Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 6

Moran 1

Sponsors of Literacy- My Version

This essay was not necessarily harder than others, but I definitely felt restricted. I
completely disagree with Brandt on all but maybe 2 of her subjects. However, I was extremely
limited with only being able to use my groups narratives that I was forced to agree. If I was
given the freedom to write what I desired, I believe I would have been able to create a good case
against Brandt. However, with that being said, I did enjoy this process. I never read such a long
and intelligent article such as hers, and it was fun. I appreciated hearing all of my group mates
stories and how it affected them. It was interesting to see what everyone would come up with.
All of my group had read and reviewed my drafts. All of them were extremely helpful. I
tend to write like I would talk. A lot of what I write makes sense to me, but without me being
able to explain it further, it comes across as very confusing. My whole group helped me with
I believe the process could have been more helpful if I knew this essay was the end-goal
for our narratives. I was under the impression that our narratives were to be taken at face value
and after we submitted them we could forget about them forever. I would also have liked to have
more people to review my drafts, and not just my group and my friends in the class.
My favorite parts of the essay would have to be taking my groups narratives and trying
to work them to my point of disagreement. Not only did I find this challenging (As I did not
succeed) I found it entertaining. I would be close to breaking Brandt and then my whole thought
process would be disrupted by my group (More especially Zachary Margolis, who mainly agrees
with Brandt). Overall I thought the essay and drafts were a fun way to integrate learning and

Zachary Moran
Professor Rothwell
Writing 1103-015
16 March 2016
Too Right to be Wrong
Stumbling across Sponsors of Literacy by Deborah Brandt, a person outside of the
intended audience group would find it boring and have a hard time deciding what Brandt was
intending to say. I personally believe a lot of what she had said was unreasonable, it is easier to
agree. I will be exploring the subjects of sponsorship, and the rise in literacy standards to make
them more appealing to a younger and more unexperienced age group.
When Brandt talks about sponsors, she has a very boring view about them. Though I
dont believe humans are inherently good, I do believe that people can do things for others
without expecting something in return. Brandt would argue, and she has an excellent argument to
back it up. She uses the great example of a little-league baseball team wearing the name of some
big insurance company, Of course, the sponsored can be oblivious to or innovative with this
ideological burden. Like Little Leaguers who wear the logo of a local insurance agency on their
uniforms, not out of a concern for enhancing the agency's image but as a means for getting to
play ball (Brandt 4). The insurance company is obviously the sponsor in this case, the team
being the sponsored. This sets up a excellent case to her argument because the insurance
company is sponsoring to get their name out in the public eye. They sponsor to have advertising,
not only when the team plays at home, but wherever the team travels. I feel as if Brandt fails to
narrow down her studies to more concrete examples. I would file the insurance company
sponsorship under Corporate Sponsorship. Corporate sponsorship deals with bigger business
sponsoring to acquire return in the form of advertising, extended revenue etc.. I believe in

corporate sponsorship, virtually every company does it. Business is all about getting the upper
hand, but to get that upper hand you usually need to have an established business sponsor you.
Most of the business world is completely reliant on each other.
I wanted to disprove Brandt so bad. I will admit that. I could use the example Nick
Williams and I had in our narrative, our parents teaching us how to drive. This seems like
something our parents would do out of love, but this specific action creates a rabbit trail of
obligations and wishes that our parents may or may not have felt. These obligations go as far
back as to Making the world a better place in the future. Faced with this difficulty, I sought out
Zach Margolis and Ethan Simmons to seek their advice.
Zach Margolis narrative was all about his grandpa teaching him how to fish. This seems
like the perfect example. A grandpa spending bonding time with his grandson for no other reason
than to enjoy their time together. I approach Zach and ask him, Why did your grandpa teach you
how to fish? To my surprise, he hesitated for a minute and responded, Well, I guess he felt
obligated to. Who am I to argue with Zach? Its his grandpa. What he is saying though, is that
his whole family knew how to fish so his grandpa set out on that very day to fill the familys line
of fishermen. It appears as if his grandpa taught him to fish to Take a weight off his shoulders
and to fulfill his unspoken promise to his family.
So, running out of luck with Zach, I turn to Ethan Simmons. Ethans narrative was about
his coach perfecting his shot. Ethans example would be more of a stretch but I know coaches are
more than a coach for a sport. Coaches are there for life and will usually always help you in
anything. How the topic relates to Ethans story is contingent on one thing: If this was before or
after his last season with this specific coach. If his coach had helped him prior to the season, the
argument could be made that Ethan was helped to make the team score more; if Ethan was

helped after his last season it would be for the purpose of helping him with nothing in return. I
ask him, and Ethan responds It was before the season. Which really crumbles my defense. Sure
his coach could have just wanted to help him, but more than likely his coach fixed his shot to
make him score more during the season. This leads to more wins and leads to a better looking
coach. So, though I may argue with it, Brandts stance on sponsors holds up in close to all
The other topic we will explore is about was the rise in literacy standards. Brandts
example, in my eyes, is absolute rubbish; the idea as a whole is solid. She uses the example of
Dwayne Lowery. Dwayne was a poor man who worked his way to become a highly respected
union worker. In time, though, even small municipal and county governments responded to the
public employees' growing power by hiring specialized attorneys to represent them in grievance
and contract negotiations. "Pretty soon," Lowery observed, "ninety per cent of the people I was
dealing with across the table were attorneys (Brandt 12). One would think that though the world
of Dwayne was changing, he would have time to adjust to it. As this happened gradually and not
all at once. However, Brandt later defends his failure at his job, And for Dwayne Lowery -- as
well as many like him over the last twenty-five years -- these are the arenas in which the worth
of existing literate skills become degraded (Brandt 13). The old ways Dwayne knew had
indeed had become outdated. Closer consideration reveals he had every resource to adjust and
become skilled in the new ways. This is why her example is not very applicable.
I believe Brandt is trying to say that the standards of literacy are always changing, as is
literacy itself. This is where Nick and my examples come into play. Driving is always changing.
We are getting new technology, better safety inside the car, faster cars, and much more. With the
constant changing of driving, leads to the changing of the literacy of knowing how to drive. Nick

and I both drove in early 2000 era f150s. Though these trucks were made a while ago, they are
far different than the automobiles made today on so many levels. They are leagues different from
the original automobiles back in the early 1900s. So why is driving them different? For starters,
both trucks were automatic; automatic cars did not exist for a long time. Automobiles have
become easier and easier to drive, but the road laws are always becoming complex. We live in a
changing society and if you know how to do one thing, you must evolve with where that thing is
taking you.
So, though I personally disagree with Brandt, her ideas are solid. With slight modification
in language and example, I believe this article can cater to a broader audience. I believe this is a
must read for every young adult. It deals with our changing society and provides a better outlook
on what goes behind the scenes of our everyday learning.

1. Brandt, Deborah. Sponsors of Literacy. College Composition and Communication 49.2
(1998): 165185. Web...
2. Margolis, David Waterlogged 2016.
3. Simmons, Ethan Ball is Life 2016.
4. Williams, Nicholas Yellow Lights 2016.

Похожие интересы