Barleywine
When I started in 1972, there were only a handful of spreads offered in the books I was able to find. Among the Celtic Cross, the astrological spread, the Opening of the Key and the Tree of Life spread, the CC was the simplest, so it's what I learned first and stayed with for many years. Today, with the number of beginner books available that take a more incremental approach to learning, I would most likely do it differently. The CC may not be the ideal starter spread, but it seems to me anyone with a nimble and curious mind and an appetite for learning would soon feel rather "boxed in" by the narrow "card-a-day" and three-card pull approach, endlessly journaling every scrap of information. I mean, take me to the salt mines! Much like the Grand Tableau in Lenormand. the CC can reward jumping in at the deep end because it gives an immediate sense of how the cards can work together to create a compelling story. If one has even a shred of story-telling impulse, it's well-served by the CC.
The trick is to find or create a version of the spread that promotes this kind of flow. I've spent years refining my own version because I never liked Waite's original (although Marcus Katz seems to have traced it back to Florence Farr in the Golden Dawn) and many of his position meanings. His "Sign of the Cross" arrangement grated on my non-Christian sensibilities. I much preferred Eden Gray's clockwise flow and her handling of the "hopes/fears" conundrum. More recently, I find that Anthony Louis, in Tarot Beyond the Basics, arrived at some of the same conclusions I reached (although I don't recall him mentioning Gray as an influence). More recent attempts to "psychologize" the CC also don't do much for me; I don't see a reason to allocate positions to "conscious" and "subconscious" when those elements can be found elsewhere on the "staff" side of the spread. Similarly, I wouldn't waste a position on "advice," since the point of the whole spread is advice, with the outcome card as the last word in that regard, and having a separate "Self" position seems redundant to Waite's Significator.
Currently, my only real quibble with it is the time it takes to do it right, which I find difficult to accomplish in 20-minute public reading sessions. I find 45 minutes about right in most straightforward cases, but half an hour works too as long as I don't spend too much time on preliminary stage-setting with my sitters. Asking them whether they've had readings before (most have) is a step in the right direction.
The trick is to find or create a version of the spread that promotes this kind of flow. I've spent years refining my own version because I never liked Waite's original (although Marcus Katz seems to have traced it back to Florence Farr in the Golden Dawn) and many of his position meanings. His "Sign of the Cross" arrangement grated on my non-Christian sensibilities. I much preferred Eden Gray's clockwise flow and her handling of the "hopes/fears" conundrum. More recently, I find that Anthony Louis, in Tarot Beyond the Basics, arrived at some of the same conclusions I reached (although I don't recall him mentioning Gray as an influence). More recent attempts to "psychologize" the CC also don't do much for me; I don't see a reason to allocate positions to "conscious" and "subconscious" when those elements can be found elsewhere on the "staff" side of the spread. Similarly, I wouldn't waste a position on "advice," since the point of the whole spread is advice, with the outcome card as the last word in that regard, and having a separate "Self" position seems redundant to Waite's Significator.
Currently, my only real quibble with it is the time it takes to do it right, which I find difficult to accomplish in 20-minute public reading sessions. I find 45 minutes about right in most straightforward cases, but half an hour works too as long as I don't spend too much time on preliminary stage-setting with my sitters. Asking them whether they've had readings before (most have) is a step in the right direction.
