Are spreads optional?

[katrinka]

On 9/13/2020 at 6:37 PM, DanielJUK said:

For example, love readings with problems are not so great for just putting cards down, you get a lot of insight with formal positions.

 

That depends on your question and how much information you're looking for, IMHO. "Has he been faithful?" and a quick unstructured line of 3 cards will razor right into what you're trying to find out. You can keep doing these little spreads for the additional questions that arise: "Was it with so-and-so?" "Is he still seeing her?" "Are there any others?" etc. When I worked the lines I did tons of these, and the questions came rapid fire since the clients were being charged by the minute.  A larger spread would have been too slow.  Laying them out, reading them, picking them up and laying them again when the caller changed their track - all of that is time consuming. My tagline was "Answers FAST - easy on the wallet!" 😁

 

 

 

Edited May 9, 2021 by katrinka

[AlbaTross]

I'd say so.  I usually do a daily draw of one card, which is obviously not a spread.  I also fairly regularly do what's called a "no spread" which is just a general three card reading where there is no defined meaning for each card drawn and they're all just meant to be read together to paint a bigger picture.  While it is considered a type of spread, it's not really IMHO.  I might shake up the methodology from taking three cards off the top of the pile I chose, to turning over the top card of each of the three piles I cut the deck into, but it is still drawing three cards with no defined parameters.  

 

Spreads are something I'll do if I have something I really want to read into.  I also occasionally like to experiment with new ones for fun.  But, they're not something I do every time I whip out my deck.  

Edited September 14, 2020 by AlbaTross

[katrinka]

A Line of Three is a spread. 😐

[AlbaTross]

7 minutes ago, katrinka said:

A Line of Three is a spread. 😐

I suppose it is technically considered one.  I don't really think of it as such but I won't argue that point as I am a relative beginner and I'm not really the type to get too hung up on semantics.  It might also be worth drawing a line in the sand to indicate what is and isn't a spread and what criteria is involved.  In the case of drawing three cards, there's no real defined position of the cards.  Maybe there's more to them that I'm missing but I sure as heck don't think of such a reading as being the same as say, a past, present, future spread, or a three card relationship spread (yourself, your partner, the relationship).  

[katrinka]

A spread is a group of cards that you read, très simple. Even the Lost Man is still a spread, although a lot of us just fan the deck for that one and the cards might never touch the table. I wouldn't call it semantics, it's the actual definition of the word. I've been reading cards since Nixon was in office, and prior to this thread I've never known anyone to say that spreads without named positions are not spreads.

[gregory]

3 hours ago, katrinka said:

A spread is a group of cards that you read, très simple. Even the Lost Man is still a spread, although a lot of us just fan the deck for that one and the cards might never touch the table. I wouldn't call it semantics, it's the actual definition of the word. I've been reading cards since Nixon was in office, and prior to this thread I've never known anyone to say that spreads without named positions are not spreads.

This - very much. I could even argue that a single card can be a spread. Especially if you deliberately read it more than once... Like upright for the visible side of this situation, and then reversed for pitfalls...

[katrinka]

I've never seen any other term for a single card. So yes, arguably it's a spread!

[TheFeeLion]

As has been said already, everytime you pull cards you spread them out to read, therefore, you are using a "spread". Defined spread positions and whether you need them to read the cards really seem to be the issue here. In my humble opinion you don't need to define what each card position is to be able to read them. You just need to know how to connect them all together into a narrative. Admittedly that can be harder the more cards you use but it's by no means impossible. 

[devin]

On 9/13/2020 at 2:15 PM, katrinka said:

That was stunningly good!

 

Yeah, but my next political reading absolutely sucked....

 

16 hours ago, katrinka said:

I can't speak for devin, but there's context to consider. It's a political reading, after all. Those people don't play nice. 😉

 

In this case, there actually ended up being all sorts of accusations of vote shifting/lending to eliminate rivals, etc. Also, I tried for a while to add a more positive angle to the Magician but the card refused to budge in reading situations.... so I gave up!

[AlbaTross]

Well, if the experts think I’m reading spreads, then that must be true.  I guess I do spreads daily then.  

[devin]

14 hours ago, AlbaTross said:

Well, if the experts think I’m reading spreads, then that must be true.  I guess I do spreads daily then.  

 

Good. A spread a day keeps the tarot elves at play.

[MKP]

@Kath I'm glad you asked this question, it's something I've been wondering too! 

 

Great to read everyone's perspectives 🙂

[Guest]

On 9/11/2020 at 1:21 PM, katrinka said:

Cards laid out without named positions are still spreads. Lines of 3, 5, or 7, the 3x3, pyramids, tableaus...all of these are spreads and they're not new. AFAIK, they predate spreads with named positions by many, many years. 

 

The interpretation is influenced by context: the question and the near-lying cards. 

Absolutely. For some reason we seem to differentiate between lines and carrés and crosses and stars. However a spread of cards is just that: cards spread.

 

I choose the spread that is going to give me the information I want to know. The 3 x 3/en carré is a good example. For most readings, you can simply read it as 8 trios, without any positional context (past, influences, &c). But if someone is concerned with an existing situation then the past can be necessary and helpful. We can sometimes read columns as what helps and where to forebear à la dexter and sinister, too.  It’s the context that determines the utilisation of spreads. 
 

The issue with position based context is when spreads — such as the Celtic Cross or the Twelve Houses — become a series of one card readings, this is what covers you, &c. There is often no synthesis and relating of cards.  For example, with the CC cards 6, 3 and 10 can all be read together last. You can start with 1, 2 and 7 and 8. With the twelve houses read the second and eighth houses for finances. But that is just how I see. 
 

Just experiment and pay attention to your cards.

[TheLoracular]

I tend to use smaller spreads as the initial part of a reading - typically 3 to 5 cards.  Which of a dozen 3-5 card spreads I pick depends on the question being asked.   My initial spread is my foundation and I tell the querent (even if its just me) what each position in the spread is going to address when I first lay them out and then right before I flip the card itself even if its "So this sums up yesterday" (flip), "this sums up today" (flip), "this is what to expect tomorrow".  

But once the querent asks a question of their own that I can't answer without additional guidance?  I get creative.  For example in that really simple immediate past-present-future reading above?  Let's say I get something I'd like to avoid or mitigate in my tomorrow position (example: Empress Reversed) and I look at it and go "What can I do today to make tomorrow less frustrating?"  

I don't have a plan ahead of time that the querent (even if its me) might want information like that and I don't think I need to start a whole new reading.  I just add a card, which changes the spread from something pre-established to something unique.  I've often have 3 card spreads go to 7-8 cards and not be recognizable as the original spread because where I position these new cards in relation to the original 3changes based on my mood, my intuition, and the context of the query itself.    

So for me, the answer is "I always start with a specific spread but that might not be what is on the table by the time I'm done."   

[jadegwen]

I for years struggled to read for myself, I'm better now but have been having a lot of fun reading for myself with trying different spreads to read for myself. When I read for other people, I see what they want addressed and plan in my head a rough spread but nothing is set in stone. Sometimes I flip one card on top of another for clarification, not really a spread as much but a method of clarification I guess.

 

I love hearing the spreads people use or how they freely read the cards. It's fascinating to me how every reader works.

[TheVoid]

From what I've found, spreads are helpful for specific things, like specific questions that require more info. 

Although, I've also found that doing a simple 3 card reading then adding a card or two for clarification works as well.

In my opinion, spread that's been around vs. Self-Made spread vs. No true spread all seems to work just the same for me as long as I am clear with what I'm trying to figure out/learn from the cards. 

Another opinion of mine is that a spread you created for a particular purpose/set of questions that is more suited towards the specific situation works great, that way it contains the questions you need.