Hi, Adam --
Your post raises some very good points about reviews. Reviews are good, because they help give some kind of idea of what a deck comprises, and many people find it helpful to read others' opinions when deciding whether to buy a deck. On the other hand, it's possible that the reviewer will actually influence how people feel about a deck.
Of course, this isn't limited to Tarot reviews; it's true of any kind of review, movie review, restaurant review, whatever. Theater people in New York used to get very angry at Frank Rich, who was the drama critic for the New York Times for many years, because a show would succeed or fail based on what he wrote about it. But this wasn't really something you could blame him for; he was only writing his opinion, and that was his job.
This raises a larger question of the role that reviews play. In a way, it would be nice if there were no reviews, and we could all make up our own minds about things without referring to others' opinions. But realistically, this isn't the way our society works, where we have a free exchange of ideas. Really, a review is only a more formalized version of a bunch of Tarot buddies sitting around and discussing a deck. If someone in that situation said they didn't like a deck, that comment probably wouldn't haunt you. Likewise, something written in a review shouldn't haunt you.
I feel qualified to talk about Tarot reviews because I've written several. In fact, I wrote a review of the Robin Wood which may even be the one you're referring to.
The key thing, I think, to keep in mind is that someone who writes a review has absolutely zero more authority than anyone else. It's just his or her opinion. The only difference between a reviewer and anyone else is that the reviewer has taken the time and trouble to write a review and submit it somewhere. But their opinions aren't any more valuable than anyone else's. I think the best way to approach a review is to take from it what is valuable to you and leave the rest.
To address your post specifically, you say that the reviewer (perhaps me) wrote that the Robin Wood deck is sugary sweet and has a Ken and Barbie look. Then you go on to say that now you're afraid that the deck has false representations of the archetypes. I'm not sure I understand how the one necessarily follows from the other. Why can't a deck be sugary sweet *and* faithfully represent the archetypes? Also, there isn't any one way to draw the archetypes that's any better than any other. Each artist draws pictures which are "true" for them; but, like reviewers, artists don't have any particular authority, whether they drew their deck yesterday or a hundred years ago.
Really, any deck will have *something* that's less than perfect about it, and that doesn't mean it's not a good deck. Actually there's a lot I like about the Robin Wood, I think it's a fine deck, and the artist has obviously put a great deal of thought into portraying the archetypes in a way that is meaningful for her.
Only you can decide whether a specific aspect of a deck gets in the way of your being able to use that deck. You shouldn't let what one person says about a deck be the determining factor. Since the Robin Wood is an extremely popular deck, I think you would certainly be in the mainstream if you chose it. There are many scans on the internet of cards from this deck, so you have ample opportunity to look at them and make up your own mind about them.
If *you* think some of the cards are overly sweet, even then you could use the deck, and simply use that sweetness as something to hang an interpretation on. For example, if the Robin Wood 10 of Cups looks too sweet or too good to be true, then perhaps the card might mean unrealistic expectations, or maybe just a particularly innocent optimism.
Decks are like people, each with their own personalities and eccentricities. Sometimes you have to be tolerant of certain aspects of a deck in order to really get to know its good points. If you feel drawn to it -- go for it!
Good luck --
Lee
