Personally, I found the Banzhaf/Theler collaboration to be much better-written than the Banzhaf/Akron collaboration. Since Banzhaf was the constant, I have to believe that it was Akron's contribution that put me off. Of course, it could have just been the translator's style. Anyway, I have both and use the Keywords as a concise reference work; The Crowley Tarot is "meatier" and more to be read than dipped into. I just wish I liked the writing style and overall quality better, maybe I would get more use out of it. It seems more "New Age-y" psychological than esoterically thought-provoking in the manner of the Book of Thoth.
Wow, Barleywine, thanks. You have no idea how highly I regard you and the other regulars in the Thoth Tarot sub-forums, what with your expertise in the Crowley Tarot and in its attendant esoteric disciplines. You guys inspire me, I hope to finally get to that level one day.
But yeah, I am leaning towards just purchasing both books for the heck of it.
Jungian Age-of-Aquarius analyses of the Thoth do not really bother me, as I kinda like the fresh, out-of-the-box insights they have on my favorite deck. But I also agree with you, that before we even consider venturing too far, we should tap and drink deep of the immeasurably profound wellsprings of the Thoth's formal system, as explained by the mother lode - the very cryptic (to beginners) Book of Thoth and its approachable but very faithful interceders - DuQuette, Banzhaf, and I guess Snuffin to some extent. That way, we can make informed decisions should we opt to take a different, non-canonical interpretation for certain cards, whether through suggestions by established authors like Arriens or Ziegler (whom I confess to like a lot) or personally, through revelatory meditations on each card.
I guess it's similar to how they train most students of fine art - everyone should study and hopefully be good at the natural, classical modes of drawing the human form, or landscapes or still life, before one has the audacity to profess themselves as adherents of modern schools of art, like Cubism, etc. Not really so they won't be accused of ineptness, preferring "childish scrawls" because they could not paint an odalisque to save their lives, although that is also a good point. It is so that they can proudly say that, while they have deeply explored the classical disciplines of art and may even have the potential to be masters at it, their hearts have been ensnared by, say, Abstract art, and with unimpeachable integrity they stand by their decision to adopt it.
But I guess that bias is just mine, since I believe in having systems to initially guide me in any discipline, though I have no doubt my intuition can perform up to par or even better. Certain very gifted individuals don't need these - they can perform shockingly accurate divinations with very little to no formal studies, relying almost entirely on how the symbols and imagery whisper to them. The proof of the pudding is in the eating as they say, so if it works very well for them, one cannot really argue with their methods.