I'm often asked this question. I’ve tried my hand at general natal readings off and on over the years, given that clients always seem to want them. But there are built-in problems with this kind of reading.
The idea that an astrologer can describe a person in detail solely from the birth chart is a myth of modern astrology. I know there are websites where you can supply your birth data, pay a modest fee, and receive some forty pages of material that’s allegedly all about you. But folks, these reports are not written about you at all. They are a patchwork of creative writings about the symbols of astrology—which is not the same as being about you!
A good friend and I ordered our first natal reports from a popular website in the early 80s. When we sat down to share notes, we discovered that portions of our reports were exactly the same. She thought this must be a mistake. But this is by design! We both happened to have natal Jupiter in the first house, so each of us had the exact same "Jupiter-in-the-first-house" paragraph included in our 'personalized' natal portraits.
These reports are compiled by stringing together previously written paragraphs for every planet-in-sign, planet-in-house, and planetary aspect combination in your chart. That's probably why they're so inexpensive. A computer program does all the work.
But the problem goes even further. After years of studying traditional methods, I believe that it’s simply incorrect to believe that you can describe a person by looking only at the birth chart. The chart is better understood as the bare bones of something multilayered that takes shape only over time, month after year after year, within the context of the person's life.
If the modern approach to the birth chart is flawed, then what is a better approach?
Here are the initial steps I take when studying a natal chart. I calculate the antiscia ("shadows") of the planets and mark them on the chart. I note the seven Arabic soul parts and do the same. I assess the temperament, looking mostly for any marked imbalance. I look at the condition of Mercury and the Moon together to see if they share priorities, based on sign and phase. I look for planets or parts on the four angles, as these reflect built-in parts of the person’s inner structure. I look for agenda-driven planets; that is, those that have just changed sign or are about to change sign, where the sign change brings an increase or decrease in major essential dignity. I look for whether any fixed stars--including the outer planets Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto--fall onto other planets/parts or directly onto a house cusp. I look at reception to see who’s got clout among the planets.
Having taken these steps, am I then able to write a full, accurate description of the individual? The answer is no. Even with information about the person’s life context--which is essential--choosing the correct interpretation from among the myriad possibilities is like trying to find the needle in a haystack. It’s a fruitless endeavor, especially when most people know themselves pretty well to begin with!
I've been working on a way to offer clients some natal basics without having it be a "natal reading" like those they've come to expect. If I can figure out how to do this in a meaningful and worthwhile way for clients and for me, I'll let you know.
One final thought before I wrap up. My teacher has pointed out that no one would ever go to a doctor and say, “Tell me about myself.” You go to the doctor when you have a problem and you want the doctor’s diagnosis and treatment. It’s the same with the other helping professions. Why would we think astrology is any different?
To learn more about traditional methods of astrology, please visit my blog, where you will find scores of articles I’ve written on the subject. I also highly recommend John Frawley’s books, starting with The Real Astrology. Mr. Frawley also has a library of lectures available for purchase, along with free sample lectures to get you started.
Above photo: Pixabay (CC0)