Reading cards as people

[malvina]

Hi everyone,

 

I’m curious how different readers approach the people cards and what’s your reasoning for choosing to read one card as a person and not the other. On this forum, I’ve encountered multiple mentions of the “social card + person card” combo approach. According to it, a card can be read as a person if it’s connected with the House, the Dog, the Lilly, the Moon and the Park (correct me if I’m wrong?). If you utilize this method, do you consider only those cards that touch the person card or also look at the mirroring/knighting cards as well? If the former, does it matter what side of the person card is touched by the social card, or does the social card have to be on the right/on top, modifying the person card? 
 

Elsewhere, I’ve seen interpretations that seem to be based on the context of the question. For example, in a reading about the future of a romantic relationship, the Snake was immediately read as the other woman. No social cards were touching it.

 

Another approach I saw relied on the interaction between the playing card inserts. For example, having two Queens looking at each other pointed out their rivalry. Again, no social cards were present. 
 

Finally, I read in Andy’s blog that the Lilly usually denotes a man when it’s being interpreted as the focus card (A in the A + B pair). Do you have your own list of cards that are more likely to act as a person than others? It seems to me that Kings of Hearts and Spades get the most action in readings, while I rarely see King and Queen of Diamonds being interpreted as people. If you just go by your intuition/experience without any special arrangements like the social cards combo, do you pre-select certain cards as certain people prior to the reading or do you just go with the flow?
 

A side-discussion on the two significators: how do you compare them to the other people cards? The sources I’ve used to learn Lenormand all taught me that the significators denote the most important person of that sex in the querent’s life (of course, the significator of the querent’s own sex is the querent themselves). But I did some personal readings where the Gentleman stood for just “a man,” whom I sometimes knew but ultimately considered a stranger. There was a recent thread here about a roommate ad, where the consensus was that the Gentleman again might simply be a male person. What is your stance on this issue? Do the significators have to be someone important or at least well-known or not? If the latter, do you treat the significators essentially like the other people cards?

 

Basically, I want to see how you guys choose to interpret cards as people and why your preferred method makes most sense to you🙂 I find that going through multiple readers’ approaches is the best way to enhance my own understanding of Lenormand.

[HOLMES]

In your examples the playing card insert was a person of interest.. depending on what system you follow the snake could be an older lady or young lady.. 

 

It is a system you can fall back on if you feel people are involved.

Not all snakes are woman.. could be a femine man . 

So you have to use your experience.

 

As for dog. The playing card insert while not a person speaks of loyalty.. so unless one has pets. The logical conclusion would be allies, or close friend.

 

So really i think the confusion from What i read is is signifactor  importance to court cards. 

 

I am still relatively new just read some books, and did small readings.. 

I think the gentleman is important then say king of hearts for home. Be back 

 

[katrinka]

1 hour ago, malvina said:

I’m curious how different readers approach the people cards and what’s your reasoning for choosing to read one card as a person and not the other. On this forum, I’ve encountered multiple mentions of the “social card + person card” combo approach. According to it, a card can be read as a person if it’s connected with the House, the Dog, the Lilly, the Moon and the Park (correct me if I’m wrong?). If you utilize this method, do you consider only those cards that touch the person card or also look at the mirroring/knighting cards as well? If the former, does it matter what side of the person card is touched by the social card, or does the social card have to be on the right/on top, modifying the person card? 

 

I don't keep a list of social cards (or any kind of lists, really.) Some of them are only social in certain contexts. If the Moon is just saying "evening", it's not acting as a social card.

Lenormand isn't that formulaic. If it were, we readers wouldn't be necessary. It could all be done with an app.
 

1 hour ago, malvina said:

Elsewhere, I’ve seen interpretations that seem to be based on the context of the question. For example, in a reading about the future of a romantic relationship, the Snake was immediately read as the other woman. No social cards were touching it.

 

That's not context, it's jumping to conclusions and oversimplification.
 

1 hour ago, malvina said:

Another approach I saw relied on the interaction between the playing card inserts. For example, having two Queens looking at each other pointed out their rivalry. Again, no social cards were present. 

 

I learned that slightly differently: "Two Queens facing each other: gossip." It might be from Etteilla's Multiples, I'm too lazy to check ATM. In any case, I never found it to be particularly accurate, especially with Lenormand, so I stopped.
 

1 hour ago, malvina said:

Finally, I read in Andy’s blog that the Lilly usually denotes a man when it’s being interpreted as the focus card (A in the A + B pair). Do you have your own list of cards that are more likely to act as a person than others?

 

Again, I don't keep lists. I just lay the cards and let them talk.
 

1 hour ago, malvina said:

It seems to me that Kings of Hearts and Spades get the most action in readings, while I rarely see King and Queen of Diamonds being interpreted as people. If you just go by your intuition/experience without any special arrangements like the social cards combo, do you pre-select certain cards as certain people prior to the reading or do you just go with the flow?

 

I would only interpret the Fish or Ways as people if absolutely nothing else fit, and I don't recall that ever happening. The insets are important to me as far as noting the suits. But some of the people cards don't have face card insets and vice versa.
 

1 hour ago, malvina said:

A side-discussion on the two significators: how do you compare them to the other people cards? The sources I’ve used to learn Lenormand all taught me that the significators denote the most important person of that sex in the querent’s life (of course, the significator of the querent’s own sex is the querent themselves). But I did some personal readings where the Gentleman stood for just “a man,” whom I sometimes knew but ultimately considered a stranger. There was a recent thread here about a roommate ad, where the consensus was that the Gentleman again might simply be a male person. What is your stance on this issue? Do the significators have to be someone important or at least well-known or not? If the latter, do you treat the significators essentially like the other people cards?

 

The Gent was important at the time of the reading because the question hinged on someone answering an ad.
 

Edited July 27, 2021 by katrinka

[malvina]

@katrinka Thanks for your detailed response!

 

1 hour ago, katrinka said:

I don't keep a list of social cards (or any kind of lists, really.) Some of them are only social in certain contexts. If the Moon is just saying "evening", it's not acting as a social card.

Lenormand isn't that formulaic. If it were, we readers wouldn't be necessary. It could all be done with an app.

 

1 hour ago, katrinka said:

Again, I don't keep lists. I just lay the cards and let them talk.

I find your approach refreshing. I myself struggle to find balance between relatively rigid instructions (“if you have card X + Card Y, it means this, and if you have 3 Knights at the same time, it means that,” etc) and a complete lack of system. I guess I find more comfort in rigidity because it acts like a crutch in my readings. Like with the Snake example: how would I know if the line talks about some complications or specifically another woman? How to differentiate between the Stork as a change and as a female relative? All my intuition keeps saying is: there’re multiple ways to interpret this message. Do you find that your personal experience is the best guide you can rely on? That the understanding just comes with time?

 

1 hour ago, katrinka said:

I would only interpret the Fish or Ways as people if absolutely nothing else fit, and I don't recall that ever happening. The insets are important to me as far as noting the suits. But some of the people cards don't have face card insets and vice versa.

That’s interesting because I avoid purchasing any decks without face card inserts for the fear of not being able to discern the cards’ interaction. Do you even consider the direction of their gaze, whether they’re looking at each other or turned their backs to each other? 
 

1 hour ago, katrinka said:

The Gent was important at the time of the reading because the question hinged on someone answering an ad.

That’s a good way to put it, I never thought of it this way… What if there’s no particular context? Maybe it’s a daily/weekly spread and you get the Gentlemen - do you assume it’s the partner/father/etc unless something strongly suggests otherwise? Or can it still be just some random man?

[katrinka]

2 hours ago, malvina said:

I myself struggle to find balance between relatively rigid instructions (“if you have card X + Card Y, it means this, and if you have 3 Knights at the same time, it means that,” etc) and a complete lack of system. I guess I find more comfort in rigidity because it acts like a crutch in my readings.

 

There are rules in Lenormand, and many of them are non-negotiable. But it requires fluidity, too. That only comes with time.
 

2 hours ago, malvina said:

Like with the Snake example: how would I know if the line talks about some complications or specifically another woman? How to differentiate between the Stork as a change and as a female relative? All my intuition keeps saying is: there’re multiple ways to interpret this message. Do you find that your personal experience is the best guide you can rely on? That the understanding just comes with time?

 

Context. Not just the question, but the nearby cards, what connects it to the person card, etc.
 

2 hours ago, malvina said:

That’s interesting because I avoid purchasing any decks without face card inserts for the fear of not being able to discern the cards’ interaction. Do you even consider the direction of their gaze, whether they’re looking at each other or turned their backs to each other? 

 

My "some of the people cards don't have face card insets and vice versa" was referencing cards like the Dog - it's often a person, but it's the 10 of Hearts, not a Court. Likewise, the Fish isn't really a person card IME, even though there's a King on the inset.

I strongly prefer decks with card insets, too (real insets, not those K❤️ glyphy things - the insets are part of the Lenormand aesthetic and I do use them, to a point), but I don't emphasize them overmuch. If the Snake faces left, it really doesn't matter to me if the QC faces right. It's mainly about the emblem.

Lenormand has roots in old Alemannic cartomancy, something I'm not well-versed in. Maybe Andy can tell you more. But I've found that it hurts my accuracy to import ideas from anglo PC reading, Tarot, etc.

Yes, Lenormand is a playing card deck, but it's from another place and another time. It works a bit differently, but the method, or at least remnants of it, seems to be built into the emblems.

 

2 hours ago, malvina said:

That’s a good way to put it, I never thought of it this way… What if there’s no particular context? Maybe it’s a daily/weekly spread and you get the Gentlemen - do you assume it’s the partner/father/etc unless something strongly suggests otherwise? Or can it still be just some random man?

There's always context. If there's no question you can still get something from the other cards. The Gent will be important in that context.

Edited July 28, 2021 by katrinka

[WizardintheWoods]

I remember the insets, versus next to what card, versus just take my cards and burn them please, so I can absolutely relate, so here’s my viewpoint.  I am trying to go from my “eclectic” system of reading which was a mish-mosh of many different ways, back to my original traditional way of the way the cards were read.  Saying that and keeping your question in mind, I highly suggest getting a copy of Andy Boroveshengra’s book “Lenormand 36 Cards” to work from.  It answers the people question(s) you have and also shows how it fits into a complete Lenormand reading system.  I had to sort of tune out all the various ways and stick to one to find a clear and concise way of reading, when you throw in subjects like people and timing well it just helps ever so. 

I hope this helped and as always, its just my 2 cents!

[malvina]

2 hours ago, katrinka said:

Context. Not just the question, but the nearby cards, what connects it to the person card, etc.

I usually have less trouble deciphering GT because there’re so many clues in there. I can get 10 cards describing just one with distance, mirroring, knighting. But the real problem comes with lines. They’re much more limited and usually don’t waste any space. If I’m lucky, I can get a person card mirroring the Lilly, so I know it might be talking about a relative. But oftentimes there’s no place for the Lilly, the Dog or the like. For example, recently I did a reading saying that the person would get news about the Tower + the Tree. Does this refer to that person’s own vitality or their grandfather’s (the Tower)? I never can tell. The only instance I can think of when the nearby cards somewhat helped me is when I concluded that the Snake couldn’t be a secret lover because there were no other cards signifying severe trouble or emotional pain.

 

1 hour ago, WizardintheWoods said:

I remember the insets, versus next to what card, versus just take my cards and burn them please, so I can absolutely relate, so here’s my viewpoint.  I am trying to go from my “eclectic” system of reading which was a mish-mosh of many different ways, back to my original traditional way of the way the cards were read.  Saying that and keeping your question in mind, I highly suggest getting a copy of Andy Boroveshengra’s book “Lenormand 36 Cards” to work from.  It answers the people question(s) you have and also shows how it fits into a complete Lenormand reading system.  I had to sort of tune out all the various ways and stick to one to find a clear and concise way of reading, when you throw in subjects like people and timing well it just helps ever so. 

I hope this helped and as always, its just my 2 cents!

I have Andy’s book and love it dearly😄 I agree with your sentiment about following a single coherent system and his is certainly the one I value the most. But I don’t remember it addressing how to tell when a person card is meant to act as a person and not something else? I re-read its examples one time specifically to see how he arrived at his conclusions re: people, and the only link I could see were the social cards: the Bear was read as a mother when some social card was one of its corners, and another time the Snake was read as another woman when it mirrored the Moon. Did I miss something?

[katrinka]

43 minutes ago, WizardintheWoods said:

I remember the insets, versus next to what card, versus just take my cards and burn them please,

 

I think we've all been there. 😁
Just a signpost along the way...
 

43 minutes ago, WizardintheWoods said:

so I can absolutely relate, so here’s my viewpoint.  I am trying to go from my “eclectic” system of reading which was a mish-mosh of many different ways

 

🤨

 

43 minutes ago, WizardintheWoods said:

back to my original traditional way of the way the cards were read.  Saying that and keeping your question in mind, I highly suggest getting a copy of Andy Boroveshengra’s book “Lenormand 36 Cards” to work from.  It answers the people question(s) you have and also shows how it fits into a complete Lenormand reading system.  I had to sort of tune out all the various ways and stick to one to find a clear and concise way of reading, when you throw in subjects like people and timing well it just helps ever so.

 

Yep. Andy's the way to go. 🙂

[katrinka]

8 minutes ago, malvina said:

For example, recently I did a reading saying that the person would get news about the Tower + the Tree. Does this refer to that person’s own vitality or their grandfather’s (the Tower)?

 

I wouldn't have taken "grandfather" from that without supporting cards. Tower + Tree probably has to do with quarantining or social distancing these days.

Edited July 28, 2021 by katrinka

[malvina]

7 minutes ago, katrinka said:

 

I wouldn't have taken "grandfather" from that without supporting cards. Tower + Tree probably has to do with quarantining or social distancing these days.

That’s actually a great interpretation I didn’t even think of, even though I’m well-aware of the Tower’s association with isolation… You managed to read it better without even seeing the cards themselves🤯 Sigh, so much to learn for me!

[WizardintheWoods]

@malvina I have found such enormous fun and satisfaction once I sat back and realized that so much to learn is a great thing. Heck as they say if this was easy everyone would do it and I don’t know about you but I do rather enjoy the company I keep here rather then the masses. Some how I just came across as an 1800’s noble 🤣

[Guest]

18 hours ago, malvina said:

I’m curious how different readers approach the people cards and what’s your reasoning for choosing to read one card as a person and not the other. On this forum, I’ve encountered multiple mentions of the “social card + person card” combo approach. According to it, a card can be read as a person if it’s connected with the House, the Dog, the Lilly, the Moon and the Park (correct me if I’m wrong?). If you utilize this method, do you consider only those cards that touch the person card or also look at the mirroring/knighting cards as well? If the former, does it matter what side of the person card is touched by the social card, or does the social card have to be on the right/on top, modifying the person card? 

The social cards (the House, the Hound, the Park, the Lilies and the Moon) are cards that connect to people — are housemates, entourage, and so on. I called them social cards as part of grouping.
 

In large readings (GT, la roue, &c) you might find one or two people card are clustered around or otherwise connect (intersection points or knighting). For example, you find the Paths next to the Park and knighting to the Moon.  You might find the queen is a person who is interviewing the client for a job.

 

Other times two court cards of the same suit fall together such as the King and Queen of Clubs. You have a couple.

 

18 hours ago, malvina said:

Elsewhere, I’ve seen interpretations that seem to be based on the context of the question. For example, in a reading about the future of a romantic relationship, the Snake was immediately read as the other woman. No social cards were touching it.

Some questions require more than two significators. For example, you are reading for a married man who is in a relationship with another man. So you use the Gentleman, the Lady and the Cavalier. 
 

Other times context (family) might mean you read the Bear as a mother and the High Tower as a father.

18 hours ago, malvina said:

Finally, I read in Andy’s blog that the Lilly usually denotes a man when it’s being interpreted as the focus card (A in the A + B pair). Do you have your own list of cards that are more likely to act as a person than others? It seems to me that Kings of Hearts and Spades get the most action in readings, while I rarely see King and Queen of Diamonds being interpreted as people. If you just go by your intuition/experience without any special arrangements like the social cards combo, do you pre-select certain cards as certain people prior to the reading or do you just go with the flow?

The Lilies is primarily an atmosphere card. If read alone it is most often a person. Marco noted this herself, too.

 

The Hearts and Spades are the most commonly used. Partly, this is because of the suits’ association with the Gentleman and Lady. 

 

The king and queen of hearts might be a woman’s in-laws, or relatives on her father’s side.
 

If you’re reading on love interests we have the Gentleman, the House, and the Lilies cards for a male candidate. The Cavalier might be her lover if the Gentleman is her husband. 

18 hours ago, malvina said:

But I did some personal readings where the Gentleman stood for just “a man,” whom I sometimes knew but ultimately considered a stranger.

Context counts. If I am doing a reading on businesses or job interview for a woman the Gentleman can be the interviewer male or female. 

 

[katrinka]

3 hours ago, mxlavender said:

The social cards (the House, the Hound, the Park, the Lilies and the Moon) are cards that connect to people — are housemates, entourage, and so on. I called them social cards as part of grouping.

 

Then it's situational? If the Moon is just saying "evening", it isn't acting as a social card?

 

3 hours ago, mxlavender said:

In large readings (GT, la roue, &c) you might find one or two people card are clustered around or otherwise connect (intersection points or knighting). For example, you find the Paths next to the Park and knighting to the Moon.  You might find the queen is a person who is interviewing the client for a job.

TBH, I'd have missed her. I can see the job interview in those, but she's so seldom a woman that I'd have paid her no mind.

 

3 hours ago, mxlavender said:

The Hearts and Spades are the most commonly used. Partly, this is because of the suits’ association with the Gentleman and Lady. 

 

That makes sense. 🙂

[malvina]

7 hours ago, mxlavender said:

In large readings (GT, la roue, &c) you might find one or two people card are clustered around or otherwise connect (intersection points or knighting). For example, you find the Paths next to the Park and knighting to the Moon.  You might find the queen is a person who is interviewing the client for a job.

 
I can see how having multiple testimonies can highlight the person card’s “personhood.” But what about smaller spreads? Say, a 5-card line where the Bouquet doesn’t touch, but instead mirrors a social card. Would that be enough to read it as a person as well?

 

7 hours ago, mxlavender said:

Some questions require more than two significators. For example, you are reading for a married man who is in a relationship with another man. So you use the Gentleman, the Lady and the Cavalier.

This makes sense. My worry is that I might miss a person when I don’t have a full picture or pre-select any/enough significators. Like with my example about the Snake: suppose the querent asks about the current status or the future of their relationship. Neither I nor the querent know whether there’s a secret lover involved. How would I know if the Snake acts as one? It might stand for another type of complications or betrayal. I struggle to imagine a context that would tell me it’s specifically a woman.

 

7 hours ago, mxlavender said:

Other times context (family) might mean you read the Bear as a mother and the High Tower as a father.

This is yet another point of confusion for me. I can see why Kings and Queens would be read as people, but it’s hard to understand why the Bear and the Tower denote a person and not their mere description like other non-people cards do. Especially since the Knights (with the exception of the Child) are almost never used for this purpose. Although I have less trouble with the Rider (who’s literally depicted as a person) and the Dog (I guess the association of a friend/assistant comes easy here). 

 

7 hours ago, mxlavender said:

The Lilies is primarily an atmosphere card. If read alone it is most often a person. Marco noted this herself, too.

Interesting! I thought the Lilly’s main meaning was “family”? Say, we have Lilly + Sun. You would read it as something like a successful man instead of a happy family?

[Guest]

23 hours ago, katrinka said:

Then it's situational? If the Moon is just saying "evening", it isn't acting as a social card?

Yes. The Moon as evening is a timing association. Primarily, the Moon is a card of status and reflection. Socially, this translates as your “set” or coterie. Essentially, the social cards card just ones that can specifically act as a door to bring another person into the reading. 
 

23 hours ago, katrinka said:

TBH, I'd have missed her. I can see the job interview in those, but she's so seldom a woman that I'd have paid her no mind.

Yes. Diamonds and Clubs are far less pressed into use.  But occasionally, they can be useful for people on the periphery — your mechanic, cleaner, and so on. 

 

20 hours ago, malvina said:

I can see how having multiple testimonies can highlight the person card’s “personhood.” But what about smaller spreads? Say, a 5-card line where the Bouquet doesn’t touch, but instead mirrors a social card. Would that be enough to read it as a person as well?

In short lines or the 3 x 3, you will rarely use them. Sometimes a court card can land in the final position which can indicate a person.  Often this is in question like will I get the job which rest on a third party. 
 

20 hours ago, malvina said:

This makes sense. My worry is that I might miss a person when I don’t have a full picture or pre-select any/enough significators. Like with my example about the Snake: suppose the querent asks about the current status or the future of their relationship. Neither I nor the querent know whether there’s a secret lover involved. How would I know if the Snake acts as one? It might stand for another type of complications or betrayal. I struggle to imagine a context that would tell me it’s specifically a woman.

You will know. I know that is the last answer you want, but it is true.
 

If she falls close to the Heart or the Ring there is a warning. If you then find her connected either to the Gentleman or a social card, you can be sure that she is a person.  Then you check for markers of dishonesty.  If none of these conditions are met you can be fairly confident there is no mistress/cheating.  
 

20 hours ago, malvina said:

This is yet another point of confusion for me. I can see why Kings and Queens would be read as people, but it’s hard to understand why the Bear and the Tower denote a person and not their mere description like other non-people cards do. Especially since the Knights (with the exception of the Child) are almost never used for this purpose. Although I have less trouble with the Rider (who’s literally depicted as a person) and the Dog (I guess the association of a friend/assistant comes easy here). 

The High Tower stands strong and tall.  It looms over us.  For me, it has often appeared as a male figure in certain situations (in the corners of a GT, chaining cards with the Bear and so on).

 

20 hours ago, malvina said:

Interesting! I thought the Lilly’s main meaning was “family”? Say, we have Lilly + Sun. You would read it as something like a successful man instead of a happy family?

 

 

The Lilies is master card for the family unit. That is a specific function, fulfilled in specific readings - GTs, the Lost Person, Star of Fortune, et cetera. 
 

If it is not functioning as a master card its the atmosphere around the question or a man. The latter is more common when the Lilies fall in a dominant position. 
 

So, for the Lilies — Sun, it is a question of context. You can have strong sense of satisfaction, sincerity and happiness. Or a strong, successful man in corner. 

 

Edited July 29, 2021 by Guest

[WizardintheWoods]

@mxlavender above you mention The Lost Person is that a rarely used spread or one that is very specific to a certain type of question?  I ask because I have never heard of this before. Perhaps it might go by other names - though this name is intriguing 😁

[katrinka]

AFAIK, it's the Lost Man. Lost Person is the more accurate term, besides being a nod to political correctness. Basically you just shuffle, fan the deck out and find the significator, and read it with the cards on either side of it, usually a Line of 5. It's similar to Crowley's Opening of the Key. Steinbach used to call it the No Layout and claim to have invented it, but somebody else (Mary Marco, IIRC?) wrote about it earlier. Andy can tell you more.

[Guest]

Hi @WizardintheWoods & @katrinka

 

The Lost Person is an alternative title (suggested by a forum member, here) for the Lost Man. If I recall correctly, the Lost Man is the title coined by Ana Cortez.  However, it is but one variation of a tirage that appears in several variations and titles.  

 

As Katrinka states, that family includes the No Layout.   The main difference between the No Layout and the others is that Ms. Steinbach advocates choosing cards randomly, from a fan, rather than finding the significator in the shuffled deck à la Cortez, George, Mathews, &c. 

The concept of the spread has been traced to the first operation of the Opening of the Key, first delineated by MacGregor Mathers. MacGregor Mathers resided in France, and could have discovered the basic idea there.  Crowley described the full operation (Steinbach favours the Harris-Crowley tarot).  Cicely Kent included a variation.

 

Mary di Marco did not include the spread. However, the cards Steinbach charges — Fox for salaried employees, Fishes for the military and self-employees, &c — are all taken from Marco’s cartes maîtresses.  As Steinbach’s text solely concerns the No Layout, which requires significators, she fails to explain that the master cards is a function (for specific spreads) rather than a meaning. 

Marco recommended asking for client’s names and Sun Sign to make a link between the cards and the Querent. Something Steinbach does under the guise of charging. 

[katrinka]

5 minutes ago, mxlavender said:

The Lost Person is an alternative title (suggested by a forum member, here) for the Lost Man. If I recall correctly, the Lost Man is the title coined by Ana Cortez.

 

Ah, thank you.
I've used other significators with it, like the House for real estate, so Lost Person might not be completely accurate either. But it does respect people and that's a step in the right direction.
 

5 minutes ago, mxlavender said:

 However, it is but one variation of a tirage that appears in several variations and titles.  

 

As Katrinka states, that family includes the No Layout.   The main difference between the No Layout and the others is that Ms. Steinbach advocates choosing cards randomly, from a fan, rather than finding the significator in the shuffled deck à la Cortez, George, Mathews, &c. 

 

Choosing from a fan negates the advantage of not needing to lay the cards on a surface. That's when I've used this spread most: riding in cars, sitting outside when it's windy...
 

 

 

[WizardintheWoods]

@mxlavender and @katrinka  Thank you for the info.  I knew it from Steinbach’s viewpoint but that seemed sort of wonky to me. 
I might be being thick here but I am not quite sure I see the reason to do this versus a line/fan of 5.  Am I missing a key point to this?

[Guest]

34 minutes ago, katrinka said:

Ah, thank you.
I've used other significators with it, like the House for real estate, so Lost Person might not be completely accurate either. But it does respect people and that's a step in the right direction.

None of the titles I’ve seen have ever been satisfactory, but the lost person (or picture) is the closest. 
 

34 minutes ago, katrinka said:

Choosing from a fan negates the advantage of not needing to lay the cards on a surface. That's when I've used this spread most: riding in cars, sitting outside when it's windy...

Other than a few specific spreads I do pull from fans. But never with this draw. I do not have the temerity to guess Ms. Steinbach’s reasoning but it is a little overkill.

 

20 minutes ago, WizardintheWoods said:

@mxlavender and @katrinka  Thank you for the info.  I knew it from Steinbach’s viewpoint but that seemed sort of wonky to me. 
I might be being thick here but I am not quite sure I see the reason to do this versus a line/fan of 5.  Am I missing a key point to this?

Essentially, the Lost Person provides a quick overview of a topic. Unlike a line or fan of five, you will use a using master card (topic card) and a time scheme . The cards to the left will indicate the past or present circumstances, whereas those to the right refer to the immediate future.

 

In a line of five or otherwise, there is no master cards.  If one appears it is read according to its essence.  Also, the line is not divided into the past, the present or the future.  

[katrinka]

10 hours ago, mxlavender said:

Mary di Marco did not include the spread. However, the cards Steinbach charges — Fox for salaried employees, Fishes for the military and self-employees, &c — are all taken from Marco’s cartes maîtresses.  As Steinbach’s text solely concerns the No Layout, which requires significators, she fails to explain that the master cards is a function (for specific spreads) rather than a meaning. 

 

I sometimes wonder about Master Cards. In Lenormand, you can see that they're subjects people want to explore. But in Kipper, they're:

Marriage
High Honor
Funeral
Main Person 1
Main Person 2
House
Meeting
Big Fortune
His Thoughts
Winning Much Money
Expectation (3 months patience)

Some of those I can see - others not so much, I would think that Court or Child would be more concerning than some of those. I'm not sure they're defined the same way in Kippers at all.

[Guest]

It is intriguing, isn’t it?  
 

Marco is the earliest source I have seen using the term with the Petit Lenormand. Of course, the concept is far older — 9❤️as wishes, A♠️ as death. If you look at her list you can see she has drawn from playing cards. 

But Malkiel’s master cards seem to be something else.

[WizardintheWoods]

I have not gotten the grasp of Malkiel’s master cards in Kipper, my limit of only speaking English is a detriment when trying to learn from him.

[katrinka]

It's an engish video. 😉