I’m trying out the video route, to see if I like doing it… not sure if I will.

Anyway, the point of this video is that it can be useful to look at your tarot reading as a magickal act. Especially because, then, you can take responsibility for addressing negative or scary readings. You don’t need to downplay your efficacy as a reader, or the efficacy of tarot cards in general.

Think about it: would you rather say “it’s just cards, and it’s only a warning about a future you can change anyway, and readings are wrong all the time”… or would you rather say “I will now address this negative outcome via the same mechanism that’s causing it”? I know which one I’d rather pick…

One thing I have to watch for, especially reading for non-tarot people, is a tendency to digress into the minutiae of the symbolism in the cards. I’ve learned a handful of attributions for all the cards, so I can talk for quite a while before I even glance at the freaking images!

But is this good? Thirty minutes into a reading, I could be pointing out that some stray line in the corner of the card may be an oblique reference to the greek goddess Arachne… and meanwhile, the querent is trying to fashion her belt into a makeshift noose to end the pain…

Anyway, that’s been on my mind. And, I started reading the Book of Thoth tonight, and came across these two quotes, in close proximity:

“[list of attributions of the 5 of wands] … This is no more than saying that a Dry Martini has got some juniper in it, and some alcohol, and some white wine and herbs, and a bit of lemon peel, and some ice.”

“…but the Tarot will lose all its vitality for one who allows himself to be side-tracked by its pedantry.”

I think this sums up the attitude I am striving for. You can perhaps get a deeper understanding of a dry martini by understanding the parts that make it up. But, you shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that what you have is still a dry martini… a single, unique combination of those parts with a character all its own. The same can be said, I suppose, for a tarot card. Remaining too focused on the card decompositions during readings is probably a mistake.

A couple weeks ago, I was doing a reading about someone’s (lack of) love life. I don’t remember what all of the cards were, but the Chariot was in a prominent position. And let me tell you, I was really proud of the way I brought out an aspect of the card which people often overlook. I thought it was extremely insightful, and relevant, and I fully expected a response like:

Wow. I mean, wow! That was the most insightful chariot interpretation I have ever heard. You, sir, are truly a master of the tarot. Here are the numbers of several hot single women who would love to meet you.

Instead, when I looked up from the table, I was getting a mostly blank stare. *sigh*

As the reading went on, I drew sets of cards in threes, to generate ideas about where she might meet men. On the second set, I drew:

(images are from the Universal Waite Deck, by the way)

And, the first thing that popped into my mind was “support group for alcoholics.” As a prime place to meet men, I thought this didn’t really fit the bill. Still, I mentioned the impression I got, mainly as a way to stall while I figured out the real meaning.

I never did come up with a second interpretation…. I lost my train of thought when I heard her gasp. I looked up, expecting to see that she had spilled her drink or something. Instead, she went on to tell me that she was putting together just such a support group in the near future.

As my knowledge of the cards (especially the RWS-alikes and Thoth cards) grows, it is becoming more and more of a struggle to remember to leave room for intuition. Clearly, it would be a mistake to let intuition go completely away, though… so I’m attacking this issue in two ways:

1. I’m seeking out non-RWS standard decks to read in a purely intuitive way. A great example is The Key to the Kingdom deck I recently picked up. It’s fantastic, and simply cannot be read in the RWS paradigm. I’m also eyeing the Chaos tarot.
2. At least in my relaxed readings here at home, I’m doing my best to remember to stare at the cards blankly for a few seconds before I start my interpretation proper.

Here’s another basic question I’m pondering: Can you always get an answer to your question? I’m sure every tarot student has had the experience of dealing a spread that made so little sense that the cards might has well have been blank. So, what happened there? To keep things simple, let’s assume I am reading for myself. One could say:

• I am not skilled enough as a reader to make sense of it.
• I made an error shuffling or dealing that has rendered the reading useless
• I am too tired/distracted/etc. to make sense of it.
• The universe says I’m not ready to know about this, or not worthy, or whatever

A related experience that I’m sure we’ve all had is when you lay out some cards, and they answer a question. But, not the one you were asking. D’oh! Most people I talk to don’t see this as a negative result at all. They’ll say things like:

• The universe answered the question you really needed to have answered.
• hmm… actually that’s pretty much always what they say. What a waste of a bulleted list!

But, really, I think all the possibilities from the first list may apply here, too. If I’m asking about finances and all I can see in my cards is an answer about love, maybe that means I need to improve as a reader. From an ego-centric perspective (leaving out the possibilities involving universal intervention), then it’s a definite form of failure to ask a question and not get at the sought information.

What Can Be Done?

It’s all fine and good to point out this question, but is there anything that can be done about it? Well, that’s one of the things I’m pondering at the moment, so if you were hoping I’d be able to “fix” this, then you’re about to sigh and frown. But, here is an avenue I’ve been thinking about.

I mentioned in my recent posts that I’ve been trying to really get inside the major arcana. It occurs to me that if you:

1. Adapt the fool’s journey to the question at hand. I recently gave a quick and dirty example for career path questions. And…
2. Always read the minors in the context of one or more majors.

… then you will always be reading something related to the question. Maybe only tangentially related, but related nonetheless. Appealing, no?

What does it mean to read the minors in the context of a major? I got the idea from Understanding Aleister Crowley’s Thoth Tarot, which points out this passage from the Book of Thoth:

“The 3 of Disks belonging to the High Priestess or the Lovers might represent the establishment of an oracle like that at Delphi. The Hierophant’s 3 of Disks might point to the construction of a cathedral. The Tower’s 3 of Disks perhaps indicating the massing of a standing army. The ideas that such pairings evoke can be an infinite source of meditation, and an invaluable exercise for anyone wishing to use the cards for divination.”

I don’t personally like the specific examples given in that quote, but the idea itself is very compelling to me.

So, for instance, you have a career path question, and you get The Lovers, supported by 3 of Cups and the 8 of Wands. If you adapt the majors to a career path journey, then this gives you a framework to immediately explore ideas like “finding job opportunities at a party, where you exchange cards or emails with new contacts” or maybe “running across a flyer for a career fair.” Things like that. And, the difference between those two interpretations should show that there is still plenty of room for intuition… I think of it as “open but structured.”

One could say that ideas like this one would block the universe from getting really important but unrelated information to you in your readings. Maybe so. And, I would have to arrange my readings so that there are always majors lording over the rest of the cards. All in all, I haven’t decided what I think. That’s why this is a blog and not a book.

I am not a fully free-form tarot reader. That’s been clear to me from the first time I tried to read cards. I like all the internal structure and attributions that the cards have. I enjoy the challenge of pulling relevant answers from within the constraints that each card places on me. I see the cards as images open to structured interpretation, and I have had great success learning to read in that way.

In the last week or so, my stance on the cards has really become an issue for some reason. I don’t know what has changed… maybe some of my opinions have solidified too much, or maybe I picked up psychic cooties at the reader’s studio, or maybe the universe was waiting to show me until I was ready… but I have been running across more and more conflicting ideas about tarot fundamentals. They make me question the patterns I’ve fallen into, and make me want to go back to basics and learn tarot again. I think a second pass, with an open mind, but also leveraging the reading experience I have now, could take me to a whole new level. Or at least I hope it breaks me out of this questioning phase I’m mired in.

I’ll give you an example of what I’m talking about. First and foremost on my mind lately has been the major arcana. How exactly is it different from the minor arcana in terms of a divinatory reading? I’ve realized I’ve fallen into a comfortable habit of reading them as ‘environmental factors’ or ‘processes rather than events’ and other things like that. But this ‘bigger forces’ concept, for some reason, is starting to feel like a cop-out to me. It’s the kind of thing you can say without even thinking about it, almost.

Today alone, I ran across two things that confused me. I was reading the companion books to The Haindl Tarot Deck and I get to the section on the Emperor. When it gets to divinatory meanings, it talks in part about whether or not you might read it as a man or a woman. What?? A man or a woman? That’s what court cards are for, right??? I mean, I wouldn’t write off the possibility of interpreting the Emperor as a literal human in some contexts, but I would expect it to be rare. So, it makes me question what I really know.

Then, I’m browsing aeclectic and I run across this thread about who would be more attractive: the Queen of Wands or the High Priestess. I clicked the link fully expecting to see at least someone talk about the High Prestess being a major arcana card referring to the subconscious rather than a potential date. I mean, to me that’s almost like asking if I consider the 8 of cups to be an attractive woman. But, instead the responders played right along. And maybe some of you think I should be fine with evaluating the physical appearance of a female human 8 of cups. I dunno. Thus my dilemma.

So, I’m wanting to do a lot of reading and introspection about basic things like this. I think I’ve learned that beyond a certain point, some of that elegant veneer of attributions and categorical structure starts showing serious cracks. And, readers have filled in those cracks all willy-nilly as they see fit. I realize there will always be far-out opinions (especially on the internet), but I want to gather them and take them all into account before I let too many reading habits form. And, once I’m sure I know what I’m doing, it will be time to write my best-selling jaw-dropping hair-raising book of ultimate tarot knowledge that you can’t believe you lived without for so long. Don’t hold your breath, though. It could take a couple lifetimes.

Wish me luck!