Can we identify a formula for a deck's readability? (Dare we make the attempt?)

[Barleywine]

This, exactly. Which is why I think this cannot be done.

I agree that it can't be done in any definitive sense. But it's an interesting exercise in what makes us "tick" as readers. I call myself a "60-40" type of reader: 60% analytical, 40% intuitive (what else would you expect from a former engineer with a lengthy qabalistic background?), so decks that have more esoteric "meat" and less conceptual "fluff" float my boat. The "pretty" decks don't do it for the most part.

 

[gregory]

I agree that it can't be done in any definitive sense. But it's an interesting exercise in what makes us "tick" as readers. I call myself a "60-40" type of reader: 60% analytical, 40% intuitive (what else would you expect from a former engineer with a lengthy qabalistic background?), so decks that have more esoteric "meat" and less conceptual "fluff" float my boat. The "pretty" decks don't do it for the most part.

Well, there you go. That Mystic Faeries thing comes up again. That is PRETTY. Fluffy. Cute. Adorable.

I made rude jokes about it all over this forum.

In the end I happened to read with it for a very experienced reader here, on a bet.

I actually came back here to apologise to everyone. Spot on does not begin. Vicious. Hard-nosed. And according to my sitter absolutely hit the nub of it all. And - it was TOTALLY readable - at first I was thinking - here goes another negative; it's too bloody easy. But - no. As soon as it started with the actually rather scary negative messages (this was not a good situation, and I had had no idea about that when I started) I began to see that this was something else.

And there is NO WAY I could begin to try and identify what it is makes it so readable.

 

[Nemia]

I had to eat dust for scoffing the Silhouettes tarot. Too cute, too pretty, too childish. Not my style at all! Just bought it out of curiosity.

And there it is: it fulfills my two criteria (each picture tells a story and the cards interact gloriously - they really come alive put next to each other), and I read with ease.

I would call myself a 50/50% reader; I do have kabbalah and astrology and Christian iconography and art historical methods of "pumping" a picture in an accessible drawer of my head when I read the cards, but readability first of all depends FOR ME on the reaction to the images. If they speak to me, the rest comes in, too. If they don't, no Tree of Life and no knowledge of anything else will make the reading flow with ease.

It's interesting that this is SO individual, but for me, this is how it works.

 

[Saskia]

The fact that people have favourite and pet-hate decks speaks against the presumption that readability is objective, not subjective. For example, I don't get anything out of Thoth whereas all the Thoth readers would vocally oppose if I claimed it unreadable.

A rudimentary condition could be that the deck adheres to tradition one way or another - if nobody knows what are 7 scrolls, 8 stones or 9 cars, it can't really be read other than purely intuitively. And here we again have a problem: some readers are purely or mainly intuitive and they might still hail for this deck and it's clear answers.

I personally read also playing cards, random images, or any pictures and patterns I think are meaningful. To me, even wallpaper or advert is readable. But is it so to others? Readability is based on some form of shared code or symbol system, but even then, people can go off tangent and interpret according to their own associations, imagination and preferences.

This question reminds me of "what is art?", defining parameters for art, and trust me, that discussion has been going on for centuries and is still not resolved due to myriads of differing takes by artists, philosophers, art dealers and the rest.

 

[JoJoCat]

To go back to question 2 in the original post-- I had a deck that I loathed but was immensely readable. He was pushy and aggressive -- he said he was the magician but I thought the oily manipulative version of the magician. In the end I fired the deck. And for some strange reason when buying RWS I got two of them. I fired one and now read with the other. So I also find it interesting that it's not necessarily the deck by name but might also be that particular deck as in the one you use in your hands. Switching out be RWS decks has helped. The first deck was much more readable but in the end I couldn't stand his personality ~


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[SunChariot]

I am a doubter here on this topic. I don't think there would be a universal formula on what makes a deck readable. I think different qualities call to different readers.


I would be pretty sure each reader could develop a formula for what makes decks readable for them though if they took the time. Might be pretty helpful to do so.

Babs

 

[CharlotteK]

This is really hard to answer but clearer the 'story' in the card, the easier I find it to read. But it's not necessarily about how much is in the card, more the strength of what is suggested by the imagery and how effectively it engages the narrative part of my brain. I'm reminded of the legend of Hemmigway's 6 word story - "baby shoes for sale, never worn" - which is now thought to be an urban myth but shows what possibilities a few words can convey. Tarot is obviously different as in the main it's pictures not words, but the principle applies that minimal imagery as effective as rich imagery in stimulating a narrative. That's the cleverness of art, and design. It either connects with our inner storyteller, or it doesn't.

Sent from my D6603 using Tapatalk

 

[earthair]

Maybe we should work backwards from a list of best ever selling decks and see what they have in common...

 

[euripides]

Maybe we should work backwards from a list of best ever selling decks and see what they have in common...

I see what you're aiming for, but I don't like many of the best sellers... would you use top grossing films as a guide for all others? Blockbusters... mmm no thanks. Some of my favorite things are quiet and unassuming and not particularly popular.

Let's not try to put Tarot and Tarot readers into neat little categories. I'm tired of assumptions and categories and labels. Diversity is a wonderful thing.

Edit to add: Having said that, I would suspect that you can find a formula that works for *you*, personally. (Though then again, the stories about Mystic Faeries and Silhouettes suggest - maybe not? Maybe there's always an x factor we don't quite see?)

 

[Saskia]

I think the problem with creating a formula for - what is, in essence - art, is that we can only arrive at proximates or averages.

A formula can be created for measurable matters, such as for maths or physics, because in that field it's not unclear what exactly is being perceived, counted and how.

With art or humanities in general, you can claim that x amount of certain colour in a picture evokes a response, based on a poll or study of 1,000 or 1,000,000 people, but you'd still only get the average. That same colour might not evoke any reaction at all in 10% of the population, and still in mathematical sense the formula would be seen as functioning, because it predicts the average or most likely answer.

Hence, I think that counting or defining elements that a tarot deck needs for readability will never succeed. UNLESS we try to find what type of decks are readable for "an average" reader, based on, for example, the sales stats of popular decks. This won't still ever cover all readers out there and it only gives an indication of what's the flavour in reading of that era.