Reversed cards in a spread

I'm reading some books at the moment to learn the OOTK spread, and noticed in Regardie a line that surprised me.

Israel Regardie said:

In the laying out of the Cards, if any are inverted, they must remain so and must not be turned round, as that would alter the direction in which they would be looking. A card has the same meaning and forces, whether right or inverted, so that no particular attention need be paid to the circumstances.

Click to expand...

He seems to be saying a reversed card is used in a GD reading (which I would have thought it was not), but that the meaning is not affected, but rather we should take note of the direction the figure is now facing.

The direction a character is facing is something I've rarely paid any attention to. I wonder if anyone is using this technique and if so how valuable do you find it? If using it, do you aim to get reversals to utilize in this way?

Curious minds what to know

similia said:

The direction a character is facing is something I've rarely paid any attention to. I wonder if anyone is using this technique and if so how valuable do you find it? If using it, do you aim to get reversals to utilize in this way?

Curious minds what to know

Click to expand...

4 days and no reply? maybe everyone missed this post ... like me.

I have used the directional facing thing, especially if more than one Court seems to be 'looking' at the same 'thing'. Also within the design on a card, the general design sweeping to a position or an object pointing to something, again, usually if more than just one.

But I have never done that with reversals, I usually lay the card up the right way by turning it over the right way (through refrence to the back of the card).

But I like Israel's idea, it's adding another dimension yet not introducing reverse meanings ... hmmmm I might give it a go next reading and see what develops.

Thanks Similia - a new idea!

Yay, I'm not alone

Thanks R,

I've seen the Marseille posters talk about this a bit in the past, but never thought to try it with my own GD decks. Seems like Regardie is using it primarily as part of the counting technique, but I find it more appealing to use as you suggest. The counting does my head in

similia said:

Thanks R,

I've seen the Marseille posters talk about this a bit in the past, but never thought to try it with my own GD decks. Seems like Regardie is using it primarily as part of the counting technique, but I find it more appealing to use as you suggest. The counting does my head in

Click to expand...

Yaeh. A reading process should lead to centredness and clarity, I reckon, not do your head in. If it does, I dont use it ... at this stage.

I generally don't use reversals, nor purposely include them, with my OOTK practice. I'm too lazy to go look it up right now but I don't recall working through the GD examples that made mention of the cards as being reversed.

It comes into play with court cards, as you mention. The example readings DO make mention of which way the significators face when one starts to count. I think PHB (supertarot) will actually change counting direction when he lands on a court facing the opposite direction, although I never incorporated that practice.

It's true that reversals don't have special meanings; card combinations alter a card meaning through elemental dignity intead.

The direction a court faces can come into play when determining whether a Knight represents the "coming or going of a matter," and the examples use the facing to show if another person is interested in or entering the querent's life, versus not interested in or leaving the querent's life.


Otherwise, for OOTK, I don't think card direction matters nor should. Remember that the GD was likely using a Marseilles-type Italian deck. (Yeats supposedly used a Dotti.) They would have been interpreting by keywords, not relying on card visuals so much.

One of the things I found helpful was to use a Marseille and lay out the Book T examples. Mary Greer recommended this to me, and if you're really interested in OOTK, I'll in turn recommend it to you.

And Sim, I think counting is the easiest part of the whole process!

rif said:

And Sim, I think counting is the easiest part of the whole process!

Click to expand...

Its not the counting that is confusing, its the remembers what 12 cards I just counted and what order they were in. If I take them out, then I can't remember where they were and how to count the next lot! I guess I would be better off with a pen and paper, or some place holders

Thanks for the suggestions though, I will lay out the examples and see how I go.

Ah, I think I see.

Do you try to count all the cards before you interpret them? I just interpret as I go, and usually recognize when I land on a read card -- as long as I don't zone out.

Some people lift each counted card a bit, that way there is a visual reminder of each card that's been counted. So if you were counting a horseshoe, cards that you hit would be sticking up relative to the rest.

Is that what you meant? Does that help?

Thanks Rif, I'll try sliding them a little to raise their profile. I like to have the whole string of cards rather than one at a time, so I can see them as a group, but keeping them seperate fromt he one's not used and in order is a strain on the memory!

This is really a reading style that is not to my liking, and I think Ravenest's advice is sound, but I would like to go through the method at least once