Here is an essay from my divination blog that might be considered my "manifesto" as an analytical diviner who is "half mad-scientist and half mystic."
AUTHOR’S NOTE: I’ve touched on this subject numerous times in previous essays, but almost always in passing. Here I will give it the full treatment from my personal perspective, with a small amount of unavoidable repetition.
Traditional tarot decks feature a wealth of symbolic raw material that is “baked-in;” these fundamental meanings should be internalized to the extent possible by any aspiring reader early in his or her development. (I won’t get into modern decks that I call “TINO’s,” or “tarot-in-name-only.”) Anything beyond the core knowledge is innovative extrapolation, and letting it become too fanciful will conjure the equivalent of the “miracle of rare device” of the Coleridge poem Kubla Khan (and not always in a good way). The images can be pressed into service to come up with some remarkably creative embellishments that have little or no footing in either objective reality or subjective credibility.
Every tarot reader has a personal style that usually falls between two extremes: many like to offer upbeat anecdotes that carry an empowering message (I think of them as “emotional cheerleaders”), while others – the analytical pragmatists – want to get right down to the details of the prediction. I fall somewhere in the middle, just slightly left-of-center (i.e. “left-brained”) with a professional manner that is more logical than allusive or impressionistic, although imagination certainly has its place. I like to say that I “just read the cards” for content and draw inferences from my lengthy exposure to their symbolism, while typically inserting a bit of deft conjecture for added inflection and narrative color.
But there is more to it than that. My approach involves three crucial elements: knowledge, experience and inspired speculation (most call it “intuition”), and I believe that none takes precedence over the others. I begin the reading by performing a high-level “gestalt” overview of the entire layout to see if any cards warrant special attention before I dive into the card-by-card analysis. Then I sketch in the broad dimensions of each card’s traditional meaning, which is a strategic necessity since I prefer not to know the querent’s specific question in advance. Spontaneity figures strongly in this initial effort, but the provisional testimony always takes on more concrete form after further scrutiny.
As I proceed I weigh the individual’s reaction to my observations, gradually shaping and steering the plot in a more targeted direction, occasionally circling back to clear up any ambiguity that emerges from later exchanges with the client. Doing so will usually reveal as much about the question or topic of interest as the seeker is willing to divulge. In this way I can build a story that is appropriately responsive to the sitter’s subconscious awareness of forthcoming circumstances that is slowly coming into conscious focus, even if only in a vague way at first. It takes a little time to zero in on the correct trajectory but it eventually pays off, and it is all part of “letting the cards speak their piece” without forcing an impulsive interpretation on them.
This framework is then fleshed out with more accurate information via the ensuing dialogue as the seeker asks questions about the reading. Over the years I’ve learned to tailor my preliminary insights in a way that should be immediately intelligible to the querent, but if they aren’t sufficiently transparent I have a secondary and tertiary set of definitions that I can plug in without missing a beat. These aren’t so much single keywords as conceptual scenarios developed over many prior encounters with their applicability in real-life settings. It might entail a bit of “verbal tap-dancing” to make them fit the situation, but this will ideally be a duet and not a solo performance.
I will often diverge into more anecdotal territory at this point as I strive to “get a rise” out of a momentarily silent sitter by presenting more stimulating visions. In this way, assuming the reading isn’t about a life-or-death matter that deserves absolute solemnity, I will try to make the reading as inspiring for myself as for my client (think of it as the “entertainment factor”). A knowing smile of recognition on the querent’s face will usually tell me I’ve succeeded.
My long-standing opinion over the last five decades of study and practice is that, by cooperating in the analysis, both the client and the reader can gain a unique perspective on aspects of situational development that the seeker may have overlooked or undervalued before consulting the tarot, and that the diviner may have never considered during numerous past readings. When energized by the cards, clients are full of surprises and the reader must be nimble to stay ahead of them in both style and substance.
AUTHOR’S NOTE: I’ve touched on this subject numerous times in previous essays, but almost always in passing. Here I will give it the full treatment from my personal perspective, with a small amount of unavoidable repetition.
Traditional tarot decks feature a wealth of symbolic raw material that is “baked-in;” these fundamental meanings should be internalized to the extent possible by any aspiring reader early in his or her development. (I won’t get into modern decks that I call “TINO’s,” or “tarot-in-name-only.”) Anything beyond the core knowledge is innovative extrapolation, and letting it become too fanciful will conjure the equivalent of the “miracle of rare device” of the Coleridge poem Kubla Khan (and not always in a good way). The images can be pressed into service to come up with some remarkably creative embellishments that have little or no footing in either objective reality or subjective credibility.
Every tarot reader has a personal style that usually falls between two extremes: many like to offer upbeat anecdotes that carry an empowering message (I think of them as “emotional cheerleaders”), while others – the analytical pragmatists – want to get right down to the details of the prediction. I fall somewhere in the middle, just slightly left-of-center (i.e. “left-brained”) with a professional manner that is more logical than allusive or impressionistic, although imagination certainly has its place. I like to say that I “just read the cards” for content and draw inferences from my lengthy exposure to their symbolism, while typically inserting a bit of deft conjecture for added inflection and narrative color.
But there is more to it than that. My approach involves three crucial elements: knowledge, experience and inspired speculation (most call it “intuition”), and I believe that none takes precedence over the others. I begin the reading by performing a high-level “gestalt” overview of the entire layout to see if any cards warrant special attention before I dive into the card-by-card analysis. Then I sketch in the broad dimensions of each card’s traditional meaning, which is a strategic necessity since I prefer not to know the querent’s specific question in advance. Spontaneity figures strongly in this initial effort, but the provisional testimony always takes on more concrete form after further scrutiny.
As I proceed I weigh the individual’s reaction to my observations, gradually shaping and steering the plot in a more targeted direction, occasionally circling back to clear up any ambiguity that emerges from later exchanges with the client. Doing so will usually reveal as much about the question or topic of interest as the seeker is willing to divulge. In this way I can build a story that is appropriately responsive to the sitter’s subconscious awareness of forthcoming circumstances that is slowly coming into conscious focus, even if only in a vague way at first. It takes a little time to zero in on the correct trajectory but it eventually pays off, and it is all part of “letting the cards speak their piece” without forcing an impulsive interpretation on them.
This framework is then fleshed out with more accurate information via the ensuing dialogue as the seeker asks questions about the reading. Over the years I’ve learned to tailor my preliminary insights in a way that should be immediately intelligible to the querent, but if they aren’t sufficiently transparent I have a secondary and tertiary set of definitions that I can plug in without missing a beat. These aren’t so much single keywords as conceptual scenarios developed over many prior encounters with their applicability in real-life settings. It might entail a bit of “verbal tap-dancing” to make them fit the situation, but this will ideally be a duet and not a solo performance.
I will often diverge into more anecdotal territory at this point as I strive to “get a rise” out of a momentarily silent sitter by presenting more stimulating visions. In this way, assuming the reading isn’t about a life-or-death matter that deserves absolute solemnity, I will try to make the reading as inspiring for myself as for my client (think of it as the “entertainment factor”). A knowing smile of recognition on the querent’s face will usually tell me I’ve succeeded.
My long-standing opinion over the last five decades of study and practice is that, by cooperating in the analysis, both the client and the reader can gain a unique perspective on aspects of situational development that the seeker may have overlooked or undervalued before consulting the tarot, and that the diviner may have never considered during numerous past readings. When energized by the cards, clients are full of surprises and the reader must be nimble to stay ahead of them in both style and substance.