George vs Steinbach: Book Reviews.

Easy to follow and read would make a difference & SS's book is not straight forward plus has grammatcal errors as well as other mistakes with individual pages. I was lucky I could ask questions ~ mainly her 2nd in charge and a few times her. But she was also not easy and it was her method or no method. I knew the GT before her or her method! But she gave me a way that I could tackle specific questions which is what I wanted.

I care about important things and some Lenormand readings Ive seen make me wonder, not because of the person, but where s/he has sourced the info. Like for example SUN MAN LILY ~ His mind is on other things and he is over you. He is likely getting his "house" in order and looking forward to...
Hope that is not a result of a book.

Did see some example you gave from George and understood it before reading your explaination. Remember it as: DOG RING MAN CROSSROADS WOMAN.

How I see it:

The man is already in an existing relationship as the DOG and RING mean that and come before him, so his past whereas the CROSSROADS and WOMAN come after so there is an interest in other women and likely not just one, but with it comes conflict. The DOG is not the sitter, but someone connected to him.

So, George's example is good amd should be read by anyone in a similar fashion and not going off in different directions or unknown territory.

Lenormand is quite simple and straightforward, so books should reflect that I feel.

Lee said:

In other words, the idea is that if she used her original copy of her deck, it supposedly wouldn't have lasted 20 years, therefore she supposedly must have had used some decks in between. My response to this issue is: who cares?

I read that Amazon review of Rana's book, which lists similarities between Rana's book and Steinbach's (I refer to her as "Steinbach" because I seem to recall that she takes offense at people referring to her too familiarly). It doesn't overly concern me. The whole point of a tradition of meanings is that many of the meanings will be the same from one reader to another.

I find Steinbach's book difficult to understand (I know there are folks out there who don't feel that way). I've tried several times to read it, and I've twice gone through most of her study group threads here. Perhaps it's a language issue, but I just have a hard time following her discourse.

I like Rana's personal stories, it helps humanize the reading examples and makes them more vivid and thus more understandable for me.

Click to expand...

Well I have both books, I like Ranas better, but , I learnt Lenormand through Titanias Fortune Cards! Before I ever knew of the Blu Owl and the others which I have

DownUnderNZer said:

The reviewer wondered how often she used it and questioned it. Not about systems, but one deck.

I think over the years I have been through about 4 to 5 Blue Owl decks a year. So it makes me think too.

Click to expand...

Good point - I wasn't being provocative - but 4 or 5 decks a year! Wow! Plus if you get the book and see the photo of Rana's deck you'll see what state it is in; it is VERY heavily used and falling apart.

I have to say, I can't remember what I took on board and what I didn't with Steinbach's book. I just remember being grateful to be able to read a book on the subject in English. With Rana's examples, I remember being able to follow the logic very well and being able to identify where it was going. It must be hard, if you think about it, learning to read something in a traditional way and then having to deconstruct that and have it make sense to people who are new to the subject. Rana's tone and accessibility helps enormously in this respect.

As the thread is George vs Steinbach, I'm refraining from referring much to Caitlín's book, but I like this one!

That was my situation exactly. I learnt from one traditionalist and still do the GT that way - where the Anchor is work and the Fish is money etc. But when doing freestyle the Fox is work and Bear is money.

It was hard for me transitioning. Even doing one or two cards as I felt (still do) more are needed except perhaps for learning purposes or understanding combos. Through trial and error I evolved to a better understanding, but am still learning new things or ways of looking at them without moving too far away from the basics.

I was grateful for something in English too, but mostly a new approach or method.

Glad to know George has brought out something that is simple to understand and grasp and wish she had done it 10 years ago. I did like what I saw as a sample of an example of hers maybe later she can do more in depth stuff for those that want to learn further.

Le Fanu said:

Good point - I wasn't being provocative - but 4 or 5 decks a year! Wow! Plus if you get the book and see the photo of Rana's deck you'll see what state it is in; it is VERY heavily used and falling apart.

I have to say, I can't remember what I took on board and what I didn't with Steinbach's book. I just remember being grateful to be able to read a book on the subject in English. With Rana's examples, I remember being able to follow the logic very well and being able to identify where it was going. It must be hard, if you think about it, learning to read something in a traditional way and then having to deconstruct that and have it make sense to people who are new to the subject. Rana's tone and accessibility helps enormously in this respect.

As the thread is George vs Steinbach, I'm refraining from referring much to Caitlín's book, but I like this one!

Click to expand...