AUTHOR’S NOTE: I’ve never been one to approach a tarot reading as if I’m throwing darts at a dart-board. If I’m going to roll the dice (which I sometimes do, quite literally) it will be with focused intent and not wholly reliant on serendipity and its accomplice, intuition. I believe I owe my sitters considerably more “beef” than “fluff,” and that usually entails some kind of structure. (I suppose that’s the “value-added engineer” in me making a case for due process.)

I’ve always been a proponent of formal spreads for most purposes. They place “stakes in the ground” to delimit the terrain to be crossed by the narrative. Within that scope, defined positions create milestones that mark the transitions (both opportunities and obstacles) that are placed in the path of events and circumstances. They provide a useful roadmap, but as semanticist Alfred Korzybski said, “The map is not the territory,” so to offer an approximation of reality they must be invested with compelling features, and this is where a solid grasp of fundamentals comes into play. (Note that this is a veiled testimonial for the creation of one’s own spreads.)

I will first try to match the querent’s conceptual awareness of the situation to the parameters encoded in the layout before going on a fishing-expedition for unheralded associations. In cartographic terms, think of a three-dimensional isometric map with peaks and valleys rather than a flat, two-dimensional rendering of the landscape. When populated with cards, some spread factors will stand out in high relief while others will be more fugitive and require enhanced illumination. Too many published spreads are loaded with filler that just muddies the water and confounds the purpose.

As an experienced tarot map-maker I steer clear of design details that add nothing to the scrutability of the emerging scenario and only increase confusion, the kind of thing that operating without a compass invites as a matter of course. Those who “fly blind” by just pulling cards with no plan can blunder into it without warning and then wonder how to get themself out, ultimately resorting to fancy footwork as a stopgap measure (followed by a huge sigh of relief). Personally, I shun the predicament at all costs and use structural conventions to prevent it. In Korzybski’s system of general semantics, this unseemly dilemma equates to “leap first, look later;” my style is to turn that around, and well-designed spreads serve to further my objective.

I will never be on the same page as the mystical “free-stylers” because their way is overly vulnerable to subjective bias in the form of subliminal projection and thus too slap-dash for me. If an orderly progression of ideas is to be found in the querent’s upcoming situation, it can best be made intelligible through application of a model that conveys its approximate dimensions while leaving little to speculative guesswork. The cards can be quite literal if given the chance (I take my cue from Lenormand reading in that regard) and when accorded freedom from excessive tinkering with their essence they will shine. They exhibit both empirical heft and spiritual loft, but subordinating the former to the latter can cut off any practical implications at the knees. A bit of intuitive tweaking for alignment with the question is fine but a wholesale make-over based on “what feels right” is going too far.

I want to give my clients something substantial to chew on, not just lap up like a smoothie. Throwing softballs has no place in any effort to help querents sort out knotty problems when they are already primed to hear the unvarnished truth. I don’t mind slipping them a tiny spoonful of sugar to help the bitter medicine go down, but it should not become the sole reason for the dose. I’m not in the business of encouraging or enabling avoidant behavior via my advice and I’m even skeptical of empowerment when it amounts to nothing more than cheerleading. Both can be just so much puffery when what would be more productive is a dash of cold water administered with sympathetic (and surgical) deftness.

When it comes to professional practice, it is of course a matter of preference, and I would like to think that anyone who is sincere about counseling is trying to make a difference regardless of their methods. But the true measure of a forecast is its degree of “penetration;” are we just role-playing and dispensing a “surface gloss” of feel-good sentiment for casual seekers or are we actually getting through to needy querents with more meaningful insights? In anything as trendy as online tarot reading, the allure of both social lionization and a fast buck is ever-present and piling-on is inevitable.

In my estimation, any practitioner who makes a diligent effort to learn the ropes and master the skills of the trade before jumping into the fray stands head-and-shoulders above the rest, and the ability to create and use formal spreads is one litmus-test of that proficiency. The structured approach can certainly be disregarded with sufficient on-the-fly dedication to the details as they appear, but why not put the effort in on the front end and sidestep having to work that hard on the back end? Anything that makes our job easier and more efficient should be embraced, and a good tarot spread resembles a well-loved pair of old shoes that gives us confidence in our tread even as it guides our steps.

Those who have examined the numerous patterns I’ve posted on this blog should have noticed that I take great care in tailoring my spread positions to the subject of the reading. It’s a fine showing of the spread-crafter’s art of to be able to precisely fit the container to the sought-after contents in a way that makes sense of any card that lands there. Successfully doing so gives the diviner a decided leg up on getting the message across with a minimum of verbal gymnastics. For me, “no spread” usually means “no chance” to excel at coherent storytelling (or at least not much). The ungainly, Frankensteinian pastiche is not for me (and I’ve seen some real “monstrosities” in social-media threads).