To reverse or not to reverse, that is the question.

JylliM

Pretty much sums up my method, too.

In case anybody was wondering, the Wayback Machine seems to have finally ditched its archive of Dawn Jackson's defunct Hedgewytchery pages. I have a backup text file if anybody needs a copy.

I'd love a copy, too. Sending a PM.
 

Barleywine

I mildly disagree with your disagreement. ED, in particular, may be difficult to adapt to certain popular spreads, such as CC, although it may be useful with OOTK. As for reversals, if upside down cards are legitimate, it is a cruel joke on anyone with artistic sensibility or even a sense of propriety. It must have been invented by someone in the antipodes, where everything is naturally inverted. :joke:

Probably Yahoo Serious, he has a wicked sense of humour! I recently adapted the CC for use with ED. I might have posted it here somewhere. I even used it once or twice.
 

Philistine

I'd love a copy, too. Sending a PM.

Actually, we seem to be in luck as I noticed a few days ago that my bookmarked link starting working again. Wayback Machine has a bad habit of losing things for a while (or permanently). Here's the link: http://web.archive.org/web/20080210083822/http://www.hedgewytchery.com/cartomancy.html

On the original topic, I guess I just never understood how you are supposed to read wands and coins as reversed in TdM decks. Not going to count flower petals, either. I go by the school that says the cards have plenty of meaning not to need reversals and the context of the surrounding cards will point the way to weather a card is expressing its best or worst qualities, or blocked by stronger cards.

I'm sure one day I'll change my mind.
 

baconwaffles

Yea, I opted to just go with what makes sense to me, so I only read upright cards. Reversed cards are redudant, I feel.

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk
 

Richard

Yea, I opted to just go with what makes sense to me, so I only read upright cards. Reversed cards are redudant, I feel.

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

As to whether or not to use reversals, I apply Occam's Razor:

a scientific and philosophic rule that entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily which is interpreted as requiring that the simplest of competing theories be preferred to the more complex [from Merriam Webster]​

For the sake of simplicity, I assume that if reversals are to be used at all, the rule should be applied uniformly to every card in the deck. Since it is difficult or impossible to determine whether certain pip cards are upside down (without artificially altering the cards), I conclude that it is preferable not to use the method of reversals.

QED
 

Barleywine

As to whether or not to use reversals, I apply Occam's Razor:

a scientific and philosophic rule that entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily which is interpreted as requiring that the simplest of competing theories be preferred to the more complex [from Merriam Webster]​

For the sake of simplicity, I assume that if reversals are to be used at all, the rule should be applied uniformly to every card in the deck. Since it is difficult or impossible to determine whether certain pip cards are upside down (without artificially altering the cards), I conclude that it is preferable not to use the method of reversals.

QED

It's probably a more rational approach than "Ozzie's Shotgun!" (Yes, I just made that up.) This got me thinking whether tarot reading is additive or reductive. I see my method as mainly reductive: trying to boil down all the bits-and-pieces in the most sensible and economical way into a coherent narrative. But when this doesn't fall together readily, I resort to additive methods, of which reversal is one, as a kind of "nut-cracker." It's a simple matter of expedience (and not sitting there sputtering foolishly in front of a querent). That said, I can see not using reversal with TdM (even if my decks do have numbers at one end of all the pips) because it works against the reductive goal I've set for myself (and blending the enigmatic TdM pips is already difficult enough even using other additive methods like number and element). In reality, the only decks it adds much useful nuance to are those with scenic pips where facing and gesture are important; those with semi-scenic pips (like the Thoth) are a mixed bag, but I do use them.
 

Michellehihi

Pretty much sums up my method, too.

In case anybody was wondering, the Wayback Machine seems to have finally ditched its archive of Dawn Jackson's defunct Hedgewytchery pages. I have a backup text file if anybody needs a copy.

Yes I would be interested in getting the backup text, thank you!

ETA: OK forget it I just saw your post where there is the link. Thank you!
 

Richard

Regarding TdM, Enrique Enriquez has stated that he uses majors only when his pockets are too small for an entire deck. As my own pockets are seldom suitable for an entire deck, I wonder whether the great EE may not often (or even usually) find himself in the same situation.

Actually, after purchasing Wilfried Houdoin's magnificent Millennium TdM (an original TdM II based largely on the Pierre Madenié, which at present is still majors only), I have found reading majors only to be thoroughly satisfying (and a lot less boring than struggling with pips). Perhaps this is a sort of extension of your reductive approach, Barleywine.

I still don't use reversals, however. :grin:
 

kwaw

Very sensible decision. Reversals is a contrivance popularized by A. E. Waite.

Nah, it was popularized way before Waite. The most popular system (on the continent at least) from late 18th century and throughout most of the 19th century was Etteilla's, which used reversals, both with his tarot and his ordinary playing card systems. Other popular systems did too. Most books on fortune-telling with cards used reversals too.

Many of the French books from the 19th century that specifically use the TdM used reversals too (a lot of them just used the trumps however, not the pips. For those that did use the TdM pips, many of their meanings can nonetheless be traced back to Etteilla in many instances).

If anything, it is the GD's use of elemental dignities that is the innovation, not the use of reversals.

I don't use them either, nor elemental dignities, and quite often just use trumps only, and just as often a plain old deck of ordinary playing cards.
 

Barleywine

Regarding TdM, Enrique Enriquez has stated that he uses majors only when his pockets are too small for an entire deck. As my own pockets are seldom suitable for an entire deck, I wonder whether the great EE may not often (or even usually) find himself in the same situation.

Actually, after purchasing Wilfried Houdoin's magnificent Millennium TdM (an original TdM II based largely on the Pierre Madenié, which at present is still majors only), I have found reading majors only to be thoroughly satisfying (and a lot less boring than struggling with pips). Perhaps this is a sort of extension of your reductive approach, Barleywine.

I still don't use reversals, however. :grin:

I've thought from time-to-time that I might take the Majors out of the deck when reading on mundane matters and just use the Courts and Minors. Having the Tower pop up for "Does my dog like me?" seems like swatting a gnat with a sledgehammer (unless it happens to be an ornery, unpredictable species, in which case the Tower reversed might show it to be an "ankle-biter").