Dame Fortune's Wheel Tarot

1
I realize that this is a new deck, but it's a compilation of historical decks, and Paul Huson's research as outlined in the book Mystical Origins of the Tarot, and I'd be interested in opinions from history people on the deck. The only thing I've really noticed is that people complain about the colours being bright.

I hope it isn't politically incorrect to ask? Do you find it offensive that he's mixed traditional systems to paint the deck or do you welcome his fresh take on historical models?

Does anyone like it for reading? Has anyone tried mixing it with a historical deck for readings or used it as a clarifying card with a Marseille deck for instance? Anything neat going on with use of the deck?

Thanks.

Re: Dame Fortune's Wheel Tarot

2
Hi Cadla,

Welcome to the forum!

I don't have this deck, but its high up on my wishlist. I like that Mr. Huson used a variety of sources for his images. Are you familiar with the "Tarot de Marsella" by Daniel Rodés and Encarna Sánchez? They used several sources for their Tarot de Marseille and I enjoy looking through it and seeing touches of decks like the Noblet, Dodal and Vieville.

Dame Fortune's Wheel looks very interesting because he used documents like the Cary Sheet and other old woodcuts to create his images, so I imagine I would enjoy looking through it as well. I must admit to be a bit put off by some of the conclusions that he seems to have reached, (like placing the fish on the Star card for instance), but I think this looks like a deck worth having.

Re: Dame Fortune's Wheel Tarot

3
robert wrote:Are you familiar with the "Tarot de Marsella" by Daniel Rodés and Encarna Sánchez?


That sounds interesting. I didn't realize there was a tradition of mixing sources. I like it when people meld systems together to make something new.

The only historical tarot decks I have are the Ancient Minchiate Etruria and the Classico Tarocco di Marsiglia (Il Meneghello.) I just ordered the Brian Williams Minchiate to fiddle with though. I'll think a bit more on Dame Fortune's Wheel as I'm out of money.
I must admit to be a bit put off by some of the conclusions that he seems to have reached
I am like that about certain Robert Place theories. Historians are sometimes subjective, but that's okay as long as I'm not expected to believe these people literally. Unfortunately, some people treat historians like the final word in truth.

I'm a very pragmatic person, so conjecture tends to irritate me. There's a balance between introducing a personal theory in writing about history and saying "This is absolutely so" when no one actually knows what is so.

Re: Dame Fortune's Wheel Tarot

4
cadla wrote:
robert wrote:Are you familiar with the "Tarot de Marsella" by Daniel Rodés and Encarna Sánchez?


That sounds interesting. I didn't realize there was a tradition of mixing sources. I like it when people meld systems together to make something new.
In a way, it's actually THE tradition. If you agree that at one time there was a Tarot de Marseille I style and Tarot de Marseille II style, it seems that they were mixed together rather often as decks appear that have influences from both. I think people have been "sampling" ideas on tarot right from the start, but it's the twists and inventions that help to define the new versions.

cadla wrote:The only historical tarot decks I have are the Ancient Minchiate Etruria and the Classico Tarocco di Marsiglia (Il Meneghello.) I just ordered the Brian Williams Minchiate to fiddle with though. I'll think a bit more on Dame Fortune's Wheel as I'm out of money.
I've not read it, but I've heard the book that Williams wrote is wonderful and very informative. I'd like to have the deck just so that I can read the book. I find the Minchiate delightful.
robert wrote:I must admit to be a bit put off by some of the conclusions that he seems to have reached
cadla wrote:I am like that about certain Robert Place theories. Historians are sometimes subjective, but that's okay as long as I'm not expected to believe these people literally. Unfortunately, some people treat historians like the final word in truth.

I'm a very pragmatic person, so conjecture tends to irritate me. There's a balance between introducing a personal theory in writing about history and saying "This is absolutely so" when no one actually knows what is so.
Yes, there is a difference between facts and conclusions, but too often the two are confused. I like Place, and I feel he has helped a lot of people become more interested in tarot history. I disagree with some of his conclusions, but overall feel that he is generally well-intentioned and trustworthy. I have Huson's book, but haven't read it yet. Nevertheless, I'd be very happy to have a copy of his deck.

Re: Dame Fortune's Wheel Tarot

5
robert wrote:I think people have been "sampling" ideas on tarot right from the start, but it's the twists and inventions that help to define the new versions.
Okay, I didn't realize that, because of the way people vehemently get attached to one system and defend it, like dogs gripping a chew toy. Human history is full of sampling and trading and reinventing, but tarot people get upset by decks or systems that aren't "correct" in their minds. Or they browbeat you if you don't follow their system or agree with a noted author's book. I find that particularly unpleasant.
I have Huson's book, but haven't read it yet. Nevertheless, I'd be very happy to have a copy of his deck.
Hey, it's a new year so a perfect opportunity to buy the Huson deck and read his book.

One of the reasons I've kept his book and traded others away is that he, like Stuart Kaplan, will say "There is no documentation, we don't know," or in some cases Huson just says "I could never make sense of the symbolism on this card, I don't understand why it's there."

Personal theories and systems are just that. When I buy a deck I try to work with the author's artwork. For me, it isn't so important whether I think the imagery on the card is correct, I am more curious about why the author used that particular symbolism.

I have found many tarot books to be tiresome rehashes of a previous author's personal approach. I like my personal approach, which is why I favour books that explain symbols rather than those that say "Add up the numbers in those two cards and the Truth of the Universe will become yours" or "As we can see by the stance of the High Priestess, she is Ishtar and points to the need for a new car." Really, only the personal truth of the author's will become apparent, not necessarily anything else.

Since you mentioned the fish on The Star card in Dame Fortune's Wheel, I admit that this wouldn't bother me at all. I wouldn't even think to question it, I would be merely curious about why he put it there. That's my approach. It doesn't bother me if The Fool has a dog or a crocodile or a bird or a cliff. It's just there and then I have a little study.

Surely I can't be the only person that does this?

Re: Dame Fortune's Wheel Tarot

6
cadla wrote: Okay, I didn't realize that, because of the way people vehemently get attached to one system and defend it, like dogs gripping a chew toy. Human history is full of sampling and trading and reinventing, but tarot people get upset by decks or systems that aren't "correct" in their minds. Or they browbeat you if you don't follow their system or agree with a noted author's book. I find that particularly unpleasant.
Well, it goes back to what you were saying earlier, it all depends on how it is present it. If you are presenting something as historically accurate, that is one thing, if you are presenting it as "inspired-by" or "based-upon", that's different.

I remember when I first got into the historical decks a few years ago, the Tarot de Marseille was all the rage and people were arguing about the "real" Tarot de Marseille, and many argued that it was "the original" tarot. I think once you let go of such notions you can start to appreciate the diversity of tarot and come to appreciate the differences and novelties. Vieville is my favourite deck, not a Tarot de Marseille, but for me, far more fun and witty as well as mysterious.

cadla wrote:Hey, it's a new year so a perfect opportunity to buy the Huson deck and read his book.

One of the reasons I've kept his book and traded others away is that he, like Stuart Kaplan, will say "There is no documentation, we don't know," or in some cases Huson just says "I could never make sense of the symbolism on this card, I don't understand why it's there."

Personal theories and systems are just that. When I buy a deck I try to work with the author's artwork. For me, it isn't so important whether I think the imagery on the card is correct, I am more curious about why the author used that particular symbolism.

I have found many tarot books to be tiresome rehashes of a previous author's personal approach. I like my personal approach, which is why I favour books that explain symbols rather than those that say "Add up the numbers in those two cards and the Truth of the Universe will become yours" or "As we can see by the stance of the High Priestess, she is Ishtar and points to the need for a new car." Really, only the personal truth of the author's will become apparent, not necessarily anything else.

Since you mentioned the fish on The Star card in Dame Fortune's Wheel, I admit that this wouldn't bother me at all. I wouldn't even think to question it, I would be merely curious about why he put it there. That's my approach. It doesn't bother me if The Fool has a dog or a crocodile or a bird or a cliff. It's just there and then I have a little study.

Surely I can't be the only person that does this?
It's tricky with Huson, as some people who trust that he is an authority may think that there is a historical precedent for the fish, while really it is just an interpretation. How does he present it? This is what I'd like to know.

Besides the Vieville, I also love the Mitelli... which is a one-off, and the Vachetta... which is a one-off.. so maybe I'm drawn to the unique rather than the standard anyway.

As for reading author's books, I find them insightful and helpful. Place's book on the Saints, Karen's for the Prague, the one for the Cosmic Tribe all come to mind as excellent and insightful books that add great depth to the appreciation of the decks.

So I guess I don't mind breaking "convention" as long as that is understood as doing such. It's like when people complain about the historic decks "switching" Justice and Strength.. I feel compelled to correct that because it is inaccurate and I don't like that "floating out there". On the other hand, I personally don't like numbers and names on the cards at all, so I would love a Tarot de Marseille for instance without those on them, but many people would object, just as they object, for instance, to the Noblet having the title on Death. So... there you go. For me, it's just a matter of clarity.

Re: Dame Fortune's Wheel Tarot

7
robert wrote:I think once you let go of such notions you can start to appreciate the diversity of tarot and come to appreciate the differences and novelties. Vieville is my favourite deck, not a Tarot de Marseille, but for me, far more fun and witty as well as mysterious.
I'm firmly in the diversity camp. Frank Jensen will never invite me to tea for a chin wag over the R-W. He's a perfect example for me of narrow opinions about what is correct or not. He's pretty scornful about anything outside the box in his mind.
As for reading author's books, I find them insightful and helpful. Place's book on the Saints, Karen's for the Prague, the one for the Cosmic Tribe all come to mind as excellent and insightful books that add great depth to the appreciation of the decks.
I was speaking more of certain popular how-to books or card-by-card interpretive books like...(better not say.) I can't relate to those kinds of books and find them fatuous.

Now, I don't mind such author's deck-related books as you've stated because much of what they are discussing is concrete, it involves research, like a specific Saint and their biography or specific architecture, signage, statuary, historical setting, that kind of thing. As long as they have the information in there about the symbolism I can roll with their personal comments. They are interpretive comments about a work they have created, not an overview of meaning or teaching of a tarot method. The clarity of such information can be very helpful.

The muddle of personal bias, new-age bumph, and associative nonsense in the other type of book is not helpful.
It's like when people complain about the historic decks "switching" Justice and Strength.. I feel compelled to correct that because it is inaccurate and I don't like that "floating out there".
It's odd, but I don't connect to the order of cards--never have. There were no numbers on the earliest cards we have examples, of so who cares where Justice or Strength are ordered in decks? I can't for the life of me figure out why it would be so important to anyone. I often forget the order of the Major arcana. And that's true, although somewhat embarrassing! Which is why all the gobbledygook about adding up numbers and relating numbers and the Hero's journey in tarot decks simply irritates me. It's gimmicky.

Huson has a book online for Dame Fortune's Wheel. Oh wait, it's an expanded LWB for the deck from the Lo Scarabeo web site, the link is on his site, it's a direct download: http://paulhuson.com/
I don't have it yet but he might talk about putting the fish on the card. You've piqued my curiosity now.

I would have to trade for the deck, but I think you've convinced me that I would learn lots from it, so I'll try in the next few months to get it in trade.

Re: Dame Fortune's Wheel Tarot

8
robert wrote:
Besides the Vieville, I also love the Mitelli... which is a one-off, and the Vachetta... which is a one-off.. so maybe I'm drawn to the unique rather than the standard anyway.
I have the Vachetta, so there's another historical deck for me. Oops, I forgot I had this!!! I must start using it. I have the digital one you print yourself from About.com. They market that as a colour-your-own deck but I love the line art and wouldn't dream of colouring it.

I did however print it in an olive green shade of ink on cream cardstock. It looks yummy, and I made it a special tuckbox and a bag with embroidery. I also over-dyed the toile lining to make it look antique-y. NOW it's really unique. I like that aspect of decks too.

Re: Dame Fortune's Wheel Tarot

9
One thing I forgot to mention about the deck is that Huson's got Hector on the Knave of Batons. I have some facsimile playing cards with personalities on the face cards, including Hector, and that's the main reason I was attracted to this deck.

I named my car Hector--he unfortunately got killed last August.

Alas, poor Hector. He would want me to get a depiction of him on a tarot deck for old time's sake.

Re: Dame Fortune's Wheel Tarot

10
I don't suppose anyone has acquired this deck since I was last here? What about you Robert? Did you fancy dipping your toes?

I have traded for a couple of decks and sold a deck and bought books on abstract art with the money, but so far no one has Dame Fortune's Wheel.

I thought with all the comments elsewhere about the alarming colours, particularly the yellow, that people might like to get rid of it, but perhaps it has more lasting value than expected? And yet, the history folk aren't commenting so perhaps not?

Anyone having a go with this recently?