Just finished this book. While she didn't say anything that made me raise an eyebrow and say "this woman is out of her mind," she does have some "rather unconventional ideas" as Grizabella so nicely put it. Like on page 172 where she says, "
Never shuffle them yourself! Shuffling them at any stage is likely to contaminate the cards with your own future experiences." in reference to reading for others. Huh?
And the book is written too much from the "this is the only right way to do things" perspective instead of the "this is what works for me" perspective.
I thought that her relating the Majors to both the macrocosm (earth's history) and microcosm (individual's life) was an interesting idea, although in both cases I thought some of her associations were quite a reach.
I thought that some of her card meanings were interesting (in the sense of "now that you say that, I can see it") while others were just off the wall. This is where a "these interpretations work for me, your mileage may vary" disclaimer would've been useful instead of saying, "You do need to learn the following, though, and very well." (page 89).
Eight spreads for one client session?
Uh.... No. And she doesn't do a good job of explaining how some of those spreads are laid out. On page 177, she says, "Sometimes these three spreads are so awesome in their information and definition that I wish I didn't have to go further...." Since that comment was made in the Celtic Cross (Present, Future, Past) spread, I thought she meant laying out a Present Celtic Cross, a Past one and a Future one. This is buoyed by the third paragraph on page 178 where she says, "You begin with the pack that represents the PRESENT because you want to see what is of immediate influence. You will do the same with the pack representing the FUTURE and, lastly, the pack representing the PAST." But in her Example readings, she only lays out a Present Celtic Cross. Which is it?
I was also a little bothered by the fact that in some of her case histories, she didn't remember the exact cards that had been laid out, so she approximated with cards that gave her the same interpretation.
Now that I've read the whole book, Grizabella's original point is consistent with what the author says throughout the rest of the book with one tiny exception - it wasn't about people who idly lay out spreads, but those who keep laying out spreads until they get an answer they like. Just because the reader doesn't like the answer of the spread they've laid out doesn't mean that what is shown in the spread won't come to pass. (The book is definitely written from the point of predictive reading and not reading for insight.)
All in all, not a bad book. It has some highlights, but much of it doesn't resonate, so I am quite content to keep what resonates and reject what doesn't.
Rodney
