The perfect copy
Sometimes you get stuck trying to describe something perfectly, but if/when you ask readers what they see you realize you're not able to copy the image in your head verbatim into theirs. They will interpret what they read in their unique way (which, by the way, is what makes books so great to read... and so scary to write...)
The perfect copy is not an option (unless, as you mention, you add the glyphs in the text, but they are just a small part of all you might want to "copy" in your head: the characters (people!), the setting, the cultures and worlds, cities and villages, that exact facial expression, that movement of the hand, and not even a movie will be able to make a 100% perfect copy into the viewers' minds).
I'd put the notion of the perfect copy aside and go at it from "the side" so to speak.
Instead of giving the reader a detailed description of the glyphs (do they even need it? want it? how many readers did not skip past Tolkiens songs and poems in Sindari?) give them the language learner's perspective. Maybe he's having problems and starts hating at them, likening them to things he detests (latrines and executioner axes?)
Maybe he uses memory techniques, likening them to things in his everyday life. And/or maybe the teacher has a technique/tradition in looking at the characters. I recall that Japanese Kanji are sometimes described as depicting objects from everyday life (house roofs etc), but I can't seem to find a good link now, and also Kanji is way more complex than that, but maybe on a very beginner's level it could be used even for it.
Or have a look at Robert Jordan's description of sword fighting in the Wheel of Times series. (Although having done both fencing and kendo myself, his descriptions gives me the feeling they're great ways to get yourself sliced in two... you just can't do "techniques" like that in a real-time situation... but maybe it works better for characters... giving them imaginative names like "the perched raven", "the world-tree" etc)
Here's an example of revealing (a bit) of what a written language would look like, this example is from the perspective of an adept language user (so, no, she will not be thinking about all the details of the pictograms when seeing them):
One of them rubbed the end of a pencil against the side of his head. Then he moved it along one of the rounded words. At least, he did not scribble on the wall, but it was obvious the stupid grounders thought they were looking at a work of art. And it was not the first time either.
After all, when they make the movie the conlangers and font designers need to have something to do as well!
What not to put in your book
I understand you've created a whole writing system and you want to give that effort a deserved place in your work.
Writing a book is always about the reader. If you can make your system interesting to them, then, by all means, put it in there.
Unfortunately, the case is very often that you spend hours and years creating things like languages, planets, worlds, and backstories, and if you put all that in the text it becomes unbearable to the reader. Those pesky readers just don't appreciate all the blood sweat and tears that went into that multicultural primitive, off-the-normal-trading-lanes-planet.
Most of it will not go into the book... it will just be the hidden support beams of your worlds, cultures, and characters and only be noticed by extension in these parts of the text.
And your text will be better from it!