The pleasures and perils of Rider-Waite-Smith-heavy decks

I use the phrase "RWS-heavy" to mean the thousands of decks that take as their major inspiration the Rider Waite Smith deck itself and not just the general Golden Dawn system as interpreted by Waite.

These are the decks you unwrap and flip through and realize instantly, upon getting to your first numbered Minor card, that they owe their total inspiration and entire existence to the imagination of Pamela Colman Smith.

If it's a Three of Wands, someone will be looking out over a horizon.

If it's an Eight of Swords, someone will be physically restrained in some way.

If it's a Six of Swords, someone will be crossing water.

If it's a Five of Pentacles, someone will be out in the cold.

But for Arthur Edward Waite and more specifically, Pamela Colman Smith, there would be no tarot deck in your hand or at least not a 78-card one; the artist would, at most, have done a 22-card Majors deck (most likely cribbing liberally from the Marseilles).

I am speaking of worthy decks--of most decks of the past 40 years, in fact--including the Morgan Greer, Hudes, New Palladini, Aquarian, Robin Wood, Anna K, Llewellyn (yes, even with its veneer of Celtic legend) ...I don't know, do I need to go on?

Decks like those used to be my bread and butter. Indeed, in the first several years of my tarot life, I actively sought out decks that had the RWS Minor scenes but were rendered in a style of art much more to my liking than that of PC Smith's. Finding "The One" (the deck to end all decks) was simply a matter of waiting for an RWS-copycat artist whose style I liked above all others to come along.

But after a multiple-year tarot hiatus, after which I began to read for myself in earnest for the first time (I had been querent-driven before), I realized that I not only no longer preferred RWS-heavy decks... I actually was somewhat repelled by them. I began to experience a stiffening boredom and almost a shutting down of mental agility as I flipped through the usual suspects in the PCS-inspired Minor Arcana.


A jaded tarotist, I sought widely divergent re-interpretations of Waite's general concepts. The more a deck--especially the Minors-- seemed as if the creator or artist had never seen an RWS, the better I responded to it.

I realized that when reading for myself, I seek not the familiar, streamlined, this-is-how-it-is clarity of RWS-copycats, but, rather, the murkiness of the creator's personal vision, one that requires me to stop and peel back the layers of my own situation.

That's why, now:

Chiriku said:

At the times I do have some extra [financial] padding and see fit to spend it on a costly tarot deck, I try to put it towards those limited edition or small press decks that offer me something more to work with, more "meat" so to speak (and IMO, all RWS-heavy decks that are not the RWS itself have very little intellectual meat on the bone. The bone or skeleton of RWS is there, but not the layers of depth).

Click to expand...

From the same thread:

Sword King said:

I agree with this to a certain extent, but I also think the utility of such a deck resides in its purpose. I do over-the-phone readings for sitters where I am looking for clarity of message in a short time span. RWS-based decks work very well for me because my reading process tends to contrast the deck I am looking at with my own core idea of the RWS; this process can give me additional insights. It also keeps the well-worn images fresh by virtue of changing perspective.

Click to expand...

Yes, this is why nowadays I occasionally do purchase an RWS-heavy deck. Usually, it is almost entirely a querent-driven purchase. I think, "Oh, that Sun and Moon's modern, multicultural aesthetic will be a hit with that young urban set I'll be reading for," or "It's good to have an artistic style such as X or Y at a venue/atmosphere like that."

The RWS-heavy decks do serve a purpose for me. But when it comes to readings for myself and as posited in another recent thread about an RWS-heavy deck:

Le Fanu said:

I find myself asking, is there anyone in the world who would come out of the closet and say "yes, me, I want a deck that's totally down-the-line RWS with NO deviations."

In my mind, a deck being totally RWS in 2012 is a byward for uninteresting though I daresay there are people who want RWS copies. Or maybe fans of this type of deck convince themselves that, actually, if you look closely, it isn't RWS at all.

Click to expand...

Yes, a byword for "uninteresting." Post-hiatus, my mind just shuts down when I look through such decks and I think, "What will I--what CAN I-- do with this? What will it avail me, in my personal readings, to see the famous eight wands speeding through the air? What will it trigger in me; what will I learn about myself?"

I still use such decks for myself in the Deck of the Week group, but it's more to help me answer those very questions, to see if I can arrive at satisfactory answers.

I suspect there will be no going back for me. Something big would have to shake me back into the RWS-heavy mode--perhaps grappling with too many self-indulgent creators' idiosyncratic visions and tiresome re-naming of major concepts? Dunno...

What about you? Perils? Pleasures?

What about the premise with which I've begun, that minimal variations on a theme are uninspired? Perhaps you who read exclusively with Marseilles-style decks expect that and don't see the problem; my concerns are lost in translation. Do weigh in even if you don't use RWS-heavy (or even broadly RWS-based) decks at all.

I totally empathise with all that you say here.

As I said elsewhere I have a feeling (and I suspect it really is just me and not something endemic out there in tarot land) that purely RWS-heavy decks are losing their selling point.

I genuinely find it hard to believe that anyone would want an entirely RWS deck anymore but that's probably me being out of touch.

By the same token, I think it is probably human nature for readers to think that the RWS-heavy deck they like isn't really RWS-heavy at all and that it is entirely unique if you look carefully. I'm sure there's some truth in that.

I find myself going to the Hoi Polloi or my old University Books RWS if I want RWS-ness. It just seems better all round to go back to the original.

An odd thing happens to me if I try to read with those RWS-heavy decks like the Morgan Greer or the Aquarian or Hudes, I have a feeling of things being diluted, misting over. I go for the common denominator. That one concept of the RWS comes across (man looking out over the horizon, boat sailing, heart with three swords etc) and I find it hard to get beyond it to anything either meaty or subtle. Yet a deck which is sort of RWS but with a few odd cards that deviate immediately gets me excited again. That is why I look more and more to LoS. I like those*out there* decks. In fact, more and more I like non-RWS decks though I often have RWS-ness at the back of my mind. Then I find myself thinking - irrationally perhaps but also quite true - how on earth did RWS become the yardstick? And I feel an urge to kick against it.

This is a fascinating thread. I feel it is sort of topical but it's probably just that I'm feeling what Chiriku is feeling.

Yup

I have a couple of private press RWS style decks I like to use and my standard RWS... I cant really explain but they are kind of straightforward non emotional reading experiences... just kind of saying whats there, little moves me.

I have recently been really enjoying the Ghosts & Spirits, which is pretty amazing at telling stories, and for me it seems to have built in knowing..if that makes sense, and it is very non RWS in my eyes. I will always love the Deviant Moon too which has some RWS, but it is so
out there on it's own, such a character that it is well, for me impossible to get away from!

I think a basic no nonsense deck is good for bring you down to earth maybe after going through the more sickly decks. I wont mention any of those here as I have done my bitching in other threads

You could always study the esoterics of the RWS itself, there's enough there to last a lifetime. Or you could do what I did, go Thoth

Le Fanu said:

I genuinely find it hard to believe that anyone would want an entirely RWS deck anymore but that's probably me being out of touch.

Click to expand...

I feel that way about such decks as well as about a few other things that saturate the mainstream (non-tarot-related). I won't say what here to avoid offending people but suffice it to say that some are even universal norms around the world. I look at them and think "Surely not. They can't really organically desire such-and-such." Then I do as you do and think to myself: "It's just you. Some failure of the imagination has gripped you. X, Y or Z is the norm because people genuinely desire it--get over it."


Why does my imagination fail me in this when it's so fertile in other respects? Why do I struggle to understand why an RWS in a new Sunday suit genuinely excites many people who love tarot? I don't have the answer. It isn't that I begrudge them their excitement--I am firmly of the "different strokes for different folks" philosophy--but that I struggle to understand it, and I want to.

Le Fanu said:

By the same token, I think it is probably human nature for readers to think that the RWS-heavy deck they like isn't really RWS-heavy at all and that it is entirely unique if you look carefully. I'm sure there's some truth in that.

Click to expand...

Really? I invite those people to chime in here. It seems unlikely to me, at least with respect to the *Minor* Arcana (Majors are always fairer game for variation, re-naming, etc). How can someone convince themselves that this set of beggars outside in the snow brings something of its own to the table?

Le Fanu said:

An odd thing happens to me if I try to read with those RWS-heavy decks like the Morgan Greer or the Aquarian or Hudes, I have a feeling of things being diluted, misting over. I go for the common denominator. That one concept of the RWS comes across (man looking out over the horizon, boat sailing, heart with three swords etc) and I find it hard to get beyond it to anything either meaty or subtle.

Click to expand...

But that is exactly what happens with me. I'm surprised to see someone else mention it, perhaps because there's always the possibility of the 30-year-long reader strolling in and saying loftily, "That's just because you don't have as much experience/skill/mental prowess, etc. to interpret the card with greater richness and depth. Myself, I can get days of varying interpretation out of an RWS-y Two of Wands."

But I don't think it's necessarily linked to experience or skill--or at least it isn't in our cases.

And once again I turn to my Marseilles-only friends, who will likely support the suggestion that scenes for Minors--not just PC Smith's-- are, almost by definition, limiting. And in my opinion, the more stripped-down and essentialized the scene--man wielding a staff against opponents; poor people shivering in cold--the greater the risk of the reader's mind supplying essentialized meanings. "Defensiveness, struggle." "Poverty, exclusion."

Le Fanu said:

Yet a deck which is sort of RWS but with a few odd cards that deviate immediately gets me excited again. That is why I look more and more to LoS. I like those*out there* decks.

Click to expand...

This was the turning point for me, post-hiatus: when I began to see Lo Scarabeo as an ally, instead of as that nuisance of a publishing house that was always coming out with cards that didn't fit my mental RWS framework (or Thoth framework, for that matter) and having the cheek to call it tarot. I did a complete 180 degree change in orientation and, suddenly, Lo Scarabeo decks held exciting possibilities (comic book art and sexploitation style notwithstanding).

Le Fanu said:

In fact, more and more I like non-RWS decks though I often have RWS-ness at the back of my mind.

Click to expand...

Oh, it will never be fully gone from my consciousness--Golden Dawnism in general won't be. No matter what illustration happens to be before me, I will always think of the 6 of Swords as "Science," of the Two of Swords as the Lord of Peace Restored. It is an exercise in frustration to try to forget those foundational concepts, whether using a non-GD deck (rare as those may be) or a historical-style pips deck.

It's like religion. (It *was* religion, wasn't it, whatever they called it?) If one was raised in a nominally Christian country, the words "judgment day" will always have a certain overtone or undertone, always, even if one later converts to the Temple of Purple Moon-ism or something equally radically far afield from Christianity.

Winterchild said:

I have recently been really enjoying the Ghosts & Spirits, which is pretty amazing at telling stories, and for me it seems to have built in knowing..if that makes sense, and it is very non RWS in my eyes.

Click to expand...

Yes, narrative decks are notable examples of decks with "meat" even when they are broadly RWS-based. That should come as no surprise, given they come with a built-in set of deeper meanings and lessons for each card. And because they often illustrate scenes from their mythical or literary narrative, thus avoiding the curse of the "RWS-heavy" scenic derivativeness.

closrapexa said:

You could always study the esoterics of the RWS itself, there's enough there to last a lifetime. Or you could do what I did, go Thoth

Click to expand...

Yes, the RWS itself has a great deal to offer if one is willing to do the work. And I continue to undertake a very gradual, piecemeal study of both it and the Thoth (moreso the latter). But the vast majority of decks on the market are RWS-heavy ones, which are the subject of this thread. I am interested in people's views about the latter--what draws them in about them? What puts them off?

Jaded tarotist

I am also concerned about the "jaded tarotist" syndrome. Sure, I've found decks--usually either artist self-published or Lo Scarabeo--that offer me a great deal of "meat" and food for thought in their alternative imagery. They are my favorites.

But how long before those images, too, become old hat and the meanings become distilled for me? Has a figurative "childhood" of RWS-heavy decks--almost by definition a collection of stripped-down, essentialized images---stunted my ability to indefinitely see the richness and interpretory potential in a given set of cards, any cards?

There's a beer commercial that runs during sporting events (surprise!) that shows actors acting like sports fans, and going through various superstitious rituals to support their favorite teams. At the end of the commercial comes the tagline, 'it's only weird if it doesn't work.'

For me, the RWS system works. I learned it back in the early 80s when there were a few other systems (my second deck was a white box 1983 Thoth), but for me - and for years - there was the RWS and oracles. Really. I still look at the Marseilles as an oracle - for me. If I was to read it, I might as well be reading spaghetti strands or flipping through random works of Cezanne, sniffing out meanings in bends of marinara red or the warp of a plowed field in the midst of a landscape. I have no doubt that hosts of readers get incredible reads from Marseille decks, from the Mary-El, and the Tarot of the Sidhe and other decks that look to me like, well, oracles. I'm just not there. Maybe 'yet', maybe 'ever'.

Although I enjoy looking through all sorts of decks for the sake of the art and meditation purposes, I rarely read for myself; the overwhelming majority of my reads are for others either online or over the phone. If the RWS system works for me, it does wear rather thin, and I find it more refreshing when it dons a 'new Sunday suit,' as Chiriku said, every week or so.

I am, then, precisely the sort of reader who looks forward to a Daniloff Tarot for precisely the reasons above. I think it's more than just comfort - it's fear that another system won't work. I have no doubt that someday I will approach the Marseille or the Mary-El or the Crystal Tarot and find meaning in the imagery there, even though they deviate from the structure I prefer. It's just that it's not someday quite yet.

It's only weird if it doesn't work.

I have but three decks which qualify as RWS-heavy: Aquarian, Hanson-Roberts, and Magical Forest. I willfully and with adequate aforethought acquired the Aquarian and Magical Forest. I don't recall how the HR came about. A trade, maybe? (The Magical Forest was just for diversion.) Within my 43 years of Tarot use (mostly with RWS), the Aquarian (selected for its artistic merit) was my main deck for about ten consecutive years. After a two or three year hiatus from Tarot, I again picked up the Aquarian and found that it had gone flat. It's depths had been plumbed, and in my estimation, all that remained was a wading pool, although still very visually attractive. I therefore regressed to my original deck, the RWS (actually the Albano-Waite, an RWS-BOTA hybrid, which happened to be a fortuitous choice for a first deck). Drifting into the Internet, I subsequently discovered its Golden Dawn origins and have been hooked into esoteric RWS-ism ever since. RWS-inspired decks miss the occult subtleties, so I just cannot connect. It is as if something vital is missing.

Le Fanu said:

... I find myself thinking - irrationally perhaps but also quite true - how on earth did RWS become the yardstick? And I feel an urge to kick against it.

Click to expand...

I feel exactly this way too. Tarot existed long before the Golden Dawn. I feel awkward saying this - a kind of sense of "how dare I?" given that I have so little knowledge - but I will be honest: the reason I find the RWS so difficult is because it annoys me how many layers I have to fight through to get to the meaning of the card. Being able to read cards is a gift and I feel that all the Golden Dawn stuff was deliberately intended to make that gift exclusive to the few who wanted to learn occultism. Is that a good thing? For some I'm sure it is. For me, it wasn't. I didn't read tarot at all well until I found a deck that stripped the Golden Dawn out and replaced it with imagery that made more sense to me personally. From that deck I delved into Marseilles and finally found I could read for myself as well as others.

For me, what it boils down to is this: I am the one who reads the cards. I must come to my own understanding of them. The RWS is the understanding someone else came to about what the tarot meant to them. I find I don't always agree with their understanding - so I avoid very obviously RWS decks now. The only ones which appeal to me now are those which strive to push its boundaries. I find those decks curious and interesting.

Does that make me a bad reader, a bad tarotist? Yes, perhaps it does. I know that some find a huge amount of wealth in RWS and the Golden Dawn, and I can only respect them. But we all have to find our own path in the end, and I don't think there's anything fundamentally wrong with disliking the RWS. As I said, the tarot is much older than that.

But that's just me.
Dawn