I found only one instance in which I quoted a primary source, Super Sad True Love Story in Blog Post 4, when I explained the scene in which Lenny is being searched by security guards, and that the use of technology by the guards was invasive and a prime example of a dystopic society. In this post I stated, “They scan Lenny’s apparat and deduce that he is guilty of ‘malicious pervasion of data’(p. 130). I introduced this quote as more of a narrative to explain the scene, whereas I could use a template and say something more along the lines of, “after scanning Lenny’s apparat, the guards stated that he is guilty of “malicious pervasion of data” (p. 130), which is somewhat ironic considering the guards are gleaning information about Lenny without his permission. This template makes it easier to incorporate my quote into an explanation of the scene while still capturing my argument that the guards used their apparats to invade Lenny’s privacy.

In Blog Post 7, I quoted a criticism by Leila Silvana May, in which she references another reviewer’s opinion on Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein. This criticism was my secondary source. I said, “May incorporates Mary Poovey’s statement that the creature is ‘the victim of both the symbolic and the literal . . . it is doubly (and vehicle for) someone else’s desire, yet exposed (and excited) as the deadly essence of passion itself.’” I introduced this quote in this manner because I was explaining how May used another person’s argument to back up her own argument. Using a template from They Say, I Say, I could introduce the quote in the following manner: “Mary Poovey states that the creature is ‘the victim of both the symbolic and the literal . . . it is doubly (and vehicle for) someone else’s desire, yet exposed (and excited) as the deadly essence of passion itself’, which supports May’s argument that the monster represents sororal desire.” This would allow me to show how May uses someone else’s argument to support her own, while still explaining whose opinion I am quoting.