Newsgroups: alt.tarot,alt.divination,alt.magick.tyagi Path: shell.portal.com!svc.portal.com!sdd.hp.com!usc!howland.reston.ans.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!uchinews!quads!selk From: selk@quads.uchicago.edu (lori ann selke) Subject: Re: JKarlin: The Haindl Deck, a review X-Nntp-Posting-Host: midway.uchicago.edu Message-ID: Sender: news@midway.uchicago.edu (News Administrator) Reply-To: selk@midway.uchicago.edu Organization: The University of Chicago References: <45bj10$qs0@jobe.shell.portal.com> <45sve6$50o@Market.NET> <461pft$klv@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> Date: Mon, 23 Oct 1995 18:30:05 GMT Lines: 43 Xref: shell.portal.com alt.tarot:2858 alt.divination:5725 alt.magick.tyagi:4684 In article <461pft$klv@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>, Saileran wrote: > A good point, but MY understanding of the Haindl Tarot is that >Haindl designed the deck and Pollack only made a subjective interpretation. Well, FWIW, Rachel Pollack claims, in _The New Tarot_, that she based her interpretation of the Haindl deck in part at least on long cpnverstaions with the artist and his wife. So it's not like her interpretations of the Dali deck, which are based *only* on the information contained in the cards themselves. (And which may be why her commentary on said Dali deck seems so thin.) I don't think this fact (presuming it's true; I think it is, but I know anybody can lie, or exaggerate) invalidates some of the more substantiative criticisms of the deck itself that have been made here. But maybe that's just because I've hated the Haindl deck ever since I first laid eyes upon it... and talking about how the Fool wears the sacred colors of the Lakota Nation in his motley (as Pollack does in _The New Tarot_), or whatnot, doesn't change the fact that, if nothing else and as Jess mentioned, the art itself is very muddy and "dreary". There are some cards that I presonally like (like the Tower, and the Wheel of Fortune), and some cards whose imagery provide some interesting/useful insights (the arrangement of tools on the Magician, the woman wrestling a *snake* on Strength), but it's most definitely not a deck I'd ever consider using regularly. I'd be interested, btw, in people's comments of Pollack's other Tarot writings; I've read the first volume of 78 Degrees of Wisdom, but it didn't seem to say anything to me that I already didn't know. (Which doesn't make it either a bad or a good book, mind you.) What do other people think? Lori