Evaluating Secondary Sources (Responses)
The version of the browser you are using is no longer supported. Please upgrade to a supported browser.Dismiss

View only
TimestampWhat kind of secondary source is it? Please describe each in a few lines. Who is the author? What do we know about her/him? Is s/he credible? How do you know? What would you say was the purpose of the author in writing this piece? Are you the intended audience for this piece? Consider the tone, style, level of information, and assumptions the author makes about the reader. Are they appropriate for your needs?Is the source mostly fact or mostly opinion? If you think the source is offering facts, are the sources for those facts clearly indicated?What was surprising about this source?What did you not understand in this source?What do you believe and disbelieve from this source?Check the references list for each source and select two references that seem like they would be good sources for an essay on “Bloodchild.” Explain why you chose them.How do the two sources compare to each other? If you were writing a paper on “Bloodchild,” which source would you use as evidence for your arguments? Why?
9/19/2016 1:25:52Arker's piece 1 is a common reference books secondary source that was published in 1999 and appears in Gale Detroit that is an educational publishing company.Lillvis piece 2 is a journal secondary source that was published in winter 2014 from Melus Multi-Ethnic Literature of the U.S.In the piece 1 we know author's name and that his material was published by Gale Detroit that is an educational publishing company.It can be assumed that the author of this material is a writer. This makes his material credible.In the piece 2 we also know author's name and that his journal is coming from Melus Multi Ethinc Literature of U.S.This can indicate that the author is a person has knowledge or education in Multi Ethnic Literature of the U.S.This also makes her source credible. In the piece 1 the author wanted to provide reader with a lots of information by analyzing, interpreting, and criticizing original material.In the piece 2 the author was also analyzing original material by referring to many historical points. The piece 1 contains a lots of important information and it analyzes material very deeply.The material is analyzed by many different figures and critics This material is very informative as it is interpreted from social and economic perspective.The tone is very encouraging and information contained make this material persuasive.The piece 2 is much shorter and it also analyzes original material.It refers to many different sources such as:interviews and speeches of people who were living close to the time when original material was written.I believe that combined together both of these sources will be appropriate for my needs. The piece 1 contains both facts and opinions.There are many historical parts that can be strongly indicated and there are also many opinions that are expressed by second hand. The piece 2 also contains historical facts as well as interpretation of other people.Facts such as:slavery,power structure and gender inequality are strongly indicated.What was surprising to me in the piece 1 was that original material was interpreted in many different ways by many people.It shows opinion and criticism from social and economic perspective.It is surprising that original material can be interpreted in so many different ways without knowing true motives of original author.In the piece 2 it was surprising to me that critics interpreted the original material as a story of enslavement,beside the fact that original author clearly indicated that it was story about love. I did not have any problem with understanding those sources.in the piece 1 many critics refer to historical context to justify their point of view and I believe those context. However, I do not believe their opinion and assumptions that they make about original material.In the source 2 there are also assumptions being made that makes me hard to fully believe this source.I'm not to sure how to answer this question.Those two sources focus on gender inequality, power structure and injustice.If I were going to write my paper I would chose source 1 because it contains more information then source 2. I would use source 2 as a evidence to support my argument.
9/22/2016 13:07:48source #1 is more like a bibliography it gives a more detailed explanation about the story, the author, characters and about the theme.
source #2 are different opinion from several critics.
source # 1 states Octavia Butler's biography from when she was a child up until recent time.
source #2 describes Butler's probable cause to write "Bloodchild" from a critics point of view.
The purpose of Octavia Butler by writing this piece was what she wrote in the afterword of "Bloodchild" to express her fears and explore what seems impossible in society, to demand what she wanted from society.at first i was really confused and i did not like this piece because i wasn't a fan of science fiction but i found this piece very interesting and as i kept reading i wanted to read more that's how fascinating i found this piece, i wouldn't say this is appropriate for my needs but is definitely interesting to me.source #1 is mostly facts and they're clearly indicated through out the article.
source #2 is mostly opinion from critics.
source #1 offered a lot of important points from the story and it offered a lot of information.
source#2 is confusing and whats surprising about this source is that it didn't offered much information about the story it was more like a critic.
source# 1 i understood basically everything.
source# 2 the entire article was confusing.
source# 1 i believe everything from this source because it was very clear and it had actual facts from the story also it has reference list that helps you find out weather something is true or not.
source# 2 is not very credible because it offers very vague information.
source# 1 Butler, Octavia. Bloodchild and Other Stories, New York: Four Walls Eight Windows, 1995.
Jonas, Gerald. Review of Bloodchild and Other Stories. The New York Times, October 15, 1995, p. 33.
the two sources compare to each other in a sense that the're both talking about the same story in different ways. i would use source number one because it has more detailed information about the story and it has all the details to write an essay.
9/22/2016 14:51:54Source 1 consists of a biography of Octavia Butler and a summary of "Bloodchild," including descriptions of characters and themes throughout the story. Source 2 is a criticism on "Bloodchild," challenging the common ideas and perceptions of the story. Tim Akers is the author of source 1, and Kristin Lillvis is the author of source 2. Both authors are credible because they provide the sources they used and additional references at the end of both papers. Akers provides an overview of "Bloodchild" in source 1, with facts about the short story, whereas Lillvis analyzes the story in depth and argues her point of view in source 2. Source 1 is appropriate for a reader that wants a general summary of Butler and "Bloodchild." Source 2 is a critical analysis supporting a specific argument and would be more fitting for a reader that needs a source to support his or her thesis and arguments.Source 1 offers facts, even in the 'themes' section, because Akers provides the sources he used to write about "Bloodchild's" themes. Lillvis is arguing for her point of view in source 2, but rather than just stating her opinion, she offers evidence to support her statements. I am not sure how to answer this.I am not sure how to answer this.I am not sure how to answer this.Source 1:
Raffel, Burton. “Genre to the Rear, Race and Gender to the Fore: The Novels of Octavia E. Butler.” Literary Review, Vol. 38, No. 3, Spring, 1995, pp. 454-58.

Sargent, Pamela, editor. Women of Wonder: The Contemporary Years, San Diego: Harcourt Brace, 1995.
Smith, Frances Foster. “Octavia Butler’s Black Female Fiction.” Extrapolation, Vol. 23, No. 1, Spring, 1982, pp. 37-49.

Source 2:
Scheer-Schäzler, Brigitte. “Loving Insects Can Be Dangerous: Assessing the Cost of Life in Octavia Estelle Butler’s Novella ‘Bloodchild’ (1984).” Biotechnological and Medical Themes in Science Fiction. Ed. Domna Pastourmatzi. Thessaloniki: U Studio P, 2002. 314-22. Print.

Silva, Alexander Meireles da. “War of the Worlds: Postcolonial Identities in Afro-American Speculative Fiction.” Letras e Letras 26.2 (2010): 369-88. Latindex. Web. 2 Apr. 2012.
I would use the 'themes' portion of source 1 in a paper because it would help me dig deeper into the underlying meaning(s) of Butler's work. Source 2 would help me in a paper with where I needed to make an argument by allowing me to agree or disagree with certain parts of the essay and helping me explain why or why not in support of my thesis.
9/22/2016 21:29:40Source #1 is an article that was published in GALE that is based on Octavia E. Butler's "Bloodchild."

Source #2 is also a published article that is based on "Bloodchild." This article was published in Melus.
For Source #1, I would say that the only author mentioned here besides Butler, is Sarah Madsen Hardy, and then there's the editor, Tim Akers. Madsen Hardy is a credible writer and critic because she has a doctorate in English literature.

For Source #2, the author of the article was Kristen Lillvis. I believe that she is just a student attending Marshall University. Because of this, I don't feel that she is credible.
For Source #1, I feel that the purpose of this piece was to inform the reader about "Bloodchild," and Butler's purpose for writing this piece.

For Source #2, Lillvis was very opinionated and compared "Bloodchild" to slavery.
Source #1. I do believe that I was the intended audience for this piece because it gives a background about Butler, summarizes "Bloodchild," and goes into detail about the characters and about what Butler's intentions were when writing "Bloodchild." I enjoyed the way the article was put together.

Source #2. I also believe that I am the intended reader for this piece because the author is just trying to convince her readers that her opinion about "Bloodchild" should be considered. I welcomed the different view.
I believe that Source #1 is mostly factual, and that the sources used were clearly intended to help support what Butler's intentions were for writing "Bloodchild."

Source #2 is all based on opinion. Lilliv tries to compare "Bloodchild" to slavery, and in Butler's Afterword, she clearly expresses that the short story was not about slavery.
I didn't find anything surprising about Source#1. The way it was presented was well organized.

Source #2 on the other hand, I found very surprising. Lilliv's theory about "Bloodchild" was exactly that, a theory. She presented many sources to try and support her claim, but I feel that it just didn't support her idea one hundred percent, and I found this quite surprising.
I understood everything about Source #1.

Source #2, I felt, was actually confusing. I was thrown off by all of the citing she had in her article. It was a little annoying to read. It seemed neatly unorganized.
For Source #1, I believed everything. Mostly because the source was factual. It gave information about Butler and "Bloodchild." The criticism part of the article can be considered an opinion, but it was well written, the sources made sense, and I agreed.

For Source #2, I believed that Gan can be somewhat considered a motherly figure. However, I don't believe that this made him feminine, and femininity is considered weak, especially in the aspect that Butler portrayed for Gan.
For Source #1, I would use the actual story "Bloodchild," by Octavia E. Butler because it is a direct source, where the words cannot be taken out of context, for the most part.

For Source #2, I would use Larry McCaffery's interview with Butler because it is the author's actual words, and that itself is a primary source.
Well, Source #1 and Source #2 both used "Bloodchild" as a reference in their articles. However, Source #2 used several referenes as I mentioned earlier, and that really threw me off because I felt like she was trying to throw so much information to the reader so that they have to believe her. I would absolutely use Source #1 as evidence for my arguments because it was published for the reader to have more information about "Bloodchild," and its author and it basically lays out everything for the viewer to "give or take." Also, it's much easier to read and interpret.
9/22/2016 23:26:23Lillvis used a primary source in her paper. She used an interview from Butler. In my other article we had to print out it used the New York Times as a secondary sourceI can't find the name of the author of this article but I know they are very credible because I got it off the LaGuardia library website and the class librarian helped me find this article.The purpose of the authors writing these articles were to explain Octavia Butler's "Blood Child" in several different point of views and to provide unlimited sources so there readers could get a better understanding of Butler's meaningsI am the intended audience for this piece. This piece wasn't meant for someone who hasn't read "Blood Child" this piece was created for someone who has already encountered it to get a way better understand of "Blood Child" with different sourcesAfter reading both articles Lillvis provided both facts and opinions but when she provides facts in hers article her facts are followed by in text citations so nothing is plagiarized and we the readers can have an idea where this is coming fromI didn't find anything in particular surprising about either sources because they both just further explained to me what I wasn't really sure about. Lillvis just used another story to compare to blood child and I was a bit suprised that anything could relate and be used to further explain blood childI didn't have any questions or misunderstandings in my sources.
Is a critic considered a source and if so would they be a secondary source because they're not really giving facts.
I am a little perplexed on how to answer this one I'm sorry.In Lillvis I would use Butlers interview by McCaffery because an interview is a primary source and it's better to get information straight from the source and get a secondary source to compare fact and opinion for better understanding. In my other article from LaGuardia's library website they used the New York Times I would also use that because I'd like to use one secondary and one primary source in my papers because it's showing different fact and opinions Lillvis source has way more opinions than the other source but she does have in text citations and and good points where as to my other source I got from LaGuardia's website has a lot more sources and is split and organized to make Butlers short story more understanding. I would choose LaGuardia's source
9/23/2016 0:18:40source #1. in this source we can find a Octavia butler bibliography, "bloodchild" summary, story characters, analysis, context and criticism on Octavia' story about man pregnancy.

source #2.in this source we can find different points of view from "bloodchild" story. the author interpret "Bloodchild" as a story of slavery by comparing it with African American history.

these sources help to understand and analyze deeply "Bloodchild" story

source # 1. Tim Akers. he is an editor of Octavia's story "Bloodchild". i think he is credible, though i have read very little science fiction i think his interpretation and point of view is real because he focus more on science fiction.

source #2 : Kristen Lillvis. she is an assistant professor of English and she works examining African American historical fiction. i think she is credible because everybody has different perspectives and her argument can be real.
source # 1: the author wants to interpret and analyze Bloodchild story in term of the science fiction genre

source #2 : the author wants to interpret and analyze "Bloodchild" story in term of African American historical fiction
yes, because after reading these articles have a better knowledge and understanding on bloodchild story.source # 1 and 2 i think both of them are fact but also opinions. but i think the first article is mostly facts and is clearly indicated than the second one because it focus more in explaining bloodchild story and interpreting Octavia intentions. while the second one focus more on opinions and comparing it with real life and African American historywhat was surprising for me specially in the second source is the way that people compare this story with real life something that have sense to me.what i don't understand is what is the real augment because i think both interpretation are believable.i think both sources can be credible. source # 1 Butler, Octavia "bloodchild and other stories" new york: four walls eight windows, 1995

source # 2 Butler, Octavia "bloodchild and other stories" new York: seven stories, 1996. print

i chose them because i think people should read the real story to conclude and understand clearly what authors is talking about and these two source are good reference to people get more information
both sources focus on analyzing and interpreting the intentions of Octavia Butler in her Bloodchild story.

i will use any of them but everything depends on what were my intentions in this writing. i personally think the first source is more focus on science fiction.
9/23/2016 1:58:51source #1 literary source that it is part of a virtual library.

source #2 literary source from data base
source #1: The author is Tim Akers. He is an author of fiction and fantasy. He is the unique son of a theologian. So he was raised partially loving books and that is why he likes to write fiction more than something real.

source #2 The author is Kristen Lillvis. She is an assistant professor of English at Marshall University. She publishes collections about black identity and critically write essays of fiction editions . Also, she is working in a book that explains the relationship between temporarily and subjectivity in African American historical fiction.
Of course, she is credible
source #1 : he refers bloodchild as a cultural issue. Letting us know about racial problems, the importance of morals and how sex plays a role in the story.

source #2: she focus on motherhood and the possibility of pregnancy beyond a men. Referring this as an act of love and slavery at the same time.
both of them are really good sources but I prefer the source #1. Because it has more points of view. Also, it gives me more information about morals, environmental issues, multiculturalism, and sex roles. So,if I need to write about bloodchild and refer one of these sources I'll probably choose source #1.
for me both of them are facts but source number #1 has more evidence about different topics rather than source #2 that explains just about bloodchild and doing some analysis with motherhood source #1 well, not so surprising but the explanation of each character of the story helped me to understand better the story.
Also I like the part of " compare and contrast" and it shows different times of how our planet is focus on Mars and the probability of life there.

source #2 the comparison between "law of mother" and ''father law" that says when a father is removed from the home the mother automatically does the role of mother and father at the same time. So, she refers this to Gan who is going to accept an alien being into his body.
source #1 I understood this article very well

source #2 well, I re-red this article several times because it just refers to motherhood and it is not that I don't understand I just find out this source so boring.
for both sources I believe that Octavia use the context very well to let us understand better that the story has a strong point of view about racism . source #1
Jonas, Gerald. Review of Bloodchild and Other Stories. The New York Times, Octuber 15,1995, p.33

Williams, Sherley Anne. "Sherley Anne Williams on Octavia E. Buttler." Ms.,March, 1986, pp.70-71

Both articles talk about Bloodchild a little bit of the biography of the author

source #2
Fink, Marty. ''AIDS Vampires: Reimagining Illness in Octavia Butler." Science Fiction Studies 37.3 (2010): 416-32. JSTOR. Web. 10 Feb. 2013

Fowler, Doreen. Faulkner: The Return of the Repressed. Charlottesville:UP of Virginia,1997. print

these articles talk about the oppression of blacks in the past
well the source #1 has more topics to talk about it. If I need to write about bloodchild I'll use the first source.
the second I don't really like so much because it has a certain information that I am not interested at all to discuss.
9/23/2016 2:04:26It's a kind of source that is being told by someone that has read the original source. They are basing there own knowledge from the original source.The author is Kristen Lilvis. We know that she is a big fan of Octavia Bulters shorty story BloodChild. Her sources are credible because she quotes straight from the book.The purpose of the author writing this is because she wants to make the story more understandable, to other readers. Yes, i am a intended audience for this piece. They are appropriate to my needs because scifis are a genre target young adults as their audiance. The sources are mostly facts. They are mostly facts because she quotes straight from the story to back up her claims.The surprising part about this source is that she questions all of the ideas in blood child and she tries to justify it, There were so much different sources to help justify the authors claim and it was to much information. i believe from the source that Blood child is a story of slavery, gender, and sex roles. I don't believe that Blood child was a love story.1.) Blood Child, because it's straight from the main source and it'll be accurate.
2.)Spillers mamas. Because she compares the two sources and tries to show they are the same.
I would use spillers mamas because the author shows that how slavery is a simmilar theme to blood chil and how it kind of is like a love story.
9/23/2016 2:21:30while they are both written by scholars for academic use and review:

source 1: Akers' is a secondary source comprised of a collection of first hand responses to the reading of Octavia Butler's Bloodchild as well as discussions, explanations and recounts of her afterword.

source 2: Lillvis' is an abstract of the original content written by Lillvis. It's an excerpt from the original piece.
Source 1 was mostly written by Tim Aikers who also included other scholarly readers responses to the book of short stories as well and their interpretations of her afterword and the main underlying themes of the stories. I feel this would be considered more credible because he didn't only rely on his interpretation on Butler's story but included other's work as well as their research. Coming together to make one whole academic piece

Source 2 was written by Kirsten Lillivis which was also an academic summary of the story as well as the afterword from Butler as well as her ideas about the comparing and contrasting underlying themes specifically within Bloodchild as well as the other stories in the book. I feel that because this article was comprised of just one readers interpretations it could be found as less credible than Source 1 because there is a possibility of less evidence to prove her ideas about the story.
source 1: Aker's goal in writing this piece in my opinion was to recap, review and share the findings for himself as well as other readers or students with insight into the meaning of the piece and the afterword.

Source 2: Lillvis' goal in this piece was for pointing out and discussing the underlying themes throughout the story as well as the afterword.
To be quite honest with you, I think they both made the same arguments with similar evidence and while they attempted to give you a different view on the story, I feel that they made similar points - Akers just presented a little more information with differing speakers to further drive home the point. I think source 1 gives you more facts that source 2 does. Source one gives you timelines, information about the time period and location in which Octavia lived when she wrote the piece As well as back information about the afterword and subsequent interviews.

I think for both pieces, the sources are clearly indicated, as well as cited at the ending of the entries.
They were similar in description as both were written for academic databases. They went into detail about Butler as a person as well as who she is as writer, giving details about her works' accomplishments and her own personal backstories for herself and multiple pieces within her book of short stories not much, google definitions and re-reading the articles helped with the things I didn't understand. I believe Butler made this story to be a short story, I believe she didn't want this story to have undertones of slavery despite two others and most of her readers seeing it as such.

I believe the both writers fully understood and took the time to further research and include all information needed when writing the articles about Butler's piece.
Source 1: CUNY One search Is a good search tool because it Lead me directly to multiple forms of the article. The Gale Group reference library provided the entire pdf file I needed.

Source 2: Project muse also seems to be a very good database for articles used by Librarians, publishers and students alike. I feel this is a reputable source considering the article used was originally published by Oxford University Press

While they are both good reputable sources for articles to further prove your thesis, I feel the best source is Octavia Butler's Bloodchild as well as the afterword. Also, quotes from interviews Butler gave seem to also give insight on which opinions to approach on the underlying themes in the short story.
If I had to pick the best source, other than the short story itself I would go with Project MUSE. It seems the most reputable, it's simpler to use and has an easier to read article saying similar information yet condensed for your reading pleasure including a pre-word by the author.
9/23/2016 9:24:03Kristen Lilvis' article is a secondary source that is about an issue in history that has already passed. She evaluates Butler's "story of slavery." Akers' article is focused on Butler's experience in events such as her childhood, in order to understand her work better.At the end of source #2 there is a section that describes who Lillvis' is. We don't know anything about the author of source #1 except his name.Source #2 was written because the author wanted to explore Butler's "emotional potency of motherhood," and the topic of enslavement in "Bloodchild. Source #1 was written for the reader to know about Butler's background. I do not understand this question. Source #2 has both the author's opinions and facts about the story and Octavia Butler. Lillvis' clearly supports her facts by including where she got her information from. Source #1 only states facts about Butler and includes where they got the information from at the end of the article.I found source #1 as surprising because there is so much to know about Octavia Butler and it is all very important because her history plays a big role in the way she wrote her science fiction stories. Souce #2 is concentrated on two topics, and it was surprising of how much more there was about preganancy in "Bloodchild." The author really got into detail and helped me evaluate the story better.I didn't understand how source#1 was organized. It goes from the author's biography to talking about the story, and then back to more on Butler.I believe in the facts both sources provided about Octavia Butler and her writing because of all the references they both used. If someone were to choose the topic of pregnancy for an essay, they could use the reference from source #2, titled "Mama's" because there is a lot of information on the role of the mother in Butler's stories. Source #1 uses the reference titled "Dawn" and could be useful to read if someone wanted to further investigate Butler's ideas on a different human race.If I wrote an essay on either the pregnant body or species interconncetion. I would use source #1 because it provides sections specifically for each topic and has other stories that Butler wrote that could be connected to those topics. I would use source #2 if I wanted to know more about Butler's descriptions on the topics, because it provides interviews where Butler corresponds to questions about "Bloodchild.
9/23/2016 12:01:00Source 2 ; It is a themed analysis of the Bloodchild focusing on the mothering aspect of the short story.Kristen Lillvis is the author apparently at Marshall University and it is published by a well known Oxford Univ press. Thus she is scholarly and credible as the publisher would have made some inquiry.The author seeks to analyze and contrast the bloodchild with other science fiction stories.Yes , science fiction reader.The sources are mostly Factual with a personal bias and clouded by time.Source 2; draws on a broad list of references and stiches them together nicely.Source 2; There is a common theme in many stories and maybe the inspiration for butler.I believe most of the information in the sources but look out for bias and lost memories.I would chose the bloodchild afterword since it is her recollections, and interview with octavia butler as a probing of her memories about the story writing.Source 2: The one is her own words and the second is a interview. First hand writings and recollections are the best source.
9/23/2016 12:32:24Source 1 is a Essay and source 2 is an Article.
Source 1 is in an essay format and Source 2 is in paragraph form but it has sub topics like an article.
Source one's author is Tim Akers. Source two's author is Kristen Lillvis. I would not say they are credible because I researched them and everyone's saying different things about them. If it is not positive responses then they are not credible authors.The purpose of writing this piece would be to give their opinion on what the author wrote about the story. also agreeing or disagreeing with the author.Yes. I do not know much about Octavia Butler and Source 1 explains a lot about Octavia Butler and her past. Not sure if they are giving facts. But their points are lclearly indicated.Not sureA lot. only a little about Octavia Butler. I do not believe anything because I am not sure that both of these authors are giving credible information. I am perplexed. They both give information about Butler and bloodchild. If i had to choose i would pick source 1 because i felt that it gave more specific information about the story. It broke it down in sub topics.
9/23/2016 12:46:411. The first source is a secondary source because Tim Aker writes about an event that already happened.

2. The second source is a secondary source because Lillvis talks about the story of Bloodchild and describes it in his own way.
1. Tim Akers is the author. He has written many books and novels. We know about him because he has written a whole thing about Bloodchild. He is not credible because he's written books about fantasy just like the author of Bloodchild.

2. Lillvis is an author of Afrofuturist fiction and is also a doctor. She is credible because she is a doctor and she has written books that are informational.
1. The purpose of Akers writing that piece was to help students understand the characters and summary of Bloodchild.

2. The purpose of Lillvis' writing was to explain the point of Bloodchild. She digs deep and sees the meaning behind the events that happened in Bloodchild.
1. I'm the intended audience for this piece because I feel like he's making students like myself understand the story and the characters more.

2. I don't think I'm the intended audience because the level of information she is using to explain is something a doctor or high scholar would understand.
1. The source is mostly fact because he's actually getting the inormation from the book and using it to explain the characters, plot, etc.

2. The source is opinion because it's what she thinks that is happening and her opinion on why these things are happening.
1. What surprised me was the amount of information he used from the story and how he split the story in pieces so we could understand it.

2. What surprised me the most was how informational this piece was. I felt like I was reading a newspaper.
1. I understood this source completely.

2. I didn't really understand this source because it used a lot of vocabulary and the wording was hard for me to understand.
1. I believe that this source is believable because it's coming from the book.

2. I disbelieve this source because it's coming from someone's opinion and not from the actual source.
I didn't understand.1. The two sources compare to each other because they show the point of view of the story Bloodchild. I would use Aker's because he explains and shows the plot summary of what happened iN the story.
9/23/2016 12:48:47
Source #2 is analytical, academically strong and well written. The author used many different sources to support her ideas and make a discussion interesting.
Source #1 is a textbook, a guide for students where all facts from and about the story is gathered and shared.
Author of the source #2 is published an article at Critique and currently working on a book related to African American culture and community. She's also an assistant professor of English at Marshall University. There was a short bio about her at the end of the article.
Author #1 is a sci-fi & fantasy writer and published some books, that's all i know about him.
Speaking about credibility, i would choose Kristen Lillvis. She's a beginner researcher, but already has a reputation.
I assume that source #1 was mostly a skeleton on which other researchers will put a meat on. There's a lot of general information that makes it easier to quote or paraphrase and then use it to discuss main characteristics of protagonists and antagonists from the story.
Source #2 is written for a close circle of researches that looking for broader meanings for feminism and maternity in sci-fi literature which is linked to African American culture.
Source #2 written more professionally (academically) and I find it more legit that source #1, which is simplified and mainly focused on bigger audience.
I think source #2 is more analytical, therefore is opinion based. Even though it has many references to offer, it still an opinion based article.
Sources #1 is more factual, and doesn't go too much far away from the story and it's basically
The amount of time, which author of source #2 spent on writing the article and also for collecting and analyzing all the data
Everything was clear and to the point.
I believe in everything.
Gallop, Jane. The Daughter's Seduction: Feminism and Psychoanalysis. Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1982. Print.

Smith, Frances Foster. "Octavia Butler's Black Female Fiction." Extrapolation, Vol. 23, No. 1, Spring, 1982, pp. 37-49
If I were writing a paper, I would choose a thesis about maternity and femininity and Source #2 will serve, and the reference page that it kindly offers. However, I might uses some evidence from source #2 in order to write a good summary at the beginning.
9/23/2016 13:11:42
the first source is a secondary source, like a book . its a digital copy of a stories summary. it gives information directly from the book so what we are getting is authors direct thoughts. the second one is a essay about the story and understanding of the story by someone else which could be diffrent than the author.
the author is african-american ladyand her name is olivia butler. she love sci-fi and wrote a lot of sci-fi but her best work is this story about alienworld living called bloodchild. she is incredible her story is amazing and her thoughts are out of the box. this the first time i heard about her through this story
purpose of the writer is to pay more focus to rapes, male pregnancy, what could happen if we ever leave earth and go to a different planet, love relation and sacrifices one have to face for something.
yes, school/college kids are perfect for this story audience, because they are the future, and what happened in the story is futuristic. so this is something that actually could happen. kids can learn alot from this. story.
yes the source is mostly accurate , because the refrences were taken directly from the book.
that it gave me more information than the original book, more about the author, her feelings and thoughts, more about our environment and what could happen to it in future.
everything was understandable
i believe this source is perfect for a essay or paper writing, have alot of info about auther and story itslef.
"Bloodchild." Short Stories for Students. Ed. Tim Akers. Vol. 6. Detroit: Gale, 1999. 23-37. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Web. 23 Sept. 2016.

Bloodchild the hard copy of the book

Butler, Octavia E. Afterword. Butler, Bloodchild 30-31.

. “An Interview with Octavia E. Butler.” Interview by Charles H. Rowell. Callaloo 20.1 (1997): 47-66. JSTOR. Web. 26 Jan. 2013.
i would choose this reference because it gave the most of the information
"Bloodchild." Short Stories for Students. Ed. Tim Akers. Vol. 6. Detroit: Gale, 1999. 23-37. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Web. 23 Sept. 2016.
Form Responses 1
Main menu