One vs. multiple cards for spread positions

[rainkins]

As I've looked at the readings posted on AT and exchanged some readings with others, I've noticed that many of you use two or three cards together, rather than just one, for a single position in a spread. I've also noticed that a lot of people don't use positional meanings at all for three- to five-card readings, but just throw a few cards and interpret them however seems most expedient.

I'm been considering the pros and cons of each method. I know Robert Place for one advocates always using three cards for each spread position, and there are probably other Tarot writers who feel the same. It seems to me that on the one hand it could be more difficult to interpret a few cards together for a single question/position, but on the other hand it could give the reader more freedom to decide how the cards are supposed to connect than if individual positional meanings have been previously established. I guess what I'm saying is that an advanced Tarot reader could probably get a lot out of this method, while it could make it easier for a beginner to "make" the cards say something they understand or want to hear.

Do you use one card or several for each position in a spread, and why? Or are you one of those who doesn't use spreads at all (or only sometimes), instead just deciding how the cards are supposed to connect after you turn them over? If so, how do you find that works for you compared to individual positional meanings for each card? I'm really interested to hear any thoughts you all might have on this subject. Thank you!

 

[rwcarter]

The only deck with which I use three cards (at least) per position is the Transparent Tarot because of the very nature of the deck. Otherwise, I use one card per position in a spread. But I know that none of the cards exist in a vacuum, so I will look at the effect of other cards in the spread (usually cards in close proximity, but not always) on any given card.

That said, I will also do position-less spreads of 3 or 5 cards, applying elemental dignities to the interpretation of the cards.

There's no right or wrong way to lay the cards out and interpret them. If a reader is happy with the results they get from whatever method they use, then their method is "right." I would only suggest that a reader might want to examine the method they use and think about changing it if they're unhappy with the results they get.

If you're trying to find a method that works for you, I'd suggest to try them all and see which one(s) you like and/or feel right to you.

Rodney

 

[rainkins]

Thanks very much for your insight, Rodney! I too use one card per position and consider the effect of cards in combination, and I'm quite happy with that method, but am interested in the rationale for other methods. The Transparent Tarot is a great example of a deck where multiple cards per position is an obvious choice -- I don't have it but it's on my wishlist, and I expect I would use it the same way.

I don't use elemental dignities myself (yet anyway -- that will probably change when I really get "into" the Thoth, since they seem to go well together), but I can see how they would be useful in interpreting small position-less spreads. I will certainly keep that in mind.

 

[rwcarter]

Ahh, rationale! Since I don't actually use that method, I can only make hypotheses, which may or may not be correct....

I would think that one rationale would be that the reader is effectively throwing out two clarifiers with each card. Instead of interpreting each of the three cards as separate answers for the position, two of the cards would provide scope to the other card.

A related rationale could be to drill down to a more specific answer. The reader may look at commonalities between the three cards or may look deeper into the imagery to see such things as which figures face each other or away from each other or if a figure in one card appears to be looking at something in another card.

I think a lot of newer readers may get tripped up with this method by trying to interpret all three cards separately rather than as a single group, especially if two of the cards seem contrary to one another.

Rodney

BTW, I don't believe I've ever welcomed you to Aeclectic, so welcome!

 

[The Guided Hermit]

Personally, I use the cards as they fall in position but then look at them holistically. In my readings, I employ Dignities after the reading which usually fits strongly with how I've read the cards.

 

[rainkins]

I would think that one rationale would be that the reader is effectively throwing out two clarifiers with each card. Instead of interpreting each of the three cards as separate answers for the position, two of the cards would provide scope to the other card.

That makes great sense. A problem I think would be that since none of the cards is given more weight than the others, it could be confusing to identify the "main" card in the set that is being clarified by the others. (Of course, all three cards can clarify the others, but folks often seem to choose one and give it more importance.) Again, I think this could be an excellent tool for more advanced readers but could cause a temptation for some to make the reading fit a preconception -- for example if one card seems to give a positive or hopeful answer and another is more negative, one might interpret the positive card as "something to do" and the negative one as "something to avoid," whereas one would have to think more critically if those same cards came up as single cards in opposite positions.

A related rationale could be to drill down to a more specific answer. The reader may look at commonalities between the three cards or may look deeper into the imagery to see such things as which figures face each other or away from each other or if a figure in one card appears to be looking at something in another card.

This is what Place specifically recommends in The Tarot: History, Symbolism, and Divination -- his method for determining how a set of three cards should be interpreted seems to rely heavily on where the figures are facing and what they seem to be looking at. I don't usually place a lot of importance on this (unless it's very clearly meaningful, such as two related court cards looking at or away from each other), but I can see how it would be necessary with multiple cards adding so many possibilities for interpretation.

I think a lot of newer readers may get tripped up with this method by trying to interpret all three cards separately rather than as a single group, especially if two of the cards seem contrary to one another.

Agreed -- or by "picking" one of the two cards that seems more positive for the question asked as I mentioned above.

BTW, I don't believe I've ever welcomed you to Aeclectic, so welcome!

Thanks very much, it's a pleasure to be here. I've lurked on and off since early last year, so thought it was about time to come out of the woodwork.

 

[rainkins]

Personally, I use the cards as they fall in position but then look at them holistically. In my readings, I employ Dignities after the reading which usually fits strongly with how I've read the cards.

Interesting. What I've read about dignities suggests noting them at the beginning of a reading as a guide for further interpretation. I like the idea of reading first and then using dignities as a reinforcing or clarifying tool -- kind of like interpreting cards from an unfamiliar deck intuitively first, then comparing to the artist's or author's interpretations.

 

[rwcarter]

That makes great sense. A problem I think would be that since none of the cards is given more weight than the others, it could be confusing to identify the "main" card in the set that is being clarified by the others. (Of course, all three cards can clarify the others, but folks often seem to choose one and give it more importance.)

I would think that anyone who uses this method would know which was the main card before they put any of them down. Regardless of which way one lays down the cards (123, 213, 321, etc), I would think that one would make either the leftmost position or the center position the main card and have the other two modify that one. But then I like order, so that makes sense to me. It may make sense to someone else to look at the cards first and organically let one of them demand to be the central card.

Thanks very much, it's a pleasure to be here. I've lurked on and off since early last year, so thought it was about time to come out of the woodwork.

We're generally a very friendly group of folks. I'm glad you came out of the woodwork and joined us!

Rodney

 

[rainkins]

I would think that anyone who uses this method would know which was the main card before they put any of them down. Regardless of which way one lays down the cards (123, 213, 321, etc), I would think that one would make either the leftmost position or the center position the main card and have the other two modify that one. But then I like order, so that makes sense to me. It may make sense to someone else to look at the cards first and organically let one of them demand to be the central card.

Determining the main card beforehand would be my instinct as well. But of course, if one predetermines which will be the main card before laying them down, it becomes more like a mini-spread for each position, and in turn the full spread would become a meta-spread, with each triad interacting with the others as well as the individual cards. Very interesting, but it could certainly get complicated in a hurry.

 

[SunChariot]

I've never heard of using more than one card per spread position. Of course with the expection of the Transparent Tarot, which of course works better that way.

For me personally, I don't use spreads at all unless I am forced to in a reading exchange. Otherwise I don't use them. I do a series of interrelated questions and pull one to three cards for each question, depending on how detailed an answer I feel I need.

Babs