What is a clarifier and how do you read it?

euripides

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?
 

AnemoneRosie

Now, I don't use clarifiers, so take this how you will.

As far as I can tell, people tend to use clarifiers when they either can't interpret a particular card, or are unhappy with the outcome and are turning over cards until they find the answer that they want.
 

CrystalSeas

I think they should be called confusers.

Can you link to a spread that has clarifiers in the layout?

The only way I've seen them used is as a totally optional card draw after the spread has been laid out. The reader decides that they don't understand how to interpret a card in a position, so is free to draw as many more cards as they like until they get an 'answer' they can understand.

Kind of like a card game where you have to keep drawing cards until you have a pair to lay down.
 

euripides

Can you link to a spread that has clarifiers in the layout?

Hmm no but I see them so often I figured they must be!!!


Kind of like a card game where you have to keep drawing cards until you have a pair to lay down.

Yeah that's how I feel about them.

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?
 

CrystalSeas

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?
That is precisely what I do.

I read the spread. I ignore any clarifiers, since I would not have drawn them.

I mostly see clarifiers being used by Tarot readers who are just learning the card meanings and who tend to have a very limited (sometimes only a key word) understanding of the card.

Since AT is a learning forum, I feel that showing how you might interpret the cards without clarifiers helps the new readers learn more of the nuances.
 

Zevern

I use them on certain major arcana cards like the tower or the devil if the person I'm reading for doesn't understand or they don't want to acknowledge something. I'll only draw one clarifier card per reading, though.
 

Thirteen

What was the reader's intent in pulling that clarifier?

This is going to be a little long. Bear with me, please :) I agree with a lot of what people have said about clarifiers...but as people *do* lay them down, it's best to know how to read them so as to offer advice on them. Ultimately, what really matters here is (1) How readers read clarifiers, and (2) their intent in pulling them. So, going with #1 there...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."

Now, it's their reading and they can call 'em as they see 'em. However, if they're asking for help with this card + clarifier, then you (and all of us) get a say as well. And, moving onto point #2 there, we may well see this as cheating ;) As the reader not liking the original card or hoping the card doesn't mean what they think it means. "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!"

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.
 

GotH

To me, the use of clarifiers is more about a checking system to see if my reading is on the right track and is usually clarified at the end of the reading right before I re-gather the cards back into the deck. I happened to stumble upon this system by accident. I don't just pull out card after card until things become clear. I have found clarifiers to be especially useful in giving more detail regarding court cards and majors.

I say use them if they work for you and don't end up confusing you more..
 

Sibylline

Here's a different take on clarifiers and how to read them. Sorry, I'm a little long-winded.

The larger question is what are one's motivations for using clarifiers? For me, it's all about a different motivation for pulling extra cards.

I use what I call "expanders" rather than "clarifiers." If I see a card and I want to go more into depth on that one card, I'll draw another one that will give me a deeper dimension to the original card. I'm not drawing cards to say the same message in a different way. Instead, my motivation for pulling the expander is for deeper nuance of the original. Therefore, the original card is the main dish and the expander adds more seasoning.

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.

Perhaps I do this with RWS decks because my home deck is the Thoth. Since I read the Thoth with elemental dignities and no reversals, it's common for me to pull a second card for each position to determine whether the card is well dignified or ill dignified. My Thoth deck always gives me highly nuanced "seasoning" for the "main dish" of the original card. In theory, it was my Thoth deck that taught me about expanders.

So, that practice of "expanders" somehow trickled over into my RWS readings. In RWS readings, I have a tendency to use expanders sparingly if at all. But when I do, the interplay between the two cards always blows my mind. :)

I hope that made sense!
 

IndigoWaves

A watchful/"suspicious" mindset is what eventually let me do more accurate readings for myself, and it comes into play when interpreting for others now, too -- especially when clarifiers have been pulled. Sometimes they understandably follow a complex, ambiguous card or one that seems to evade the reading's question... But as Thirteen and AnemoneRosie describe, I've noticed that many a clarifying card wasn't really intended to "clarify".

Even so, I still interpret it and "attach" it to the preceding card, however their connection comes across (after sussing out why the clarifier was drawn in the first place). If somebody's spread contains an onerous pile of clarifiers, though, it just feels like a write-off that's best ignored. :p