Tarot for Writers
Jan. 20th, 2020 04:28 pmA recent conversation withgreen_knight prompted me to pick up this book by Corrine Kenner again and at least do the first exercise in Part II.
Part I is titled, “Tarot 101,” and it really is that. If you’re not familiar with tarot and want to learn, you could definitely use this section as a primer. I got bogged down, though, because it was repetitive for me, so I skipped it. I’m not saying I couldn’t learn more about tarot—I most certainly can—but I didn’t think this would help me that much. Corinne Kenner states in her introduction that she’s fine with people skipping around. Ms. Kenner uses the classic Rider Waite Smith deck (RWS),* but it’s one of the few decks I’ve tried that doesn’t really work for me, so I used my favorite Crow Tarot instead.
Anyway, the first chapter in Part II, “The Writer’s Tarot,” is “Character Creation,” and the first exercise is on using the cards to pick and flesh out a cast of characters. This would probably work best for a new idea, a new story, but I’m almost 20k into the current novel. Still, there are some unknown variables in my story. I’m a pantser, you see: I write from the seat of my pants rather than from an outline, so I don’t really know all that will happen in my stories before I write them. However, I thought it might be interesting to do this exercise and see what I got.
I have to confess that character stuff is generally the thing I need least help on. They seem to arrive fully formed in my psyche with their motivations already in play. My job is to build the story around them. Usually, I spend a certain amount of time filling in backstory (sometimes an excessive amount of time) to explain to myself how they got to be the way they are and to clean up any historical stuff. In the current WIP, I’ve got two characters acting like protagonists, a third who swings back and forth between protagging and antagging, and a fourth who is a significant supporting player (a foil). Three of these characters appeared in an earlier work so I know them well and it’s easy to write for them. But again, I thought this would be worth a shot—if for no other reason than straightening out the protagging and the antagging. I still don’t know who the real antagonist is. So far it has been a Thing, but I’ve always known that would resolve itself into a person/being who is driving the Thing.
How this works
In the first exercise, you deal yourself a starting spread, one card each for protagonist(s); antagonist(s); protagonist’s foil (Dr. Watson, Sancho Panza, et al.); antagonist’s foil (Capt. Hook’s Mr. Smee, Mini Me, et al.); and supporting character (characters who pop up and have important but not continuing roles like a foil). Then you read the card for each and make notes about what the card suggests for that character(s). At first, I used the booklet that came with the Crow Tarot but duh, this process works much better with the card meanings Ms. Kenner has included in the book. The largest section of the book (pgs. 122-323) are tarot meanings based on RWS and slanted towards the writing process. Once I used that, things seemed to fall into place and I did get some insights into the complex character dynamic I’ve got going here. Each exercise also includes a Writing Practice and/or writing prompts.
Other exercises in the character section:
- “Personality Plus” - rounding out characters, including a group of questions to ask. You can draw cards to answer these questions (and the ones following), as many as you like.
- “Character Building” – filling in the background
- “Casting Call” – for a larger work like a novel or screenplay
- “Typecasting” – playing with archetypes
- “Minor Characters”
- “The Private Lives of Public Personalities” – psychological underpinnings
- “Hopes and Fears”
- “A Note About Names”
- “Dialogues and Interviews”
- “Fill in the Blanks”
- “Compare Notes”
I’d be willing to share the results of my exercise in another post if anyone is interested.
*And yes, I know many of the decks I use are based on RWS, but the actual classic deck doesn't work for me.