Journal Entry for Students:
The intro, “from” Chestnut to his stenography students, is lifted from here:
English and shorthand dictionary, based on the original work of Sir Isaac Pitman, with lists of proper names, grammalogues and contractions, and an analytical introduction on the formation of shorthand outlines : Pitman, Isaac, Sir, 1813-1897 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
xlvii, 788 p
Inspired by Ari, I’m thinking about different systems of “conjuring” – how different styles and technologies of writing inform each other, and how they might be interpreted. It was interesting, I thought, that this dictionary – what’s more standard than a dictionary? and esp. this one, which does rely on a kind of science of sound – there’s room for different kinds of “sense,” a recognition that this technology can function differently depending on who is using it, and to what ends.
The Conjurer’s “secrets” – ways of knowing, ways of transforming – are interesting, too. The shorthand looks like a kind of spell, or secret code, no? How are these “secrets” learned and passed on? This is also kind of in response to a previous post of the Conjurer’s, too, in terms of needing to get paid for that expertise: Chesnutt monetized his mastery of shorthand by teaching, and his knowledge of it (per Sussman) not only made his writing fiscally possible but also informed it ideologically.
I wanted to try a little short hand – to play around with some different technologies of inscription, myself: it feels funny to be writing something with pen and paper in order to upload it! The words in shorthand are, as best as I could approximate them: enlighten, heritage, copy-book, verbal, orator, history, unlikely, subvert, material, conjurer, obvious, interpretable, liberated, underhand, veil.