The question of Clarifiers

[Diana]

Clarifiers have become very popular. I noticed that on my return to the Tarot. They're all over the place. It wasn't like that before. -LOL l!! - I sound like one of those caricatures of old people who say "things were different in my days". A bit like now there are 5 McDonalds in my town and 4 Starbucks. They sort of spring up overnight. One day they're not there, and you wake up the next morning and lo and behold... a new Starbucks has appeared overnight.

There were a huge amount of things I was thrilled about that had evolved in the Tarot world. But this one about clarifiers I didn't like from the beginning. Because most of the time, this clarifying business is done in a hugely sloppy way. People pull their cards - don't usually take enough time to think about them - everyone wants things quickly these days - that's why there are 5 McDonalds and 4 Starbucks in my town. We don't take time to think. I was listening to Kris Hadar the other day in a talk he gave (he's still around) on a non-Tarot topic, and he mentioned in passing why he'd given up teaching the Tarot in his school and writing about it. He said people are not interested in learning the Tarot anymore. They just want a quick fix.

Now, it's normal that sometimes we are puzzled about a reading. We're not omniscient. But for heaven's sake, one should treat the clarifiers as if they are almost separate readings. They should have a very clear question - as clear as the one we asked in the beginning. With positions and all. Of course, this second "reading" must pertain to the cards we've pulled. We can't go asking another question. But we should, if we find the need to do a clarifier or two, ask questions such as "what is the connection between card 1) and card 2", or "what deeper layer can be read in card 3". One can't just pull "clarifiers" like they're rabbits out of a hat. We're not that kind of magician. We're Tarot readers. They're nuances we're asking for and nuances have to be treated with care. Because they are nuances so delicate.

I've seen people who have about already 8 or 9 cards with all sorts of reversals on top of it, and they have three clarifiers that serve no purpose whatsoever except to continue to muddle the whole picture and create some sort of anarchy that is not the Good kind of anarchy. The other kind.

The Tarot needs a structure. Not chaos.

I don't use clarifiers. They're actually not allowed in my house. I reckon if I've done my question and my positions properly, I should have all the info I need. And in our day and age, we must beware of fake news.

There. I've had my rant. I'm going back to youtube to listen to a Yale professor explaining what historical criticism is. It's very interesting.

[Charlie Brown]

I've spent a lot of time thinking about this and some related issues and I've come to the tentative conclusion that most of these baleful practices arise from two interrelated factors: 1) people are learning from youtube specifically and the internet in general rather than books. There are lots of effects from this but, from my perspective, the one that's ultimately most differentiating (and not very easy to substantiate on my part) is how students are able to reference information when they learn/practice. 2) Because it's so easy for neophytes and others to post material on the internet. These people are learning from sources that may themselves not be particularly expert. So a bunch of inexperienced flakes get overconfident in their skills because they're all presenting themselves to each other as experts on social media.

There's actually a third factor, I think, which I find both more and less sympathetic. But my oats are ready so I bid you all adieu.

[Diana]

1) people are learning from youtube specifically and the internet in general rather than books. There are lots of effects from this but, from my perspective, the one that's ultimately most differentiating (and not very easy to substantiate on my part) is how students are able to reference information when they learn/practice. 2) Because it's so easy for neophytes and others to post material on the internet. These people are learning from sources that may themselves not be particularly expert. So a bunch of inexperienced flakes get overconfident in their skills because they're all presenting themselves to each other as experts on social media.

I saw the title of a youtube video earlier today called "Learn to read the Tarot in 2 hours". Words fail me. Literally. That's unusual for me.

Well, books are always not that good either because some of them just copy stuff from other books without really knowing what they're talking about. They don't really know why a three of swords in the RWS means a bleeding heart or whatever it means. I strongly suspect some have never read the literature that Waite left behind which would make them understand a bit what his Tarot is all about. They'd be most surprised I think if they really went into it. Some of the French books on the TdM are hopeless too. Just a lot of words with no substance.

There's actually a third factor, I think, which I find both more and less sympathetic. But my oats are ready so I bid you all adieu.

Now that's not very nice. Leaving us in the cold like that. Go on, spill the beans.

[Aoife]

Go on, spill the beans.

Cold porridge and beans... far too heavy on the carbs!

[Libra]

Ohhhh I have FEELINGS about clarifying cards. I ranted a bit before elsewhere so I'm gonna throw that here.

I think one of the main things about tarot for me is that I trust the cards. Like I really trust the cards, I will always assume that I've pulled the right card and if I don't get it, I need to sit with it and work with that energy until I actually DO get it. Pulling a "clarification card" feels a bit like a cop-out to me, I'm not gonna lie. I’m really not of the opinion that tarot is meant to be easy, and that you really get the most depth from your cards when you do come up against a card that you struggle with and you actually put the time and work in to figure out exactly why it would show up for you in that way that you weren’t immediately certain about!

The major thing that I think often happens with clarification cards is, ironically, a lack of clarity in how you are supposed to read them!  Take that pairing above, for instance. Let’s say you asked if so-and-so is your soul mate, and you get the Ace of Cups and your like “woah that’s an intense card to get for this questions, let’s clarify that!” and you pull Death next.  Huh, totally different card!  That doesn’t clarify anything really!  You go and you ask for help figuring out why you got two totally different answers for the same question, and you’re gonna end up with this range of answers from everyone because how I read a pair of cards probably differs from how you do.  You could read the first card as The Answer, with the 2nd adding more detail, you might read them as a true pair, you might give more weight in the reading to Death because it’s a Major, you might read it as a “now and later” type of thing.  Every reader you ask will give you their idea of how the cards work together, but if you didn’t set a clear intention about how YOU are going to read those clarifying cards, how do you know who is “right”?  There’s no way, and now you’ve got conflicting cards and bunch of different answers and no way to know what direction to take the reading.  You’re in a bigger pile of confusion than you started with!

So for me?  Clarifying cards are OUT.  Trusting your initial pull, sitting with the reading, having patience that the meaning will become clear, doing the research, those are the real ways to clarify your readings.  Nobody said this would be easy, baby!

[Diana]

Libra, just one word :

Amen.

[Charlie Brown]

I rarely if ever use clarifiers and pretty much only if I have two very firm but perhaps contradictory interpretations of a single card. The one example that comes to mind at the moment was once when I couldn't quite figure out if the chariot meant the sitter was being egotistical or if they needed to plow forward.

That being said, one could make the argument that pulling a covering pip in a majors-only TdM is a type of clarifier. The main difference as I see it is that in that case the technique and methodology are clearly defined and used with discipline. It doesn't (or shouldn't) stem from confusion.

[Diana]

That being said, one could make the argument that pulling a covering pip in a majors-only TdM is a type of clarifier.

That is most curious this practice that I've seen being used. I don't think that it's a good one actually. I think the minors should not be used in this fashion. It seems to me that there is a hierarchy there that should not be.

You still didn't tell us the third factor. Are you going to ? How were the oats by the way ?

[Charlie Brown]

It seems to me that there is a hierarchy there that should not be.

If you're generally a majors only reader, then there definitely is an hierarchy.

You still didn't tell us the third factor. Are you going to ? How were the oats by the way ?

Doubtful. Everyone knows that I try and avoid controversy at all costs.

And the oats were fit for an Irishman, thank you. I'll let you interpret that as you will.

[Diana]

If you're generally a majors only reader, then there definitely is an hierarchy.

That's almost true. But I think that either one reads with the Majors and consider them a full deck of cards, or we use all 78. By using the minors only for clarifiers, we're relegating them to something minor. The Minors are sometimes called The Honours. Let's Honour them therefore.

Doubtful. Everyone knows that I try and avoid controversy at all costs.

And the oats were fit for an Irishman, thank you. I'll let you interpret that as you will.

Well, how about you tell us and we do the controversial stuff and you just sit back with some popcorn and watch. This whole thread would be controversial for some people who use clarifiers all the time and would be probably be quite offended with what has been written here.

I think the oats were wonderful !!

[Aoife]

As far as I've seen, most people misunderstand what 'to clarify' means, and instead look for a repetition... something that reiterates the 'meaning' of the first card.
Where I think clarification might be useful is as in cookery. So, the removal of milk solids from melted butter, and the removal of extraneous solids to make a clear consomme. Hence - the clarification card would need to be about 'that which should be removed from the 'meaning' of the original card.
With my example - a RWS knight of cups, clarified by 2 of Cups would mean something entirely different to that which I've usually seen posted.

[Diana]

As far as I've seen, most people misunderstand what 'to clarify' means, and instead look for a repetition... something that reiterates the 'meaning' of the first card.
Where I think clarification might be useful is as in cookery. So, the removal of milk solids from melted butter, and the removal of extraneous solids to make a clear consomme. Hence - the clarification card would need to be about 'that which should be removed from the 'meaning' of the original card.
With my example - a RWS knight of cups, clarified by 2 of Cups would mean something entirely different to that which I've usually seen posted.

That's nifty. So you're saying that we remove something from the original meaning instead of adding to it ? How would you remove something from the Knight of Cups by clarifying with the 2 of Cups ? I like this idea but I don't see practically how to do this. But your idea somehow seems very sound and very original and I think most intriguing.

The word clarify used to have a meaning, now obsolete, which meant to make illustrious, glorify, make known.

[Charlie Brown]

I believe it's only the courts that are referred to as honors. Personally, I like the two-minor follow-up question better than cover cards. But cover cards aren't exactly a clarifier in the modern sense since you aren't reading the minor as it's own card but using it to help you know where to focus since, in a majors only deck, the meanings of each card are much more broad. So if I covered The Star with 5 of Coins, I would probably focus on the more negative and material aspects of the card, much like an RWS reader might read Star reversed. If it got covered with a high wand, I'd be more likely to interpret Star though the lens of fullness of spirit.

Not "What does the star mean? (draws 5 of cups clarifier). Oh, it means he's sad because he scared that loves me."

"How does X feel about me?" (draws Tower clarified by 10 of Swords) "Oh, he sees me as his twin flame."

"How does X's wife feel about me?" (draws Devil clarified by 6 of Wands) "Oh, she sees that X and I need to be together."

[Charlie Brown]

As far as I've seen, most people misunderstand what 'to clarify' means, and instead look for a repetition... something that reiterates the 'meaning' of the first card.
Where I think clarification might be useful is as in cookery. So, the removal of milk solids from melted butter, and the removal of extraneous solids to make a clear consomme. Hence - the clarification card would need to be about 'that which should be removed from the 'meaning' of the original card.
With my example - a RWS knight of cups, clarified by 2 of Cups would mean something entirely different to that which I've usually seen posted.

You didn't post an example, but it almost sounds more like your reading pairs rather than using clarifiers the way they do on facebook, etc.

[Charlie Brown]

How would you remove something from the Knight of Cups by clarifying with the 2 of Cups ? I like this idea but I don't see practically how to do this. But your idea somehow seems very sound and very original and I think most intriguing.

I don't know how she does it, but I may have inadvertently answered with my cover card explanation, which I posted before I saw Aoife's comment. FWIW, Aoife is my daughter's middle name.

[Diana]

Thanks for correcting the Honours and Minors confusion, Charlie Brown. I realised this morning when I woke that I'd made a mistake but forgot to come back to correct it.

[Aoife]

You didn't post an example, but it almost sounds more like your reading pairs rather than using clarifiers the way they do on facebook, etc.

Nice to meet you Charlie Brown. You gave your daughter a beautiful name

I don't actually use clarifiers, but like others here I find the silly usage elsewhere irritating. So my post was part tongue in cheek... but it could also have a use, I think.

I'm not sure what reading pairs entails? Although I've always been fascinated by the 'what lies between' two cards.
A technique for getting additional clarity that I'm most likely to use is that of a top card occluding a card beneath. But that's more about drawing to the surface stuff that's in the shadows.

[Joan Marie]

Somewhere in this thread, I think it was Charlie Brown mentioned "follow-up" questions.

I think some people are calling those clarifiers, but that is kind of what a follow up question is.

Yes ideally one would form the perfect question, receive a perfect answer and basta.

But sometimes the answer causes you to think in a way you hadn't previously, and then a follow up question can really be in order.
It's especially fun and rewarding if you are in fact having a good "dialog" with the cards in the moment. I think we all know the feeling of really connecting to the cards sometimes and why not keep at it if you are, and see if you can really dig into the situation you are trying to understand and maybe get to some real specifics?

[Diana]

Follow up is a nice notion. Much better than clarifiers especially if it's used in a sensible and respectful way.

Clarifiers themselves should rather be an exception. Not to be banned but used with care.

[SaturnCeleste]

I don't actually use clarifiers, but like others here I find the silly usage elsewhere irritating.

I don't use clarifier cards either but on occasion I've needed more information so I pull an oracle card. I also use oracle cards in my version of the Celtic Cross that adds a more in depth look at the traditional cross. It really bothers me when beginning readers think they need clarifiers and overuse the cards. What turns out to be a 5 card reading often ends up 8 or 9 cards!

[Monk]

Yes ideally one would form the perfect question, receive a perfect answer and basta.

I feel like the more perfect one poses a question the more one already knows the answer.
What else is this "perfect" about? Perfect is a sort of aiming right? ..and where do we aim for?

Somewhere in this thread, I think it was Charlie Brown mentioned "follow-up" questions.

I think some people are calling those clarifiers, but that is kind of what a follow up question is.

I've had to do this frequently in the past months getting to know the Tarot. Answers that were quite clear raised more questions, which isn't weird at all. I did find out these extra cards -only- work when they pose a question taking a whole new angle of approach to the topic. Otherwise it only blurs even more.

[Belenus]

Ohhhh I have FEELINGS about clarifying cards. I ranted a bit before elsewhere so I'm gonna throw that here.

I think one of the main things about tarot for me is that I trust the cards. Like I really trust the cards, I will always assume that I've pulled the right card and if I don't get it, I need to sit with it and work with that energy until I actually DO get it. Pulling a "clarification card" feels a bit like a cop-out to me, I'm not gonna lie. I’m really not of the opinion that tarot is meant to be easy, and that you really get the most depth from your cards when you do come up against a card that you struggle with and you actually put the time and work in to figure out exactly why it would show up for you in that way that you weren’t immediately certain about!

The major thing that I think often happens with clarification cards is, ironically, a lack of clarity in how you are supposed to read them!  Take that pairing above, for instance. Let’s say you asked if so-and-so is your soul mate, and you get the Ace of Cups and your like “woah that’s an intense card to get for this questions, let’s clarify that!” and you pull Death next.  Huh, totally different card!  That doesn’t clarify anything really!  You go and you ask for help figuring out why you got two totally different answers for the same question, and you’re gonna end up with this range of answers from everyone because how I read a pair of cards probably differs from how you do.  You could read the first card as The Answer, with the 2nd adding more detail, you might read them as a true pair, you might give more weight in the reading to Death because it’s a Major, you might read it as a “now and later” type of thing.  Every reader you ask will give you their idea of how the cards work together, but if you didn’t set a clear intention about how YOU are going to read those clarifying cards, how do you know who is “right”?  There’s no way, and now you’ve got conflicting cards and bunch of different answers and no way to know what direction to take the reading.  You’re in a bigger pile of confusion than you started with!

So for me?  Clarifying cards are OUT.  Trusting your initial pull, sitting with the reading, having patience that the meaning will become clear, doing the research, those are the real ways to clarify your readings.  Nobody said this would be easy, baby!

So, so brilliant Libra. I could not agree more. In teaching my students, I am very emphatic, clarifiers are ANATHEMA! They actually make you a poorer reader, not better. They do not clarify, they obscure - especially one's development and expertise.

So here's my "two cents" (because I largely agree with all the previous posts that decry the use of "clarifiers"): What is so wrong with struggling with a card(s) meaning? Who ever said cards must be perfectly clear the moment they are laid? Why is spending time in reflection and meditation upon a reading so horrible (or particular cards in it) - even if it means you have to come back to it hours, or gods forbid, days later? Why has challenge and obscurity become equal to being a "bad" or "inexperienced" reader?

I have always found, even after all these years, that there is a profound meaning as to why I am struggling to understand a particular card, cards, or spread. What am I refusing to see? What limits to my opinion, beliefs, or concepts is this murkiness revealing? Why, and what am I resisting? "Only the Shadow knows"

Finally, I think many of these "instantaneous tarot experts" bred by the internet, youtube, and/or a one-book purchase - are scared sh*tless to appear not to be the expert, the flawless reader and instead "oh the horrors!" appear clueless and fallible. I, for one, have never balked - nor seen it as a fault - to say to a client, "Hmmm. There is something deeper here that I do not see yet. Unraveling this will take some time for it to become clear. So let us honor the cards, and respect their invitation, and allow these cards to rest in our unconscious and so germinate into a more rich and potent understanding."

[Diana]

I've had to do this frequently in the past months getting to know the Tarot. Answers that were quite clear raised more questions, which isn't weird at all. I did find out these extra cards -only- work when they pose a question taking a whole new angle of approach to the topic. Otherwise it only blurs even more.

But then are these strictly speaking clarifiers ? If you're taking a whole new angle, isn't that a different and new reading ?

[Charlie Brown]

I've had to do this frequently in the past months getting to know the Tarot. Answers that were quite clear raised more questions, which isn't weird at all. I did find out these extra cards -only- work when they pose a question taking a whole new angle of approach to the topic. Otherwise it only blurs even more.

But then are these strictly speaking clarifiers ? If you're taking a whole new angle, isn't that a different and new reading ?

I wouldn't say so. That's something comletely different from what I understood us to be talking about.

[Diana]

So here's my "two cents" (because I largely agree with all the previous posts that decry the use of "clarifiers"): What is so wrong with struggling with a card(s) meaning? Who ever said cards must be perfectly clear the moment they are laid? Why is spending time in reflection and meditation upon a reading so horrible (or particular cards in it) - even if it means you have to come back to it hours, or gods forbid, days later? Why has challenge and obscurity become equal to being a "bad" or "inexperienced" reader?

That sounds so right what you say there Belenus. Instant coffee never has the same quality as a slow brewed coffee, the coffee beans of which we have ground ourselves.

And then it's too hot to drink straight away. So we have time to first see its colour, then smell its aroma, warm our hands on the cup. Watch the steam rising. And then only we drink it and savour it slowly. And after remains the lingering taste on our tongue and we feel good.