Fluffy Bunny

"The idea of tarot-as-language is perhaps one of the cornier metaphors around, the kind of thing you might find in the 'fluffy bunny' tomes that drive most of the tarotists I know bananas." -- Elizabeth Genco, from the article Tarot Vocab in Llewellyn's 2008 Tarot Reader

When referencing certain Tarot books or decks, you've likely heard the term "fluffy bunny".

What characterizes a "fluffy bunny" book or deck, in your estimation? What is the opposite of "fluffy bunny"?

Tarot Channel readers, weigh in! I'd love to hear your thoughts on (and examples of) the enigmatic fluffy bunny...

-- Janet Boyer

Comments

[Stefan Spelkens]

Ah the fluffy bunny decks horror to many "serious" tarot readers/collectors/users in various ways and yet almost no way to avoid them as it seems they come out in always increasing numbers ( perhaps because they form a non- threatening alternative to many to the more heavy,serious, esoterical decks that are well balanced and thought through linked to all kinds of systems ranging from qblh to santeria to...) but perhaps they are so popular because they are fun nothing more nothing less.
Based upon a theme and putting form (in almost every case) before content and system. They are "fluffy" that is to say whimsically themed (ranging from gummy bears to little kittens) humorous light cuddly and o sooooo sweet your tooth start hurting only to look at them - but then alas there are so much of them that almost every collector or person with a medium to large amount of decks (even i ) has at least one.

[Eva Yaa Asantewaa]

LOL! I love the illustration you've used for this. The bunny looks perturbed, his ears ringing with all of the references to "Fluffy Bunny, this" and "Fluffy Bunny, that!" :-D
He's thinking, "Leave me the hell alone!"

Eva :-D

[Patricia (a/k/a Roswila)]

Yeah, leave the poor fluffy bunny be and all those who love him/her. :-) Not all need or want to deep dive. Fluffiness serves it's purpose. The shallow end of the pool is no better, no worse, than the deep end. Just different, with different gifts and different hazards. (I sometimes read what could be considered fluffy fantasy books for relaxation, and sometimes intense more creative fantasy, it depends where I'm at at the time.) Why try to limit the multi-faceted, far-ranging, always evolving Tarot to just one end of its spectrum?

[Janet Boyer]

Eva, that's exactly why I picked that image... LOL! ^_~

Patricia, I agree. It's like saying James Joyce is better than Stephen King. For what, exactly?

People who sneer at "fluffy bunny" books/decks come off as elitist snobs. It reminds me of how the Catholic church tried to keep scripture out of the hands of the laypeople, because they couldn't *possibly* be smart enough to understand it.

I guess it feeds the ego to know/regurgitate elaborate systems--but that kind of stuff may not be practical for modern folks who don't have the time or energy to be steeped into esotericism (especially with kids, a spouse, mortgages and so on!)

Everything has its place, as you say, Patricia...

[Flavio]

I think the "fluffy bunny" term refers to something that looks so harmless that probably doesn't teach anything to people with high expectation of endless hidden layers of wisdom to expore.

[Scion]

I just have to respond to this, Janet... This is such a strange post. I've been returning to this little discussion, unable to put my finger on what is so troubling about it. So I hope you don't mind if I actualy answer your question.

I understand that you didn't like the way Liz Genco used the term Fluffy Bunny, but rather than actually state your annoyance you waited until a few people had cracked the door and then blasted the use of the term with some disingenuously transparent hostility.

The term "fluffy bunny" to me refers to the strip-mall spirituality that seeks to reduce insight to clichéd platitudes and inoffensive soundbites formulated for mass appeal and low impact: greeting card poetry uber alles. But I suppose that classifies me as a snob, since I actually think there is a distinction between William Blake and Hallmark.

While it may seem that the "sneering snobs" who find vapid prose belittling (in esoterica or in anything else) are part of a mean conspiracy to elevate "James Joyce" above "Stephen King," I'm not sure what this reveals other than the depressing tendency of modern culture to overvalue comfort and ease at the expense of everything else. Why NOT get married in our elasticized sweatpants and eat dogfood out of a can and seek enlightenment in prechewed talkshow soundbites? After all, white tie and good sirloin and dense books are more complicated and expensive and labor-intensive. Why not settle in every instance for what requires the least investment of time, energy, or attention? Because if everyone lives life that toothlessly, our species might as well climb back into the preCambrian slime and duke it out with rocks and grunts.

This is what the Oprah-ized, feel-good mush of daytime TV has fed the world: the lie that everyone is gifted and special and important even if they make no effort, even if they never accomplish everything, even if they're sloppy, lazy, irresponsible, and uninformed. I agree that people should feel proud of themselves, but how about feeling proud because they've actually accomplished something challenging? Modern people do have demanding lives, but so did people in the 16th century! If anything we have more time than any other population in history; we INVENTED the idea of mass literacy and mass leisure.

Incidentally, the Catholic Church wasn't denying people the right to read the Bible because they were stupid; for one thing, 90% of the population in the Church's glory days was functionally illiterate. For another, it is only our own pop-psych, insta-fix culture that believes that Gnosis comes without a price or commitment. (Enlightenment in a can in 3 easy payments!) Theoretically at least, the clergy trained a lifetime to begin to understand the word of God. Now I don't happen to believe that, but they did. To suggest otherwise isn't just misleading, it is wrong.

I agree that there is a place for different levels of art and complexity and focus, but if I enjoy a pulpy novel and then enjoy Goethe that doesn't mean they are equal... that's a bizarre syllogism. Watching Friends and watching Moliere are not the same. King IS fundamentally different than Joyce... even King admits that openly! Joyce is better for almost anything other than passing time on a moving train. Do you really believe that they are qualitatively identical? Do you really believe that the investment in wrapping your head around something rich and textured is somehow valueless? I'm sure some people study to feed their egos, but people also study to feed their minds and hearts and souls. Context is everything. And one person's intellectual marathon is another person's warmup lap. People are not insects.

In answer to your question, I would define "Fluffy Bunny" as any tissue of clichés that fosters compacency which leaves people squarely within their comfort zones, repeating truths they already know and lies they wish were true. The opposite of "Fluffy Bunny" books/decks/film/music/people is anything that is surprising or challenging or fresh or inspiring or inciting or insightful... that rattles the cage of your preconceptions, and kicks a hole in your head to let in the starlight.

Frankly, there is no difference between sneering at the bourgeois masses reading fluffy Llewellyn filler that reinforces their preconceptions and sneering at all the snooty grad students reading the Hermetica in Greek because they make time for it.

It's the sneering that's troubling.

[Janet Boyer]

Scion wrote:

"but rather than actually state your annoyance you waited until a few people had cracked the door and then blasted the use of the term with some disingenuously transparent hostility."

Actually, I tend to wait some time after a post because I don't like to lecture people or create an atmosphere where others may feel intimidated to express a different opinion.

I'm glad you shared yours. Thanks for stopping by.

My point was merely that individuals receive spiritual sustenance, emotional comfort and profound insights from a variety of sources--including Hallmark cards, the wisdom of children, and, yes, perhaps even Stephen King.

The Divine can speak through anything. In fact, Jesus said that individuals couldn't enter the "kingdom" except they become like a little child. That is, a place of "beginner's mind"--a "not knowing" that is the inverse of a "filled up" mind and puffed-up ego that narrows the field of vision to only include an elite sliver of information.

Basically, my initial post was in defense of the "empty cup":

From http://www.chaophrayamuaythai.com/words_of_wisdom.asp:

"A man had studied martial arts for many years when he decided to seek the tutelage of the great Master. As he met with the Master for the first time, he told the old man of all his accomplishments and knowledge, leaving hardly a space for the Master to respond.

As the prospective student kept talking, the teacher got up and gathered cups and a pot for tea. Again, the man kept talking of all he had learned, hoping to impress the teacher with his skill and understanding. The Master began to pour the tea, starting with his guest's cup. He poured very slowly, and when the liquid reached the top of the cup, he kept going. At first the student didn't say anything. When the tea began to cover the whole tray he couldn't stand it any longer.

'The cup is overfull. You must stop pouring!'

'This cup is like you. You are so full of the knowledge you have gained, you don't have room for any more. If I am to teach you anything, you must first empty your cup'."

Blessings,

Janet

[Balakirev]

I don't have any problems with criticism, or even sneering, at "fluffy bunny" books, etc, because in a way (to me) it's a matter of taking on much larger marketing interests who want to bland down everything and sell to the lowest common denominator. So long as we agree that by fluffy bunny books we mean the kind that might be written by Barney, and not serious, well expressed works written in easily understandable language, I'm down with the downing. :)

As for fluffy bunny decks, I see them as ones that reflect a chirpy, World According to Disney world view. If we agree that the tarot is meant to be a reflection of life, then these decks have nothing to do with that. Every reading turns out happy-happy, and there's no pathworking when there's nothing to learn. That's not to say I would forbid somebody from buying one of these; but why shouldn't I have the right to gripe when someone asks how I feel about such things?