Newbie's questions to lenormand readers

Joon

:redface:

I retract the "flapping" comment greatdane!

I'm glad you are already studying. I misread you to be explaining that you were asking for more information because you already had too much confusing information. LOL

Mea culpa.
 

kalliope

Forgive my simple minded question, but precisely what is "the Lenormand method we've all been talking about?" If I'm not mistaken, this is what GD wants to know, and I have not yet seen a definitive answer. Please, no waffling. :)

Oy! I meant "the method" as we've been hashing it out over several threads and a multitude of posts. :laugh: Haven't we all been discussing this?

There is a collection of related folk traditions from several countries that have been very stable over time. We have discussed several hallmarks of these methods: that they function as a language of manipulated symbols, they have incredibly similar card meanings between them all, they use a handful of certain reading styles, they have "systems" to be learned. Any of those are considered "traditional methods" as most people mean the term. It's not waffling to say that, especially if it's accurate!

I think the problem is that there isn't ONE single definitive method, but you really seem to wish there were. You do keep asking for it, and then claim the lack of an answer is wishy-washiness. :confused: (In my own understanding, Greatdane knows there are a few options, hence her requests for which system or teacher to pick as a start.)

Just because there isn't ONE and one only, it doesn't diminish the import of the established methods as they've been passed down, does it? That's a benefit of seeing them as folk traditions instead: it reminds people to think anthropologically about how oral traditions evolve into a culture, and how variation naturally occurs within cultures while still staying true to them. "Folk Traditions" may not have secret hermetic books with all of the answers as do the mystery traditions, but it doesn't mean their knowledge base isn't coherent.
 

andybc

I do so hope nobody minds my commenting here.

I have come to the conclusion that talking about the “schools” is sometimes very counter-productive. The only “school” I would genuinely back, as being particular to a country, is the Brazilian; and that is because it is highly unique, and doesn’t contain the overlaps seen in French or German or Dutch et cetera sources. I think, personally, we do it a disservice to lump it in with the others.

When I wrote that the “German method” is the most prevalent, I was not particularly talking about the meanings or anything intrinsically Germanic. The research I did basically narrowed it down to two core approaches being that of combination and then distance, with the latter being more ubiquitous in French sources (“French method”).

In German literature, you will find it quite difficult to find many sources and books that will document the method of distance. These techniques are also dominant in most Dutch, Russian, and Spanish, sources. With the latter, it is quite marked. I know Fennario and Chanah have written about this, too.

I really do not speak for Belgian and Dutch readers, and I once wrote on why I don’t class myself as that “school”, per se, on Facebook, but some took that I didn't like being classed as "Belgian" based. I first learnt the method of distance, which is most common method in French sources, from my aunt, who had never, to the best of my knowledge, been to Belgium. I believe she learnt to read the cards in Lausanne in Switzerland. I then learnt from a French lady who taught me further techniques.

If we were to believe the “schools” theory, apart from the Moon card and Snake, the cards’ meanings I use would be more similar to French sources rather than German or Dutch. When people ask me for sources I tend to recommend German based ones simply because most people who ask me only speak English, and these are the most represented in the Anglo-market. Otherwise, I tend to point them to Erna Droesbeke and Colette Silvestre.
 

Nina*

I do so hope nobody minds my commenting here.

I have come to the conclusion that talking about the “schools” is sometimes very counter-productive. The only “school” I would genuinely back, as being particular to a country, is the Brazilian; and that is because it is highly unique, and doesn’t contain the overlaps seen in French or German or Dutch et cetera sources. I think, personally, we do it a disservice to lump it in with the others.

When I wrote that the “German method” is the most prevalent, I was not particularly talking about the meanings or anything intrinsically Germanic. The research I did basically narrowed it down to two core approaches being that of combination and then distance, with the latter being more ubiquitous in French sources (“French method”).

In German literature, you will find it quite difficult to find many sources and books that will document the method of distance. These techniques are also dominant in most Dutch, Russian, and Spanish, sources. With the latter, it is quite marked. I know Fennario and Chanah have written about this, too.

I really do not speak for Belgian and Dutch readers, and I once wrote on why I don’t class myself as that “school”, per se, on Facebook, but some took that I didn't like being classed as "Belgian" based. I first learnt the method of distance, which is most common method in French sources, from my aunt, who had never, to the best of my knowledge, been to Belgium. I believe she learnt to read the cards in Lausanne in Switzerland. I then learnt from a French lady who taught me further techniques.

If we were to believe the “schools” theory, apart from the Moon card and Snake, the cards’ meanings I use would be more similar to French sources rather than German or Dutch. When people ask me for sources I tend to recommend German based ones simply because most people who ask me only speak English, and these are the most represented in the Anglo-market. Otherwise, I tend to point them to Erna Droesbeke and Colette Silvestre.

Well... I speak English, German and a bit of French (and Danish obviously :D ), but I mostly follow the German school. Would you still recommend Colette Silvestre when I'm very new to the Lenormand and probably could get used to something different quickly?
 

andybc

Well... I speak English, German and a bit of French (and Danish obviously :D ), but I mostly follow the German school. Would you still recommend Colette Silvestre when I'm very new to the Lenormand and probably could get used to something different quickly?

Are you wanting to learn the method of distance (the "French" method as it were)? If so, Colette's book is no. Go for Erna Droesbeke von Enge, who you can get in a French and German. If you are after a good introduction in French, then Colette Silvestre is very good.
 

Richard

......I think the problem is that there isn't ONE single definitive method, but you really seem to wish there were........
I neither wish nor believe that there is a single definitive system. I was simply asking what you meant by "the Lenormand method we've all been talking about." Those were your words, not mine. My recollection of English grammar is that "the" is a definite article, and "method" is a singular noun.

ETA. I gather, then, that "the Lenormand method we've all been talking about" is nonexistent. I.e., the discussion has been about something fictitious, prompted by an inappropriate question.
 

Nina*

Are you wanting to learn the method of distance (the "French" method as it were)? If so, Colette's book is no. Go for Erna Droesbeke von Enge, who you can get in a French and German. If you are after a good introduction in French, then Colette Silvestre is very good.

I'm not particularly interested in the method of distance, but then again I never really tried it. I'll check them both out. Thank you, Andy! :)
 

kalliope

I gather, then, that "the Lenormand method we've all been talking about" is nonexistent. I.e., the discussion has been about something fictitious, prompted by an inappropriate question.

My point has been (repeatedly) that "the method" refers in fact to a collection of related methods. In my sentence that you quote above, in an effort to simplify I'm guilty of using method in the singular as a shorthand for "one of the several closely related traditional folk methods which include a complete language-like system for reading Lenormand cards that we've been describing over several posts and threads" in order to compare it to a perspective in a book that was mentioned.

I thought that most, and Greatdane in particular, after reading what I've previously said in these threads, would know what I meant. I was mistaken, sorry.
 

greatdane

To all who posted

I know, there's lots of info. More than a newbie can really understand out of the gate, but I am not daunted. I have what I need to start. I'm just going slow at my own pace. Simple meanings, two cards, and maybe a clarifier to get started, so a lot of what has been said won't even really apply to me yet (distance, etc). I'm not going to start with a grand tableau or anything.
I thought when I decided to go on my lenormand journey, it was really fixed, as in fixed in one system. I get now there are different ones and some that overlap. I'm not even going to worry about that right now, it would be like starting to learn russian and expecting to read Tolstoy immediately. If I need more later, everyone has listed plenty for me to move on to. I hope any other newbies who have read this thread will feel inspired to move forward. My deck arrived today, a good omen I think :)).
 

kalliope

Enjoy your deck, greatdane! :)