I found the stylistic choices of the Counter-Desecration glossary very interesting, considering the entries were very different from normal glossary entries. In particular, each entry seems to be unique in its own way. The first entry for “attention” seems to be most traditional. The description used seems to be what one would typically expect to find for attention in a standardized dictionary: “directed mental, physical, and spiritual awareness.” However, as you move down the list of entries, there is more liberty taken with the language used. For example, the definition for “atoll,” is presented through a historical lens: “Nation-states in atolls preemptively insulate themselves by building walls of increasing heights. The goal is a state where no one can see out and realize the need to get out, and where no one can see in/ come in.” I found this to be very interesting given the topic of the glossary: counter-desecration. The author of this entry is choosing to focus on describing a nation’s defense against desecration or a change in attitude to prevent it from reoccurring in the future. By framing the definition in this way, the reader is better able to understand the purpose of this term being included for this particular topic. I think it’s also a good way to offer perspective from those impacted from land being desecration.

In contrast to the entries for “attention” and “atoll,” the language used for the “azhigwa” entry is more free-flow. It comes across as very conversational: “now is not the time for grief or silence…listen to their songs.” This is made apparent also by the use of “we”: “we are alive.” The author is directly talking to the reader.  It makes the reader pay attention and to visualize growth after destruction.

The entry for “betweenness” also evokes a sense of intimacy with the use of “I”: “I think of that hyphenated space as a “trans-poetics…” It a transfer of experience. I also find it interesting that this entry connects back to the first entry for attention: “Attention to being between is one way to locate the murmur of our intersections with place, that one is somewhere, not everywhere.” So although these entries were written by different people and take on different formatting, there is still a conscious decision for them to be connected.

The presence of the “now” is focused on throughout the descriptions of the entries. This is hinted at with the title: “Writing within the Anthropocene.” Anthropocene is defined as “the current geological age, viewed as the period during which human activity has been the dominant influence on climate and the environment.” In his discussion post, Sham also mentioned the focusing on “now” in nature and with the standardized definition of azhigwa: “now, at this time.” I think that by doing this, desecration is described as active and the change that occurs because of this is highlighted. Overall, by playing around with the formatting of entries, the reader’s attention is captured more and seems less like a lecture.