rwcarter
While I think their read any deck with 18 keywords method is interesting, I don't necessarily agree with the keywords they chose. But I think I understand why they chose them.
Rodney
Rodney
Secrets of the Waite-Smith Tarot by Katz & Goodwin?
Barleywine
I can see where that could be useful as an exercise in self-discipline and admirable restraint, but I have a large vocabulary and an active (and quirky) imagination, and I love to put ideas together in a slightly unhinged (call it "inspired") way. I would feel like I'm straitjacketed. If I were limited to 18 keywords, they would probably be number-based and astrological, and I would still have to combine or forego something. Interesting idea, though.
rwcarter
Actually, I got the number of keywords wrong:
10 for the Minors, based on Kaballah
4 for the suits
4 for the Courts
22 for the Majors
So 40 keywords should be able to get one to read any deck, even a Marseilles.
10 for the Minors, based on Kaballah
4 for the suits
4 for the Courts
22 for the Majors
So 40 keywords should be able to get one to read any deck, even a Marseilles.
Thoughtful
l have ordered this book and look forward to reading it with interest, and also to seeing the illustrations of Pixie etc. l have tried so many times to bond with the RWS tarot, it became very hit and miss at times, some days it spoke to me other days it was just a blank. No idea why this happens with the RWS and me but l am determined to give it another go hence buying the book which l hope will point me in the right direction. l have read other books which were good but did not ignite or show me how to deal with the deck.. Maybe this book will help me to understand and fill out the missing parts. If not l shall have to realise that it is just not for me.
Here's hoping
Here's hoping
Thoughtful
l have the book at last! and also the PCS Centennial tarot cards. Just had a quick scan of both and like what l see. Often wondered why different footwear in 7 Wands and the snail in 9 Pents it appears all is explained in this book. Looking forward to finding the time to study the book in conjunction with the cards. It will be a wonderful victory for me if at last l can understand the cards properly and have a close relationship with them. l add that the Centennial is much the best of any RWS deck l have owned, the colouring is just how l like my cards, in fact this is quite a beautiful tarot altogether. Trying not to get too excited though as this is a path l have trodden a few times, but l am determined to give it all one more try as l would love to be able to read with this time honoured tarot and glean everything l can
Freddie
I like this book. Well done to both Marcus and Tali. I feel there is still much to discover within this deck and that we really do not know what Pamela and Arthur did or did not encode the deck with e.g. writing on Hanged man leg, I feel it says 'Tulle' as in France, but many Tarot authors say it says nothing. They do not know anymore than us simple users of the deck as Arthur and Pam are dead.
Good book!
Freddie
Good book!
Freddie
Jeffrih
Sloppy, Sloppy, Sloppy
Further up the thread someone mentioned Katz's and Goodwin's hurry to get *The Secrets of the Waite-Smith Traot* out. I've seen that mentioned several other places around the net. They should have taken the time to have the copy gone through by a good editor (not to mention a good layout artist). There are plenty of minor, and some not so minor, errors that add up and have the effect of causing a reader to wonder just how much their overall information can be trusted. A couple of examples:
- On page 40 they write "Pamela had both her own personal experience and knowledge of the theatre and also through Irving, Gillette, Terry, and..." Terry we know from earlier in the chapter, but Irving and Gillette? I knew who Gillette was only because of the time period in question and because Gillette Castle is not far from where I grew up. Not until page 50 do they introduce Gillette and explain who he was and his relationship to Smith. Irving is also finally introduced on the same page.
- On page 126 they write "Whilst it is apparent that the famous tomb in the church served as a model for the 6 of Swords..." It's pretty clear they meant the 4 of Swords, since on page 106 they write "The local church of St. Thomas the Martyr contains a famous tomb underneath a stained glass window, the model for the 4 of Swords." Furthermore, there is a picture of the actual tomb on page 310 in the section about the 4 of Swords (the six is the boat being poled away from the viewer).
While the book is not an academic tome, the scholar in me cringes at Katz's and Goodwin's inconsistent methods of documenting their sources--something that is important even if it isn't meant to be a formal, academic study of the deck and its creators. In some places they use end notes and in others parentheticals. In at least one place there's no citation at all! On pages 93-95 are two of Crowley's reviews of the deck. The first is clearly attributed, but the second is not, even though they state that these are reviews (plural) not from quotes from a single review. In the sections that describe the cards there is no documentation as to which pieces come from Waite's work, both published and unpublished. They do say on page 113 "Where quotes are given in this chapter without further reference, they are from their appropriate card descriptions in *The Pictorial Key to the Tarot*. Waite's description is usually given as the first paragraph underneath the card image..." Usually does not equal always, and that makes it difficult for the average reader to sort through whose words are whose.
Not having an index is really annoying when trying to find things.
In terms of layout there are numerous places where pictures and diagrams are not anywhere near the text that refers to them. In some places it's more of a convenience. In Chapter Seven, "The Kabbalah of the Minors" they introduce the Tree of Life on page 321 with two tables of correspondences on page 322. Yet the diagram of the tree is on page 339 in the middle of the section on the Tree of Cups.
All sloppiness aside, a lot of what Katz and Goodwin have to say, especially where Smith is concerned, is pure conjecture. That doesn't necessarily detract from what they're attempting to do. Their theoretical framework does provide a fresh lens for looking at the Waite-Smith deck. But it's still theory.
Further up the thread someone mentioned Katz's and Goodwin's hurry to get *The Secrets of the Waite-Smith Traot* out. I've seen that mentioned several other places around the net. They should have taken the time to have the copy gone through by a good editor (not to mention a good layout artist). There are plenty of minor, and some not so minor, errors that add up and have the effect of causing a reader to wonder just how much their overall information can be trusted. A couple of examples:
- On page 40 they write "Pamela had both her own personal experience and knowledge of the theatre and also through Irving, Gillette, Terry, and..." Terry we know from earlier in the chapter, but Irving and Gillette? I knew who Gillette was only because of the time period in question and because Gillette Castle is not far from where I grew up. Not until page 50 do they introduce Gillette and explain who he was and his relationship to Smith. Irving is also finally introduced on the same page.
- On page 126 they write "Whilst it is apparent that the famous tomb in the church served as a model for the 6 of Swords..." It's pretty clear they meant the 4 of Swords, since on page 106 they write "The local church of St. Thomas the Martyr contains a famous tomb underneath a stained glass window, the model for the 4 of Swords." Furthermore, there is a picture of the actual tomb on page 310 in the section about the 4 of Swords (the six is the boat being poled away from the viewer).
While the book is not an academic tome, the scholar in me cringes at Katz's and Goodwin's inconsistent methods of documenting their sources--something that is important even if it isn't meant to be a formal, academic study of the deck and its creators. In some places they use end notes and in others parentheticals. In at least one place there's no citation at all! On pages 93-95 are two of Crowley's reviews of the deck. The first is clearly attributed, but the second is not, even though they state that these are reviews (plural) not from quotes from a single review. In the sections that describe the cards there is no documentation as to which pieces come from Waite's work, both published and unpublished. They do say on page 113 "Where quotes are given in this chapter without further reference, they are from their appropriate card descriptions in *The Pictorial Key to the Tarot*. Waite's description is usually given as the first paragraph underneath the card image..." Usually does not equal always, and that makes it difficult for the average reader to sort through whose words are whose.
Not having an index is really annoying when trying to find things.
In terms of layout there are numerous places where pictures and diagrams are not anywhere near the text that refers to them. In some places it's more of a convenience. In Chapter Seven, "The Kabbalah of the Minors" they introduce the Tree of Life on page 321 with two tables of correspondences on page 322. Yet the diagram of the tree is on page 339 in the middle of the section on the Tree of Cups.
All sloppiness aside, a lot of what Katz and Goodwin have to say, especially where Smith is concerned, is pure conjecture. That doesn't necessarily detract from what they're attempting to do. Their theoretical framework does provide a fresh lens for looking at the Waite-Smith deck. But it's still theory.
Abrac
Thanks for sharing. I've noticed some of the same things. My expectations were a little higher than they probably should've been. I've found it moderately informative, but overall pretty disappointing.
As far as freshness, I was surprised to learn their theory of the upside-down M on the Ace of Cups was brought up here back in 2010.
http://www.tarotforum.net/showpost.php?p=2530491&postcount=31
As far as freshness, I was surprised to learn their theory of the upside-down M on the Ace of Cups was brought up here back in 2010.
http://www.tarotforum.net/showpost.php?p=2530491&postcount=31
Cocobird55
I haven't heard that much good about it -- I think I'll pass on this one.
Nemia
I'm curious about this book, it's on my list, but I'll have to slay some other dragons first ;-) Like many others, I have never felt really comfortable with the RWS, although Kaplan's book about Colman Smith gave me a much higher appreciation for her art than I had before. Strange enough, the much weaker New Vision reads great for me, and the Morgan Greer ist one of my most reliable reading decks. So I definitely feel I have to get to know the RWS better.
Inconsistencies in citation technique (endnote or parentheses) may be explained by the fact that they're two authors - maybe they used different conventions? That should have been ironed out when they united their work.
Endnotes that disturb the reading flow and the lack of index are less disturbing in an e-book because you can jump between note and text, and you can search the text.
It may be worth your while to put little sticky flags in different colors at the respective pages, so browsing back and forth is less cumbersome. That's why I do sometimes when I read an academic book where I need all the knowledge in the endnotes. Each chapter and its endnotes get a color coded flag.
But if I buy it, then the Kindle version. I get so much tarot reading done while commuting with my Kindle
Inconsistencies in citation technique (endnote or parentheses) may be explained by the fact that they're two authors - maybe they used different conventions? That should have been ironed out when they united their work.
Endnotes that disturb the reading flow and the lack of index are less disturbing in an e-book because you can jump between note and text, and you can search the text.
It may be worth your while to put little sticky flags in different colors at the respective pages, so browsing back and forth is less cumbersome. That's why I do sometimes when I read an academic book where I need all the knowledge in the endnotes. Each chapter and its endnotes get a color coded flag.
But if I buy it, then the Kindle version. I get so much tarot reading done while commuting with my Kindle
