“You’ve got to ac-cent-tchu-ate the positive
E-lim-i-nate the negative
Latch on to the affirmative
Don’t mess with Mr. In-Between”
(from Ac-Cen-Tchu-Ate the Positive by Bing Crosby and the Andrew Sisters)

AUTHOR’S NOTE: This isn’t the first time I’ve addressed this question, but it keeps coming up on the tarot sites: Do you deliver negative readings in an unvarnished way that doesn’t shirk the obvious, or do you soften it with “weasel-words” that sidestep any harshness while still getting the message across?

The usual consensus in these debates is that it is possible to offer encouragement in even the worst scenario, if only to suggest ways to make the best of a bad situation. (Consider it the “Mr. In-Between” of the song.) But there is invariably a hard core of fatalists who say they will only “tell it like it is” without trying to sugar-coat the negativity. They prefer to be brutally honest and “let the chips fall where they may.” Personally, I can’t see how this furthers the objective of giving our clients something to work with. They want constructive advice that isn’t simply being hit over the head with bad tidings. While we don’t necessarily have to fill them with unconditional hope, we should always provide some kind of incentive.

My own approach is via the judicious choice of language that steers clear of “hot-button” rhetoric in favor of more balanced commentary. I don’t feel that it’s critical to attempt pinpointing the exact nature of the proposed hardship as long as we effectively outline the gist of it in a “what-to-watch-out-for” manner. After all, we like to say that nothing about a tarot reading is carved in stone, so we shouldn’t act like receiving an unfortunate card or two is the end of the world. I prefer to think that sorting them out in an intelligent, sympathetic way is where seasoned professional diviners earn their fee.

I also avoid the dodge of “psychological deflection” that speaks only in terms of conquering self-defeating attitudes and behaviors. I’m fond of repeating the mantra that I’m an “action-and-event-oriented” reader who looks for commonsense evidence in the cards that I can point to as the source of my observations. In keeping with the advice of Dr. James Wanless, I try to interpret every challenging card as an opportunity to rise above difficulty and not merely as a mental stumbling-block that we allow to dominate our frame of mind. I tend to see every mundane problem as inviting a pragmatic solution, and choosing to direct a querent’s adaptive efforts into self-analysis and away from dealing with external contributors is not doing them any favors. It suggests a compensatory “Band-aid fix” that tiptoes around the root cause rather than a comprehensive cure. Besides, I’m not a trained psychoanalyst so I’m not qualified to make that call in a counseling environment. I may recognize the symptoms but I won’t offer advice.