Carlo
I recently completed the companion book for the Shadowscapes deck. I'm very impressed overall with it and some of the individual cards are the most stunning and impressive I've seen in any deck. The depictions of the Fool and the Queen of Swords, in particular, I haven't seen surpassed by their equivalents elsewhere.
The one major thing that bothers me with the deck, however, is the interpretation presented for the Suit of Swords. While in traditional terms it's not a very positive suit overall, the Shadowscapes presentation is almost entirely negative, with exceptions being the Ace and to some extent the Court cards (the Queen being the most positive). For example, the Two of Swords - one of my favorite Tarot card concepts, usually signifying choice in some manner - in Shadowscapes is interpreted as denial/impasse/blockage. It pretty much goes downhill from there.
Normally I prefer personal exploration and contemplation, but this touches enough of a chord for me to register here and ask if others may have insights on why the suit is treated this way.
The one major thing that bothers me with the deck, however, is the interpretation presented for the Suit of Swords. While in traditional terms it's not a very positive suit overall, the Shadowscapes presentation is almost entirely negative, with exceptions being the Ace and to some extent the Court cards (the Queen being the most positive). For example, the Two of Swords - one of my favorite Tarot card concepts, usually signifying choice in some manner - in Shadowscapes is interpreted as denial/impasse/blockage. It pretty much goes downhill from there.
Normally I prefer personal exploration and contemplation, but this touches enough of a chord for me to register here and ask if others may have insights on why the suit is treated this way.