The Two of Wands as Impotence

Bear with me, this may get a little far-fetched.

While exploring the modern reconstruction of the Gringonneur deck, I noticed that the 2 of Wands shows a supine, castrated man with his "bits" apparently lying on the ground next to him. In trying to reconcile this to the more common RWS image, I saw that the latter shows a man with a staff in one hand and a globe in the other, perhaps paralleling the former depiction by showing an inability to "perform" because the "sum of the parts" has gone astray. It made me wonder whether the RWS man might be unable - or at least hesitant - to complete a certain action or to step outside a narrow situational framework because he lacks the wherewithal - resolve, stamina, "balls" - to carry on. So it looks like a case of "arrested development," more pondering than "push." Reversal might show a case of actual rather than figurative impotence. None of this would be outside the more demoralizing of Waite's two chains of meaning.

http://www.albideuter.de/html/estensi_23.html

When you're done laughing, give me your thoughts.

There's a similar image that was discussed in the 2 of Wands in Estensi thread in Tarot Decks.

Thanks, Rodney! The furor was entertaining. To me, the bereft man in the Estensi looks just as bemused as the man in the RWS 2 of Wands, although the latter seems more able to put his "manhood" back together with a little effort. I think I can see a convincing parallel between the two. I doubt I would use this deck in a public setting, but I might bring it and pull out the 2 of Wands to make a point if the reading pointed to any kind of impotence (as in an inability to act). It has added to my overall vocabulary for this card.

Sex Change?

Well. I read the other thread, and enjoyed what folk had to say. But I still think this one is "beyond the pale." Does anyone have to go to this extreme (even in presenting a myth) in order to get across the meaning of a tarot card? I do get artistic vision and all, but it seems like few if any readers are using this deck for any readings...if they get it at all, so it's kinda "epic fail." If no one uses the deck, then your artistic vision for all 72 cards is going unseen thanks to your insistence on having your artistic way on the one card

Maybe this card represents the creator's rash choice to include this card and the big-time results that little decision led to? Very 2/Wands

But I will add that as the image implies self, er, alteration rather than it having been done maliciously (whatever the myth behind it) and acceptance, even relief now that the alteration has been done...I can think of one way to reconcile it with the usual interpretation of the 2/Wands (which I see as a determined, if quickly considered decision, the road taken when you hit a fork, and which decides your whole future even if it seems like not much now)....

Sex change operation. Or, rather, the first step in that. Looking at the card THAT way, as someone saying, "My body doesn't match who I am." Someone who has always hated parts of them that don't belong on them, and will feel actually calm, even *better* for the decision to remove them and become who and what she really is....Looking at it that way, I can actually see the meaning in the card, understand the relaxed position of the person who has had the, er, operation. And understand why it's presented as more of a personal fiat accompli then a vicious mutilation by enemies. If we take this as a card about making that first choice to be who you really are...then this card suits the 2/Wands. And makes a lot of sense.

Given the numerical framework I use for the minor cards, in the RWS world I treat the 2 of Wands more as the "prelude" to a decision or action (or at most an "in-process" assessment) than the outcome of one, so the idea of "action under review, with the possibility of interruption or withdrawal" serves me here.

Gracious me! No wonder this one isn't on my wish list!

I think I'm going to buy it because of its unique take on the scenic pips in general, which gives me something new to learn. I'm too thick-skinned and clinical to be put off by an unsettling scene or two as long as it's clear what their purpose is. The 8 of Swords (an imminent beheading) and the 9 of Swords (a standing, decapitated figure with flames - or maybe blood - gushing from its neck) are other examples that are close enough in feel to their RWS counterparts to be directly applied without too much translation. And I'm not creepy by nature, just relatively unshockable at my age. If I were squeamish, the bestiality in Liber T would have kept me away from that one as well.

I'm not bothered. I'm irritated.

Grizabella said:

Gracious me! No wonder this one isn't on my wish list!

Click to expand...

Barleywine said:

I'm too thick-skinned and clinical to be put off by an unsettling scene or two

Click to expand...

Heh. It's not just the "gruesome" nature of the card, as I, too, am not easily shocked or disturbed. I own plenty of decks with gruesome imagery. I also totally understand tarot images that are related to rougher past times (like images of the Fool which have his pants down and a dog going after his dangling bits) to get across the idea that life isn't always nice. What irks me about this card, and why I wouldn't get it, is that it is a modern deck, not one from the middle ages, and thus this image is a conscious choice to (1) shock or be super strong on its meaning (annoying!) and (2) this modern deck visually asserts that a literal lack of balls = impotence—which really irritates me on a number of levels.

While it is physically true that man without testicles is impotent, exchanging the two wands for testicles carries (for me personally) troubling subtexts like women cannot have Wands-type power or energy because they, literally, lack testicles. Or that any man who, through accident or illness, might literally lose his testicles, loses Wands-type energy and power

The Wands are a metaphor for what we usually name "masculine" energy and power (though it need not be literally belonging to males). To my mind, if a deck creator erases that metaphor and replaces it with imagery that makes such energy literally male (i.e. requiring testicles) then he has given that card, and the deck, disturbingly chauvanistic subtext. And this would be why I would never buy this deck. And if I went to a reader who used it, I'd likely ask them not to do any reading for me with it. I don't mind the interpretation of 2/Wands a impotence. But the imagery in this case irritates me both for its heavy-handed "let me shock you!" feeling, and for it's implied claim that only men who are whole, young and fit (literally) have wand power.

Thirteen said:

Heh. It's not just the "gruesome" nature of the card, as I, too, am not easily shocked or disturbed. I own plenty of decks with gruesome imagery. I also totally understand tarot images that are related to rougher past times (like images of the Fool which have his pants down and a dog going after his dangling bits) to get across the idea that life isn't always nice. What irks me about this card, and why I wouldn't get it, is that it is a modern deck, not one from the middle ages, and thus this image is a conscious choice to (1) shock or be super strong on its meaning (annoying!) and (2) this modern deck visually asserts that a literal lack of balls = impotence—which really irritates me on a number of levels.

While it is physically true that man without testicles is impotent, exchanging the two wands for testicles carries (for me personally) troubling subtexts like women cannot have Wands-type power or energy because they, literally, lack testicles. Or that any man who, through accident or illness, might literally lose his testicles, loses Wands-type energy and power

The Wands are a metaphor for what we usually name "masculine" energy and power (though it need not be literally belonging to males). To my mind, if a deck creator erases that metaphor and replaces it with imagery that makes such energy literally male (i.e. requiring testicles) then he has given that card, and the deck, disturbingly chauvanistic subtext. And this would be why I would never buy this deck. And if I went to a reader who used it, I'd likely ask them not to do any reading for me with it. I don't mind the interpretation of 2/Wands a impotence. But the imagery in this case irritates me both for its heavy-handed "let me shock you!" feeling, and for it's implied claim that only men (literally) have wand power.

Click to expand...

Hmm . . . I was thinking that the two wands in the scene are the two trees, one leafy like wands in some decks, and the other almost barren, kind of a "before-and-after" scenario. But I don't have the LWB or the deck, so I can't say what was intended. Kind of hard to see bloody testicles as wands of any kind. They're not the "woody" part.

I could probably read for most male clients with this deck. They would be less likely to be irked by the bias.