Bad Cree ISU: Building a Literary Analysis as a System, Not a Slide Deck
Literature projects often flatten difficult material into summaries. Theme. Symbolism. Quote analysis. Done. That felt inadequate for a novel dealing with trauma, memory, and Indigenous resistance. The challenge was not writing about the book. It was building a structure that could hold the context around it.
This project became a digital portfolio around Bad Cree, but I approached it more like building an experience than submitting an essay. The site moved through literary analysis, podcast discussion, historical research, and reflection as connected layers.
Treating Analysis Like Architecture
The important decision was making each section do a different kind of work. I did not want one long page of interpretation. The novel analysis handled close reading. The research section carried historical and political context. The podcast created a more conversational lens.
Once I treated those as modules instead of sections, the project got stronger. The site structure itself started reinforcing the argument.
- Multi page structure moving from interpretation into broader historical context
- Podcast and audio elements used as part of the analysis, not decoration
- Collapsible content and navigation patterns to manage dense material
One small technical detail I liked was using expandable sections on the novel page. It solved a practical problem. Deep analysis becomes unreadable if everything is open at once.
The Research Changed The Project
The project became more serious when the novel stopped being isolated from its context. Connecting the text to residential schools, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and Indigenous activism changed the shape of the analysis.
That was the point where it stopped feeling like a book project and started feeling like research with a web interface.
I also learned that building an argument across pages is different from writing one paper. Navigation order matters. Sequence changes interpretation.
What Stayed Simple
Technically, this was not a complex software project, and pretending otherwise would be dishonest. It was mostly HTML, Tailwind, and light JavaScript. That simplicity was part of the point.
I was learning how far careful structure and clear writing can go without complicated tooling.
Some parts were rough. Interactivity was limited. Accessibility could have gone further. Some pages were too dense and could have been edited harder. If I rebuilt it, I would add transcripts, improve semantic accessibility, and rethink how heavy sections of text are broken up.
What I Learned Building It
One insight that stayed with me was that interface design shapes intellectual work. How research is organized affects how people process it.
I also realized academic projects do not need to look academic in the worst sense. They can be designed. They can have flow.
Even using only CDN Tailwind and plain HTML, I could make something that felt intentional. That mattered at the time.
Why I Still Care About This Project
This was an early project, but it marked a shift. It was one of the first times I used software as a medium for thinking, not just building.
Sometimes structure is part of the argument.