Category Archives: Spring 2025

Reinterpreting Art through Close Analysis

BY Grace Kim '25

We could have simply titled this section “Close Reading”—but we carefully chose each word to offer a more detailed insight into what we mean by close reading.

“Reinterpreting”: interpreting as the work of making observations and weaving them together to tell a particular story; interpret-ing to emphasize this kind of storytelling as an ongoing process; re-interpreting to signal that, on a larger scale, different thinkers can offer different interpretations from all kinds of angles for the same work of art. “Art”: in this section of the Tortoise, the language of a play (Romeo and Juliet in Nikki’s paper), the carvings of a marble sculpture (The Gosford Wellhead in Olivia’s paper), the illustrative details of a figure depicted in a manuscript (The Rylands Haggadah in Tali’s paper), as three of countless possibilities. “Through close analysis”: a slow, careful approach to reinterpreting the work of art, zooming in to the details, being specific about the specific, drawing out meaningful implications, making connections across these details to show how they all come together in the work as a whole.

Each of the three writers walks us through a close analysis of their chosen work of art, often chosen out of personal fascination, and offers new ways of thinking about these pieces that have already been thought about before—just not in a way Nikki, Olivia, and Tali are uniquely perceiving. Their innovative interventions begin with their sharp eyes for noticing what interests them, which they then take the time to pause over, sit with, think through, and excitedly guide their readers to better understand—reinterpret, reimagine—the work of art alongside them.

— Grace Kim ‘25

Rethinking Case Studies through Theory

BY Grace Kim '25

It may seem daunting to work with theory, but in a simple sense, a “theory” is just a concept, framework, or key term definition—to name a few—that helps us to think about what we are already interested in. Note the directionality: We use theory to contextualize, support, develop our ideas, rather than merely using our ideas to support existing theories.

Both Katriona (“Tradwives Can Have It All Too: A Re-Examination of the Movement”) and Aeden (“Gramscian Hegemony and the Transition to Violence in the Nicaraguan Revolution”) begin with their own interests in their respective topics, which naturally leads them to seek out what other scholars have already thought about in relation to their questions. For Katriona, Judith Butler’s theory of gender performance and Moore et al.’s theoretical framework of online persona are especially useful for her to think about—she not only draws upon their ideas and connects them together but also builds upon their work by showing us how, together, they help us to better understand her specific topic of influencer tradwives. Aeden makes a similar move: Finding Antonio Gramsci’s theory of hegemony very interesting and informative, he walks us through how Gramsci defines useful key terms—which he then applies to “the case of the Nicaraguan Revolution,” using Gramsci’s theory as a lens to better understand his chosen historical event.

The two papers are thinking about very niche instances of particulars: a certain demographic of people on a certain media platform in the modern day, a specific response to a specific regime during a specific period in history—this is what we mean by “case studies.” Each of the two writers engage in the move of “rethinking” by offering different ways of thinking about these case studies, from their unique vantage points, making creative connections that may not be immediately intuitive for their readers but, for this exact reason, make them important voices to learn from.

— Grace Kim ‘25

Finding Your Space in the Scholarly Conversation, Spring 2025

Finding Your Space in the Scholarly Conversation

BY Natalia Espinosa Dice

At the heart of academic writing lies a deceptively simple challenge: how do you join a conversation that has been unfolding for years—or even centuries—without getting lost in the noise? Finding your place in the scholarly conversation means not only understanding the landscape of existing ideas but also identifying where your own questions, insights and curiosities belong. It requires careful listening, sharp inquiry and a willingness to rethink your assumptions through engagement with others. This process of discovery is often where innovation in academic writing begins.

In this section, we feature two writers who skillfully carve out space for their voices within complex academic conversations. The first paper, written for a History of Science course, challenges conventional narratives about 19th-century obstetric anesthesia. Instead of accepting the story of medical progress at face value, the author uncovers how racialized assumptions shaped physicians’ adoption and framing of anesthesia—an angle overlooked in previous scholarship.

The second piece, a Junior Paper in the Politics Department, explores the concept of soft power in East and Southeast Asia. By comparing Western and Chinese approaches, the author synthesizes competing definitions and proposes a new conceptual framework to support their empirical research. In doing so, they stake out their own intellectual territory in an evolving global debate.

The accompanying reflections and editor commentaries shed light on the process behind these pieces — how each writer came to understand the existing landscape and ultimately found their own space within it. What emerges are not just strong final products, but examples of how deep engagement with a scholarly conversation can lead to original and thoughtfully crafted contributions to their respective fields.

— Natalia Espinosa Dice ‘26

Reimagining Academic Creativity, Spring 2025

Reimagining Academic Creativity

BY Natalia Espinosa Dice

Academic writing is often seen as rigid or formulaic, but as the previous sections have shown, students can write with originality and intention even within structured prompts. This section pushes that boundary further: what happens when you’re given free rein to be creative? How do you navigate the wide-open possibilities of an assignment while still grounding your work in strong academic practice?

The first piece, authored by Writing Center Fellow Jessica, models how creativity and scholarly rigor can coexist. Tasked with designing a “dream project” for a Sensory Ecology course, she followed a thread of personal curiosity to investigate green lacewing larvae. Her paper is imaginative, but it’s also a clear example of strong academic writing. Indeed, Jessica demonstrates how our Lexicon – and terms like motive, orienting and scholarly conversation – apply just as powerfully to scientific work as they do in the humanities.

In the second piece, Lucia draws on her experience as a writer, editor and Writing Center Fellow to reflect more broadly on how to embrace creativity in academic work. Her piece offers practical, encouraging advice for students who want to take risks – whether that means playing with form, redefining what a “scholarly voice” sounds like or simply giving themselves permission to follow an unconventional idea.

Together, these pieces invite us to reimagine what academic creativity can look like and discover how it can thrive across disciplines when we make space for our curiosity. After all, every strong paper begins with a motivating question. As these authors will tell you, the writing process is most rewarding – and often most creative – when you follow the questions that genuinely interest you and let them lead you somewhere new.

— Natalia Espinosa Dice ‘26