I’ll assume that this related event did in fact happen to you – and simply mention here that similar scenarios have in the past been described in the context of the issue I present in the main article. So firstly, having had those events happen is of course regrettable, and wonder why, given your past experience with her, you returned to the same reader – and I of course respect your decision to so do, and infer that the insights you may have gained were worth more than the misgivings also accompanying the reading-at-hand.

I’m not going to here write the equivalent of a whole article on the situation you present, but rather a few remarks pertinent to the article, and to your questions.

The reader, as mentioned in the scenario, has a particular style of relating, and she uses, it seems, part of the drawn cards in order to engage in some form of dialogue with her readee, bringing to light past situational life-circumstances. Given your experience with her, it also seems that she is not too adept at so doing, despite her implied apparent knowledge of the individual cards and their possible symbolic meaning(s).

There are times when a reader faced with a spread may be unable to easily weave the presented imagery into a coherent whole: the disparate cards remain ‘inconsistent’. At another time, the very same cards may, for the same reader, easily cohere into a developing narrative. I cannot of course be sure what occurred for the reader in question, nor indeed why she specifically spoke in the manner described. Perhaps a few cards drew her to reflections into her own insights on what you have described as ‘self-help/self-esteem’, and from which she then became unable to emerge and look afresh at the spread.

In terms of ‘reading ALL the cards’ in a spread, some readers (and possibly most at least some of the time with certain spreads) do not ‘read’ each and everyone, but rather it becomes the integrated word-picture that is allowed to become insight centred around some of the cards: in such a case, it may appear that some cards are not ‘read’ (something akin to the apparent ‘non-reading’ of the ‘g’ and the ‘h’ in the word ‘fraught’).

So, was her engagement ethical? It would not be, it seems, ethical for me to answer this question without a fuller understanding of the whole situation at hand. Certainly on the surface, and with your description and questions solely instructing the picture, the impression is that she neither entered the reading, nor the engagement with yourself, in a manner that is entirely appropriate – and yet I can also very well imagine how this is the kind of reading-style that may be entirely apt for someone other than yourself.

I trust I have addressed at least some of the concerns you have raised, yet also realise that there are some who shall be reading this who would prefer definite rules-and-regulations about how and what to do, and from that determination find themselves in one or the other side of the fence when answering your question.

At the “end” of her reading, I confronted her about what she was doing and pointed out that she was ignoring cards and had done it before. I could tell that like before, she was doling out advice based on things I’d said in response to her incorrect assumptions, and in this most recent case, her failed memory. When I pointed out her “editing” of the message, she blatantly refused to address the rest of the cards, claiming that they were “inconsistent”. I let her know that I didn’t want to hear what *she* wanted to say rather than what the cards say, and that I don’t mind hearing a balanced reading (She had tried to ignore what she thought was ‘negative’ in the prior edited reading. It turned out to be pertinent and spot-on, when I finally got it out of her). In response, she pretended to appease me by offering to explain the cards she had now piled up from the spread into a single stack and “talk about what they mean.” As in, individually;, as in, “this card represents the idea of _____;” as in, things you can read about each card and their meaning in any tarot book.

In the end, she justified her actions by telling me that it was her right as “the reader” to *interpret* and insisting again that all 8 of 9!! cards in the spread were “inconsistent” (presumably, with her message) and therefore irrelevant. I was not posing any questions about legal or medical issues, or third parties. I was only asking for a reading on the general area of relationships –all relationships, not romantic ones. Yet, she assumed that I meant romantic relationships and started a discussion, giving out her own self-help/self-esteem oriented lessons, admittedly and adamantly based on her own experience and her assumptions about mine, and refused to stop and just finish reading the cards!! At least she didn’t charge me when she kicked me out, but the question still stands:

Was this ethical behavior? Or is she just conveniently deciding what is and isn’t her prerogative, as opposed to what is the querent’s prerogative, and hiding behind a position of power to justify her preferences? Is it commonplace for a reader to keep significant portions of a reading from their client (arguing with them about their life history and give out unsolicited advice aside)?