In conclusion, Brandt believes that sponsors as a whole either support or suppress literacy due to personal advantage. I agree with this definition to a certain extent, yet I believe there are some tweaks to be made challenge this definition. Such as literacy narratives showing that sponsorship through withholding can have both a negative and positive impact on the author and vice versa. Not only this, but I don’t believe that sponsors have to be selfish by only giving help and knowledge if it benefits them. They can give their attention a time due to it being their job or them wanting to due to being genuine or establishing a personal connection. Lastly I don’t believe that sponsors only impact literacy as a whole but instead shape the narrators of the story into the individuals that they are today when they face literacy along with other academics. That their impact goes past the extent of that memory on paper, and I believe that this should be included in the overall understanding and definition of sponsors.
