I'm just mad

Richard

In a way, all this is amusing. I've been studying the RWS for 45+ years, and I still feel far from understanding everything about it. If this is because of my stupidity, so be it. However, I haven't seen any evidence that my intelligence is significantly below average, so I really think that there are depths to the RWS which are difficult to plumb.

Sometimes I think I would like to ask a single question to anyone who considers the RWS elementary: Can you explain all the symbolism on the Temperance trump? However, they might say that it is merely an artist's whimsy, so I might be better off not asking it.
 

violetdaisy

Every few years I buy a RWS and then gift it....it just doesn't speak to me....yet. I really want to use it and love it and think it's amazing that there are people who understand it so well. It's definitely not a beginners deck. I'm familiar with most of the images but certainly don't grasp everything it's trying to show me.
 

Richard

Every few years I buy a RWS and then gift it....it just doesn't speak to me....yet. I really want to use it and love it and think it's amazing that there are people who understand it so well. It's definitely not a beginners deck. I'm familiar with most of the images but certainly don't grasp everything it's trying to show me.

There's no particular reason why anyone would bond with the Rider-Waite deck. Most editions are artistically unattractive, in my opinion. I used the Albano-Waite recolored ("recoloured," to make the Brits happy :)) version until the Smith-Waite Commemorative came out. It seems to have smoothed over some of the problems with previous editions. Now I have the splendid tinned Smith-Waite, and it's the only Waite deck that I use.
 

Yelell

There's no particular reason why anyone would bond with the Rider-Waite deck. Most editions are artistically unattractive, in my opinion. I used the Albano-Waite recolored ("recoloured," to make the Brits happy :)) version until the Smith-Waite Commemorative came out. It seems to have smoothed over some of the problems with previous editions. Now I have the splendid tinned Smith-Waite, and it's the only Waite deck that I use.

I did bond with the regular old rider waite deck. It's absolutely what I see in my mind when I think of tarot. I know, I insulted it a couple posts back, calling it dowdy! I think it's a hard sell for some people, but I love it. The tinned commemorative deck ... I've tried to love mine, I told myself I should, but every time I see it I want to scrub the 'dirty' borders clean :(

Looking through the black and white line drawings of the majors again recently I'm reminded of how intricate some of the details are, especially when there is no colors to entertain or distract me. It's not simplistic by any means.
 

INIVEA

RWS vs LMS deck are not baby decks

I have always liked the RWS, but I just couldn't connect with the artwork at all, sorry.

Oh, but when the LMS deck showed it's self to me, I was hit over the head with the WOW factor, jumping up and down I found the RWS perfect clone, yippie for the LMS deck and it's borderless, I have pinned for a RWS clone for so long, I always wanted to read with the RWS, but the artwork gezzzz, couldn't get past it. Oh but I have the LMS, now so I will be living here in this forum or a while.

NOT A BABY DECK, ahem, well babies/toddlers are more smarter, intuitive, etc. than adults. Out of the mouths of babes. :D

ETA: Thought to add, if you didn't know what LMS deck is, it's Llewellyn Moore Smith deck :thumbsup: :D
 

MissChiff

When I look at the RWS deck it's kinda two dimensional but it is just a starting point for my brain to kick in...then I really run with it. I find the more details and decorative a tarot card is the more it limits me...Does anyone else get that?
 

INIVEA

When I look at the RWS deck it's kinda two dimensional but it is just a starting point for my brain to kick in...then I really run with it. I find the more details and decorative a tarot card is the more it limits me...Does anyone else get that?

Yeah I do, some decks are just way too much, like the new Tarot D, too busy. okay its on my wish list. lol
 

Lmeeg

RWS

Yeah, I don't think the Rider-Waite deck is a baby deck by any stretch. I chose it as my first deck, my primary learning deck. I have since bought the Deviant Moon deck, but switch between the two in my daily readings, studying the cards, etc. My DM deck is much more pointed in my readings than the RWS, but the RWS seems to lend itself to expanding my understanding of tarot more clearly. I can then use those learnings to apply back to the DM when I pick it up again. My (intuition/guide/deity/spirit teacher/#imnotsurewhat) tells me, it's my learning deck and will always be teaching me.

For example, I did a whole study on the elements and used the RWS to drill in the elements with the pip cards, their astrological correspondence, and number values. When I picked up the DM deck the next day, the info was there for recall.
 

wytchayn

I'm embarrassed to say that I used to think the same thing about the RWS as few as six months ago. I think it's because of the presentation. The artwork didn't speak to me, the colors always seemed garish, and all the "quick and easy" books seemed to refer to it. It all added up to an impression that the deck had no depth.

But there are several members of my tarot meetup group that use the RWS almost exclusively, and I would consider them masters of the tarot. Between that and finding that the PCS commemorative edition got rid of all that garishness, I decided to give the deck another chance. I've now fallen in love with the deck and see that it's not simple by any means. I wouldn't recommend this deck to a beginner, and I wish all those "quick and easy" books would stop using it as their reference.

I wonder if Pixie and Waite were just so good at what they did, they made it look easy to anyone not really in the know.
 

devilkitty

I concur that the RWS is not a "kiddie deck". There's a hell of a lot to it - though Waite's philosophies don't exactly jive with mine - and I certainly wouldn't malign anyone's selection of cards. It's not for me to insist that my preferred pack and methods compose the "One True Tarot (TM)", and such discussions invariably generate more heat than light.

That said, RWS doesn't seem to be for me; I could never really make a connection with it in its various guises. I still have a few around (and quite a number of other decks in the "RWS tradition") that I keep trying when the mood strikes, but I always find myself going back to a pack without "scenic" minors.

(But that may be because my first "deck-and-book" was a Thoth, and Crowley's Book of Thoth, back in 1983. Guess when I learned on my own I did it the "hard way"... :p)