Ralph Blum helped get runes back on the map in 1980 or so, although some purists argue that he borrows from I Ching or other new age disciplines in his description of the runes and their use. The blank rune is a shining example of this. It has no historical context and was, apparently, made up by someone well after the era of the runes had passed (possibly Blum himself).
To be honest, the more I look into titles on the runes, the more I find myself dissatisfied with what I see. The reason being is that I believe that Odin gave us the runes and should be interpreted in the context of his knowledge. (Was Odin real some ask? I believe so, and I have discussed that in some detail here: http://www.mysticboard.com/weblog_entry.php?e=526 ). Modern writers always tend to put their own slant on things, like Aswynn or Paxton, introducing tarot or wiccan infleuences. I am not against Wicca or Tarot but they are not part of what makes up runelore and I don't like the corruption of the original traditions. Of course, the traditions are scarce, to say the least, because with the adoption of Christianity, rune usage became illegal and most records were lost.
The roman author Tacitus in his writings on Germania described a runecast of the Saxon people about 1800 years ago (I think it was that long ago, it's late and my mind is getting mushy). He says that runes were made from the branch of a fruit tree, that they were cast over a white cloth, that the Norse Gods were invoked (presumably for blessing) and that a 3 rune cast was performed.
Does it have to be any more complicated than that? I don't think so. And what do the runes mean to the ancients? The Old Icelandic and Old Anglo-Saxon poems from 1000 years ago tell us what they meant when runes were part of the (at the time) current mindset of a world full of runemasters. The poems are available online here:
http://www.sunnyway.com/runes/rune_poems.html. That same site (www.sunnyway.com) has information on lots of books. Anyway, I am leaning these days to books that have less of the author in them and more of the ancient ways in them. A small inexpensive book that meets that criteria is Francis Melville's "The Book of Runes". The book focuses on the Norse/Saxon history of the runes which is important. The runes did not come to the Celt or the Roman. This is a tradition of Northern Europe, and the mysteries revealed by the runes was to people who believed in Odin and company. I'm not saying that someone who does not have a conection with the Norse pantheon can't use the runes effectively, but I believe that connection with the Norse pantheon will make it better, using their interpretations and casting methods, instead of those developed in the 20th century.
Wikipedia has this to say: Runic divination is a modern practice of divination based on interpretation of the ideograms contained within the Proto-Germanic Elder Futhark and other Runic systems. Runic divination as it is now practiced is not based on historical evidence.
My response to that is to do everything in my power to use the runes in accord with historical evidence. What historical evidence (such as that I have cited above) I will use and where there may be gaps, I will trust in Odin and Freya to guide me to the correct answers and trust in their wisdom.