Log in

No account? Create an account


faq: the galaxy cards

« previous entry |
Feb. 2nd, 2012 | 11:47 pm
posted by: shatterstripes in silicon_dawn

In the Lo Scarabeo edition of the deck, there are two cards completely unmentioned in the book: one with the same image as is on the back of the cards, one with that galaxy in varnish on a white card.

People ask me, "What are these? What do they mean?".

Well, first off, they're kind of there for fun. The deck was big enough that it was going to be printed as nine rows of eleven cards, so no matter how many images I actually had, there would be 99 cards chopped out of the paper. Since I already had the 99s, we decided to add those few extras - hence these, the various extra Majors, and the two title cards. They were thrown in at the last minute, and the book was already overfull, so they lost out.

But people like to leave them in there. Because they look like they MUST be signifying of SOMETHING, right?

For me, they mostly seem to come up if I'm asking the deck a yes/no question. The black one is NO, the white one is YES. More precisely the black one seems to be DUDE NO, JUST NO, WHY ARE YOU EVEN ASKING ME THIS, YOU TOTALLY KNOW IT'S A NO, and the white one is WELL DUH YES? WHY DID YOU EVEN THINK IT MIGHT BE OTHERWISE?

(maybe it's just me but my deck is pretty snarky sometimes. I think it's not me; someone on Facebook recently said it's "fully equipped to give you the finger".)

In other contexts, well, here's some things to think about. Positive/negative universes - which one is the "normal" world, which is antimatter? Far places - I mean it's the GALAXY, if it comes up when you're asking about a trip what would that mean? The white one is partially in the varnish layer; it's barely visible. What's hard to see because it's so brightly lit; what're you missing because it's right there in front of you?

Link | Leave a comment |

Comments {3}

my patronus is a basilisk

(no subject)

from: jeliza
date: Feb. 4th, 2012 12:06 am (UTC)

I like snarky decks. 'Cause when I start over-thinking/over-reading, getting a "Dude, knock it off" is very grounding. :)

Reply | Thread


(no subject)

from: two_pi_r
date: Feb. 2nd, 2014 05:42 am (UTC)

Yeah, I parse those as the booleans to go along with the Void type, but Urbit has me assign opposite meanings to the cards — white is no and black is yes, because 1 is false and 0 is true.

The title cards gave me the most grief. I thought I had lost cards out of my deck, because I counted 3 times and got 97. But I've incorporated them as recursion operators of sorts. One represents the deck intentionally referring to itself, and the other is unbounded/accidental self-reference.

Also I showed the deck to a friend of mine and he wants a copy. Hook a mouse up sometime?

Reply | Thread


(no subject)

from: shatterstripes
date: Feb. 3rd, 2014 04:30 pm (UTC)


But I love that you're using the title cards as ways for it to create recursion.

I'm down to like six copies right now. There's more on the way but I'm not sure when they'll get here; if your friend wants one in a timely fashion I'd recommend hitting up Amazon or whatever their favorite online book source is.

Reply | Parent | Thread