What is a clarifier and how do you read it?

I don't use clarifiers because I don't need them. But ideally they can "flesh out" the meaning of an ambiguous card, especially an "outcome" card. Unfortunately, too often they are used because the reader hasn't learned the card meanings well enough, isn't prepared to make the effort to think deeply about all aspects of the original card, or simply doesn't like the answer the first card provided. I think in many cases they just increase the confusion. If I want to see the outcome as a continuing story, I will pull more cards in the initial spread for this purpose.

Clarify 1-card draws

When I do a daily 1 card draw (which I don't most days - just when the mood strikes) and I get a court card ... then I will likely draw a second card to help me decide if the card represents an actual person (including me, usually me....) or a circumstance or if it's a person within a circumstance that I will come across. Court cards are still tricky for me and if it's the only card drawn a second one is helpful. Then I can see if the two cards amplify each other, support each other or seem to clash.

So if I get Queen Swords all by herself I will likely take it to mean me and that I need to spend the day "using my noggin" instead of or with my "gut" and that being calm, cool, and collected is the answer to whatever comes my way that day. But if it's an "off" day or if "something is brewing" - changes that I know of that could be occurring, I may draw another card to see why I must use my head over heart. Say I then draw 6 Pentacles - just tells me to be careful who I do favors for or take favors from so that I don't regret it. (Or take/borrow actual money from or give/loan money to)

violetdaisy said:

When I do a daily 1 card draw (which I don't most days - just when the mood strikes) and I get a court card ... then I will likely draw a second card to help me decide if the card represents an actual person (including me, usually me....) or a circumstance or if it's a person within a circumstance that I will come across. Court cards are still tricky for me and if it's the only card drawn a second one is helpful. Then I can see if the two cards amplify each other, support each other or seem to clash.

So if I get Queen Swords all by herself I will likely take it to mean me and that I need to spend the day "using my noggin" instead of or with my "gut" and that being calm, cool, and collected is the answer to whatever comes my way that day. But if it's an "off" day or if "something is brewing" - changes that I know of that could be occurring, I may draw another card to see why I must use my head over heart. Say I then draw 6 Pentacles - just tells me to be careful who I do favors for or take favors from so that I don't regret it. (Or take/borrow actual money from or give/loan money to)

Click to expand...

Not a bad idea. I might take it a little further and use the court card as the significator in a small spread, make a short story out of it.

euripides said:

So, I don't do clarifiers. I think they should be called confusers.

However, others do, and sometimes I feel I might have something to offer (sometimes it's easier to read someone else's spread than my own. Why is that?) - and some spreads call for them.

I get the impression that clarifiers are usually broadly attached to the whole spread, rather than a specific position.

So - how do you read a clarifier?

Click to expand...

A clarifier is a card you pull when you don't understand one of the cards in a reading. It is not a normal part of a reading. it happens only when you are not sure you understand the message of one of the cards and are not sure you get what it is trying to say.

Then you pull a clarifier for that card. It is meant to clarify a meaning to you that is unclear.

It is like telling the source that answers you through the cards (whatever you think that is) that "I did not understand what you meant by this card, could you please explain it in another way?" Then you pull a new card to re-explain the message you were not sure you understood. And it will tell the exact same message again but in a new way that hopefully will be clearer to you.

I never heard of a spread asking for clarifiers though. To my understanding, they are only used to clarify a card you do not understand. To restate the meaning in a clearer way. Can't imagine why a spread would include them as there is not need to presume that there are any cards you might find unclear. ANd having 2 cards to explain the same thing needlessly? To me too that would be confusing.

The clarifier is a replacement meaning as I see it. You throw out the unclear meaning and replace it with the meaning as explained by the new card. You're not meant to use both meanings at once. That muddies the waters.

That is my understanding of it.

Babs.

euripides said:

So I suppose if I want to offer feedback on a reading with a clarifier, I'll just ignore the clarifier, since I wouldn't have drawn it?

What I'm asking here is not whether or not you should draw them, but GIVEN that you're presented with one, what do you do with it?

Click to expand...

I think, the opposite. Although you can ask the reader how they did it. But for me, since if I had pulled a clarifier I would have ignored the original card and gone with the meaning of the clarifier, then it is the meaning of the clarifier I talk about if I were doing to give feedback.

But you may as well ask the reader what they did. Some people combine both. You never know, we all read differently.

Babs

euripides said:

So I suppose if I want to offer feedback on a reading with a clarifier, I'll just ignore the clarifier, since I wouldn't have drawn it?

Click to expand...

I don't offer comments on clarifiers when contributing to Your Readings, since my interpretations don't rely on them.

Barleywine said:

Unfortunately, too often they are used because the reader hasn't learned the card meanings well enough, isn't prepared to make the effort to think deeply about all aspects of the original card, or simply doesn't like the answer the first card provided.

Click to expand...

Yes, I think you summarize the problem rather well. I think a key here might be to identify *why* one feels the need to draw the clarifier.

Thirteen said:

What a lot of readers tend to do is see clarifiers as saying "tell me more..." which means they see card + clarifier as part 1 and part 2 of a sentence. Like "Death + Ace/Cups" means "End of love and new love on the way."

Click to expand...

That makes sense. A continuation, but still building on the original card. A bit like giving feedback with the bad news sandwiched with some good.

"Please give me a better message...I don't like this one!" What really gives this away is if they ignore the original card. So Death clarifiers by Ace/Cups becomes "Ace/Cups was the answer! New love free and clear!"

Click to expand...

Oh yes, I see that happening all the time! I had wondered about a clarifier 'cancelling out' a card.

So, how *should* a clarifier be read that is not "cheating"? Technically a clarifier should be the reader saying to the cards, "I don't understand what you said, can you say that differently so I can better understand...." So a clarifier should be the *same* message as the original card, just said differently. So Death clarified by the Ace/Cups offers the same message. Which is probably "You're going to need to start over again. Whatever has been going on, is done and not continuing." The Ace/Cups said this nicer, but it still says that.

Click to expand...

*nods* this is a really good explanation, thanks!

violetdaisy said:

When I do a daily 1 card draw (which I don't most days - just when the mood strikes) and I get a court card ... then I will likely draw a second card to help me decide if the card represents an actual person (including me, usually me....) or a circumstance or if it's a person within a circumstance that I will come across.

Click to expand...

Oh that's a great idea, I see how that works.

Sibylline said:

I use what I call "expanders" rather than "clarifiers." ...
I usually read positionality in drawing expanders if positionality isn't evident in the original spread or somehow becomes relevant in the reading as a whole. For example, where is that knight going? *pull card* Or, what is that Queen looking at? *pull card* Different motivation than asking for the same message twice.

Click to expand...

So this is another kind of 'more information' that completes the story of the original card.

This is great. I feel like I can actually apply some logical process to the clarifier now!

All these are great answers. I just have one smidgen to add of my own.

I think readers jump to clarifying cards too soon when they don't understand the first card. I think sticking with the card whose meaning doesn't come quickly to mind is the best thing, even if you have to study the spread for a considerable length of time to figure out what the first card means. For one thing, it helps us to widen our knowledge of a specific card and add to our repertoire of meanings for that card in similar positions later on.

Thirteen and I have had a good-natured difference of opinion about this type of card in the past. She says a clarifier "says the same thing only different", while I call them "cards drawn for more information." Both of us are right, really, but since she's been reading cards longer than I have, I'll concede to her advanced knowledge. (But if I use them, I still use them for more information. )

I think consistency is the most important thing. If we choose to clarify or just seek more information, if we consistently do the same thing, then our cards will give us the information we need.

I think clarifiers can be very helpful when you don't know how a card applies to a reading. When pulling a clarifier we need clarify HOW it will apply, for example we could ask for a card to reinstate the original one or we may already understand but are looking for more insight rather than re-instatement. Seems to me people forget we can address any question through any frame we like.

We can add clarifiers through quints or just pulling another card randomly and both methods are just as effective though I'm too lazy to count. Another way I use clarifiers is to lay the spread and as I'm trying to read it I address questions to the deck and just cut it for direction as to the correct interpretation.

There's no universal formula as to how a clarifier applies as it depends upon the intention of the reader when they formulated the question or their personal formula for a clarifier, if we are specific then the tarot can be too.

What I find pointless is asking a specific question, pulling a card and then 2 clarifiers on the card as standard, what you've then got is basically a 3 card reading for one question which simply complicates the answer.

Generally I find if you've got a clue where your reading is going but one or two cards could be read more than one way then clarifiers come into their own. We need not even link a clarifier to the spread we could just ask the pack is what I'm thinking correct? for example.

If you're lost with a reading then clarifiers are more likely to hinder than help as they add to the confusion, often people look to clarifiers where they should be looking to rote meanings to understand the original spread.

If I'm at my wits' end and I can make neither head nor tails of what the cards in front of me can possibly mean even if I have already consulted my books, I will sometimes pull a clarifier. I do keep in mind that it's not a free pass, especially if the card it elucidates is an inauspicious one (although I have to admit that it's mighty tempting to do just that lol). However, I find that as my skills get sharper and my knowledge of the cards grows through tomes, articles, video tutorials etc, I have to resort to them less often.