Dear card readers,

I'm just word crocheting myself through a GT. First time using the 6 x 6 layout (usually 4 x 8 + 1 x 4) and I started wondering about the underlying house sequence in row 4.

Tower, Garden, Mountain, Crossroads, Mice, Heart. What is the connection between these cards? Is there some kind of universal evolution indicated by this sequence, a distinct psychological/sociological process? Just some sort of coherence. I'd say no. So then, what is the rationale behind giving all the cards that land in this row (or any other for that matter) the same undertone or background, like a fixed narrative? Why this "forced proximity" of certain modifiers or subtexts?

Of course, this also applies to reading boxes within the GT.

Sticking with the crochet analogy, or let's say weaving, this seems to me like having predetermined warp threads (colour, thickness, material) in every reading, irrespective of the subjective pattern that wants to appear.

For future GT I'll probably use a second deck and place the houses just as randomly as the other cards.

I'm curious to hear your thoughts on this. I did use the search function to see if this had already been discussed, but nothing came up. Besides this interesting thread (that I reread) about the Master Method.

So please forgive if this is an old hat.

Edited August 2Aug 2 by Ferrea

I never use house placements in a GT. So throwing that fact in is the only thing I have to add to your discussion. 🫥

I know the thread you linked to makes a case for the possibility that houses were traditional despite not showing up in the 1848 Phillipe sheet. I don't have a horse in that race. I don't actually mind how anyone reads for me if it's a method that works for them consistently. But proximity is what helps me the most, and the Phillipe sheet has things to say about proximity that I can use.)

Edited August 3Aug 3 by Rose Lalonde
Deleted irrelevant part

Not sure what you mean with: placing the houses randomly. @Ferrea 🤔

5 hours ago, joy said:

Not sure what you mean with: placing the houses randomly. @Ferrea 🤔

Shuffling the second (house) deck and laying down the cards randomly, like I'd do with the reading deck.

7 hours ago, Rose Lalonde said:

But proximity is what helps me the most, and the Phillipe sheet has things to say about proximity that I can use.)

Yes, I certainly can use the proximity of the Mice to the Heart and many other examples. But does it has to be like this every time? I could also go with the Heart being next to House, Clover, Sun. It could be very insightful, when houses and cards are paired situational.

2 hours ago, Ferrea said:

Yes, I certainly can use the proximity of the Mice to the Heart and many other examples. But does it has to be like this every time? I could also go with the Heart being next to House, Clover, Sun. It could be very insightful, when houses and cards are paired situational.

I meant that I don't use houses myself, and since there are different methods, if you want to read with houses and you want to shuffle a second deck to place them instead of using fixed houses, I'm not someone who would tell you not to do it that way. I'd say see if it works for your readings. (But likely I should have just stayed out of it, since I don't have experience reading with houses as some others here do. I just got excited to see a Lenormand thread, honestly. 🫠)

I understood that you're not using houses yourself. And even though that experience would help in this discussion I think the topic can be approached plainly conceptually.

For people reading the GT more punctual, like deliberately checking cards in certain houses and how they are connected in the same way you look for rulership in astrology – my issue would probably not have appeared to them. I guess it becomes more obvious when reading lines or boxes and the underlying house structure shows up in one's wording as clusters or sequences.

Edited August 3Aug 3 by Ferrea

17 hours ago, Ferrea said:

Shuffling the second (house) deck and laying down the cards randomly, like I'd do with the reading deck.

Interesting. It is just not how it is done normally. But I guess if you are clear how to do it before you start it is fine.

Like you mentioned in the title of this post, I have always thought of the houses as fixed placements. They’re just a sequence from 1-36, with no specific meaning behind the particular order whatsoever. I would find the idea of having random houses with a second deck redundant. We already have random combinations when we deal out the cards, so why make it even more complex? In my own practice, I note the houses, but only specific houses (like the Key, Clouds, etc.) or the house that a certain card grabbing my attention has fallen in. I don’t rely on it heavily, because I’ve always had difficulty grasping the concept fully; houses are not like combinations. They are boundaries that sort of limit how a card can behave in relation to its neighboring cards, and all of that is something I find more complex than using distance/combinations. It’s precisely the same reason why I prefer counting to following the chain of houses for clarifying my points, etc.

Thanks for sharing how you use the houses, @Moon-Hermit !

1 hour ago, Moon-Hermit said:

In my own practice, I note the houses, but only specific houses (like the Key, Clouds, etc.) or the house that a certain card grabbing my attention has fallen in.

I guess you fall into the category of GT readers who only take the houses into consideration in a more punctual, selective manner. Which I think is a very effective method. However, by doing so you do not run into questioning the fixed house sequence, as I mentioned above.

1 hour ago, Moon-Hermit said:

I don’t rely on it heavily, because I’ve always had difficulty grasping the concept fully; houses are not like combinations. They are boundaries that sort of limit how a card can behave in relation to its neighboring cards, and all of that is something I find more complex than using distance/combinations.

My understanding of the houses' function is different. I use them as modifyier for the cards, or I see them as a kind of context – where does XY come from? What's the background of the card, its modus operandi? I've never seen the houses as having an impact on a cards' scope in relation to other cards. An idea I find quite intruiguing nevertheless.

It seems, my discomfort with fixed houses stems from my reading style that is a bit different than the traditional. I'm OK with that.

5 hours ago, Ferrea said:

I guess you fall into the category of GT readers who only take the houses into consideration in a more punctual, selective manner.

Well, yes. I tried pretty hard with the houses, but man using a lot of them was like a headache, lol. I’m happy to look for nuance only where I need it most. The rest comes from the cards.

5 hours ago, Ferrea said:

where does XY come from? What's the background of the card

I use mirroring for that purpose. The houses would be the flavor of the cards that occupy them, regardless of time. I think of that card as “possessed” by the house beneath it! 😜 The house is “getting into” the card, in other words, making it act in a certain way.

5 hours ago, Ferrea said:

It seems, my discomfort with fixed houses stems from my reading style that is a bit different than the traditional. I'm OK with that.

It’s right to go with what makes sense to you and is comfortable in your own practice. I agree with the others; give your idea a try. Even if it doesn’t work out, at the very least you’ve experimented with something new!

Admittedly, I only peek at Houses occasionally, and it seems to be helpful. But I fear that using them more consistently than that will turn the whole layout into a 36-card spread with fixed positions, which does, as you said, quickly expose the entire lack of any coherent underlying structure. To me, the charm of GT is in the flexibility of its positional meanings, a sort of an empty canvas on which the cards can paint whatever picture they see fit. Nailing the whole reading rigorously into all the 36 Houses seems, at least to me, like robbing it of that freedom.

Distributing Houses randomly seems like an interesting experiment, though. If you ever do it, I'd love to see what happens 😉

Edited August 8Aug 8 by dancing_moon

On 8/5/2026 at 9:59 AM, Moon-Hermit said:

They are boundaries that sort of limit how a card can behave in relation to its neighboring cards, a

Could you elaborate on this?

33 minutes ago, Sar said:

Could you elaborate on this?

Of course.

Take the Fox as an example. Normally, it would exploit the cards it touches, especially those to its left, right, and below (diagonals included). The severity is increased the closer it falls to the significator.

Suppose you have all that in a Grand Tableau, but decide to look at the house the Fox occupies and find it on 8-Coffin. The Fox would still seek to exploit the querent and all of its own surrounding cards (something is still wrong and we should still be cautious, in other words), but it's trapped in the casket itself. In other words, he is setting up a trap for you without knowing he is already standing in the grave himself. The demon is leashed. I would thus restrict what the Fox can do to the other cards with that detail in mind, where it's relevant. Whatever trick he's got up his sleeve is dead before it's even pulled. He may as well be likened to a hissing and fussing cat with no real damage done.

This is just how I have worked with the houses thus far, and why I am careful with how often I use them and where I need to use them. In my experience, the houses don't define/affirm the cards that occupy them in the usual way (or else I would have read the Coffin and the Fox like a combination, which definitely means something alarming). The house itself is stagnant; it doesn't engage with the card it hosts beyond giving it its own hue. It is the card on top that is animate and reacts to the atmosphere; that reaction is carried out to the neighboring cards, based on what four walls that one card is constricted in. Because the cards in the houses are considered separately, on their own, it is the individual card that is possessed by the house it falls on (more like a state that the one card on top is forced to be in, rather than a sentence with the two combined; you dump the Fox in the casket, you merge the Serpent's venom with the Fish on top, etc). The card is thus altered in one way or another, and behaves differently in relation to its neighboring cards, for better or worse.

I hope that was clear.

Edited August 8Aug 8 by Moon-Hermit

On 8/2/2026 at 11:12 PM, Ferrea said:

For future GT I'll probably use a second deck and place the houses just as randomly as the other cards.

Hi @Ferrea

I'd say have a go and see what it does for you.

If it gives you more grip on your reads, that's what matters.

Chances are there'll be a takeaway to the exploration making it worthwhile, maybe you'll even stick with it.

It is the same reason why some like to give their rows a certain meaning, be that by incorporation of houses, giving meaning to certain sections of the tableau, or ordering it in a timely manner - it does make sense to use if it gives more grip on the read and that's why some use it.

And some don't want to do without and use two packs of lenormands to lay a 3x3 in order to use houses in their read.

It has precedence: The use of two pack Tarock's/Jass for example, or the use of Triumphs and Suits as two sepearate packs, one clarifying the other.

Or a pack of tarots with an oracle-overlay.

Even using the arkana/suits/both and then placing runes thereon for further detail or pairing astrology with cards is based on the same principle.

Maybe to Pitisci-People it can be put under 'clever ways to incorporate conceptual blending'.

It is also the same reason why some like to give their rows no meaning or 'observe the cards naturally' - it does make sense if it gives more grip.

There's anotherone: "grip" is what I like to use, others may prefer "insight". Or "precision". Or "accuracy".

While they are not the same, the sentiment linking them likely is.

Edited August 12Aug 12 by Mister

On 8/2/2026 at 9:52 PM, Ferrea said:

Shuffling the second (house) deck and laying down the cards randomly, like I'd do with the reading deck.

I lay my house deck as a 6x6 GT ordered 1-36. Then I lay the randomized spread deck atop those.

To me, randomizing the houses would add unnecessary complication to an already complex spread.

Being familiar with Lenormands 1-36 laid in a 6x6 grid, it's easy for me to identify when a card falls in its domicile [own house]. If I randomized the house positions this becomes diificult to spot / easy to miss.

Likewise for house exchanges [ring falls in snake's house and snake falls in ring's house for example].

I don't necessarily read every house of a GT. Sometimes I only want to know about one topic [lets say money for example]. Because I'm familiar with house placements as a 6x6 GT, my eyes can go immediately to H34 [fish's house] to check finances. Or to H15 to check investments.

You get the idea. For me it's purely pragmatic.

Randomizing both decks is an interesting idea--but my eyesight isn't sharp enough to do it 😎

Edited 6 hours ago6 hr by Misterei

When I use Houses, which is rarely, it is only to see what House the Significator or Clouds has landed in. That sometimes can make sense of a GT that seems to be making none.