When Tarot Keywords Diverge

When Tarot Keywords Diverge

Tarot interpretation is a complex thing. In a reading there are almost infinite possibilities of how a card might speak to us. Yet, there are, and must be, classic archetypes, keywords, and card meanings from which those infinite possibilities spring.

This divergence of meaning is further complicated by the difference between tarot traditions. For example, Crowley called the Two of Swords ‘Peace’. Most Waite readers will see the Two of Swords as a card of decision-making. A wise tarotist adds all the possibilities and traditions to their toolbox. One never knows when a meaning from a different tradition will pop into your mind as the precise message needed in the reading at hand.

The exercise of finding the connection point between different traditions can help us explore new possibilities for the cards. In the example of the Two of Swords, this card now often shows up for me to mean the need to be at peace with indecision in the moment.

When we find that a keyword or understanding we hold for a particular card is different from how many of our peers see it, it’s a good exercise to figure out how that happened. Is it a difference in traditions? Did you have a particular experience with this card that influenced your understanding of it? Was there a particular author or deck that introduced a new possibility for this card?

For example, in Chrysalis Tarot, the Hierophant is the ‘Divine Child’. In making the leap from the Pope to a ‘divine child’, they had forever added this possibility to our understanding of Major Arcana 5.

One card for which I have a solid and simple understand that is different from many of my peers is the Three of Wands. I see the Three of Wands as a first victory, and a harbinger of success. Many of my tarot friends find the Three of Wands to be more about possibilities than actual success.

Crowley calls the Three of Wands ‘Virtue’. Here we see the concept of opportunity and possibility, versus my understanding of confident success.

Of the Three of Wands, Waite says, “established strength, enterprise, effort, trade, commerce, discovery; those are his ships, bearing his merchandise, which are sailing over the sea”. Clearly, my understanding of this card is directly influenced by Waite, the designer of the tradition with which I most resonate. That makes sense.

It’s a good practice, when we find ourselves wondering about divergent card keywords and meanings, to go to source texts to discover what has influenced our own understanding, and the understanding of others. In doing so, there is an opportunity to solidify and expand our relationship with each card we contemplate.

Dealing with Our Decks: Different Ideas in a New Era of Tarot

There’s a general belief amongst tarotists and trend-spotters alike that tarot is enjoying a boost in popularity. Whenever I see headlines like “Tarot is Back!” I always cringe because, in my world, tarot has never been gone.

I think we can thank the internet and social media for the proliferation of tarot interest, tarot information and tarot decks. There is a concern among many tarotists that so many tarot decks are being created, so many tarot books are being written, that the quality works, and the traditional works, will be diluted by a flood of mediocrity and misunderstanding.

One need only to look at the wide variances in card depictions, teaching methods and card interpretations to know that the more minds in the mix, the more difficult it will be to hold on to traditional foundational tarot understanding.

We can see how much tarot understanding has expanded since A.E. Waite and Pamela Colman Smith produced the deck that practically defined tarot for a century prior to social media. Might A.E. Waite, if he were here today, see our common tarot practices as a gross misunderstanding of his work?

In the early 1970s Eden Gray suggested that tarot was exoteric; a tool we could all use at our kitchen tables, rather than an esoteric device reserved only for the very gifted and studied few. With this open-minded approach and social media, we can only imagine how much tarot wisdom we might develop in the next decade, and how much we might add to the body of knowledge that is tarot going forward. As long as the foundation doesn’t get lost along the way, I have to think this is a good thing.

I believe there will always be those among us who keep the traditions sacred, even as tarot may at times become trendy and pop, and perhaps at other times swing back into the shadows, as trends often do.

Social media allows us to discuss in large groups our thoughts and feelings about the cards, and to share our techniques. As we discuss and share, it becomes clear that we all have different feelings and beliefs about the way the cards work, how the cards speak, who speaks through the cards and what our connection to the cards might be.

One new tarot technique that piqued my curiosity recently is the idea of a “tarot deck interview”. That is, asking a new tarot deck questions to ascertain how you might best use the deck, and what your relationship with the deck might be.

My first reaction to this concept teetered between ridicule and simple lack of resonance. I don’t tend to personify the cards overly much, and, unlike many readers, I don’t notice a palpable difference in the voice and personality of specific decks. For me, tarot is tarot.

This was true until a student shared her deck interview in an online thread about the topic. There was something that felt so poignant and true about the reading that I immediately questioned my initial reaction to doubt the process.

When I first learned tarot, there were some distinct tarot traditions; Waite, Crowley, Feminist/Pagan, De Marseille. These traditions still exist, and still inform the vast majority of tarot knowledge and practice. Now, though, there are tarot decks, and tarot-like decks, that are remarkably different from any of these traditions.

Modern decks like Chrysalis, Mary-el and Wild Unknown are very popular, and stray significantly from any tarot traditions of yesteryear, although one can see influences from those traditions in certain cards and decks here and there.

The vast number of available decks has led to some serious collecting (in some cases, hoarding). While there are still folks who read with, and own, only one deck, many of us choose not to be deck-monogamous.

Right after my online conversation about interviewing tarot decks, another online friend reached out looking for advice on what to do with, or how to use, their huge tarot collection. The truth is, while most of us have tarot shelves filled with decks, most of us confine our tarot use to only a few trusted decks. The majority of the decks in our collections sit and collect dust.

We all experience decks that “read well” or “speak clearly” for us, and decks that don’t. Often, this has nothing to do with how much we like the artwork. And this is another substantive question for each reader to ponder. What is it that causes a deck to feel readable?

One of my problems with the idea of a tarot deck interview is that I know in my own experience the majority of decks I have will sit on the shelf and not get much use. If I interview such a deck at the beginning of our relationship, will the cards really make this prediction, and will I have the wherewithal to interpret the cards in such a way after having just bought them and hotly anticipated their arrival?

On the other hand, my friend who wonders what to do with her shelf of inactive decks might have a field day breaking out each one and asking, “How can you serve me?” or “How should I use you?”

When I was learning tarot thirty years ago there were not so many decks from which to choose. Then, perhaps the majority of available decks had similar symbolism. The greater variety now available makes the idea of conducting deck interviews seem more reasonable and helpful than in might have seemed a quarter century ago.

The idea that each deck has a specific personality and might be most useful for some specific tasks more than others seems very different from the concept of “Comparative Tarot” as developed by Valerie Sim and practiced by many readers of my generation.

While Comparative Tarot does acknowledge the common wisdom that different decks can have different voices, Comparative Tarot asks us to look at different depictions of the same card and let that process of compare-and-contrast inform our understanding of the card any time we see it, no matter the particular deck.

I had developed this concept even before I heard of Valerie Sim’s work. I’ve always called it “The Deck in My Head”. Whatever deck I happen to be working with, I will often call to mind other depictions of the cards that appear on the table. This helps me give a clear and comprehensive reading with any deck; I joke I could do it with seventy-eight pieces of notebook paper.

Coming from this perspective, from the idea that all images of the card inform of our understanding of what the card can mean, seems almost diametrically opposed to the idea that each deck operates in its own way, has its own agenda and its own best practices. I will have to let some of these ideas gel to see if there is a way these two ideas can work together for me.

I do occasionally discover a deck that I will use for a specific purpose, although I have never determined this by asking the deck itself. Most notable is my Tarot of Transformation, which is way too hairy-fairy for me to give a strong comprehensive reading. I call it “The Big Guns” and will bring it out when I get stumped in a professional reading. I will never use more than three cards from this deck in a sitting because each is so intense in its message. Never has this deck failed to settle a problem or solve a mystery when I use it this way.

The question is, would interviewing decks lead me to finding other sorts of big guns for my arsenal? Might it stimulate my creativity and help me find new uses for my beloved-but-unused decks?

One problem I see associated with the mindset around interviewing decks is the idea that there should be decks that we use for specific type of readings. I’ve played with this idea too, using The Lover’s Path Tarot for romance readings and Ghosts and Spirit Tarot for mediumship readings, for example.

Overall, I really resist this concept, and think it could lead to really limited readings, for this reason. No question exists in a vacuum, and no part of life is independent from the rest of life. For example, my question may be about love, but the impediment to my love life may be my career.

I think, for professional readings and general divination, I personally need my primary tarot deck to be a full-service one-stop-shop kind of a deck. I want all the information, and all the factors.

After some consideration, I think the process of interviewing tarot decks can help us expand the way we use tarot, but could also limit us in our readings, depending on the way we choose to use the process.

Maybe most importantly, I think one of the reasons it’s great that there are so many tarot decks available is that they can teach us about each other, not only about themselves. I don’t want to see the Comparative Tarot process get lost in a sea of decks that are so dissimilar one from another as to not withstand any comparison.

The other quandary the concept of interviewing tarot deck presents for me is the personification of tarot. Can seventy-eight pieces of cardboard think and feel? I think each of us does anthropomorphize tarot to some extent. For me, though, the power of the cards in not in the cards, but in where the cards lead my thoughts, feelings and intuition, and what the cards teach me.  I feel I work with the power of the symbols themselves, not the paper on which they are printed.

I will be pondering and musing about this for a long time. Tarot culture is always growing and changing, as are we. This is one of the reasons I love tarot, and love being part of the community of tarotists who ponder with me.

If you want to read the deck interview that got me thinking, I am sharing it here, with the permission of the author, Maureen, from the Tarot Nerds Facebook Group.

Green Witch Tarot Deck Interview:

1. What can you teach me? - The Holly King (Hermit)

I will be your mentor and guide to seek your truth and journey with you on your chosen path. I am experience and knowledge.

2. Describe yourself to me- 10 Chalices (Cups)

I am happiness abundance and joy, everything you strive to achieve. I am a good deck.

Describe me-7 Athames (Swords)

You are a strategic thinker with determination and fortitude. You are diplomatic and very perceptive. You overcome challenges, are self-reliant, confident and brave.

4. How can we work together- Ace Pentacles

I will teach you the magic art of manifestation. We will do well together, I am grounded and earthbound and bring you good fortune.

5. What are your strengths: Queen of Swords-I am shrewd, orderly independent and self-reliant. Honest and sharp of tongue when necessary much like you.

6. What are your weaknesses? Page Cups

I need to be more creative and trust my inner child. I must be less pragmatic and analytical and more watery. I am a good friend but my loyalty is not honored by everyone.

7. What is our potential together-Knight Swords.

Our relationship will adventurous, but we must be thorough and avoid impatience. We must not rush this process and miss any steps.

8. Do you want to work together? -The Star

The opportunity is presented to you but you must decide. The energies are in favor of our union. I bring you the tools to manifest all you desire. Trust your intuition.

A Review of Chrysalis Tarot

Chrysalis Tarot

by Holly Sierra and Toney Brooks

Published by U.S. Games Systems, Inc.

Of all the decks published in 2014, Chrysalis Tarot was the one I anticipated most hotly. I love Holly Sierra’s artwork. Indeed, each of the seventy-eight cards that make up Chrysalis Tarot is a delightful piece of collectible of art.

The deck is medieval and ancient feeling, with pastel colors and many scenes from nature. Each card has an antiqued tan marbled border. When you put the cards together side-by-side, the borders blend in to one another, making a connected picture.

The card images are rich in texture and imagery. The colors and characters are cheerful, but not sticky-sweet.  Some of the scenes are fanciful, but not overly childish. Each image stimulates the imagination and the intuition.

Chrysalis Tarot is a standard-sized deck, packaged in the usual U.S. Games box with a 59-page Little White Book. The cards have a matte finish, and are on quality stock. The card backs are lovely, colorful and reversible, picturing two butterflies; one of the only obvious references to the “chrysalis” title of the deck.

The theme of Chrysalis Tarot is Otherworld Journeying.

The Major Arcana of Chrysalis Tarot belongs to the modern tradition of tarot I call “archetypal assignment.” In an archetypal assignment deck, the deck creator finds characters within a theme to fit the archetypes of tarot. In Kris Waldherr’s Goddess Tarot, for instance, each Major Arcana card is associated with a Goddess. In Lisa Hunt’s Ghosts and Spirits Tarot, each card is associated with a ghost story. Hunt and Waldherr each drew from cultures all over the world to find the right elements to fit the tarot archetypes. Other well-known archetypal assignment decks include Mythic Tarot, by Juliet Sharman-Burke, which uses characters from Ancient Greek mythology, and Ancestral Path Tarot, by Julie Cuccia-Watts, which uses four different world cultures to provide characters for the four suits.

The Court cards (in this deck, the Troupe) are my favorite illustrations. Each troupe character stands in a doorway of sorts. The doorway adds an extra border, which Sierra has decorated with flowers, flourishes and remarkable little scenes.

While the art of Chrysalis Tarot is simply outstanding, and the author, Toney Brooks, is clearly an excellent wordsmith, Chrysalis Tarot is non-traditional enough to present a few problems for some tarot traditionalists. I will be clear about my reaction to these problems in an effort to get Chrysalis Tarot into the hands of the people who will appreciate it, and to save the time and money of those who won’t.

The artist and author of Chrysalis Tarot, Holly Sierra and Toney Brooks, both claim some prior knowledge of tarot and metaphysics. They have intentionally created a deck where few of the old rules apply. Tarot traditionalists be warned, Chrysalis Tarot could make you angry. There could even be some argument over whether Chrysalis Tarot is indeed a tarot deck at all, or whether Diane Wilkes’ term “taroracle” (that is, an oracle loosely based on tarot) is more fitting.

I think there is a value to the study of non-traditional tarot decks. For example, Chrysalis Tarot re-imagines the Page of Pentacles as “The Acrobat.” For me to step out of my tried-and-true idea of who the Page of Pentacles is, and to try to imagine the Page of Pentacles as an acrobat, is a good tarot exercise. Either it will expand my understanding of the card to include these new ideas, or it will solidify my understanding of the card in a way that clearly defines what the card can and cannot symbolize for me.

Toney Brooks and Holly Sierra are working on a full-length companion book for Chrysalis Tarot. This is good news; if any deck ever needed or deserved a full-length book, it is this one.  The ways in which Brooks and Sierra see the cards might make more sense if we had more background information.

Very often in the LWB, the stated key words and interpretations for individual cards are quite different from any classic or accepted meanings in any tarot tradition with which I am familiar. That’s fine, but little effort has been made to explain the inspiration behind the change, or the filter that was used to decide which traditions would be honored, and which would be changed. I am hoping the full-length book will clear up a lot of this for the many tarot traditionalists (like me) who truly want to love this deck.

As it is, I have a very hard time understanding how the Knight of Pentacles could be “spontaneous” and “confusing,” or why Major Arcana 14, Temperance, is called “Golden Flower.” The assignment for Major Arcana 12, the Hanged Man, is “Celtic Owl.”  The owl, in Celtic lore, fits the theme of the deck as a keeper of the Otherworld. I’m not sure, archetypally, if this Celtic owl is an appropriate stand-in for the Hanged Man. Does this owl carry the same energy as Christ on the cross, or Odin on the tree, or yoga, or any of the other traditional associations for this card? I hope the book will answer the many thematic questions this deck presents.

It feels like an oxymoron that the artwork of Chrysalis Tarot is intricate and specific, and the thematic elements of the deck seem haphazard. While many of the characters in the Major Arcana are deities, some of characters are plants and animals that may be specific cultural symbols, but are not explained as such in the LWB. For instance, I had to Google on search terms “Golden Flower”, “Celtic Owl”, and “Divine Child” to make any sense of the Major Arcana at all. I learned that “Golden Flower” is an obscure cultural reference from the I Ching, but I am still not sure why it is the assignment chosen for Card 14, Temperance.

 “Divine Child” for Major Arcana 5, the Hierophant, is another problem for me.. “Divine Child” is certainly an archetype; it’s just not the same archetype as the Hierophant.

Likewise, Merlin and his cat for the Fool (in this deck, the Hero) makes me want to give up and go home. First, yes, technically, the Fool is a “hero” in that he is the protagonist of an epic journey. However, the Chariot is usually associated with the archetype of “Hero”. Generally, the Fool is an explorer. Any heroic actions on his part would be by virtue of being in the right place at the right time, rather than intent. Merlin’s age, and his role in legend, also makes him a poor choice for the Fool, in my opinion.

In the LWB, the first line to describe the card reads, “Merlin’s cuddly cat draws you at once into his mystery and magic.” Sierra and Brooks had all of world mythology, history and literature from which to draw an Everyman character and the best they could find was “Merlin’s cat.”

My favorite assignments are Kali as the Tower, Phoenix for Judgment and Ma’at for Justice (Card 8).  My favorite Major Arcana images are Gaia, the Empress and Golden Flower, Temperance.

The Minor Arcana suits of Chrysalis Tarot have standard elemental associations.  The suits are gently color-coded, which will be a boon for newer tarot students.

 The Water suit, traditionally Cups, is Mirrors. I like the idea of reflective mirrors for Water, although some of the images, though beautiful, are not terribly evocative of their traditional meanings.

For instance, the Ten of Mirrors is a colorful bird with ribbons. Attached to the ribbons are ten mirrors. The key word given in the book for this card is “Peace.” You have to stretch to make a connection with the traditional “love, family, friendship, home” meaning of the Ten of Cups. Those things are “peaceful,” but they are not “peace.” Traditionally, “Peace” is the key word of the Crowley Two of Swords, by contrast. It is many things like this that make Chrysalis Tarot feel a bit intellectually sloppy to me, an unhappy contrast to its precise and detailed artwork.

The Earth suit, traditionally Pentacles, is Stones. The pip Stone cards are quite appealing to me, especially the Four of Stones,  an ornate bejeweled treasure chest, too large to fit through a door, and blocking the path.

The Fire suit, traditionally Wands, is Spirals. The Air suit, traditionally Swords, is Scrolls. I love the art in the Wands suit; Holly Sierra’s style is curvy and curly, with flourishes and details. The spirals feel textured and tactile. What I don’t like about Spirals and Scrolls for Wands and Swords is how very feminine the icons are. Traditionally, the masculine suits have phallic icons for a reason. Their absence weakens the energy of the deck for me.

Not all of the pip cards bear pictures of people. Some are animals, or forest scenes. Each of the pips is evocative enough to tell a story. Sometimes the obvious story easily matches the standard and familiar interpretation of the card, sometimes not.

The Court of Chrysalis Tarot is called the “Troupe”. Each of the sixteen characters has a unique name, like “The Acrobat” for the Page of Pentacles, or “The Sojourner” for the King of Cups. Again, I would love to know more about the process Sierra and Brooks used to find these particular names. My favorite images in the deck are the “Troupe” cards, but until I know the reasons behind their transformation, it is hard for me to embrace them. Many of their names don’t feel like a natural fit for me. For instance, why would a King “sojourn”? I would think, archetypally, “sojourning” would be the realm of Knights.

Chrysalis Tarot will be a wonderful deck for intuitive readers who don’t work with set interpretations, and for anyone who loves beautifully illustrated card oracles.

A new reader could easily work with the LWB and find Chrysalis Tarot a wonderful tool for divination, magick and personal growth. However, they would not be able to make an easy leap to any standard tarot deck without having to learn the traditional tarot associations.

Serious tarot readers may love the artwork enough to ignore the smarmy teardrop on the Sun (and many other annoyances) and find ways to work with Chrysalis Tarot. I’ve already done a few successful readings with this alluring deck.

Chrysalis Tarot is the perfect tarot deck for someone who doesn’t completely resonate with tarot, but wants a structured card oracle.

This deck proves it possible to love tarot and not care at all about the archetypes, just as it is possible to love tarot and not delve into the Kabbalistic or astrological associations. If you aren’t attached to the tarot archetypes, and don’t use them in your readings, you will very likely love Chrysalis Tarot.

Tarotists who work with archetypes may wish that Sierra and Brooks would use their astounding talents to create a tarot deck that more fully respects time-honored tarot traditions, or that more clearly and understandably defines a new tradition.

Chrysalis Tarot has enough substance to make you think. Some folks will enjoy the pretty pictures, some will get angry about the blatant disregard for tradition, and some will enjoy the opportunity to stretch a little.

Watch the video to see the deck images.

Christiana Gaudet Reviews Chrysalis Tarot

Video of Christiana Gaudet Reviews Chrysalis Tarot