For most graduate writers, acclimating to doctoral-level inquiry is fraught with numerous tensions, whether regarding the development of scholarly identity (Gardner et al., 2014), navigating graduate school's newly decentralized sources for support (Simpson, 2012), or mastering the writing and research conventions that govern disciplinary practice. Using a Cultural Historical Activity Theory (CHAT) framework, this case study analyzes the first-term experiences of Miranda, a first-year PhD student from the field of gerontology (who is also a co-author), and the tensions she feels around the drafting and revision of a single paper. Drawing from Engeström (1987), we theorize Miranda's challenges around motive, authority, and expert feedback as comprising three "contradictions" engendered by the contemporary activity system of doctoral-level learning-to-write, contradictions that at once challenge the writer's going presumptions about writing even while they enable new concepts and solutions to emerge. This analysis finally encourages researchers to take a wide, cultural-historical view of the many contexts in which doctoral students write during their first terms, including the instructor-led classroom, the larger culture of the program and institution, and the current high-pressure realities of doctoral-level academic study in the United States.