For Those Who Use REVERSALS....

[JackofWands]

I shuffle my cards like a poker pack, so reversals show up naturally. Because of that, I always read with them (even when I'm using a deck without reversible backs), although like Barleywine, I'm inclined to interpret them as nuances of an upright meaning rather than a direct opposition.

 

[seven stars]

I always read reversals. I can't have anyone sitting directly across from me or it's just too confusing. They have to sit next to me. Mary Greer's book Tarot Reversals was my favorite book - I tossed nearly everything else.

 

[Barleywine]

I always read reversals. I can't have anyone sitting directly across from me or it's just too confusing. They have to sit next to me.

Yes, I also prefer to have the querent sitting right next to me, looking at the spread from the same perspective. But some people have commented that this might be overly familiar for a stranger. So I've decided to sit at a right angle to the querent and skew the layout between us so we can both see it at only a slightly oblique angle.

 

[seven stars]

Yes, I also prefer to have the querent sitting right next to me, looking at the spread from the same perspective. But some people have commented that this might be overly familiar for a stranger. So I've decided to sit at a right angle to the querent and skew the layout between us so we can both see it at only a slightly oblique angle.

that's funny. they're telling you, a complete stranger, about their secret love affair, about child abuse they endured, about their deepest darkest feelings & secrets & yet sitting next to the reader is overly familiar....I have trouble with people giving me way TMI & being overly familiar with ME, hahaha! But no, I've not had a problem with anyone saying they felt weird sitting on the same side of the table. And, there have been occasions where honestly I'm just too lazy to bother with it & I do the reading as "if" they're sitting next to me. OK fine so sometimes I don't want them that close to me. God, I've gotten jaded in my old age.

 

[MandMaud]

When I first discovered the idea here at AT, it seemed that people who used the "quint" were drawing another card from the deck after the outcome card and reading it as additional infomation pertinent to the outcome. A couple of years ago I began independently using numerology to derive a quint using the cards already on the table,

, but it seems the drawn quint is one way, and the numerologically determined quint is the other. As I see it, the first way is basically a qualifier or clarifier while the second is a way to deconstruct the spread into a single keynote or signature.

Thank you. I didn't know there were two ways used; the one I know is therefore the derived; I add the cards' numbers. (Never been sure whether to count the courts as 11, 12, 13, 14 or to ignore them!)

 

[MandMaud]

I keep thinking I need to practice again with reversals, but not sure how to start. Maybe I should begin by calling them direct opposites of the usual meaning of each card? (Establishing this by intent at the outset, before shuffling.) Then with more practice, the subtleties will start to come of their own accord? What do you lot think?

 

[werewolfmoon]

I don't use reversals normally but sometimes my deck insists, I swear I've had cards reverse themselves when I'm not looking.

A classic was when my deck, Legacy of the Divine, insisted on reversing the Knight of Wands in relation to a guy I was seeing and subsequently broke up with, I was really stumped by this as it came up reversed every darn time!

Another puzzler was the Hanged Man Rx, I am still not clear what the meaning of that one is.

So, if a card comes up reversed I pay close attention to what it is trying to tell me.

 

[Barleywine]

Thank you. I didn't know there were two ways used; the one I know is therefore the derived; I add the cards' numbers. (Never been sure whether to count the courts as 11, 12, 13, 14 or to ignore them!)

There are some here who don't count the court cards. There are a couple of ways to ennumerate them: the most obvious one is as an extension of the suit (11, 12, 13 and 14). A second way is to use their Tree of Life correspondences: King = 2, Queen = 3, Knight = 6 and Page = 10. A third way I've seen is to just number them 1, 2, 3 and 4 - Page through King. I chose to go with the first way since it seemed the most numerically logical. A second choice is whether to subtract reversals; I never did until I discovered that it's a common practice here, so it is another justification for using reversals. The third choice to be made is whether to reduce all the way down or stop at the first trump below 22. For example, should 26 reduce to 17 or 8? Rather than "casting out nines" one at a time, I just add 2+6 and go with that. (But I do also consider whether to treat both the Star and Strength as a joint commentary in this situation.)

 

[MandMaud]

There are some here who don't count the court cards. There are a couple of ways to ennumerate them: the most obvious one is as an extension of the suit (11, 12, 13 and 14). A second way is to use their Tree of Life correspondences: King = 2, Queen = 3, Knight = 6 and Page = 10. A third way I've seen is to just number them 1, 2, 3 and 4 - Page through King. I chose to go with the first way since it seemed the most numerically logical. A second choice is whether to subtract reversals; I never did until I discovered that it's a common practice here, so it is another justification for using reversals. The third choice to be made is whether to reduce all the way down or stop at the first trump below 22. For example, should 26 reduce to 17 or 8? Rather than "casting out nines" one at a time, I just add 2+6 and go with that. (But I do also consider whether to treat both the Star and Strength as a joint commentary in this situation.)

Thank you! That's the first proper explanation I've had of the options.

I may as well carry on calling them 11, 12, 13, 14, then. I find some decks want me to use them and some unmistakably do not.

I'm in the habit of stopping at the first trump, as soon as I get below 22. When I get 22 itself, I do take your "both/and" attitude to it, considering the Fool as well as the Emperor.

And I'd never thought of subtracting reversals! Seems on a par with calling reversals direct opposites in meaning... I'll have to ponder that.

I don't use reversals normally but sometimes my deck insists, I swear I've had cards reverse themselves when I'm not looking.

A classic was when my deck, Legacy of the Divine, insisted on reversing the Knight of Wands in relation to a guy I was seeing and subsequently broke up with, I was really stumped by this as it came up reversed every darn time!

Another puzzler was the Hanged Man Rx, I am still not clear what the meaning of that one is.

So, if a card comes up reversed I pay close attention to what it is trying to tell me.

With the Hanged Man rx, I tend to think it's about blindness to a point of view - narrow-mindedness, in a way, or being in denial; both of these keep you suspended in a *straitened* state, trapped but it's by your own doing... sometimes it is the apparent opposite of that, being so open-minded that every belief is valid and therefore none is. Again, a restricting state to be in and it prevents you from moving on. Then again, sometimes it's that uncomfortable state when you know you're missing something or need to be open to a new approach, but can't see what it is and/or how to step into it.


I find with small decks it's hard to avoid reversals. And you'd think, with cards which are longer relative to their width than most, it's easier to keep them all the same way, but the Wild Unknown is like that (relatively narrow) and I'm finding far more "accidental" reversals with it than I'm used to getting. (Accidental, if we're to think of them as accidents. )

 

[Barleywine]

And I'd never thought of subtracting reversals! Seems on a par with calling reversals direct opposites in meaning... I'll have to ponder that.

I never did either until I saw it in action and it yielded good results. I try it both ways and usually find that subtracting the reversals produces a more consistently reliable quintessence. Not that I'm entirely convinced about quint cards in the first place. I do like them when the outcome card is open-ended (like, for example, an Ace - a "beginning" at the "end of the matter").

ETA: Also, subtracting reversals is the only way to arrive at zero (the Fool) unless you just consider the Fool to be 22. I've never liked that option because I think of the Fool generally as always a beginning, never an ending. It's also a way to get a reversed quint card by coming up with a negative total, which - if you use reversals - adds a different spin.