Lenormand “Clutter Cards” — An Unpopular Opinion
AUTHOR’S NOTE: No, that isn’t a typo. There is an assumption in Lenormand circles that nearly all of the life-area or “theme” cards are joined by other cards of a trivially congruent nature — together called “clusters” — that reinforce the message, and that all of these cards should be considered as part of the topical interpretation when doing large spreads like the Grand Tableau. I have an issue with this anecdotal “clutter” that I’m going to explain.
Before I begin I should mention that “clusters” are second only to “houses” as techniques that I find occasionally useful but hardly essential. (See the last paragraph of this essay.) It would be fair to say that I resort to both of them from time-to-time but pursue neither one systematically. I much prefer the analogy of “constellations” in which the primary Significator and the other “theme” cards act as independent “galaxies” attended by influential “stars” (cards in proximity or closely linked) that may or may not be as mutually sympathetic as those in defined “clusters;” their accidental interactions are what drive the narrative of the reading, not their familial affiliations. (Hmm, now I’m envisioning a conspiratorial “brotherhood of clusters.”) Topically “clustered” but physically isolated cards can be too widely scattered and disorganized to be of much value, often requiring an unnatural “force-fit” to bring them under the umbrella. I prefer to read more organically with random cards using tiered protocols.
If I’m doing a broad life-reading GT that includes multiple themes, rolling out the clusters for all of the topic cards can create a “crowded house” (or, put more bluntly, it can be like trying to cram ten pounds of “stuff” into a five-pound sack). Unlike one of those “bottomless bags” in a video role-playing game, the GT isn’t infinitely expandable, and trying to “wallpaper” it with a host of layered combinations is only going to dilute its precision and complicate the directness of its expression. I for one like to keep things as simple and straightforward as possible as I strive for a coherent narrative.
Let’s take the area of love, for instance. If the querent is looking for love but has yet to find it, I’m going to locate a potential “partner” card in the layout and then see where that card and the querent’s “significator” stand in relation to one another and to the Heart. I will examine where the three intersect — horizontally, vertically and diagonally — and interpret the cards in those positions as supplying information about the quality of any likely relationship. I will also look at things like proximity, knighting and mirroring between the two “person” cards and the Heart. At this point I don’t care at all what the other two “love cluster” cards — Ring and Anchor — are doing in the spread; their inclusion is premature. It’s entirely possible that they will have more to say about other topic areas in which they’re involved and aren’t crucial to the “love” scenario.
Another perfect example is “work.” Whether we choose the Moon, the Fox, the Anchor or the Ship (for self-employment) as the relevant card, I believe there is a progressive or graduated way to approach the question, and not every “work” card has a role to play in every scenario. There is the “day-to-day” task-oriented outlook, for which I think the Moon works best due to the habitual or routine way it lets us quietly build our reputation. For me, the Anchor is the long-term “career” card that implies job security and it doesn’t enter the picture until much farther down the road. The hopeful immediacy of asking “Will I get the job?” is quite different from the gnawing dread of “Will I be able to keep my job?” and I can’t see intentionally bringing both into either question.
Then there is the Fox, which I find hard to shoehorn into the equation since it does not embody characteristics that would find much favor with employers; it’s a card of “survival,” so I’ve finessed it into meaning the resourcefulness to keep a job against all odds once it has been secured. The Ship I would only consider in the context of entrepreneurial “start-up” questions. As we can see, the cluster of nominal “work” cards is a collection of situational “odds-and-ends” that doesn’t offer a cohesive, all-encompassing perspective; better to keep the elements separate in our readings to the extent possible.
On the other hand, if I’m doing an entire GT on the subject of an ongoing love or work issue (for example, an existing relationship or career path that is experiencing difficulties), I will definitely examine the full “theme cluster” in relation to the “main topic” cards along with their connection to all of the negative cards. In these situations, the matter has multiple ramifications that require a comprehensive analysis that goes beyond even the relevant cluster. But I still won’t want to include any more “stuff” than is absolutely necessary to come up with a definitive answer. It can be tempting to wander all over the map seeking bits-and-pieces of the puzzle that may have only remote significance just because we want to be exhaustive in our interpretation. At some point we have to cry “Enough already, I have what I need!”
Although the expansive scope of the Grand Tableau and the “K.I.S.S” principle make for strange bedfellows, I tend to keep my readings on the lean side. The GT exhibits a pattern that reminds me of a spider’s web or neural network. There are lines of communication between the cards that follow a disciplined script, and “jamming the channel” with too much static in the form of stacked detail doesn’t make any sense to me as a minimalist and pragmatist. As enamored as I am of the process, I just don’t see the need under most circumstances. Performing a face-to-face Grand Tableau using my current approach already takes an hour or more, and I shudder to think what doing a full write-up for a remote reading would require. In both cases, covering every relevant “cluster” would most likely double the investment of time and effort for minimum added benefit and might well just produce monotonous “shades of gray.” The thought does not appeal to me.
I usually content myself with an integrated analysis of the inclusive topic cards for the things that tend to be most pressing, like the Clouds for “trouble,” the Coffin for “endings,” the Scythe for “danger,” the Mountain for “obstacles” and the Cross for “unbearable burdens” (with the Tree, the Snake, the Whip, the Fox and the Mice they already form a “gang of nine”). For other life-areas I will stick with the main “theme” card and let the rest of the cluster go unless they appear in close proximity where they can’t be safely ignored. Tack on a vulgar, four-letter colloquialism to “cluster” and you’ll have a good idea of my opinion about doing any more in a general reading.
Originally published at http://parsifalswheeldivination.wordpress.com on September 25, 2023.
