I observe two general methods of reading: position names and the cards modifying one another.

Letting the cards blend, letting them modify one another, frees you from having to use designated position names. The disadvantage of designated position names (spreads in which each card has to be about one thing its design calls for) is that you end up wondering how Ten of Swords (the corpse stabbed with ten swords still in the body) can be ‘the best that can happen.’ Your concentration must be perfect to prevent this, must be perfect to make this method work, it seems to me.

The advantage of letting the cards modify one another is, you have a more specific, detailed, nuanced message. Two cards can mean all kinds of things until you add a third. The third is likely to change what those two say, making the message more specific. It may expand or it may limit what those two say by themselves. And on it goes. The more cards, the more focus. The more cards, the more specific the result.

I also observe that a large spread (say 13 cards of a modified Celtic Cross layout that I use) divides itself into three parts that indicate how accurate its message is by repeating it those three times. Am I the only one who experiences this?