One vs. multiple cards for spread positions

[starrystarrynight]

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 use spreads most of the time--three to five cards, sometimes eight (but not always, of course. ) Spreads take some of the think work out of reading for me because I know what card is talking about what energy (positional meaning) is being "discussed" when I use a spread. Maybe I'm just lazy

Usually, I will pull only one card for each position of the spread, and I never draw cards for "clarification." "Clarifying" cards usually just leads to more confusion in my experience. I think that a reader can most often figure out what a card is trying to "say" from looking at it in context with the other cards in the spread if she is having a hard time figuring out what that card is trying to impart.

I have, on occasion, done a Double Celtic Cross or Double Horse Shoe--and the way I read the second card in that situation is as a "mini Foundation" card for the first card drawn in that position. For example, if I drew, say, the Queen of Cups as a Near Future energy, with the Lovers as its mini foundation, I might think that the seeker's mother (Queen of Cups) is about to influence the seeker's current situation...and that her (the seeker's) need to cut the apron strings (Lovers) may exacerbate the mother's influence on the seeker's current dilemma.

Also, I always lay the full spread before starting to read it, and that's because I use elemental dignities instead of reversals (and one needs to see all the cards before reading that way, IMO.) I also look at the flow and colors and numerical influences of the entire spread before getting an overall feeling of what's going on. And I peek at the card at the base of the deck after the shuffle and throw, which always clues me into the underlying issue or motivational reason the seeker asked for the reading in the first place.

But that's just my method of reading. The thing is, you find out what works for you, and then you go with that. Like anything else, it may take a lot of trial and error...and practice...to figure out your own best way to read.

 

[rainkins]

Usually, I will pull only one card for each position of the spread, and I never draw cards for "clarification." "Clarifying" cards usually just leads to more confusion in my experience.

I can see how this would be the case. I've only drawn a card for clarification on a couple of occasions, with mixed results. For me, it's a last resort kind of thing, to be used only when I have no idea how to interpret a card from its position or context with other cards. Otherwise, it seems like adding layers to confusion (or maybe throwing a new ingredient in a soup that already tastes a little funny).

I have, on occasion, done a Double Celtic Cross or Double Horse Shoe--and the way I read the second card in that situation is as a "mini Foundation" card for the first card drawn in that position. For example, if I drew, say, the Queen of Cups as a Near Future energy, with the Lovers as its mini foundation, I might think that the seeker's mother (Queen of Cups) is about to influence the seeker's current situation...and that her (the seeker's) need to cut the apron strings (Lovers) may exacerbate the mother's influence on the seeker's current dilemma.

I like this idea, and love your example. The Lovers as the need to differentiate oneself from a parent -- I'm going to remember this one.

Also, I always lay the full spread before starting to read it, and that's because I use elemental dignities instead of reversals (and one needs to see all the cards before reading that way, IMO.) I also look at the flow and colors and numerical influences of the entire spread before getting an overall feeling of what's going on.

I know a lot of people do this, and I definitely see the merit in it. I've said before that I think it depends on whether you're more a "forest" person or a "trees" person -- whether it works better for you to grasp the overall concept before analyzing particular details or to start with the details and gradually work up to the concept.

And I peek at the card at the base of the deck after the shuffle and throw, which always clues me into the underlying issue or motivational reason the seeker asked for the reading in the first place.

I believe I first saw mention of this method in Rachel Pollack's A Forest of Souls, where she refers to these cards as "teachers." Interestingly, I don't generally look at the bottom card in the deck, but I did for a reading today just before I saw your post.