The authors from the book, First They Killed My Father and "Cambodian Genocide" use some of the same information, but produce different texts because they interpret the information differently. The book is from a young girl's perspective and life. Throughout the book the girl mostly exposes her feelings and emotions towards the revolution that is occurring at that time, she doesn't give off facts that talk about what is happening. For example in the second chapter of the article when it talks about the evacuation of Phnom Penh she says,"After each round of rifle fire, people push and shove one another in a panicked frenzy trying to evacuate the city." This quote uses the words "panicked" and "frenzy" to show that she had strong feelings towards the event. What she is writing is what she directly experienced.
However, in the article, the author doesn't express any emotion, just facts. They do this because they didn't directly experience the event that they are writing about. For example when the author talks about the beginning of the revolution, they say, "On April 17, 1975, the Khmer Rouge army marched into Phnom Penh, the modern capitol. Khmer Rouge soldiers, young peasants from the provinces, mostly uneducated teenage boys who had never been in a city before, swept through town. They set to their job right away, evacuating Phnom Penh and forcing all of its residents to leave behind all their belongings and march towards the countryside." This doesn't show any emotion, imagery, or opinions it just explains what, when, where, who, and why. The quote is just informational.
In both of these quotes they talk about the same event, but they are told in different ways. The book has a lot of emotion, imagery, and opinions while the article has facts and information. The article's author interpreted the information as by just explaining to the readers what happened and why it happened. In the book the author didn't have that information so they told what they saw instead of what she knew. The effect of the author being the main character is that the author didn't really interpret the information, they lived it instead. The book is based on first hand accounts instead of secondary sources. When the author/main character was writing the book she told it by how she experienced it. Since she didn't know what was happening she only wrote what she knew or thought what was happening in that moment.