.traveller. said:
Well, I have alot of questions first off. I wonder how others view the simularities and differences between this deck, the Piedmont types of which it is a parody, and the Marseilles types which are discussed on the forum.
Basically I like the parody redrawn of the Majors, Aces and Court Cards, there are hundreds of RWS clones all different so why not have fresh nuances for a Marseilles, I just wanted to see Piedmontese cards to learn about Bizzarro's origin, as I parody deck I think Bizzarro is a category on its own and it would be difficult to compare with ancient old Marseilles, I'm nto the Marseilles study group and reading circles and I've seen extensive discussions about old Marseilles decks, if small changes between them cause such discussions I can't imagine how difficult would be for us to asses all the details redrawn in the Bizzarro.
I have a big issue with The Force cards that portrait "brute force" instead of a "pacific/pasive force" but that is matter with many decks not only the Bizzarro.
It would be nice to open threads to discuss sets of cards (all the 4s, all the Kings, etc)
I find I have difficulty visually distinguishing between the sword and baton suits on the Marseilles decks. I have to dig for the Ace to make an ID. I don't have that problem with this deck. Do people feel that anything is lost in this interpretation of a historical deck? Has anything been gained? Both are subjective questions, yet worthy of discussion... at least to me.
Body language and face expressions, are winners! Majors and Court Cards are quite expresive and worth look carefully.
I had trouble making the Marseilles minors "speak to me" Bizzarro's minors are even more difficult (LOL) but I'm always in for a challenge... I got used to certain patterns and flowers in coups and deniers that lead me to interpretation, they are not found in Bizzarro, now they have insects and animals I haven't seen before in a card, I want those creatures to help me learn the card but at this stage we're just getting to know each other. Have you used those animals/insects as tool for interpretation?
Somehow I miss the traditional batons and swords, that is another thing that makes me think Bizzarro is a category on its own, Franco Bruna had a chance to redrawn I wish he stretched himself a little bit more and gave us more interesting minors.
I also wonder why people use or don't use these cards.
Is a simple matter of taste, some of us like cartoonish style decks (among others) some people don't, I think Querents are unaware of the wide variety of decks available but if someone shows up to read with a deck of this style probably won't be taken seriously under most circumstances, I remember that Mojo or Woof said this deck works very well for readings at parties, that doesn't mean that would be its only application but at this point I don't see me using this as my main all purpose deck although I really like it.
I think in humorous way it increases my understanding , whilst poking borax at the establishment- just the way I think the original cards poked borax at the Church and leading dignitaries. I also think the original woodcuts were crude and undefined. The Bizzarro is not. After all, in the Rossi historical the card is so unclear Justice could really have had a bare breast; and what is on the Hermit's back could well be a cape that was a tent. The shell reminds me of a Nautilus old as the Earth (time) and so brings further aspects into the reading. I like the suits for their obviousness too!
