Can we identify a formula for a deck's readability? (Dare we make the attempt?)

I agree with the others here that have said that there's no formula for a universal deck, but if we scale that down a bit to a deck with the broadest common denominator, I would say we already have that answer. The RWS was revolutionary for replacing the traditional pip cards with imagery and seems to have struck a chord both at the time and to this day.

earthair said:

Maybe we should work backwards from a list of best ever selling decks and see what they have in common...

Click to expand...

You only have to look at the "discussion" in the days that AT ran its annual polls. Not the slightest hint of agreement ! I get where Zeph is coming from with the Smith-Waite though.

Zephyros said:

I agree with the others here that have said that there's no formula for a universal deck, but if we scale that down a bit to a deck with the broadest common denominator, I would say we already have that answer. The RWS was revolutionary for replacing the traditional pip cards with imagery and seems to have struck a chord both at the time and to this day.

Click to expand...

I might append "for good or ill" to this. I have a love-hate relationship with the RWS. Between 1971 and 2011 I used the Thoth exclusively (although I had Eden Gray's books and certainly knew Smith's images). I don't think they express Waite's meanings very well in every case, but then (except for the Major Arcana), I don't think Waite's meanings express their Golden Dawn's roots that well either. He clearly didn't think much of divination, and some of his meanings seem to lean more toward his cartomancy writing than toward Liber T. This notwithstanding, the fact is that the RWS deck is definitely the most widely known and used deck (in all its permutations), and therefore a true standard of the type.

Barleywine said:

My experience has been that it's almost always the reader-sitter interface, regardless of the deck. If you have a reluctant, skeptical or silent sitter (maybe someone gifted them the reading and they're not really interested), you're probably going to be wrong (or at least groping) no matter what you say. Obviously, if you're using a deck you're not familiar or comfortable with (but why would you do that in a public setting?), it complicates things.

Click to expand...

OK - you have much more experience than me. What would you say about readers who only or mainly read for themselves, but find some decks more readable than others? Is that all about familiarity?

PS. Sorry I "dropped" this thread for two days - both my laptop and I hit an exhaustion wall.

Saskia said:

This won't still ever cover all readers out there and it only gives an indication of what's the flavour in reading of that era.

Click to expand...

It doesn't have to. It can't. As they say there is always exception to the rule. If it covers the majority of the readers out there it's enough. On top of that people who are into tarot are one of the most diversified group of people of all! ATF thought me a lot in this regard. So finding a common ground is even harder. But this doesn't mean we shouldn't try

I'd like to bring my 2 cents contribution but I am totally clueless. Surely I agree with what have been discussed above and the validity of statements and points emphasized (1,2, etc).
But I am getting stuck because I noticed that some decks that a few years ago I found unreadable (more or less) I find completely readable now. That means there is a huge personal factor as well as one's evolution as a reader. That surely complicates finding a 'rule'. To find a 'rule' that would apply to most I think we have to leave out ('rule out', ha, ha) ALL the personal factors that makes a deck readable.

What remains then is what has been already stated in the previous posts:
- to visibly follow a system (thoth/rws/marseille) (JadePixie) otherwise I couldn't consider it a tarot deck but an oracle
- to has symbolic/semiotic visual clues (JadePixie)
- the images on the cards to evoke a reaction in people's imagination (even if they don't like their artistic style) (MandMaud) The card has to be visually expressive (and impressive! ha, ha)(I get bored easily with those deck that fail to impress me)
- the cards has to work well with each other, i.e., it's easy to see the dynamic, direction, focus, patterns of a reading. (MandMaud) (I'd add the uniformity of the artwork and fluidity but that could be a personal preference only)

That's a LOT to ask from a deck made of 78(!) cards! I believe any deck that complains with these requirements would be well readable for most people. Or would it?!

ETA I am one of those readers who mainly read for themselves

MandMaud said:

OK - you have much more experience than me. What would you say about readers who only or mainly read for themselves, but find some decks more readable than others? Is that all about familiarity?

PS. Sorry I "dropped" this thread for two days - both my laptop and I hit an exhaustion wall.

Click to expand...

It's tempting to say it's familiarity, but I occasionally get decks I just "know" I'll be able to read well with as soon as I lay eyes on them. It's not always the same quality, either: in some cases the deck is visually "inviting" (like the Connolly), in other cases the symbolism stirs my inspiration (like the Tabula Mundi). But it's usually a convergence of the things I mentioned earlier. I can't imagine it's that much different for most people.

I'm entering this thread belatedly but I've skimmed the latter part of the thread. I saw it when first posted and read the few posts but then got busy and missed out on the rest.

Why might we be trying to judge decks and find a rating system? Would it be so we could create a rating system for decks that would apply to all decks and all readers in a handbook or something? I'm with gregory. I don't think it could be done. It's too individual and peculiar to each individual and how they read, I think. I find decks totally readable now that I didn't when I first started.

Sometimes I think the cards that are the least like the RWS imagery, while following it closely enough to know which card is which through RWS titles are the best to read with, but I haven't always felt that way by any means. They used to totally stump me.

This begins to feel to me like threads trumpeting "THIS is the way to read tarot". (and their corollaries: "Reading tarot this way is WRONG".)

No, it isn't. Whatever way it says is this week.

The same applies to decks and their usability. I have been told that the way I read should mean I can read anything (as in oracles and magazine pictures). I can see where people are coming from when they say that - but all I know is - I can't. Why does ANY tarot deck - absolutely ANY tarot deck - work for me when oracles won't ? And why does that apparently not apply to other people, who cannot get anything out of some deck or other when I can ? Because it isn't a solid thing.

Grizabella said:

Why might we be trying to judge decks and find a rating system?

Click to expand...

Because I spend hours on the net trying to figure out if a deck I see there would be readable or not.
(maybe if we find a 'magic formula' that will help people (including me) to decide quicker)

Some creators might be interested in these discussions.

Most probably we won't find the magic formula , but these talks make us reflect for ourselves; are interesting; I am interested in other people's point of views; and, last but not least, AT members are tarot fun people and like talking about tarot and sharing their thought about a topic or another

Then why not just ask what makes a deck readable FOR YOU, rather than codify it all, and examine that.

Here's a thought. Bukofzer's book, Music in the Baroque Era is TOTALLY readable for me. But not for most people here, I bet.
So is Keller's Kleider Machen Leute. But not for anyone who doesn't have German.
So are a couple of really gruesome novels that my SO cannot read because they make him feel physically ill. My stomach is stronger.

It is the fact that I know my Baroque music and I have enough German and my warped mind that make them readable for me. But we cannot say either that because you need those skills, the fact that not everyone has them means that those books "fail" the code as their readability isn't universal, or that they pass it because it only needs acquiring those skills to read them (or that the Savage deck fails because the images upset some - maybe even most - people.)