The last thirteen-card spread I posted was interesting for a couple of reasons. One reason I already talked about: the need to be flexible with significators.
Another reason is that it showcases what I suspect to be an interesting quirk of the thirteen-card spread. This is a purely experimental anecdote, so take it with a pinch of salt, but I have found it to be true on more than one occasion.
The quirk is that, in the thirteen-card spread (which I discussed here), the rows seem to be connected not just one after the other, but also alternately, i.e., the first row with the third row and the second row with the fourth row.
I cannot stress this enough: this is NOT a rule, it is simply something I have found to be true on occasion. There are situations where the thirteen-card spread is perfectly smooth from start to finish, reading like a little story with a beginning, a middle and an end. In this sort of situation we don’t need to pair up the rows 1-3 and 2-4.
However, sometimes we can recognize snippets of story mixed together in an odd way. I have found that pairing odd rows together and then even rows together can help sort these snippets out, giving them a more logical order.
In the example of the spread I posted, the second and fourth rows seemed to talk more about material issues, whereas the first and third were more centered on the person’s emotional life. Pairing them odd-with-odd and even-with-even, the spread became more clear.
If the spread is talking about more than one issue at once (which can happen), then this kind of pairing often makes sense. However, sometimes it makes sense even if there is only one topic in play, and this particular case the rows that we pair up talk about subtopics within the same topic.
It may be that this technique simply stems from my limitations as a reader, so that I find ways to circumvent difficulties in the interpretation of the spread. Still, I found this to be accurate enough to bring up, in case anyone wants to experiment with it.
Finally, it may simply be that we need to be very flexible with the rows, and take for granted that they may pair up in unlikely ways. Who knows, maybe I’ll find that the first and fourth row really go well together in some readings. The point is always that the techniques we apply need to shed light on the querent’s life, not simply add flourishes and complications to the interpretation.
MQS






