Question on Banzhaf's Thoth Books in English

EmpyreanKnight

Just a very quick question for those who have already read or at least had access to the two Banzhaf books in English: The Crowley Tarot and Keywords for the Crowley Tarot. I plan to buy at least the former to round out my Thoth books collection, since it seems to be meatier compared to the latter. However, does the Keywords book have any sections that other book does not? What are these about? More importantly, would I miss anything important if I skip the Keywords and purchase The Crowley Tarot by its lonesome? Would it be better if I buy both? Thanks in advance.
 

rwcarter

I'm not a Thother, although I have been gathering books for the day when I do go down that road. But I can give you an overview of the two books.

The Crowley Tarot goes more into depth about each card with discussion of the figure, background and foreground symbolism, interpretations and analogous correlations for the Majors. For the Minors and Courts there is discussion of the card and a list of correspondences (Astrology, Tree of Life, I Ching, Analogy, Image and Keywords). Then there is a section at the back that goes into how to find your personal cards and then lists a set of nine systems for laying out the cards (which I believe is different from the Opening of the Key). Then there are 6 pages on the deck's creators, and an explanation of names and terms from the Tarot and magic. A bibliography rounds out the book.

Keywords has a section for comprehensive layouts that seems to include the nine systems but also has additional spreads. The symbolism of each of the cards is discussed in a grid form to make it easier to zoom in on whatever you want to investigate. Then it lists interpretations under the categories of General, Profession, Consciousness, Partnership, Encourages, Warns Against, As Card of the Day, and As Card of the Year (only for the Majors). There are two sample readings, a small (2 page) Glossary, a short Bibliography and an Index.

HTH,
Rodney
 

EmpyreanKnight

The Crowley Tarot goes more into depth about each card with . . . interpretations and analogous correlations for the Majors.

Keywords . . . lists interpretations under the categories of General, Profession, Consciousness, Partnership, Encourages, Warns Against, As Card of the Day, and As Card of the Year (only for the Majors).

Thank you so much for the info, Rodney. It seems that it would boil down to how the two books compare in their Interpretations for each card. I understand that all the symbols laid out in grid format in the Keywords book have been discussed in The Crowley Tarot?

Just one final question though. Are the Interpretations sections of the Keywords book more comprehensive than in the other book? Do they contain info that have not been tackled in The Crowley Tarot, but which has to be deemed very essential? Thanks again!
 

rwcarter

Pick one card and I'll transcribe the interpretations from each book so you can see for yourself.

Rodney
 

Nosgo

I don't have the former book but I have the Keywords one. I also have Ziegler, Crowley and Duquette books on the Thoth deck. I really like the Keywords one because it add a practical view of this deck and give you very quickly a set of words that illustrate the energy of a card according to a particular sphere (general, professionnal, relationship, advice, etc). The book even have marks for each major and each suit on the side so you can navigate very quickly where you want to go. I was also pleased by the spreads included at the beginning because most of them weren't the typical one (eg. The complex and fascinating Door spread... :) ).
The only danger is to make an habitude when you're not comfortable enough with the Thoth to go to this book automatically when you have to read the cards, because you're killing your intuition little by little...
 

EmpyreanKnight

Pick one card and I'll transcribe the interpretations from each book so you can see for yourself.

Rodney

Oh wow, but you really are too kind. I am very interested inhow both books tackle The Lovers card though. Thanks a lot!
 

EmpyreanKnight

I don't have the former book but I have the Keywords one. I also have Ziegler, Crowley and Duquette books on the Thoth deck. I really like the Keywords one because it add a practical view of this deck and give you very quickly a set of words that illustrate the energy of a card according to a particular sphere (general, professionnal, relationship, advice, etc). The book even have marks for each major and each suit on the side so you can navigate very quickly where you want to go. I was also pleased by the spreads included at the beginning because most of them weren't the typical one (eg. The complex and fascinating Door spread... :) ).
The only danger is to make an habitude when you're not comfortable enough with the Thoth to go to this book automatically when you have to read the cards, because you're killing your intuition little by little...

Thanks for your comments Nosgo! Yep, that's why I prefer my books to go much deeper into each card, to be meatier, more erudite. I don't really do well with a bunch of phrases in most LWBs - if a card is tagged to mean Truce, Rest from Sorrow, Peace after War, I would eventually have to ask why, and look at which symbols suggest these so that instead of memorizing them by rote, they immediately jump into my subconscious once I again behold the images.

But yeah, I could see how nice they are for a quick check if picking a particular card for a question leaves you flummoxed. On one hand, relying too much on those, as you suggested, might stunt you intuition, like always using a wheelchair because you can't be bothered to start trying the crutches. Although I guess beginners are given a certain leeway? :D But I guess if you sincerely wish to learn, when you do a quick check on a book and something clicks (Ah, so that's what it means) the meaning for that card might fix itself into your subconscious very efffectively. At the very least though, before opening a book, one should make a very sincere effort to try to reconcile what he remembers of a card's meanings to the question at hand, no matter how seemingly disconnected they are. Sometimes, this might even yield a lightning realization (Ah yeeeeeeaahhh, why haven't I thought of that before?). At the very least, you cannot be accused of giving up easily, which is bad, or laziness of the mind, which is worse.

All of this presupposes that you did a deep study of the cards before you ventured to use them. Others prefer to simply make a quick preview of the present material (even if it's just an LWB) and then largely use their intuition for their readings, divining by the seat of their pants and yeah, reaching for help whenever they feel stumped. For some, this works very effectively too.
 

Barleywine

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.
 

rwcarter

Pick one card and I'll transcribe the interpretations from each book so you can see for yourself.

Rodney

Oh wow, but you really are too kind. I am very interested inhow both books tackle The Lovers card though. Thanks a lot!
I have to back off a little on this. The Lovers card is discussed over 5 pages in the Crowley Tarot. I have neither the time nor the inclination to transcribe 5 pages (@2 columns per page) of text.

Both books provide interpretations under the categories of General, Consciousness, Profession and Relationships/Partnership (called Relationship in Crowley, Partnership in Keywords). Crowley gives multi-sentence paragraphs for the interpretations, while Keywords lives up to its name and gives keywords. Profession and Relationship together are shorter than the General interpretation, so I'll compare those for you.

Profession
Crowley said:
The message is: "you cannot have everything ." In order to receive what we desire, we must let go of something else near and dear to us. Or as the Chinese saying expresses it: "You must open your hands when you want to draw water. With closed fists you achieve nothing." The emphasis of the card, therefore, lies in the area of decisions. It shows that we should come to a clear judgment of the heart after weighing all the given factors. This will provide us with a decisive and orientative basis for our further actions.
Keywords said:
Feeling attracted to a task, joining forces with others, ability to make compromises, business fusions, concluding contracts, good teamwork.

Relationships/Partnership
Crowley said:
In the realm of our personal relationships, this card stands for a true love that thrills and touches us to our depths. The card can indicate a new relationship or signify that our great happiness is to be found in the current partnership. It can, however, also mean that we now project our inner image onto a dream man or woman, thereby experiencing happiness and completeness only until the power of the projection diminishes. In this case, it is an exhortation to penetrate to the inner nature of the other beyond our own self-made image of him or her, instead of quickly looking for a new screen to project upon in another "dream partner."
Keywords said:
Lover's bliss, marriage, reconciliation, finding the dream partner, willingness to enter into a relationship, truly opening up to another person, following one's heart, making a clear decision.

Both books discuss some of the same symbols, while each book also discusses symbols that the other doesn't.

HTH,
Rodney
 

EmpyreanKnight

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. :D 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.