups looks nothing like a Jodo-Camoin 3 of Cups, and certainly says it in a different accent and tone.

The number-suit method is but one - basic and useful - way in which to read those two cards. You can explore so many others, from the most arcane to the most imaginative.


I was at a tarot meet in London once, with someone from this forum who'd never read with non-scenic pips. She said she doubted she could, without pictures. She is also an exceptionally good intuitive reader with scenic decks, having taught herself without books. I challenged her to read for me with Major Tom's Tarot de Marseille. As it happens, I drew only Minors, none of them courts. After laughing about the perversity of tarot, she proceeded to read for me. Perfectly. Mainly using image or shape association and imagination, with some systematic knowledge - she proceeded to tell me exactly what I needed then, and also gave me good insight into the future. She certainly picked up Major Tom's Marseille's voice loud and clear!

So now, when people say to me "I can't read with Marseille pips" I don't believe them. They might not like non-scenic pips, from a purely aesthetic point of view - that's a matter of taste and I won't argue with it. But if they are tarot readers, they will hear the voice of the pips if they just relax into their readings without preconceptions, just approaching those minors like any other card. Instead of thinking - "HELP! There's no human being on this card doing something to tell me how to interpret it", they can just start thinking "oh, those flowers look a little limp, and that single one is reviving, and look at those nine cups in three rows, it's all too perfect, it can't last,..."

Sulis said:

I like both

Click to expand...

Me, too. I also enjoy playing cards.

I'm drawn to the RWS deck, but now I have a Sasha Fenton deck(non-illustrated) and I'm finding it difficult because now I have to rely even more on the numerological and suit meaning of each card without guidance from individual illustrations. Its a challenge that, as a 'student', I'm tackling head-on. This deck found me and, gosh darn it, I wanna learn with it!

..........

Fudugazi said:

Mmm, dunno about Marseille decks not having their own voices. Mine do. Most of them speak French, bien sûr

Click to expand...

Touche!

-- Lee

My first deck was a Marseille. Here in Argentina, they are the most common ones. But I found it extremely difficult to read with, and I had to use the book all the time. I put tarot at a side, because I felt I couldn't "read".

Then I bought the RWS. And things were different. I COULD read. I didn't have to use the book (except for the court cards... ). Now I use the Fey and the Jane Austen.

I guess I'm an "intuitive reader". I need pictures to read.

Perhaps the Marseilles is not good for a beginner... At least that's what I felt.

The Marseilles would be excellent for a beginner, as long as they realise that it's perfectly OK to use their own interpretation for the cards.

We need to dispense with the idea that there is a specific way to read with a Marseilles deck. The reason some people don't try the Marseilles is because they believe it's difficult to read with and that someone out there will tell them they doing it all wrong. It's not the case though. I personally regret not using a Marseilles deck first because it's very freeing to work with and has lead me to some interesting studies.

I find reading with Marseille far more intuitive and "seat-of-my-pants" than reading with RWS and clones, where a scene is given to you, a story suggested, and all you have to do is follow what the creator has set in front of your eyes.

The truth is, if you can read tarot, especially intuitively, you can read tarot - that means you can read any deck. For many who shy away from reading non-scenic pips, it's simply a question of confidence. If they do trust their intuition, then all they need to do is let go and let it speak. And it will . The rest - the (very interesting) explorations that this or that system allows (e.g. GD Kabbalistic and astrological Tarot with the RWS, sacred geometry, alchemy, ancient numerology or traditional fortune-telling with the Marseille, Mythology with the Thoth) can be added later - they will enhance and strengthen any reader's foundations, whatever family of decks you use.


I find those who have the greatest difficulty in switching between families of decks - and even decks within a family of decks - are the non-intuitive readers, those who have a very elaborate fixed system of reading a deck (whatever the deck). If you have built your entire way of reading on a beautiful but fairly unbending system, then you need to relearn to read almost entirely if you go from Marseille to RWS, RWS to Marseille, Thoth to RWS, etc. Some readers use such detailed systems that they depend on the exact image on a card: any reinterpretation of that card (say with another image) throws their system off-balance.

I guess that I didn't feel the "click" with my Marseille. Perhaps in the future I'll start using it again... who knows?