Lenormand: What Difficulties Do YOU experience?

"Lenormand: What Difficulties Do YOU Most Experience As A Learner".

  • Understanding one system or any for that matter.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Certain cards when in a combo or spread. E.g. Sun/Cross.

    Votes: 11 40.7%
  • How to answer a question whether specific or general.

    Votes: 10 37.0%
  • I find it tricky reading them in pairs, threes, or more than 5.

    Votes: 10 37.0%
  • I cannot get my head around certain cards. E.g. Coffin.

    Votes: 4 14.8%
  • I find it hard to read when a card like Tree/Heart/Fish turns up for a question like Job.

    Votes: 10 37.0%
  • I do not know when I am the "Man"/"Woman"...or not.

    Votes: 4 14.8%
  • I do not understand the basics.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I find it confusing as one source says this and another that.

    Votes: 6 22.2%
  • Other: State Reasons In Comments.

    Votes: 3 11.1%

  • Total voters
    27
  • Poll closed .

Barleywine

Myself, I would see Snake in house of Snake as bungled attempts by a malignant person to harm the sitter. i.e. someone who is so obviously malignant, you can't miss it, and therefore gives the sitter more ability to control or steer clear of the person, or quell the attacks. Or, because the attacks or troubles coming are so glaringly obvious that the Snake becomes almost an inept caricature of itself. A self-defeating Snake that eats its own tail.

In the sense of Snake as problems that affect the sitter, and not Snake as a person, then I would see it as the sitter themselves creating his or her own problems.

But hey, that is just my take on it, based on reading experiences.

I like the idea of a card being so over-the-top that it becomes a caricature of itself. I can think of a number of cards where that would make a lot of sense. It reduces the subtlety that can lead to missing the point. It could be like the Coffin saying "Dead is dead, after all" or the Cross saying "What part of 'No' don't you understand?"
 

Padma

I like the idea of a card being so over-the-top that it becomes a caricature of itself. I can think of a number of cards where that would make a lot of sense. It reduces the subtlety that can lead to missing the point. It could be like the Coffin saying "Dead is dead, after all" or the Cross saying "What part of 'No' don't you understand?"

Yes, exactly- that was kind of where I was going with that idea ;) Like the deck's way of hyper-underlining an exaggerated comment, with a big red marker.
 

DownUnderNZer

Actually, I do see how "Lily" or "Snake" can be seen as "phallic" like, but never in my pre-teens. :D As for "Whip" I do see it too only as it can be such an aggressive and violent card it was one card meaning I had a harder time with between the two systems.


DND :)

A bit of random sophomoric humor here, but when I was a pre-teen back in the '50s," "lily" was a sly code-word for the male organ. So maybe it's not that far-fetched . . . :joke:

As far as the Moon goes, reputation and honor are my main meanings; work as a place where those qualities are often at stake is secondary. But if I need a "work" card, I stick with Andy's idea since I've found him reliable.
 

DownUnderNZer

For me it would come down to the context of the GT and what is being asked. Is the main focus on all main areas, a few, or just one and for me personally the system. E.g. German/French.

In addition, the GT style.

The 8 x 4 plus 4 I use looks at a break down of areas like the corners, the middle, what is in front of the sitter, the very first card, the last four cards etc whereas the 9 x 4 can start at the sitter's card or a main house and follow through from there.

Is it about an alleged cheating spouse? Job? Another woman? Travel?

That comes into as well. Not to mention the cards that surround it.

To me, the HOUSE of the SNAKE or SNAKE is not important UNLESS the question is about something like a relationship/marriage/other woman or it comes up when I am doing something like tic tac toe.

Other than that it is not something I'd look at twice or stress over.


DND :)




I drew Snake on Snake in my last GT! Holy crap!

After I'm done reading the GT, I go through the cards one by one to see what house they landed on. I admit I get confused as a combo of cards might tell one story, but the houses underneath shed a whole new light on the read. *bangs head against the wall*
 

Village Witch

The 8 x 4 plus 4 I use looks at a break down of areas like the corners, the middle, what is in front of the sitter, the very first card, the last four cards etc whereas the 9 x 4 can start at the sitter's card or a main house and follow through from there.

I most always lay a 9 x 4. I use all the methods you mention for the 8 x 4 + 4 except for reading the last for cards.

I do not understand what you are saying about the 9 x 4 starting at the sitter's card or a main house and follow through from there. Can you elaborate? Thank you.
 

Village Witch

Myself, I would see Snake in house of Snake as bungled attempts by a malignant person to harm the sitter. i.e. someone who is so obviously malignant, you can't miss it, and therefore gives the sitter more ability to control or steer clear of the person, or quell the attacks. Or, because the attacks or troubles coming are so glaringly obvious that the Snake becomes almost an inept caricature of itself. A self-defeating Snake that eats its own tail.

In the sense of Snake as problems that affect the sitter, and not Snake as a person, then I would see it as the sitter themselves creating his or her own problems.

But hey, that is just my take on it, based on reading experiences.

Very interesting! Thank you, Padma.

Like I said, I am learning so very much from this thread. Thanks to all!
 

celticnoodle

Myself, I would see Snake in house of Snake as bungled attempts by a malignant person to harm the sitter. i.e. someone who is so obviously malignant, you can't miss it, and therefore gives the sitter more ability to control or steer clear of the person, or quell the attacks. Or, because the attacks or troubles coming are so glaringly obvious that the Snake becomes almost an inept caricature of itself. A self-defeating Snake that eats its own tail.

In the sense of Snake as problems that affect the sitter, and not Snake as a person, then I would see it as the sitter themselves creating his or her own problems.

But hey, that is just my take on it, based on reading experiences.

I like this, Padma! Yes, I could see it as such too--a person who just can't seem to get out of their own way for the troubles that plague them. Their own worst enemy--themselves.

If I ever find I have the snake in the house of snake for a reading, I will remember this! :)
 

celticnoodle

And what does he designate as the work card?

Yes, I'd like to know too. I often think about buying his book, but never seem to do so. I have Rana George's book though and found it very helpful. Does Andy also have a website?
 

Barleywine

Actually, I do see how "Lily" or "Snake" can be seen as "phallic" like, but never in my pre-teens. :D As for "Whip" I do see it too only as it can be such an aggressive and violent card it was one card meaning I had a harder time with between the two systems.


DND :)

I much prefer the Whip or the Snake as an expression of sexual activity, appetite or intent. The Lilies card seems entirely too prissy.