AUTHOR’S NOTE: I’m indebted once again to Paul Fenton-Smith for bringing another intriguing topic to my attention in his comprehensive book, Tarot Master-Class.

It happens more often than seems reasonable, especially if we assume that our attempts at divination are guided toward the truth: the cards in a spread will fail to come together in any kind of coherent narrative and instead present what a boss of mine once called a “mish-mash” – a scramble of conflicting testimony that doesn’t answer the question unless we really work at it. (OK, I know that’s how we normally earn our fee, but hear me out.)

Fenton-Smith’s opinion is that this degree of inconsistency means the question asked of the cards was not the correct one, so they delivered a meaningless response that didn’t coalesce. (His thought is that there is more going on behind the scenes than is consciously brought to the session by the querent, it just doesn’t make itself known.)

The prime offender in this regard is the “yes-or-no” inquiry when it is approached using more than one card. Although it is typical to treat the message in the “outcome” card as the answer, the rest of the cards may emphatically disagree with that verdict. Because they are contributors to the energy of the reading and may legitimately skew the perspective, I believe their favorable or unfavorable polarity should not be totally disregarded, which can leave the reader with a grab-bag of incompatible insights. I usually go with the majority decision if it seems conclusive, but there is a better way to handle it.

The question that should be asked is not “Will I or won’t I . . . ?” but “What will happen if I . . . ?” When that information is in hand, a more sharply-focused “yes-or-no” followup question can be posed to explore how satisfactory the resulting situation is likely to be. For example, “Your efforts should earn you the desired promotion, but a second look at it suggests that it won’t be an ideal fit.” This necessitates a two-tiered analysis.

In practice I would probably pull a short addendum to the original spread (say, one-to-three cards depending on the depth of the initial forecast) to shed some light on “the rest of the story” that goes slightly farther into the future. This is a move I frequently make when the “end of the matter” card in a Celtic Cross reading is ambiguous; rather than taking Waite’s advice to cast another complete spread with the outcome card as the new Significator, I just stretch the outlook a bit since nothing says ten cards is a “magic” number.

It’s an accepted truism that the vaguer the question asked, the more off-target the prediction is going to be. I don’t find that flaw to be common in my own practice because I require no advance prompting or “tip-off” for question-specific readings, which already start out unstructured by design and are built up from scratch, while for open-ended readings I request no prior knowledge beyond the general topic of interest (such as an unstated opportunity to consider; a situation to understand; a decision to make; or a problem to solve).

In all cases I cast a wide net and then “dial in” the details as the reading progresses. In this way a few twists-and-turns in the narrative can be accommodated before a conclusion is reached, and the digression will often provide a more compelling picture of the querent’s circumstances. This is standard procedure with the Lenormand Grand Tableau, but there is nothing to equal it in the realm of tarot reading (although Dr. James Wanless comes close in some of his Voyager Tarot study material, and the 21-card Romany spread makes an admirable run at it).

In such instances the reading will be more about how to navigate the environment surrounding the matter than about the incremental gains or losses that might be incurred. I see my role as providing the information for my clients to make informed choices and I have no intention of passing myself off as a fount of oracular wisdom dispensing love and light (or “free passes” à la the Law of Attraction).

The less involved I am in setting the stage with the sitter’s acknowledged aspirations and ambitions, the more their subconscious awareness of likely future circumstances will shine through when they handle the cards. I may present myself as a “facilitator,” but I’m not the tooth fairy. You want it, I can point you at it, but you must still chase it down and earn it. (I can hear John Houseman saying, with unshakable conviction, “the old-fashioned way.”)