Over in the Facebook Lenormand group, there is a minor debate about whether “charging” the cards is a valid technique. For anyone who doesn’t know, charging the cards means identifying significators in advance. This is most useful in identifying who the Man and Woman cards will be, and includes choosing a focus card when doing the “no-layout” method of reading.
The person that started the debate wrote:
I just realized that Lenny doesn’t care how you “charge the cards.”
I would like to point out that there is no absolute, one-size-fits-all technique for reading any kind of cards. Some techniques work for some people, and not others. Perhaps charging doesn’t work for this person, because on some level they didn’t like it to begin with it. That doesn’t mean their view should be applied to the Lenormand as a generalization.
Baartschi Whip
Charging is the intentional choice of a significators for a reading. People have used significators in tarot for years. Are they wrong to do so? People choose a focus card in traditional Lenormand readings, such as the line of five or square of nine. Are they wrong too?
In fact, I believe using the Lenormand Man and Woman as the querent and significant other — a solid part of Lenormand tradition — is “charging” by convention. Yet I don’t hear complaints about this. Maybe newcomers shun this convention now and use the Man and Woman as other people, but for the German approach I first learned, they are always the querent and his or her significant other. No exceptions.
For the record, I charge — intentionally choose significators — when I do the no-layout technique; but not when I use a Grand Tableau. In that case, I do adopt the Man and Woman as the querent and significant other, which is the same result as charging.
If a technique consistently works for a reader, then it is valid, at least for that reader. If it doesn’t work, by all means discard it, but understand why and don’t presume that others should do the same. The Lenormand itself doesn’t care about anything; it’s the mind that does readings and must accept or reject any reading techniques. It is the mind that responds to the intentions we readers set before a reading.
To paraphrase Iris Treppner, the cards are pasteboard and you can do what you want with them; in esotericism, nothing is forbidden. So, use what works and discard what doesn’t. Break with tradition — there are no cartomancy police to arrest us for doing so. 
However, card reading is a very personal thing, and we will all develop our own unique practices, hopefully built on a solid framework or tradition.
What do you think?
16 comments
Comments feed for this article
July 12, 2012 at 11:26 am
Kali Klm
personally sometimes I use the specific significator,sometimes not..lenormand is speaking in different manners to readers and the most important I guess is how you activate your brain to work with these cards..and you are right,nothing is forbidden in esotericism
July 12, 2012 at 1:20 pm
Jason
Hi kali,
Yes, I agree, it’s how you train your mind and set your own conventions when reading.
July 12, 2012 at 1:15 pm
woley
OMG, they’d probably shoot me. I leave the male and female significator cards in the deck and treat them as regular cards. However, if I was doing a reading for someone I would probably use them conventionally.
Dogmatic condemnation of people’s personal approach irritates me when I see it in groups. In fact, any political correctness and bullying with regard to using decks is a turn-off. It’s quite distasteful to see this sort of thing.
I’m with you Jase, build on a solid tradition and do what works for you. It’s nobody else’s business how you use card decks.
July 12, 2012 at 1:44 pm
Jason
Hi woley,
I have to be careful not to be hypocritical about this, because I do see value in using techniques that have stood the test of time and/or experience by others. I believe we acknowledge these techniques and traditions, or where we have broken from them. If someone throws away a proven technique, it’s their own choice and privilege to do so.
I’m not sure the original post was meant to dogmatically condemn other approaches, but I disliked the way it seemed to generalize the use of a technique based on a reader’s experience — and it was an uncommon scenario, for that matter. The readings that didn’t support charging were about things like political elections.
Maybe the Lenormand needs other techniques to handle that. For example, classical horary astrology has a lot of rules that apply to reading a chart for things like games of chance, or competitions including battle. We are asking a 36-card deck to resolve probabilities for situations that can pose a challenge for computers. That’s a fascinating topic, suited for experimentation by those with interest.
Kapherus, an experienced reader who has a lot of respect from those who know him, once said charging improved his accuracy. He tested this empirically. Should we say that the “Lenormand prefers it” then, based on his experience?
It comes down to the fact that if charging doesn’t work for someone, it doesn’t mean the “Lenormand doesn’t like it” or that others shouldn’t feel free to charge as they see fit. We all have free will, after all.
July 12, 2012 at 2:38 pm
Gina Pace
hi Jase…. I am actually reading through the Steinbach book this week…. someone gifted it to me…. and she is one of the sources of this phrase “Charging” a card as far as I can tell. Looking directly at the way she uses the expression, in the section where she is talking about how to set up a reading, she actually makes it sound like there is a little magical ritual you do with the card to “charge” it. In other words, going beyond the mere selection of a significator…. but to actually take that card out, hold it in your hands and pray over it or something, dance to the holy man, whatever magical thing you do to it, and then you do the reading around it. Seriously. I was surprised she didn’t mention eye of newt and wolfsbane in the same paragraph…. =)
July 12, 2012 at 3:05 pm
Jason
Gina,
Hah! As far as I know, Ms. Steinbach originated the term “charging.” I never thought of it as magical, but she does describe it as forming a psychic connection. I don’t personally think of it as a psychic thing, but I do believe in the power of intention.
I suspect that if this same description had come from Sonia Choquette, John Edward or some well-known psychic personality, that people wouldn’t have batted an eye (newt or otherwise).
Ms. Choquette talks about her vibes a lot, and many people really like her. Nancy Antenucci wrote a book on psychic tarot reading, and people didn’t think twice about her use of what is basically clairvoyance to kick off a reading. Judging from what I saw at AT when the book was released, that is.
I suspect the issue with charging cards is that a lot of readers don’t like the psychic paradigm, which I believe is where Steinbach is coming from. I’ve written about the psychic versus intuition divide before. I don’t recall thinking there was any magic(k) intended beyond a psychic imprinting.
I don’t know why people get so worked up about the idea. When Huna, the Silva Method or the Temple of Witchcraft use a name and image for “psychic imprinting” (such as the well-known mental health scans — not related to card reading) nobody thinks twice. Perhaps that’s because the core audience has a different expectation or level of acceptance?
There has been a lot of ridicule about this concept of “charging” online over the last 3.5 years that I’ve been involved with Lenormand, sometimes from people who haven’t even read the book. It gets tiresome, and I end up writing things like this post, which other people probably find just as tiresome.
To each his own, I say!
Out of curiosity, have you read Antenucci’s Psychic Tarot? And if so, did you like it or find it helpful? It got a small following at AT for a while. It didn’t work for me.
July 12, 2012 at 9:23 pm
1960boy
This was an interesting read.
I believe it is always a good thing to try other peoples methods in divination after all, it is only you and the client who will ever know if the reading was accurate or not.
July 13, 2012 at 9:08 am
Jason
Very true.
July 13, 2012 at 10:52 am
Helen
I don’t think the person who started the Facebook thread was making a dogmatic generalization, especially as they ended their opening post with “what do you think of my theory? Is Lenny against “charging” or not?”. Based on my own experience, I can see some truth in both sides. Charging or assigning a card to someone in a reading doesn’t always work for me. I was sad that the thread turned into another opportunity for people to climb onto the popular anti Sylvie bandwagon.
July 13, 2012 at 1:55 pm
Jason
Hi Helen,
That could be true, and I mentioned this in my reply to woley. This wasn’t immediately evident to me at the time, though.
I believe very much in intentions for setting a reading, and I plan a future post about this. In short, if I establish a mental convention for signifcator, charging, timeframe, spread or whatever; then those must hold true if my intention is clear. It goes back to my belief in consistency and focus.
Obviously I can’t negate your experience with charging or focus cards, and if they don’t work for you, then that’s certainly valid. I do wonder at why they would work sometime and not others, though. We could hypothesize this all day though, and I don’t have time to talk shop right now.
It is sad about turning into that bandwagon. I wonder if Sylvie’s book had been called Psychic Lenormand, then maybe her techniques would be more accepted with less fuss? I’m tired of seeing these things almost four years later.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts, as always!
July 13, 2012 at 1:52 pm
woley
I should know better than to reply to things like this.
I was not suggesting that the original poster was dogmatic or generalizing, my reply was about the “minor debate” about whether something was a “valid technique.” The GROUP decides what is correct or not after debate, which often involves bullying and browbeating people who think differently.
Nonsense.
As far as the Steinbach book goes–it is the usual fatuous mish-mash of someone’s personal beliefs, tacked on to a card deck, and purporting to be the omniscient truth.
Nonsense.
July 13, 2012 at 2:07 pm
Jason
woley: Sorry if I misunderstood your comment; thank you for clarifying.
I do agree that sometimes “group-think” seems to prevail on the internet, and not just with card reading. It’s an interesting social phenomenon.
July 17, 2012 at 9:36 pm
Rhettarot
I love how open-minded this post is. In both tarot AND Lenormand, alot of people are so INSISTENT that their method is the only correct method & you will fail if you don’t use it; I’ve literally been told this by a few certain people & found out that lo & behold they were wrong…my method works for me quite well. (When I say “method” I’m not just talking about charge cards or significators, I’m talking about almost any so called “rules” in cartomancy). I would never presume to push my methods as the only way to read on anyone else either. Thank goodness there’s someone out there who realizes that each person’s reading methods may be different from someone else’s, but so long as it works for that person it’s fine! Thanks Jason!
July 18, 2012 at 7:04 am
Jason
Hi Rhettarot.
I don’t begrudge others’ their methods, as long as they don’t begrudge mine.
Obviously I have personal bias and believe some methods work better than others; and I prefer to learn from tradition where available because I feel I’m building on a successful foundation from the start. (Or so I hope!)
I also believe that reading cards is a personal thing, and occasionally I have considered stopping this blog for that reason. But I always decide I’d like to write about it anyway, so here I am!
July 18, 2012 at 4:51 am
Maartje
As a Lenormand newbie, I haven’t charged a single card and I wasn’t aware of the discussion around charging. But I like the idea, especially in Lenormand which is symbolic for me rather than visual. (I read Temperance differently depending on which Tarot deck I use, but I don’t read the Fish differently depending on which Lenormand deck I use.)
To me, Lenormand cards are already ‘charged’ – the Fish has some pretty specific meanings that don’t have anything to do with literal fish, and not all things that can be associated with literal fish are a part of the card’s meaning. It’s a selection, a ‘charge.’
Charging specific cards with specific meanings for specific spreads reminds me of the sharps and flats in musical notation. “Yes, dear system,” you say, “I know that this dot means an A, but just this once (or maybe just for this piece) I want it to mean an A#.”
“Yes, dear deck,” I say, “I know the Man usually means my husband Matt but right now I’m interested in exploring a work situation with my male boss, so just this once, or just for this reading, I’m going to read you as Harry.”
Has nothing to do with psychic links for me; it’s just about pre-setting some parameters so my brain can come up with more relevant interpretations.
July 18, 2012 at 6:56 am
Jason
Hi Maartje,
I like your analogy to musical sharps and flats. Clever, and apt!
I do find that charging works well for me; my focus is improved. Generally I’m only charging a couple of cards for any given reading.
Your preset parameters is part of what I consider as setting one’s intentions for a reading. (I feel like I’m talking about computers with that sentence, hah!)
Thanks for stopping by my blog.