Waite and The Pictorial Key to the Tarot

Richard

LOL. I did not know that a new book was under way. I hope Greer writes it as her work is always thoroughly researched and she communicates really well......
Yes indeed, it will be by Greer!
 

agent199

Any idea how the book is being planned out?

It would fantastic if it was something to the effect of having Waite's book in its entirety and untouched format .. with an added 'Greer's commentary' section added to every single paragraph that Waite wrote.

Much in the same style as Book 3 of the Wilhelm/Baynes I Ching.

Actually why not even call Waite's book .. Book 1 while we are at it.
And even add a Book 2 where 'everything else can go' .. all the gaps so to speak.

Everything would be in a single volume of course.

Probably too late to drop that idea by now eh ;)
 

Richard

Any idea how the book is being planned out?

It would fantastic if it was something to the effect of having Waite's book in its entirety and untouched format .. with an added 'Greer's commentary' section added to every single paragraph that Waite wrote.

Much in the same style as Book 3 of the Wilhelm/Baynes I Ching.

Actually why not even call Waite's book .. Book 1 while we are at it.
And even add a Book 2 where 'everything else can go' .. all the gaps so to speak.

Everything would be in a single volume of course.

Probably too late to drop that idea by now eh ;)
I have the feeling that it will be quite different in format from the Waite book. It may take more of a biographical approach, but I'm just guessing. I have thought about expanding PKT myself, but it is just too daunting a task for the likes of me. Besides, who would want to publish such a monstrosity?
 

Zephyros

I have the feeling that it will be quite different in format from the Waite book. It may take more of a biographical approach, but I'm just guessing. I have thought about expanding PKT myself, but it is just too daunting a task for the likes of me. Besides, who would want to publish such a monstrosity?

I agree. Although the notes would be substantially longer than the book itself, an annotated PKT could be among the most important and far-reaching books on the occult ever published. Personally I think Mary Greer is more than up to the challenge, and this talk of a new book has piqued my interest.

Or perhaps, as Tolkien once expressed his doubts on the publishing of the Silmarillion "...to go there is to destroy the mystery..."
 

Winterchild

Crowley/Waite

Originally Posted by A.E. Waite
For reasons which satisfy myself, this card has been interchanged with that of justice, which is usually numbered eight. As the variation carries nothing with it which will signify to the reader, there is no cause for explanation.

Satisfy myself... no cause for explanation... I'm not arguing the merits or faults of the PKT, but telling anyone they would understand it if only they knew enough... that's the hinting, hinting, hinting Crowley mentioned.

I had similar thoughts when I read this in the PKT.... how damned arrogant of him! It really does come across as extremely patronising wether Waite meant it that way or not! I hadn't seen the Crowley quote before, but I totally get where he is coming from in this respect.

I have just purchased the bio of Crowley by Tobias Churton, so looking forward to being enlightened about him and his life.
 

Greg Stanton

The issue with Waite is that he instructed PCS to illustrate the GD decan interpretations in the pips, which she did. When he wrote his book he attempted to combine the traditional European meanings of the pips with the GD meanings — which sometimes complement each other, but often contradict. He felt he couldn't betray GD material to the public in 1910, so he hinted and tap-danced around the subject.

The problem with the GD system is that the decan interpretations for the pips were taken VERBATIM from the Latin translation of the Picatrix. This designation was arbitrary and seemed to arise from the need to offer something to the members that they could not find in any published source — a genuine occult tarot. It was a system concocted in the late 19th century and it was really never intended to be used outside the GD.

The traditional fortune telling interpretations of the pips don't follow any logical system, and were therefore unsuitable for the GDs esoteric pretensions.

Since Waite's attempted synsthesis of the two methods for general public consumption was too confusing, a third method was invented, and this is the one most people using PCS-based decks follow. Namely, the meanings have become new-agey renditions of what uninitiated persons believe they see in PCS's drawings.

You can blame Waite if you want — he really did create problems with his book.
 

Winterchild

Once again I learn, one should never judge without all the facts....If Waite had some form of ASD then his manner makes so much more sense. It is still arrogance, but explained :)

Very exciting to hear of a new book by Ms Greer!!
 

Richard

......You can blame Waite if you want — he really did create problems with his book.
While you are at it, why not mention that the divinatory meanings for the Trumps also tend to contradict the descriptions in Part I, §2? Also, there is some evidence that the design of the Minors went beyond the bare bones Decan titles, being interwoven with a Holy Grail theme as well as the Masonic legend of Hiram Abiff. (See Mary K. Greer's blog.)

Indeed, as Waite wrote: "...the pictures are like doors which open into unexpected chambers, or like a turn in the open road with a wide prospect beyond." Anyhow, why should the GD's Decan titles be consistent with traditional divinatory meanings? In a lot of LWBs one sees lists of meanings which are not consistent with one another or with the illustration on the card itself.

Perhaps we should take more seriously the PKT's subtitle: Being Fragments of a Secret Tradition Under the Veil of Divination. Applying the standards of consistency and coherence demanded of scientific writing may not be appropriate here, especially as divination is hardly an exact science.
 

Greg Stanton

Waite was one of THOSE writers — the kind which writes and writes and writes but has little practical experience of his own. It's evident in his sweeping, offhanded remarks and glib tone that he really hasn't thought critically about what he's written, nor has he actually DONE much in regard to his subject. Little more than to give him cursory familiarity about the many and varied subject about which he writes and writes and writes. He was a writer. Not a magician, alchemist, tarot reader, or anything else. He read, regurgitated, and wrote.
 

Richard

Waite was one of THOSE writers — the kind which writes and writes and writes but has little practical experience of his own. It's evident in his sweeping, offhanded remarks and glib tone that he really hasn't thought critically about what he's written, nor has he actually DONE much in regard to his subject. Little more than to give him cursory familiarity about the many and varied subject about which he writes and writes and writes. He was a writer. Not a magician, alchemist, tarot reader, or anything else. He read, regurgitated, and wrote.
Why don't you say what you really think of Waite? :joke: