AUTHOR’S NOTE: Lately I’ve been spending some time on the r/seculartarot sub-reddit, and after viewing numerous posts I’ve concluded that they categorically reject any kind of unstructured approach to the tarot (as one might suppose from the title of the sub).

I find myself wondering “If you stifle creative inspiration, imagination and ingenuity in tarot reading, you’re essentially ‘throwing the baby out with the bathwater,’ so what do you have left but a kernel of anecdotal assumptions that is almost impossible to crack with a hammer as soft as the tarot?” (My point is “What’s the point?” unless it’s only self-congratulatory rationalism; there is no “scientific method” behind it and therefore no dependable evidence since nobody is keeping a running record of successes and failures.) In my opinion, predictive astrology is where this kind of forensic investigation belongs. Tarot is entirely too speculative and open-ended for the sort of rigor sought by the empirical hard-liners. It is endlessly flexible and adaptable in its expression, and thus a bit too vulnerable to the mystical “woo” of pop metaphysics. Recognizing this liability, and even though I consider myself 70% analytical and 30% intuitive in my own reading style, there are still occasions when the latter emphatically trumps the former.

Back in 2011, when I returned to tarot practice after a long break, I decided that I would move away from the psychological navel-gazing of my first forty years with the cards and into a more pragmatic action-and-event-oriented mode that might be considered “fortune-telling.” I set myself the goal of proving to my own satisfaction whether tarot reading can produce reasonable accuracy in divining the nature of future events and circumstances.

Over the last twelve years I’ve found that it is best not to “put too fine a point” on one’s predictions, instead applying a more impressionistic “soft focus” when interpreting the cards in a spread. This discretion is particularly valuable when trying to pin down the specific scope and timing of upcoming events under dynamically changing conditions. Such vigilance is less important when attempting to characterize general circumstances since the tarot can excel at detecting the background theme or “tone” for a period of time even when it misses the mark on the details. This emphasis on “environment” as opposed to “hard data” is critical when we are asked by someone about their prospects for achieving a desired outcome.

There are a number of classic scenarios where this redirection becomes vital. If we are asked “Will I find true love?” the best we are likely to come up with is “the tendency shown in the cards does (or doesn’t) support this possibility.” Another would be “Is my partner cheating on me?” for which we might be able to foresee that “the opportunity does (or does not) seem to present itself.” A third is “Will I get the job?” to which the answer could be “the auguries appear to be favorable (or unfavorable).” Note that in all instances the question is of a “yes-or-no” nature, something that the tarot is notoriously weak at determining. My approach has become one of the “qualified answer:” Yes, but; Maybe, if; No, unless, in all cases implying that there are conditions that must be met for the forecast to become reality. However, the most useful way to deal with it is to rephrase the question as “What can I do to improve the situation?”

I think tarot can reliably portray the essence of “becoming” in at least an approximate fashion, but it does not always nail down the precise state of “being” that will prevail in the end. It may provide encouragement or discouragement, but seldom yields certitude either way. It is up to the querent to expedite or impede its progress, as appropriate to the situation, once the proposed trajectory is plotted. This is where the concept of “empowerment” enters the picture, although it can come across as nothing more than unwarranted “cheer-leading” when the cards clearly do not justify that level of optimism. Some say “always close a reading on a positive note,” but my own maxim is “always conclude with as constructive an outlook as possible given the cards pulled.” The “sow’s-ear-to-silk-purse” premise is often simply “not in the cards,” and I’m not going to pretend otherwise. But given the thrust of this essay, it might be possible to couch my observations in allusive language that offers a glimmer of hope for a more gratifying conclusion without stooping to artful double-talk that misrepresents the facts.