Changes to standard images...bother you much?

Ryver

Izzydune, I forgot about the broom in Enchanted because the bridge throws me so much more. lol And I removed the diviner before ever even using it so I also forgot that.

I don't have the other decks so as far as I can tell, we are in complete agreement on the earlier points as I suspected.

I'm really impressed with the wealth of experience and knowledge you have to share as well as your passion for the subject. I have to admit that since the first post I saw from you was about you signing up for a new class, the last thing I expected was to see such amazing insight and mastery of Lenormand. What a treat!
 

Seraphina

I'm really impressed with the wealth of experience and knowledge you have to share as well as your passion for the subject. I have to admit that since the first post I saw from you was about you signing up for a new class, the last thing I expected was to see such amazing insight and mastery of Lenormand. What a treat!

Totally agree!
It's so helpful to beginners like me to have people so knowledgable in traditional Lenormand, who share that knowledge here at AT!
 

greatdane

I agree, excellent points, Izzydunne

As someone who managed in psychology, who brings that to my reading table (don't we ALL bring ourselves to readings?), images are important to me. Some decks I can adjust a little to. The Bieri with the SWORD for WHIP/BROOM, I see that in my mind as WHIP/BROOM or being repeatedly hit with the SWORD. Would I prefer WHIP/BROOM? Yes, but I like much of this deck and I made that adjustment. But I so agree that we are reading the images, so if the images change, our perceptions can change. I like my Lenormand the way I see Lenormand, the standardized images most people agree are the standards. The Burning Serpent threw me big time. Looking at the images I didn't see how the literature could say it could be read like a Lenormand. It was like a hybrid deck to me and I didn't see it as oracle or Lenormand, it was just confusing looking at the images, which I did check out. But it was easy to pass on. Even some decks like the Mystical Lenormand, that I love, the RING isn't as visible as I would like it as first I saw..the BIRDS. But I have adjusted. It depends on how much adjustment is required for a deck. That's why I love decks like the FLONZ because it's JUST the images, kind of floating on the card. Nothing superfluous, no guessing. It's Lenormand straight up, no twist, no surprises.
 

Teheuti

It depends on how much adjustment is required for a deck. That's why I love decks like the FLONZ because it's JUST the images, kind of floating on the card. Nothing superfluous, no guessing. It's Lenormand straight up, no twist, no surprises.
I so agree with you! Yes, I'm willing to make some adjustment with oddities like Broom, but if the deck gets too out there then I'll either not use it at all, or think of it more as an Oracle deck and not a Lenormand.
 

greatdane

Oh exactly, Teheuti!

I can adjust some things if I can make that jump. But when it goes too far off the track to me, sorry, not there. And what's really bad, is that if it's kind of vaguely close to Lenormand, but so far off it, then it's hard for me to see as an oracle because my mind sees some things there as Lenormand, but not others. I'd rather it either be Lenormand (and hey, they can add extra cards that are their own invention, I don't care, I can always remove them) or clearly not Lenormand.
 

Grizabella

For me, the standard images need to be there. But my absolute favorite Lenormand is the Gilded Reverie and it has extra cards . But basically, other than the extra cards, cirom stuck pretty closely to standard imagery closely enough that there can't be any mistake that it's Lenormand. I think there's less wiggle room with Lenormand than with Tarot.
 

greatdane

Yeah, Grizabella EXTRA cards don't bother me

I don't have the Gilded with the extras, I have the latest one. I don't mind an extra Man/Woman card anyway or, as in the Flonz, you can have the CAT, instead of the DOG. If someone wants to use the CAT, fine, if someone wants to use the DOG, fine. And if people add extra cards on top of the traditional 36, doesn't bother me. It's just radically changing one of the traditional to the point the whole original idea of the card is so far off track. It's like if you want to call a sweater, a jacket, I will probably adjust, but please don't tell me it's a pair of pants.
 

shadowdancer

For me, the standard images need to be there. But my absolute favorite Lenormand is the Gilded Reverie and it has extra cards . But basically, other than the extra cards, cirom stuck pretty closely to standard imagery closely enough that there can't be any mistake that it's Lenormand. I think there's less wiggle room with Lenormand than with Tarot.

I LOVE the extras Ciro has with his deck. (I have the app version).

To the extent I have in mind to see if my idea for how to read bridge pans out, should it appear the centre of a 3 x 3

The flanking cards are where you are (A) and where you are the other side of the bridge (B) so linear as per usual ways of reading the line.

However, I sense it could apply, where the card above it is what is taken on the journey and may still be of relevance. The card below it could show what is passing, or to let go of - the water under the bridge syndrome.

It is an awesome deck, and I have a copy on permanent display on a board, in my guest bedroom. I am also aware of other decks where there is a specific significator card added representing work, one for sexual intimacy and one for money/finances. I kinda like that idea because there are varying schools of thought as to what should represent those issues. Why not take that question mark out of the equation? It also frees those cards up so if one of their other aspects should apply to the reading, it can still show that without being tied up as a significator.

Other than that? I don't want to see changed images. As someone said, don't tell me I am getting a fox and then stick a cat in. Or a sword instead of whip or whatever. Extra cards I don't have a problem with, because if they don't feel right I just take them out. Which is exactly what I did with the extra card in Caitlin's deck.
 

Izzydunne

Ryver said:

"I am really impressed with the wealth of experience and knowledge you have to share as well as your passion for the subject, I have to admit that since the first post I saw from you was about signing up for a new class, the last thing I expected was to see such amazing insight and mastery of the Lenormand. What a treat!"

I don't usually blush, but I might this time. You are very kind, and gracious. Yes, I have been around the track many times, and have done my best to turn my varied experiences into something meaningful.

One of my prime directives is that" "Simple is usually best" ( also known as Occam's razor) , and I apply it almost universally across the board.

As a primary care provider my success has always hinged on simplicity and sincerity. I apply these same principles to my card reading (although I do not call myself a card reader, I usually use the title "psychic" or "fortune teller", depending on my mood.

My first post on this forum was to notify the group that Claire Seifert's English Lenormand Course is finally ready. Of course I ordered it. I don't know Claire, but I have seen her youtube videos, and she reads a lot like me: Theory+Intuition. This is a beautiful, elegant, and effective way to read the cards. Too many rules (knighting, houses, blah, blah, blah), just get in the way. They may provide a lot of additional information but it becomes like the Forer Effect where everything is throw against the wall in hopes of something sticking. At P.T. Barnum once said: "We've got something for everybody."

Personally I would prefer to only address a few things in a reading and be spot on, than say many things and only be partially accurate.
 

shadowdancer

Too many rules (knighting, houses, blah, blah, blah), just get in the way. They may provide a lot of additional information but it becomes like the Forer Effect where everything is throw against the wall in hopes of something sticking. At P.T. Barnum once said: "We've got something for everybody."

Personally I would prefer to only address a few things in a reading and be spot on, than say many things and only be partially accurate.

This is why I have just binned my typed notes regarding reading a GT. The only available sources at the time were in the main online and sources threw EVERYTHING IN as you have said. I did a GT a while ago, using all the steps and it felt awkward. I felt more focussed on doing everything and covering everything than on the flow of the reading. It was not enjoyable.

Then I read Rana's book. No need to do knighting (she doesn't often) but it was there if I felt I wanted to incorporate it. No mirroring. No doing spread out diamond stuff.
Heck I felt liberated. She does seem to come from the KISS school of thought.

And those decks which don't playing card inserts? No big deal, although I have seen a few comments citing they are a must as they are so important. It appears Rana only uses them for predicting gender of unborns, otherwise it appears they don't really feature in her readings. Heck, if it is good enough for her, then it is good enough for me folks :D :D

No more will I wring every darned word I can out of the layout by using every available chess move or permuation. Deep down I didn't feel I needed to, but felt I had to. Otherwise I was only playing at reading a GT. Now I can relax and do the basics, knowing I am still getting a lot of relevant info. Not to say others are wrong for doing this. We find our own reading style and incorporate the steps we feel we need. Some may prefer 10, others may prefer 6. If we are both happy with the resultant reading that is all that matters but I will no longer feel I am a less of a reader if I don't attempt to wring the dishcloth totally dry.