Over the years of studying the magical powers of words in the Burmese Buddhist context, I spent much of my research on the inner workings of the letter and phrase combinations and how the correct construction, combination and usage of these words, known in Burmese as inn, aing, and sama made for a potent prophylactic against a host of maladies. So focused had I been on the words that I had not taken the time to consider the individual letters, in and of themselves, before they went on to be combined into esoteric phrases and diagrams. Moreover, I had devoted my research to examining the ways Burmese words were predominantly seen to protect, purify, and even attack, but had never considered other ways in which letters may ‘do’ things, as Fox points out: namely, ‘represent cultural identity’; ‘embody and transmit knowledge’; ‘animate and enable’; ‘render things usable and so nameable’; ‘turn on their user’; and ‘both incur and pay debts’. While I cannot address each of these points in this short essay, I would like to discuss how Fox's book helped me to discover new ways of interpreting how letters and words may transfer their powers to people and things (‘embody and transmit knowledge’), as well as encouraging me to look into concepts of how, and if, letters can be considered ‘alive’ (‘animate and enable’) in the Burmese context.

Let me begin with an expression of gratitude to Verena Meyer, Thomas Hunter, Penny Edwards, Laurie Sears, Tom Patton and Kaja McGowan. It is a rare privilege to be read with such nuance and generosity by one's colleagues. I have learned much from their comments here, as I have from their work more generally. Given the brevity of my response it will have to be selective, focusing on a couple of the more prominent themes—namely, cultural complexity and translation. But I hope to return in future and think further along several of the other, very productive lines of questioning they have opened up in relation to the book.