https://www.sinkmagazine.co.uk/post/the-m60-eulogies-a-neurotrippy-take-of-the-art-of-climate-crisis?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTAAAR1u-zTpa0E33qq3wwYrHLMAGHp8ycKpTrkacFs8IkRtOfYhkLitWwcnY38_aem_VT22D8r_ElVZT-JveGEegw

Review: The World’s Writing Systems

Clive Scott posits in discussing eco-translation that our very alphabet divorces us from our lived environment. Our alphabet is overly precise, logical, and bars the phenomenology of reading.

Abjads, scripts in which vowels are implied, embrace ambiguity, and maximise space. The experience of writing a scripts in which vowels are explicit is the pursuit of a democracy that barricades the existence of reading in time and space.

Our left-to-right reading punishes the traditional understanding of reading as a wheel, as a sequence of spokes. Mesoamerican scripts, for example, use a boustrophedon, connecting writing to the plough. The signs themselves are structures.

For writing in this period was destined for inscription. Thus, the kind of two-dimensional writing we usually see now would have been impossible. While writing is ubiquitous, we are pummeled daily with flat, left-to-right writing. Including this.

In Ogham, another boustrophedon, sed for funerary inscriptions in Ireland, the tally-like signs, apparently derived from Latin characters, designate parts of the body, or trees. There are mathematically related symbols for “elbow”, “pine”, and “willow”. And earth.

Funerary inscriptions must be brief, yet sacred. They must spin meaning from tiny fragments of lines, and be readily-carveable.
 
Both the expansiveness of our need to represent vowels, and our left-to-right writing, imprison us in certain cognitive patterns.

Is it thus to develop a new system of alphabet? Unfortunately, divine revelation does not produce the best alphabets. Malia Gomango received 24 letters of Sorang Sampeng on a vision in the hills. While the letters he developed may have been shaped by the hills in which the new alphabet was given to him, the alphabet’s lack of connection with bartering made it unsuitable to carry divine texts.

For religion and divinity is waging, bartering.

What about cup-formed numbers? Abjads? The kind of compromise I’ve been thinking about with English is destroying our sensibility of it as a left-to-right language. What if it is a top-to-bottom language, as apparently in Ge’ez? Or a purely rotating language, as the Hawulti monument. This monument rises and cycles in the cyclicality of its inscription.

But it must remain of the earth. Abjads ensure only what is strictly necessary is written. But, in turn, they limit writing.

But our own phonetic palette is getting thinner. And so cuppoetry restores visual language to its logical, rational, aesthetic principles, leaving us to imagine the phonemes in between, recreate phonemes, restoring spoken language paradoxically to its primacy.

Cup-poetry wraps around our skin like a bandage.

It is of the environment insofar as it uses items of commerce for visual-linguistic voyeurism. In other words, we poets are linguistic pigeons, defying, in a small way, the logic of mass-production.

Consider Hankul script, for example. Uniquely, it is arranged into syllabic blocks, into newly symmetrical patterns. Written language, by its sheer beauty, is divided from spoken language.

Cup-poetry allows no punctuation, since punctuation only makes sense in right-to-left reading. Writing as it has been experienced for the majority of humans, without the unnecessary need for word-dividers, is restored. Or, word-dividers are compulsory, rather than optional. Punctuation becomes a mere cyclical organizational principle.

Or so we hope. Or delude ourselves.

Each linguistic character is a face, within the cycle. A seeing, breathing, sensing artefact. A reality. A metallurgy. A bronze statuette, scanning the three-dimensional realm, engraved in our environment.

Join the cup-poetry revolution.

Meanwhile, I hold in my hand an abjad-poem. Every reading is entirely different, as some part of my cognition is creating, automatically, a different poem. A new text in a wholly sonic and semantic sense. This is not the poem I composed in my head. It is an odd, cycling shorthand. In one of so many instances, ‘ply’ is ‘play’ or ‘ply’, is ‘ploy’. My mind is forced to decipher. And, in deciphering, we are creating.

This is partially why it occurs to me that so many texts cannot be deciphered. Because they are polyvalent, to use the term of grammatologists. They have multiple possible meanings.

(Also to be discussed: John Clare losing all his vowels, so his brain becomes an abjad.)

Jack Hilton’s Caliban Shrieks, re-published this year, is a work of picaresque modernism, closer to the early fragmentation of picaresque in the sense of its idea of unfortunateness as a bitter satire of an increasingly fractious, displaced, unequal cityscape. In this regard, the comparisons to Thomas Nashe’s The Unfortunate Traveller seem exceptionally pertinent, therefore opening the apparently unique fragmentation of modernism as a comparison with earlier styles. The erstwhile protagonists of both picaresques are often being locked up, and the grotesque conditions of their locking up mirror those of their respective times. Caliban Shrieks, tanked with Shakespeare references, no least to the character who is at the margin of an island he uniquely understands, captures the brute reality of early twentieth century prisons:

“You are ordered to place your cards in the frame outside the door. Then the warder – from now on called screw – looks up and down to see us all in miscellaneous forms of attention, and again indifferently chirps ‘Into your cells.’ Once again there’s a rhythmic banging of doors one after the other, and the grating of the key. You look round at your home, and find it like the one you left behind just after tea with the addition of a bed board of three planks’ width and nearly seven feet long, with two batons underneath to raise it about three inches from the floor.”

I like here the way the picaresque collapses character, that character is replaced by invective, derision. It compares resonantly with a passage in “The Unfortunate Traveller”, Nashe similarly understanding the fate of being tossed into prison long before human rights, detention limits, merely the sheer fear:

“I could drinke for anger till my head akt, to think how I was abused. Shall I shame the deuill and speake the truth, to prison was I sent as principall, and my master as accessarie, nor was it to a prison neither, but to the master of the mints house who though partly our iudge, and a most seuere vpright iustice in his own nature, extreamly seemed to condole our ignorant estate, and without all peraduenture a present redresse he had ministred, if certaine of our countrie men hearing an English earle was apprehended for coining, had not come to visite vs.”

This is to avoid dwelling on the other countless similarities between Caliban Shrieks, and classic Elizabethan picaresque modernism, such as its reliance on wheedling allusion. It is to initiate an understanding of a fascinating, undiscovered writer, who lived in my own town of Rochdale, and equally stretches beyond it.

Very Dahl is the most ostensibly theological of the works of Tommy Dockerz. Towards the end of the song, clearly mirroring the darkness of a world without Christ, one is balefully told, “no dahl, there’s no tone”. No dahl is our descent into nihilism – our gazing at a hall of mirrors reflecting pure nothing, or its spiced lentilly entrails.

But after this hopelessness, a word, a cry: “Revolutionary Nephilim, Evolutionary Chromosome”. This is the incarnation itself, passing from Old to New Testament. The Nephilim – the race of giants who stampeded the earth – are passing away, giving way to the Son’s reign over all the earth.

The brute, modern force of the incarnation in its Kettering dwelling is then signaled as the counterpoint to this Nephilim, as the perichoretic nature of Mr. Dockerz trying to “find a way in a manger” […] “the white Jesus, that game-changer” enters the scripture of the rap.

Or, any interpretation we make of whatever Tommy Dockerz is talking about is valid. The lyrics trick us into interpretation, operating at the level of sub-sense. Just when we think we have teased out meaning in his idioglossia, it is us all along who has been teased,

(an improvisation)

(I) – [skip, if you like]

If the vast majority of poetry was oral, was experienced in oral recitation, where does that leave our own culture? We have stratified realms of “spoken word” and “published poetry”, practically refusing to embrace. Yet our own body of “published poetry” must be built on off the cuff transcripts and collations of the improvvisatore, the harpist, the psalmist. Our own neat numbers of psalms negates the vast volume of psalms that must’ve been strung towards the atmosphere in direct castigation of some spontaneous suffering.

When poetry does extend to memorisation, it always seems to be the canonised authors that are elevated in the columns of memory, rather than some immaculate, gilded sonnet carved on a cigarette packet. We forget that this process of canonisation is precisely this – the collation of orality. The biggest figures of British Literature – Shakespeare, Burns, – were also mediators of ballads, popular songs, ossifying them into “verse”. This has been called “oral-formulaic”.

Rather than think mathematically, it is much easier to think of verse like Tridentine Mass, as a kind of dance-fusion integrating word and stone-hewn dance into its proceedings. One sees this acutely in the verse of Richard Crawshaw, where a prepositional chaos underpins the pouring-forth of the verse. A circling, as if the poem itself is performance with the stage, with the compass-points we ascribe to spiritual forces – shewn in “A Hymn to the Name and Honour of the Admirable Saint Teresa” –

Love, thou are absolute sole lord
Of life and death. To prove the word,
We’ll now appeal to none of all
Those thy old soldiers, great and tall,
Ripe men of martyrdom, that could reach down
With strong arms their triumphant crown;

The ordered, lithic flowing of the tetrameter is built upon a kind of dance – a sub-sense – as if we circle around it, gesturing upwards to a downwards-flowing force. There is an implied verse-upon-verse, lost in the neat transcription. This is why poetry, especially, comes to us when we move, as the ordered sense of the word is completed by the errant motion of hand, leg, ear.

(II)

I have laboured to restore what I have constructed, in utopian terms, as the idol: a union of the Word with the spiralling neumes of digit, palm. Verse meeting verse.

I have struggled, therefore, with neat recitations of poetry from ordered books, Faber and Faber editions cushioned on lecterns, where poetry is configured as a sacred text. I do not object to poetry being reckoned as sacred, only the sacred without the full choreography of the epic it necessitates.

I believe I have created a new kind of performance poetry that seals the world in text.

I am still working on it. My Fringe show will be the start of the process: https://tickets.edfringe.com/whats-on/brother-smudge-s-strange-meditation#:~:text=Description,and%20what%20we%27ve%20lost.

Sam

The fact that I’ve been awarded a large grant for my Fringe show means I’ll be able to put a little more welly into it, being able to inject unfamiliar sums of money into eccentric poetry-making, so I’m heartily thankful to the awarders of this fund, who should be able to make this show a little less likely to flop.

https://www.edfringe.com/learn/news-and-events/keep-it-fringe-fund-2024-recipients-announced

https://tickets.edfringe.com/whats-on/brother-smudge-s-strange-meditation

I was recently interviewed for a magazine, Stereoscope. I’m no too sure what I was actually talking about, but, preceding a woman with a cart staring into the foreground, one can encounter this interview in the latest edition of this magazine, “Inferno”, which is out soon and available to purchase from this demesne. It’s an elegant magazine into which a lot of graft has been wound.

The questions I was asked were perceptive and well-coloured. It was a fantastic experience, sitting outside the Byre Theatre, where more homely cows were once herded, until World War II transformed the shed into a vaudeville venue.

https://www.stereoscopemagazine.com/in-the-oven

The video is the dance of itself

I started writing this to a class, and it got out of hand, so I just uploaded the whole thing here.

• Reference peer-reviewed resources, and not web-pages. Journals, edited books. The best way to find these is via JSTOR, Google Scholar, or in the University library.
• Be critical, independent-minded, and listen carefully. Read essays two or three times. Start to develop opinions on where you agree and where you disagree, where you see the author’s point and where you don’t. Think about how essays are constructed. Print them off, if that helps. People who write secondary criticism are not mystical gods; they will be wrong about things, make specious points, not know certain things (especially if it’s an older essay), or just be talking plain nonsense. Peer review is a hoop to jump through, not a stamp of intellectual authority (but it’s a convention we pay attention to it.) Use sentences like “Jackson’s contention that Mrs Dalloway is a novel about nuclear physics is true in certain senses, but is more problematic in others”. Listen and question. DIsagree intelligently (i.e. don’t just dismiss things out of hand.)
• Quality over quantity, always. It doesn’t matter too much how many essays you’ve got in your bibliography. The important thing is you’ve related to them, listened to them, and know what’s in them.
• Read the question very carefully. If it has a certain adjective in it, find out where that adjective comes from. If you don’t understand the question, or if it doesn’t make sense, then use that as a creative springboard for your own response.
• If you are having personal difficulties, use these to enrich your response, rather than as obstacles. Bereavement or passionate love or disease are the raw materials of literature. Your personal circumstances can help to slot you into the canon, to understand why writers choose to make strange or confusing decisions.
• Read the primary text many times. Read it from new angles – backwards, if you like. Pick it apart. Try to work out why it jumps or twists or turns.
• Be firm and respectful but also concede to the work of others and to your own limitations. E.g. “I would like to argue that”, but, in conclusion, “My essay has failed to acknowledge…”
• Forget the marks and the nature of the work as an “assignment” and have fun. The best writing emerges from play, from spontaneity, from the sense it is written because you had fun.

(In Stanza Festival, I cannot focus, because all I can think upon is the hidden symbology of letters.)

D

Aim to the slumbering
minutes, where the skein
of time wraps space
like a blanket. Too

laboured the spring
to a hidden
ballast, focus, if
you seek, on this.

S

Whatever happened, borrow
a morsel of spirit, pour
it upon a tapestry of hills
like a dram of paint
(the voice of one crying.)

Awaiting the gabled oceans,
the picturesque void, raw
pigments, we sky the
parchment of a cosmic sorrow.

M

How little we knew: here,
it stopped. Did we need a view
to hold it, tear it up between
our hands, somewhere beside
the breeze-spidered hills? I
wish we had borne mute, not
stared onto an ocean’s web
of noise: but, somewhere,
hidden beneath the fake tulips,
here was a balm, a voice,
someone twisting branches
cameline to scoop a silence
like a plate of prayer
to garnish a ship’s journey
(a soul’s) in this revolving barque.

T

Electrons swaddle the opening
of a young sea,
emptying, dopening
in spinning hymnody.

I was all above
beholding this sprawling shower,
the murmur of a dove,
the lymnergy of hours.

A

Oxen-graze the page
field. Incipio to a
swarming prayer. Sprung
tithe, waste land Eden.

D

Question for the slapped
dawn in swimmings: is
it for to lion me in the floating
grimoire of aeons?