Any ideas for a study group?

Yelell

Discussing the RWS Minors is fine, but such things as interpreting the Six of Cups as a pedophiliac dwarf attempting to seduce a little girl drive me up the wall.

Ok, never heard that one before :bugeyed:

My personal thoughts concerning the minors are more along the lines of how the PKT follows the minors, the inconsistancies where it doesn't, Waite's influence on the symbolism and Smith's other source material etc. I'd think it would be difficult to be completely Waite specific when he doesn't appear to have had total control over the development of the images, even the majors.

However, this is all outside my ability to contribute as opposed to irritate, and why I don't accidentally wander into the Kabbalah forum, so I think I'll just be eavesdropping from time to time.
 

Richard

......However, this is all outside my ability to contribute as opposed to irritate, and why I don't accidentally wander into the Kabbalah forum, so I think I'll just be eavesdropping from time to time.

People do get a bit testy when discussing the divinatory meanings of the RWS minors. They want this to become another UTC forum. I don't see much need for a duplication of UTC. However, when I have suggested that a wayward thread be redirected to the RWS cards specifically instead of generic RWS inspired decks, I tend to get reported and modded, so I too am not sure that I would contribute to such a discussion.

By the way, I am not the only one who questions the value of free association in Tarot reading. See this thread, which includes posts by the noted Tarot scholar Teheuti (Mary Greer).
 

TheRiderDeck

Hello. I am new to this forum. I am a professional Tarot reader. I only read with the Rider deck. I agree with the suggestion that this study group go through The Key to the Tarot section by section. As The Key to the Tarot is the Rider-Waite Bible and even in reading with the deck for years now I have found that Waites meanings for the minors are extremely accurate and this book has never steered me wrong. I would be able to contribute much to the group. So I vote for that idea.
 

Zephyros

From looking at the PKT I can see it is somewhat less dense than the Book of Thoth, but will have to be taken in small bites nonetheless, since there are quite a few elements of interest in every paragraph. The first section on the Majors has small paragraphs and I think, although I may be wrong, that these can be discussed in conjunction with the card commentaries in the second section.

However, after that there's the section about the Minors which is interesting, and after that the long Tarot in History part, which also shouldn't be missed, and after that the Behind the Veil stuff and then other things. My opinion is that the first chapter on the Minors should be dealt with jointly with the second, as there's no point in getting stuck on that section. But that's just me.

We could also decide not to study the whole thing, but concentrate solely on the Minors or Courts, and analyze them. We could also concentrate on the two Majors section this time and next time, if it works, we could concentrate on a different topic.

As for concerns having to do with keeping the study RWS specific, we can decide together on a set of guidelines for the group, maybe specifying that comments should be kept specific to the text. This makes sense, since the study seems to be more of the book than it is of the deck.
 

Richard

From looking at the PKT I can see it is somewhat less dense than the Book of Thoth, but will have to be taken in small bites nonetheless, since there are quite a few elements of interest in every paragraph. The first section on the Majors has small paragraphs and I think, although I may be wrong, that these can be discussed in conjunction with the card commentaries in the second section.

However, after that there's the section about the Minors which is interesting, and after that the long Tarot in History part, which also shouldn't be missed, and after that the Behind the Veil stuff and then other things. My opinion is that the first chapter on the Minors should be dealt with jointly with the second, as there's no point in getting stuck on that section. But that's just me......

I like that plan, Zeph.
 

Michael Sternbach

From looking at the PKT I can see it is somewhat less dense than the Book of Thoth, but will have to be taken in small bites nonetheless, since there are quite a few elements of interest in every paragraph. The first section on the Majors has small paragraphs and I think, although I may be wrong, that these can be discussed in conjunction with the card commentaries in the second section.

However, after that there's the section about the Minors which is interesting, and after that the long Tarot in History part, which also shouldn't be missed, and after that the Behind the Veil stuff and then other things. My opinion is that the first chapter on the Minors should be dealt with jointly with the second, as there's no point in getting stuck on that section. But that's just me.

Sounds good. :)

We could also decide not to study the whole thing, but concentrate solely on the Minors or Courts, and analyze them. We could also concentrate on the two Majors section this time and next time, if it works, we could concentrate on a different topic.

I would want to have the whole cake.

As for concerns having to do with keeping the study RWS specific, we can decide together on a set of guidelines for the group, maybe specifying that comments should be kept specific to the text. This makes sense, since the study seems to be more of the book than it is of the deck.

I agree that we should do this "by the book", there are already plenty of general threads on the RWS. However, there should be some leeway granted, as long as what is being said ties in with the topic.
 

TheRiderDeck

I agree we should do the whole book if possible.
 

Michael Sternbach

Double post. :)
 

Parzival

Any Ideas for a Study Group?

I like going through the Waite book straightforwardly without too much going off course. But there might be room for some brief secondary interpretive insights regarding imagery on cards or brief questions about the book's/cards' contents. Focused on the book but open to more than just summarizing the book.
 

TheRiderDeck

I like going through the Waite book straightforwardly without too much going off course. But there might be room for some brief secondary interpretive insights regarding imagery on cards or brief questions about the book's/cards' contents. Focused on the book but open to more than just summarizing the book.

Sounds very good and reasonable to me! :)