I am completely new to Lenormand

Izzydunne said:

Andy BC said:

" That's the traditional view. When Mice are near your card you get back what is lost, or even prevent them from taking something."

From my perspective.....traditional or not, this doesn't make sense and isn't logical. The idea that a bad card becomes better when near, and stays bad when it is far away, just isn't how the world works. If something has a negative vibration, then that is it's nature. Vibration does not change with proximity.

This, to me, is the crux of the Lenormand problem. Clearly, the Great Mademoiselle herself did not adhere to the staggering amount of rules that readers of today claim to be traditional and thus correct. I think readers of today would do themselves and others a favor by holding up all these rules to the light of reason. Some rules (just enough to give structure) are important, but too many rules just add confusion. That is why so many students walk away from learning Lenormand, when actually learning with less rules is relatively easy

Click to expand...

With the greatest of respect, that is both the traditional view and also the Mice's actual meaning.

Distance is the Lenormand's core, intrinsic, and how cards acquire their meaning. Saying it needs reviewing is nonsensical as it would be to totally abandon the Lenormand's make-up.

It is unfair to state the Lenormand readers need to review this, as frankly, it served readers well enough for over 100 years. Must be something in it. If it's too complex for someone then that's fine. Let them try Belline or Kipper.

You are however entitled to do what ever you like in your readings. But you are then just using a Lenormand pick not reading Lenormand.

As for Mlle. Le Normand nobody knows what system she used aside from she most commonly used a pack of piquet. Which does have a lot of rules.

Izzydunne said:

Andy BC said:

" That's the traditional view. When Mice are near your card you get back what is lost, or even prevent them from taking something."

From my perspective.....traditional or not, this doesn't make sense and isn't logical. The idea that a bad card becomes better when near, and stays bad when it is far away, just isn't how the world works. If something has a negative vibration, then that is it's nature. Vibration does not change with proximity.

Click to expand...

I have to say this does sound counter intuitive to me also, and is something I am working through to understand. I totally understand that Andy has a grounded base in this aspect of reading far/near so do not decry it. But at face value it feels a little counter-intuitive to me, and is something I know I need to work with to see how it feels long term.

My instincts? I just can't help but feel anything far away is either not having much by way of significant impact, or is not relevant to the querant at that time. If it were near to the querant I would see it as being more impactive. For sure if Mice were close to the querant, and was also surrounded by positive cards, that in itself may show a good outcome from a loss, but if it were with negative cards, that take would not be one that would be at the forefront of my mind. Just my thoughts anyways.

With regards the rules that may apply to Lenormand, I have a folder of typed notes whereby I have a lot of the rules set out. Mainly for reading a GT (I prefer to call them steps) and TBH - I know I will not use them all. I dowse to see which steps I need to use and use them. I certainly don't want to tie myself up with HAVING to use them all, just because........ It will cause me to wonder why am I doing this, and in turn will lead to disillusion and loss of enjoyment. I am not going to be breaking rules or bending rules, but will be picking which rules I apply at any given time. Does that make me an oracle reader instead of a Lenormand reader? I hope not.
So for sure it is unlikely I will be mirroring or knighting. Because if I haven't got the information I need by that point, utilising all the other steps (I think I have 11 possibles) then it is a sorry state of affairs. So I don't get hung up on rules. Rana's book certainly lifted my spirits on that score. She doesn't brow beat any into you as a reader/learner and having read it, I now feel somewhat liberated to be my own reader. But I will still acknowledge where Lenormand has come from and work within that tradition. (If that makes sense )

With regards being a newbie to Lenormand, I think I am seeing a lot more of the experienced readers being defensive than I have ever witnessed with newbies to Tarot. It can come across as a little intimidating, finger wagging, judgemental. I am not singling anyone out for this - it is a generalisation of how I just feel, having been a newbie for the past 13 months. I maybe very, very wrong but I just hope newbies are not put off posting anything through fear of being judged or criticised. This may be due to the fact it is a relatively new system to some parts of the world, whereas to others it is something that has been part of their culture for many, many years. Maybe it is because of this I can see a distinct hierachal set up, and there seems to be some aloofness linked with it. The top tier I see as being those who have been involved with Lenormand for heck knows how many years. And for years, they would have had domain established with little or no outside intrusion.

Then the middle level of readers who have been involved for a few years so have some background, but do not have the grounding the first tier readers have. They may have also adapted or tweaked things, added things etc in line with their cultures, background etc.

Then we have the other tier - the newbies. And for us it is difficult. Because all too often, we see the sometimes heated dialogues between members of the other two 'tiers', get conflicting advice etc. Sometimes the advice is not real advice. It comes in the form of "you should have used xxx amount of cards, you should have used xxx spread, you should have read xxx pairing" etc and this can be very soul destroying. I have been aware of advice and guidance given here regarding tarot to newbies but I don't see it as being quite so blunt or prescriptive.

So I finish with my plea here on behalf of newbies. If you respond with insights, guidance, suggestions, are they supportive or prescriptive? Because when you receive just the latter, it will not do much for the confidence of those who are wanting to learn, who have been brave enough to share a spread or question. Let's keep AT a friendly place. One which supports, encourages and nurtures. I think where Lenormand is concerned there is some room for development where newbies are given the similar mentoring as their tarot cousins.

Hope I am not going to be lambasted for this posting. I really want everyone to feel part of the Lenormand family, but at the moment it doesn't quite have the vibe I would like to see. Maybe in years to come things will settle eh. I am guessing the tarot world has gone through similar, but having become more mainstream globally, everyone is pretty much in the same boat now.

Andybc:

Andy, the mice means loss. Putting it next to a good card brings loss to that card. This is simple enough isn't it?

"Distance is how we acquire meaning."

That is certainly how some readers acquire meaning. Using the collective pronoun implies that everyone does it your way. Actually each card has it's own meaning and may be modified by the card next to it. See my above example.

"It is unfair to state that lenormand readers review this."

Unfair to who? I thought reflection, and contemplation is always a better approach than blindly following what others say. Wouldn't you agree?

"If it is too complex let them try Kipper."

So, the only two choices are to follow the complex method or read some other cards. Am I understanding you correctly?

Mademoiselle may well have used a Picquet deck, but you are assuming she used Picquet rules. Since there is no written personal account of her methods, she may well have used no Picquet rules. Just because I used a bridge deck to read cards, does not mean I follow bridge rules.

Please remember there are many roads to the top of the mountain. Not just one way.

Shadowdancer:

Questioning what others say is always a good idea in my opinion. If one chooses not to question, that is fine too. Truth does not fear the light of day. We all decide how we learn, and what suits us best. I am not trying to tell you what to think or how to think. I clearly state in my posts that this is "my perspective, or my opinion." I have nothing to sell and nothing to prove. If folks don't want my perspective here I am happy to move on. I enjoy giving, and expect nothing in return.

Izzydunne, I was not having a pop at you - honest ! I know you are not telling me what to think or how to think. Perspectives are there to be shared.

I sort of understood where you were coming from with the near/far mice thing, as I also understood Andy (although that does cause my brain to do a bit of a cartwheel before looking a little lost) but my ramblings then went on to what had been going on my head for some time. Not as a result of this thread in particular. So I don't want anyone to take my post personally as an attack on them. I am not like that.... at least I hope not.

shadowdancer said:

With regards being a newbie to Lenormand, I think I am seeing a lot more of the experienced readers being defensive than I have ever witnessed with newbies to Tarot.

Click to expand...

It depends on which Tarot readers you are listening to. Those who are really into the Thoth deck can view the "proper methods" very strictly and decry those who throw out Crowley and the GD method. His images did mean very specific things. The Opening of the Key Spread is very precise. Practitioners of other Tarot systems can also be very strict about how they are done.

However, Tarot in general was originally designed for card games. All divinatory systems for the Tarot (and there are many) were made up, and not until 300 years (and more) after Tarot was invented.

[I've moved the rest of my post as I didn't mean for it to apply to shadowdancer in particular.]

Mary, I never said I didn't like the Lenormand language. Not sure where you get that idea from. I really do like the language. I like that it has structure and systems. I love its simplicity and the fact it has such depth and intricacy at the same time.

I never indicated I prefer free form or prefer my intuition. As far as possible, I stick with the given key words, and use spreads that are recognised as being used for Lenormand cards. Many of which I have seen in Rana's book, Sylvie's book etc. I have not adapted them in any way. As I said in my post - I have written out the 11 steps I would use for a GT, and those steps are from Rana's book as well as other sources. How does that make it free form, and how does that indicate I don't like the Lenormand language?

If the fact I don't readily incorporate mirroring and knighting makes me NOT a Lenormand reader then fine. I can live with that. I use shedloads of other steps/systems used in reading Lenormand though, and choose not to use 2.

I am now off to work so will not be commenting further. Besides which I don't want to be drawn into a debate where I have to defend myself, quantify myself in any way. I think my post a few minutes back is perhaps being taken the wrong way.

shadowdancer said:

Mary, I never said I didn't like the Lenormand language. Not sure where you get that idea from.

Click to expand...

Sorry - I threw that in as part of the general discussion - not to address you in particular, but I can now see how it appeared that way. My apologies. I'll go back and split my post into two different posts.

Lenormand was designed to be a divinatory system based on an earlier 18th century German method for reading coffee-grounds in a cup and a German cartomantic system (which differs markedly from the English and French systems). Near-and-far meanings are derived from the coffee cup locations. Practically the same meanings have been in place since at least 1794. That's 220 years. The Philippe Lenormand instruction sheet came with pretty much every Lenormand deck published from 1846 until very recently.

The deck and meanings were optimized for each other - it's a coherent, unified system. Not that anyone has to pay attention to that.

What I find difficult to understand is, if a person doesn't like the "Lenormand language" why use the deck when there are tons of other oracle decks that were designed to be used in a personally free-form, inventive or inspired manner? Of course, one can use the Lenormand deck this way, too, but why Lenormand and not one of the other decks designed specifically for that?

I guess the question for each person is: What are you looking for specifically in the Lenormand deck? Its succinctness? Its precision? Its accuracy? Its practicality? If so, where do these come from and how are they achieved?

shadowdancer said:

If the fact I don't readily incorporate mirroring and knighting makes me NOT a Lenormand reader then fine. I can live with that. I use shedloads of other steps/systems used in reading Lenormand though, and choose not to use 2.

Click to expand...

Mirroring and knighting were not part of the original Lenormand system. They are 'add-ons,' as are Houses. Mirroring has long been a cartomantic tradition, going back, I believe, to Etteilla. My sense is that knighting is a modern attempt to simplify another old cartomantic tradition of counting cards, which has so many variations that it gets really confusing. I've tried to track the origins of knighting down but can't read the German books to trace its use. I believe that Iris Treppner's mother taught it.

I find that things I ignored at first as just too much information, I later explored with some depth to see what they have to offer. Some of these I've kept as key components, some I continue to ignore, and a few I'm sure I'll come back to some day. My own approach to reading Lenormand keeps evolving. From what I understand Erna Droesbeke's Lenormand methods kept changing, too. In her later books (not in English), she added techniques she appeared to have created or adapted from elsewhere.