AUTHOR’S NOTE: Encountering numerous reversed cards in a brief tarot reading can present a challenge that is difficult to resolve. In an otherwise favorable forecast they can mean willingly giving up just a little more than you get to achieve your goal (the “Pyrrhic victory”), while in a less fortunate augury the implication is that you will have to sacrifice more than you can comfortably afford just to break even, perhaps by pulling your irons out of the fire prematurely. (This conundrum typifies the “strategic retreat,” for which the classic schoolyard example is “taking your ball and going home.”) In a neutral prediction that is already ambivalent in its outlook, many reversals can create a feeling of “Why bother?” In all cases there are trade-offs that must be made to achieve a mixed result, and the number and severity of the concessions involved may be daunting. Trying to make sense of this situation is the diviner’s unenviable task.

This was brought to a head for me last week in the reading I previously mentioned that used a dual application of the French Cross spread to examine an important decision in two parts, one proposing a “just do it” attitude and the other assuming a “wait-and-see” stance. The first iteration was a decidedly neutral affair that held more than 50% reversed cards ending in Justice reversed, implying that “the jury is out” (or still in deliberation) so prospects for successful advancement are very much up-in-the-air at the moment. The second contained only one or two reversals, beginning with Judgement upright and concluding with the Sun upright, book-ending a series that suggested “doing nothing” would leave the querent in a stronger position, all things considered. (Although both instances expressed some residual doubt, one in the 7 of Disks, “Success Unfulfilled” or “Failure,” and the other in the 5 of Disks, “Material Trouble” or “Worry,” it was largely incidental to the main thrust of the story-arc.)

During the reading I covered the points explained in the above “Author’s Note,” although I didn’t come up with the term trade-offs at the time and realized only in retrospect that the range of “quid pro quos” was exactly what I was trying to convey. Having to “give a little to get a little” was basically a non-starter in the present case because the risks are substantial and the results irreversible. While there is a better-than-even chance that the outcome will be acceptable given historical precedent, the uncertainties involved make an aggressive approach to the decision untenable. It’s the immemorial “bird-in-the-hand” proposition that seems to be the best course for the querent to take.

In one of my very first posts on the phenomenon back in 2017, I noted that “Numerous reversals in a spread may show an undercurrent working at cross-purposes to the main thrust of the reading, ‘for good or ill.’ They can also reflect a very complicated or difficult situation in which it is more important how the energies are received and processed than how they are delivered.” Although my understanding has become more nuanced in the intervening eight years, I see no reason to back away from this opinion. In particular, the nature of the complications envisioned in the current assessment make it clear why so many reversed cards appeared in the pull. For your information, I’m including a link to the original comprehensive essay on the subject of reversals.

https://parsifalswheeldivination.org/2017/08/06/the-significance-of-reversed-cards/