My hypothesis for this post is that most forms of cartomancy heavily rely on the context of the question or situation being read on.
As context shifts, so do the specific interpretations that readers pluck out of a pool of general meaning.
By leaning into the idea of context and building extremely contextual meaning sets, readers can elevate their skills and more reliably produce very specific readings within contexts they have studied and prepared for.
This is going to be a long one, so I'm making sections for readability.
Most "little white books" that come with tarot and oracle decks, and cartomancy websites and published resources, divide card meanings into the general and contextual.
E.g., a tarot card's general meaning usually includes key words such as heartbreak, betrayal, and backstabbing. Then, contextual meanings might be provided:
Interpersonal relationships: Is a relationship about to end?
Business: Make sure any new business deals won't screw you over.
Spiritual: How can you use your spirituality to help with heartbreak?
While these contextual meanings stem from the base source of the card, they aren't interchangeable. Imagine if a querent asks you about their small business, and you reply, "well, have you tried using your spirituality to deal with interpersonal heartbreak?"
Therefore, a major role of the reader is defining the appropriate context of a question.
In order to practice their skills, many diviners offer to do "blind" readings for others. This means that the reader doesn't want any background information about the question at all - but even so, a reader may still ask for the context of a question.
E.g., a reader may say, "don't even tell me your actual question, but just tell me what kind of question it is - if it's about employment, a relationship, etc. Otherwise I won't know how to frame the answer."
[I don't mean to say that all readers always require context in this manner. Many readers do not, especially very practiced ones. But I don't think that means that context is irrelevant, even to very experienced readers who can obtain context on their own.]
The Complete Lenormand Oracle Handbook by Caitlín Matthews begins by introducing the typical meanings of Lenormand cards. Later, she provides a custom set of meanings she personally developed related to her years spent in live theater.
Because of her time spent performing readings for theater workers, and about theater, she had developed a complex and unique system of meaning for Lenormand which, for the purposes of reading about live theater, was immensely more accurate and specific than the general Lenormand system.
While the general meanings of Lenormand informed her custom system, the custom system was not interchangeable with general meanings and was only applicable to a specific context and its related themes.
I discovered the same phenomenon by accident years ago, when I was frustrated with how general and nonspecific my readings had become.
I wanted to be able to use tarot to read accurately for everyday situations. So, over the course of several months, I worked with my primary divinatory ally to develop my own set of notes for the tarot, specifically for reading everyday, mundane situations.
The meanings given for the cards don't work very well at all for mystical, spiritual, or meditative self-exploratory readings. The meanings are things like, "you're the only one putting energy into this relationship," or, "don't go to the party if you didn't receive an invitation."
I use this set of meanings when I want very plain and straightforward readings on everyday situations, which it's very good at. I got what I wanted: accurate and specific readings on day-to-day questions with the tarot.
The meaning set fails at every other kind of question.
Recently, in my ongoing experiments with a custom oracle mashup of playing cards and tarot, I decided I wanted a meaning set that was useful for troubleshooting creative writing projects.
This deck has general meanings like, air/movement/exchange, water/observation/stagnant, and earth/categories/planning.
I developed contextual meanings like, "the dialogue in this scene is doing what it needs to do," "the character's motivations aren't clearly explained," and "the external goals of the character don't match what's already been explained about them."
By focusing on a specific context, readers can get very good at reading certain types of questions.
By taking the general meanings of a card and developing them in new, unique ways that are still true to that card's roots, you create a huge learning opportunity to connect more deeply with that card.
Not only can you explore the unique evolutions of each card as it intersects with your interests and life, but your understanding of the deck as a whole can evolve.
When I was working with my original set of "everyday" meanings for the tarot, I discovered that many times I developed card meanings that really overlapped each other, making some cards redundant. When I decided to sort this out, my understanding of - and relationship to - tarot rapidly changed. I'm at a new level of understanding that I hadn't been able to achieve just by using general meanings for the 15 or so years of reading I had been doing before that.
The elements are currently a major part in my practice of witchcraft. As silly or abstract as it may seem, exploring how an oracle card that generally means water/observation/stagnant could apply to a specific type of fiction writing deepened my relationship not only with that experimental deck, but also to my craft as a whole.
As I've explored custom meaning sets in general, my ability to rapidly link abstract symbols has improved. Even if a specific meaning set doesn't apply, just having explored that makes my readings stronger.
For example, if I draw a card and I don't know how to apply it to a certain situation, having different sets of meaning floating around in my head is a little like having three or four helpful aunties shouting suggestions. None of them may be completely accurate, but it's a far better starting place than having no aunties at all.
By investing in very specific sets of meaning that only apply to certain contexts, readers can gain insight and skills that assist them in all types of readings throughout all contexts.
Here are a handful of tips and tricks I've collected throughout the years. Take or leave them as you desire.
Well, I'm sure this one is more down to personal preference, but don't be afraid to choose extremely specific contexts.
In my examples above about the creative fiction meaning set, the context wasn't "literary analysis" or "creative writing." The context was, "troubleshooting commercial fiction manuscripts and outlines to be more in line with modern commercial standards."
That isn't great at brainstorming, coming up with story ideas, dealing with literary fiction, grappling with major artistic themes, etc. It does one thing great: helping you workshop a commercial manuscript that you'd like to send to a publisher.
Even when using general meanings, many readers identify that certain decks are just better at certain kinds of readings. If you have multiple decks, try swapping them out as you experiment and see which ones work best.
Depending on your preferences, you may find value in not only developing individual cards, but also groupings of cards.
By taking entire sections of cards (say, all of the wands cards) and linking them to an important concept within your context (say, the behaviors of all the dogs you train), you can make large leaps of progress.
The same could be done for all the kings cards (your mentors in the dog training world), all the #3 cards (they're all going to relate to, say, small change or progress), and you can end up quickly mashing up new meaning sets:
Today's dog training business reading suggests that a Youtuber who's information you rely on is going to release a video about the importance of small behavioral changes.
Assigning broad meanings to different sections of cards is a good way to start exploring specific contexts.
As you take notes, there's no need to settle one one meaning for the card as it is and then avoid changing it.
If your original idea for a card is "stubborn dogs who are not motivated by treats," and you perform multiple readings on it where the card only really makes sense if it means, "this dog will show up super tired and just want to nap," then it's fine to modify notes as you go.
I find that over time, modifications actually end up being multiple possible interpretations, once again deepening my understanding of the card as a whole (this card refers to difficulty inspiring action and engagement).
Often, card meanings come to me very vaguely and are practically stand-ins until I can figure something out for them.
I can apply some meaning sets to literally any spread and it'll come out just fine.
Other meaning sets I have don't play great with tons of spreads, and may only work well with small spreads, using signifiers, and so forth.
If you've got two ideas for a card (the dog is well-adjusted and friendly, or, he's very reactive and dangerous) and you aren't sure which fits, keep both meanings and use a combination of readings and real-world verification to experiment.
While I believe it's a good idea to seek fidelity to the original/general meanings of a card, this doesn't imply that the unique contexts you develop have to coincide with each other.
Maybe you have a meaning set specifically for energy work, and a separate one for religious spirit work.
In your energy working set, the wands cards could always relate to fire energy and only ever refer to a spirit if drawn in conjunction with a court card.
But, in your religious spirit work set, the 4/wands might always refer to the spirit of a home, regardless of elemental alignment.
The meanings you develop for one context don't need to adhere to the rules you create for other contexts.
Tarot cards, with their intrusive little pictures, can often impose their own meanings on a context whether you like it or not. Even if horrendous betrayal makes zero sense for your context, sometimes it's impossible to get those ideas of the 3/Swords out of our heads.
If you're finding tarot to be too confining, try experimenting with playing card decks. They're smaller, draw less attention, and most importantly, do away with the art that can anchor our minds to the wrong concepts.
(Split the difference by working with a tarot deck that just uses suit symbols for the pips, but has full art for the major arcana.)
I hope you're having a good day ^-^
My favorite ultra-specific character type is "this fucked up little man clearly just needs a consensual BDSM relationship and some therapy and he'd be fine, but that is very much not what happens in this story."
Divine Mugisha by Andrew Vowles for W Magazine China July 2024
Styled by Katie Shillingford. Makeup by Anmy Drammeh. Hair by Kiyoko Odo.
“mary wollstonecraft sent a volume of jean-jacques rousseau's bestselling novel julie, or the new heloise (1761) to her lover william godwin in 1796, with the request that he ‘dwell on your own feelings: that is to say, give me a bird's-eye view of your heart.’
the shrewdest lovers marked up their books by highlighting the passages that they most agreed with, thereby ensuring that they found a spouse with a similar intellect, interests and outlook on life.”
we have loved the same way for centuries.
Thinking back to the time I was about halfway through TMA and was explaining the plot to a friend who has never listened to a single episode and they tried to make one of those "Soup was invented by John Soup when he wanted to drink a chicken" jokes and ended up saying something along the lines of "The Magnus Institute was created by John Magnus when he wanted to make an institute for all the fears" and at the time I was like haha good one bro but in hindsight I think I need to fucking throngle them with my bare hands
OK correct me if I'm wrong, but I feel like the main 'yin/yang' parallel with Atsushi and Akutagawa is not something like 'this one is bad but secretly has a good side and this one is good but secretly has a bad side'.
I feel like it's more about 'who they are at their core vs who they choose to be'.
At his core Akutagawa is kind and at his core Atsushi is not. But despite this Atsushi tries every day to make the kinder choices and I love him so much for it. He has to work so hard to be good.
He wants to be a bitch SO bad I know he does but he tries his best to help people and be nice (sometimes he fails but that's OK <3)
Atsushi doesn't always WANT to help people, a lot of the time he's selfish and scared, but he does help people anyway. He keeps helping people over and over again. There's still some selfish motivation to it, and his initial motivation for helping people was because the headmaster told him that's all he was worth, but overall he does care about the people he helps and it weighs on him if he fails to save them. And of course, as the series goes on he starts helping people more because he can rather than because he feels like he needs to.
In Akutagawa's case, he's still capable of being kind but his environment led him into being someone who chooses to hurt people. But he's always been a protector at heart. In the start he was bad compared to Atsushi because he was choosing to hurt people and keep the cycle of abuse going. Just like how Atsushi developed in why he saved people, Akutagawa starts to get redeemed when he chooses to not just act on his rage. Not only does he start to spare people, but he speaks more kindly to them (apologising to Higuchi and telling Kyouka he's proud of her). It all culminates into the moment he chooses to help Atsushi and sacrifice himself for him, going back to his core value of being a protector. Even when he's finally revived, he keeps this role in his new position as Aya's Knight.
I kind of see the streaks of white in Akutagawa and the streaks of black in Atsushi not as their 'hidden sides' but as their fundamental selfs. That's who they are at their core, and their main colours (black for Akutagawa and white for Atsushi) are how they're presented to everyone else and how they try to have people see them as.