I like wood rather than stone because I think it’s more authentic, plus it’s more tactilely pleasing to me. (Although I’m also quite partial to my clear quartz runes with gold lettering. I call them my ice runes.) I also like the shape because there are definite front and back sides, which I use in some of the ways I read. And I like the larger size. And I think the font is more refined than straight lines (although straight lines are probably more authentic).
I was toying with using “Runes of the Northern Light,” very shiny rune cards also from LS, but I wasn’t feeling it. I guess organic is better than bling for runes? And I looked at all the other rune card decks I have (total of 7). I somehow think that the appeal of runes is the simplicity, which is kind of the opposite of illustrated cards. So not a deck after all?
I’ve done a lot of studying off and on through the years. My notes are dated 2011! But I think I’ve studied again since then. We’ll see how I do on interps this week, and if I need to go back to the books to catch up!
A short interview to start:
Strength: Berkana
The set’s strength is that it is organic. And it’s purified of other influences, like an artist’s interpretation. It represents the runes themselves.
Weakness: Kenaz
One would think that light and creativity would be a plus . . . Maybe its weakness is the same as its strength: it’s stripped down to the bare essentials with no creativity or extra light provided by an artist.
What I can learn: Thurisaz
I will learn that runes were created by a warlike culture, and much that it has to say is about conflict and competition.
Outcome of our work together: Ihwaz
I will also learn that all those conflicts have two sides. I will reconsider as above, so below. Even though I study and work with runes only off and on, really rather seldom, they’re always there for me when I come back to them.