The “Answer” Begs a “Question”
AUTHOR’S NOTE: From time-to-time I revisit my long-standing preference for reading tarot cards without knowing the sitter’s specific question in advance (something I’ve been doing since 1972). The above quote from The Way of Tarot has raised the subject once again and I couldn’t let it pass without further comment.
For a couple of reasons (one being client privacy and the other deference to the tarot in “speaking its piece” without letting my subjective bias intrude), I never request explicit details about the matter a client has brought to me for answers, saying only that it’s between them and the cards. This has worked very well for me over the last 50 years because we (the sitter and I) can shape the question to the images on the table, which sometimes takes the answer in an unexpected but even more fruitful direction. It’s probably worthwhile quoting the entire passage from the book:
“Sometimes people interrogate the tarot on one theme: emotional life, work, and so forth. But often out of shyness or indecision, people will have no question to pose. The tarologist should then be capable of helping the underlying question to emerge in order to answer it precisely without falling into long, vague speeches. Without a question, there is no answer possible. When someone asks for a tarot reading but does not wish to ask a question — either because he or she does not have one or does not want to say it out load — the danger for the tarologist then is to launch into a reading that deviates from the concerns of the person receiving the reading. We can go astray in psychological discourses when the individual really has material concerns, or into a spiritual reading when the person is concerned with emotional issues, or, conversely, give a very down-to-earth reading when the person really needs a deep realization.”
When I begin a reading I let sitters know that it’s perfectly fine for them keep their question to themself, and that the cards will engage them on a subconscious level and provide insights from that silent communion. They may volunteer a topic area but I don’t rely on their input at that point in time. I also tell them that they can interrupt me whenever it becomes apparent that the reading should be focused in a direction other than the one it has been taking so far. As Jodorowsky observes, I may be delivering a mundane reading in which nothing is connecting with the sitter’s own understanding of the situation; I don’t need to ask, I can almost always observe it in facial expression and body language. In such cases I will “shift gears” and begin to explore more psychological or universal aspects of the message I’m seeing in the cards. Usually, one mode of inquiry will stand out from the others and invite more profound examination.
Typically, though, I don’t wait until I’m called out on any inaccuracies. I follow Joseph Maxwell’s recommendation regarding the need to prompt the sitter as often as necessary to keep the reading on-track:
“Intuition is a good guide, but in the interest of making a full and helpful divination, it is necessary to verify with the enquirer at each step if the intuition is taking the right path.”
This can be as simple as asking if the story I’m telling is making sense or whether any clarification should be provided. Most of my clients haven’t been shy about putting me on the spot for more (or better) detail, a spark of initiative that I welcome. What usually happens as we go along is that bits and pieces of the sitter’s specific concern or issue begin to make their way into the dialogue until between us we arrive at a relatively complete understanding of what the reading is all about. It may not be exactly what he or she first brought to the table, but it is most often a parallel topic that the individual acknowledges is more important than the one they were concentrating on during the shuffle.
Despite Jodorowskys assumptions, even if I don’t know the question I won’t waste a lot of time on rambling discourses that wander all over the map without getting to the heart of the matter. If that shows its face even slightly I haven’t done a good job of communicating my “rules of engagement.” I expect — and ask — querents to keep me honest by posing questions, and I leave enough “open space” in the card-by-card analysis for that to occur. It should be a shared objective to make the reading a conversation, not a monologue. (As you can imaging, I have little interest in remote readings that don’t allow me to look my clients in the eye; they work after a fashion but too often they strike me as masturbatory excess more than revelatory brilliance. Although I love to write, I have no need to dazzle myself with my own erudition (although in a pinch it can be tempting to apply W.C. Fields’ sly advice that “If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit”). Furthermore, the amount of time and effort involved almost always dwarf the compensation received.)
I come down somewhere in the middle on whether tarot-reading is a “performance art” or a “therapeutic” practice. I like to think I’m helping but I also believe any insights I provide should be delivered in a compelling way that is as entertaining for the sitter as it is for me. Unless I’m charging by the minute, taking the most direct route from the question to the answer is like urban rapid transit: the destination is the entire purpose of the journey and there is no time to see the sights or “smell the flowers.” The art-form lies in becoming a skilled raconteur who immerses querents in a thought-provoking narrative rather than serving merely as a clinician who prescribes the remedy and sends them away. My attitude toward such a utilitarian approach to reading the cards can be summed up succinctly as “Where’s the fun in that?” If they want an analytical diagnosis they should see a doctor of the appropriate discipline; if they expect a little “magic” in the mix I’m willing and able to offer that. When I create a tarot spread I try to infuse it with a measure of charm that hints at the reasons for the response in addition to crafting an obvious pragmatic structure that speaks only to answers. This is the main rationale behind my use of larger spreads, in that they can present opportunities to explore interesting byways in the development of the matter that don’t always go “straight for the jugular.”
Originally published at http://parsifalswheeldivination.wordpress.com on April 9, 2023.
