George vs Steinbach: Book Reviews.

Just read a review the length of a book comparing these books written by these two authors and how similar they were with meanings.

The negative side to George's book from a few reviews was that it is too wordy, not in depth, causes confusion and too personal at times with her stories.

In addition, she used the same deck for over 20 years which is hard to accept when most overly used decks last a few years perhaps and another concern is that she only became aware of other systems around 2009.

What do you think of either one or both if you have them?

Not many books in English, but its something. Not sure about her idea of people reading it their own way as then it becomes something else.

Point is ~ how have you found the book(s)?

When I started to get interesting in Lenormand, I read many threads here and people were saying you either learn from Steinbach's method or Treppner's course that you buy online. Stick to one point of view because they are quite different. I picked Treppner's learning course which is a series of pdf books.

Many more books have come about since then and Rana's which is widely praised and positively reviewed. I don't own Steinbach but still my fave is the materials from Treppner. It seems to be the method that most fits with me! There is other authors that I still want to read their methods though

DownUnderNZer said:

In addition, she used the same deck for over 20 years which is hard to accept when most overly used decks last a few years perhaps

Click to expand...

What does this mean? That you don't believe she was reading for 20 years? I don't understand this.

I learnt through two women with different systems when I look at it now, but they only ever argued over a few cards and their meanings never the GT.

Steinbach, for me, put more into perspective (confusing book though) and a way to read in a freer style.

Never heard of Treppner. Andy did know the Lenormand, but wasnt easy going about it at times.

I have looked at samples of a few writers and found errors in an example one gave and I challenged it and the other which was George I think gave limited,.but good exanples. But not enough or in depth. Skipped the story telling.

If I bought a book now ~ it would be to cririque and recomnend or say DONT BUY based on what I learnt and know which was taught person to person.

Wonder if it would have been different for me with books or the internet had that been out there when I was first shown the Lenormand.

danieljuk said:

When I started to get interesting in Lenormand, I read many threads here and people were saying you either learn from Steinbach's method or Treppner's course that you buy online. Stick to one point of view because they are quite different. I picked Treppner's learning course which is a series of pdf books.

Many more books have come about since then and Rana's which is widely praised and positively reviewed. I don't own Steinbach but still my fave is the materials from Treppner. It seems to be the method that most fits with me!

There is other books as well, Andy Boroveshengra and others. I think this is a case of finding the methods and writing that most fits you the best

personally for me in order of the books I love....

- Treppner
- Andy
- Rana
- Steinbach (don't own but read some of her ideas)

Click to expand...

That she only used the one deck and replaced it in recent years. Written in a review.

Le Fanu said:

What does this mean? That you don't believe she was reading for 20 years? I don't understand this.

Click to expand...

DownUnderNZer said:

That she only used the one deck and replaced it in recent years. Written in a review.

Click to expand...

In other words, the idea is that if she used her original copy of her deck, it supposedly wouldn't have lasted 20 years, therefore she supposedly must have had used some decks in between. My response to this issue is: who cares?

I read that Amazon review of Rana's book, which lists similarities between Rana's book and Steinbach's (I refer to her as "Steinbach" because I seem to recall that she takes offense at people referring to her too familiarly). It doesn't overly concern me. The whole point of a tradition of meanings is that many of the meanings will be the same from one reader to another.

I find Steinbach's book difficult to understand (I know there are folks out there who don't feel that way). I've tried several times to read it, and I've twice gone through most of her study group threads here. Perhaps it's a language issue, but I just have a hard time following her discourse.

I like Rana's personal stories, it helps humanize the reading examples and makes them more vivid and thus more understandable for me.

DownUnderNZer said:

That she only used the one deck and replaced it in recent years. Written in a review.

Click to expand...

No, I know that. But what does it mean as to how one reads or processes Lenormand? That you have to use different decks to know different systems or that she can't have been reading Lenormand 20 years because the deck wouldn't last that long? It seems such an odd statement.

ETA but in answer to the initial question - I read Steinbach's book first when there was little else available and then fast forward a few years, Rana's book came along and I also found that very useful. I think nowadays I tend to go with Rana's or Caitlín Matthew's. These two work well for me. I feel that Steinbach's was useful when I knew absolutely nothing but the others give more rounded help for me now.

Le Fanu said:

I feel that Steinbach's was useful when I knew absolutely nothing but the others give more rounded help for me now.

Click to expand...

I agree. I also like Caitlín's, and there are more basic works: ebooks available from Anthony Louis (a compilation of traditional meanings and info) and Andy Boroveshengra (basic meanings and methods) that provide good starting points.

The reviewer wondered how often she used it and questioned it. Not about systems, but one deck.

I think over the years I have been through about 4 to 5 Blue Owl decks a year. So it makes me think too.

Le Fanu said:

No, I know that. But what does it mean as to how one reads or processes Lenormand? That you have to use different decks to know different systems or that she can't have been reading Lenormand 20 years because the deck wouldn't last that long? It seems such an odd statement.

ETA but in answer to the initial question - I read Steinbach's book first when there was little else available and then fast forward a few years, Rana's book came along and I also found that very useful. I think nowadays I tend to go with Rana's or Caitlín Matthew's. These two work well for me. I feel that Steinbach's was useful when I knew absolutely nothing but the others give more rounded help for me now.

Click to expand...

I find Steinbeck's book difficult. All the combinations are a good point, but since I mostly disagree in the actual readings, not too helpful. I get a lot from George's book...I understand her easily and like her stories and how her mind works.It makes sense to me. So far it's the best for me. Recently I got Matthews' book, but have spent too little time with it so far to have an opinion. Hopefully I'll find more time for it soon...I really liked her mini-book with her deck.