What is a clarifier and how do you read it?

The way I use what might be considered clarifiers is to begin with my 7-card spread and then if there's an area I want more information on, I might draw more cards to get more information just on a particular card in the reading. I don't consider that it clarifies whatever card I've branched off of although I guess it could be seen as that. I use it to give me more information on the area I'm concerned with. If and when I do that, the spread starts to look like a Scrabble board, with cards going off from other cards where more information is needed or asked for. I use it mostly with my clients when they ask questions about particular points in their reading they're curious about.

AnemoneRosie said:

As far as I can tell, people tend to use clarifiers when they either can't interpret a particular card, ...

Click to expand...

It's something that seeme to have sprung up this century: back in the Bad Old Days we interpreted the cards that came out, and if we couldn't, then we thought, and thought, and thought some more until we could.

Nowdays, people want one-second returns. They'll google and expect a "hit" in a few seconds, as opposed to taking their question to a university-library and reading through seventeen reference texts to find a much deeper source of information. Whan trained that way by google, it's easy to fall into the habit of thinking at first glance: "Crap, I don't understand this card in terms of this position, let's pull another one", instead of doing the hard yards, thinking-wise, and maybe actually *learning* something new about Tarot, that particular card and the human condition by mulling things over a bit more.

Before the universality of on-line search engines, readers would sit with a puzzling card until they "got" it.

... or are unhappy with the outcome

Click to expand...

<frowning slightly> This is the reader-equivalent of the paying-client who goes to seventeen different readers until they find the one that says what they want to hear.

Then later, life doesn't reflect that very last reading although it may accurately reflect all the earlier readings they discarded, and they moan about how Tarot doesn't work.

I'm sorry if I sound grouchy, I'm really not feeling grouchy. It's just that I see this sort of thing over and over and over.

Grizabella said:

The way I use what might be considered clarifiers is to begin with my 7-card spread and then if there's an area I want more information on, I might draw more cards to get more information just on a particular card in the reading.

Click to expand...

If you're asking further questions about an issue that a card on the table has raised, that's more that you're pulling a supplementary card. You're not trying to clarity the first card, you're just asking for more information related to a previous part of the reading. I've been known to do that, too.

Thirteen said:

I always remind those who ask about cards + clarifiers that they can't ignore the original card. The clarifier, however they read it, doesn't erase that other 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.

Which is all to say: The way you decide how to give feedback on their card + clarifier is by figuring out why they put down the clarifier, and why they decided to read it as they did. If you feel they did it to "cheat" their way out of the answer, then it may be useful to point out how the clarifier says the same as the original card, rather than ignoring it. If you feel they "played fair" and just needed the message "re-said" differently to understand, then you may ignore the clarifier and just focus on the original card.

Click to expand...

I don't frequently use clarifiers, either, but when I do it's like that. Not to draw the card I'm looking for or to change the reading all together, but for further details on a subject...sometimes I'll go so far as to do a 2nd reading, using the card I need clarification with as a signifier card. For myself, I can usually read without all of that but it's been handy when reading for friends who may have further questions or are stubborn about accepting the meaning. On occasion I get multiple messages from the same card (though normally one specific message comes through per card, but there are moments when my intuition sort of shrugs, lol) and this can help me narrow it down.

I've tried clarifiers a few times when the answers I get sound like the combination riddle/advice you see a wise old man give a headstrong hero in the movies.

Only problem is when I've drawn the clarifiers the next card basically ends up saying 'I've already told you what you need to'

I've seen this happen with all three of my decks - One who feels like it draws on the maiden, one who feels like it draws on the mother, and one who feels like it draws on the crone. So I've pretty much given up on clarifiers.

SilverFirePrime said:

Only problem is when I've drawn the clarifiers the next card basically ends up saying 'I've already told you what you need to'

Click to expand...

I'm just curious: if the original card is inscrutable and the "clarifier" didn't help at all, then how did you proceed with your reading?

By the way, welcome to Aeclectic, SilverFirePrime! Your first day (and post) here and you immediately got your feet wet. You're brave.

I can think of one way I might use a clarifer as qualitative rather than quantitative. I'm fond of the Celtic Cross but it doesn't lend itself well to use of triplets with Elemental Dignities. For example, the outcome card never serves as the "principal" or focus card in a three-card ED set, where it might gain greater emphasis or produce greater confidence in its prediction. I could see pulling an additional card as the third card in the last set and thereby getting an elemental read on the outcome card. I wouldn't read that extra card as part of the narrative flow, just as an ED modifier. Just a random idea, I haven't tried it yet.

Barleywine said:

I can think of one way I might use a clarifer as qualitative rather than quantitative. I'm fond of the Celtic Cross but it doesn't lend itself well to use of triplets with Elemental Dignities. For example, the outcome card never serves as the "principal" or focus card in a three-card ED set, where it might gain greater emphasis or produce greater confidence in its prediction. I could see pulling an additional card as the third card in the last set and thereby getting an elemental read on the outcome card. I wouldn't read that extra card as part of the narrative flow, just as an ED modifier. Just a random idea, I haven't tried it yet.

Click to expand...

I've sometimes mused about this too! But if you're going to try that for the Outcome position, would you also draw another clarifier card for the one in the very first position too? Perhaps to elucidate the card in the Present position, focus on it in another elemental dignity trio that might perhaps give you a better handle on the heart of the matter. Just an idle thought lol.

EmpyreanKnight said:

I'm just curious: if the original card is inscrutable and the "clarifier" didn't help at all, then how did you proceed with your reading?

By the way, welcome to Aeclectic, SilverFirePrime! Your first day (and post) here and you immediately got your feet wet. You're brave.

Click to expand...

Thank you for the welcome

I don't exactly recall two of the situations, but one sticks out in my mind.

The first time I drew a clarifier was after a multi-card reading. I was worried if I can succeed in breaking away from being lazy about cooking and relying too much on eating out The end result was the deck saying 'chill out dude, you can do this, you have the strength and resources - just keep dedicated'. I don't remember all the exact cards, but the answer felt almost too simple and zen. With my mindset at the time I needed something a little more concrete then 'look inside yourself'

I was still a little unsure and still lacking confidence in myself and what will happen if I slip up. My clarifier card ended up being the Knight of Swords - which to me affirmed my initial interpretation, as vague as it seemed at the time to me.

nisaba said:

If you're asking further questions about an issue that a card on the table has raised, that's more that you're pulling a supplementary card. You're not trying to clarity the first card, you're just asking for more information related to a previous part of the reading. I've been known to do that, too.

Click to expand...

Exactly! I guess that's why I see the cards as being "more information" rather than clarifiers. That's how I use any extras.

Barleywine said:

I can think of one way I might use a clarifer as qualitative rather than quantitative. I'm fond of the Celtic Cross but it doesn't lend itself well to use of triplets with Elemental Dignities. For example, the outcome card never serves as the "principal" or focus card in a three-card ED set, where it might gain greater emphasis or produce greater confidence in its prediction. I could see pulling an additional card as the third card in the last set and thereby getting an elemental read on the outcome card. I wouldn't read that extra card as part of the narrative flow, just as an ED modifier. Just a random idea, I haven't tried it yet.

Click to expand...

I was reading a book by Anthony Louis last night and he said if you come to the outcome card in the Celtic Cross and don't understand it, then you can use card #10 as the signifier to lay out another Celtic Cross. He said this was from A.E. Waite himself. I thought it was interesting and kind of similar to what we're talking about here.

The thread topic is clarifiers so I hope this isn't too off track to post here.