Master_Margarita
I think this is the last card left that has not been "studied" here yet. Wonder why it isn't feeling the love?
The imagery on this card, although I like the card well enough, seems so obvious that it's not worth writing about. It's about petty fights, right? Battling inner demons? Notably, we know that in the second edition (not released as of this posting) the authors have added a spectator (real or imagined?) in the balcony, which will add a lot of interest for me. I suppose the original card has all those birds, perhaps with a suggestion that they are anticipating carrion.
Thinking out loud a bit more, I like the contrast in this particular deck between the Five of Wands and the Nine of Swords. In both cards the opposing or "dark" forces clearly have an air of insubstantiality, but the protagonist in this card is active, and the Nine of Swords is passive (in keeping with the standard meaning of the cards, of course...). Most Five of Wands cards I've seen don't suggest so clearly that the enemy is insubstantial.
That's all I've got on this one.
M_M~
The imagery on this card, although I like the card well enough, seems so obvious that it's not worth writing about. It's about petty fights, right? Battling inner demons? Notably, we know that in the second edition (not released as of this posting) the authors have added a spectator (real or imagined?) in the balcony, which will add a lot of interest for me. I suppose the original card has all those birds, perhaps with a suggestion that they are anticipating carrion.
Thinking out loud a bit more, I like the contrast in this particular deck between the Five of Wands and the Nine of Swords. In both cards the opposing or "dark" forces clearly have an air of insubstantiality, but the protagonist in this card is active, and the Nine of Swords is passive (in keeping with the standard meaning of the cards, of course...). Most Five of Wands cards I've seen don't suggest so clearly that the enemy is insubstantial.
That's all I've got on this one.
