Jeremy Diaz
Dr. Michael Cripps
English 110
April 2, 2019
Literacy Narratives Paper
There are many different sub narratives in which a literacy narrative can fall into. One of these narratives that I have been specifically paying attention to are victim narratives. See when one reads these narratives they only get one side of the story and that is the story of the victim. In some cases it is clear to me that they are a victim and had a bad literacy experience. But in other cases these same narratives seem to be to sensitive and somewhat exaggerated. Examples of these consist of a teacher being rude when talking about a students reading level or tearing their paper apart. I want to delve deeper into this topic and in a way defend the “mean” teacher because I feel as though at times they are not accurately represented.
When reading victim narratives we often try to sympathize with the author and take their side since they’re the one telling the story. In my experience, I’ve come to realize that the sponsors who withhold from the victims, which are mainly teachers, never get a chance to state their opinion in the story being told. Therefore, I believe that the students are too sensitive and over exaggerate the situation as well as remember the situation different than it actually was. For example in one of the literacy narratives I read titled “Expect the Unexpected” by Hannah D there is a clear case of over exaggeration. She boasts about a paper she felt she did really well on. The topic of the paper was the death of her own brother so she put a lot of work into this paper since it was something personal to her. When she received it back she wasn’t so happy “When I finally got my paper back, all I felt was disappointment. I couldn’t believe what I saw, I looked at my paper and saw a B- minus circled in the top right corner.” She believed she deserved much more because of her emotional attachment to the paper. She didn’t even go to see the teacher and ask why she got the grade she did like I’ve read in past narratives. I also believe that the sponsor was just trying to get more out of her than she had already put on the paper. But instead she decides to play the victim. Kara Poe Alexander defines a victim by arguing “They also might see victim narratives as constituting a critique more in line with the assignment expectations than other moves might be”(Alexander 618). But this doesn’t sound like our author. This sounds like someone who’s skills were generally suppressed or overlooked by a sponsor or anyone else who could’ve helped but instead hurt them. In all honesty I think that students when writing literacy narratives like to play the victim so that way they can emerge as a hero in the end. Bronwyn argues this best when she quotes Carpenter and Falbo. “Carpenter and Falbo, for example, noted how their first year writing students, when writing literacy narratives, often portray themselves as the hero of their stories, overcoming all obstacles to succeed at reading and writing” (Bronwyn 343). Now it is clear that everyone wants to be a hero but not every story is written that way. Same as how not every story tells the truth. I believe that Hannah D’s narrative is a perfect example of a story where someone tries to play hero because they stuck to their guns and took the constructive criticism to heart when in reality the teacher was just doing their job and trying to make them a better writer.
I don’t mean to call these students out when I say that their story is exaggerated but it just seems as though it might be true. Too many details tend to work out of favor for these students and that is part of the reason why I find it so odd. Logically speaking, if there was an issue that was very bad, I think most people if not everyone would try to do everything in their power to remove themself from a toxic situation if there was absolutely no way to succeed in that environment. This is the environment that has been described on multiple occasions in victim narratives. Bronwyn describes the victim narrative as “being stigmatized through their literacy experiences, particularly in school where the student is a victim of bad or insensitive teaching.” (344) While this could be the case for some the other students could also just be overly sensitive to constructive criticism.
One common theme there was in these narratives was that a lot of them lost the fun and enjoyment they found in reading. Alexander would argue that “A victim of negative literacy experiences, in or out of school; cast blame for negative literacy experiences; discusses how someone took the fun out of reading and writing.” (615) But I don’t believe that this necessarily the whole truth. The literacy narrative Road to Failure by Madison Derosa depicts this perfectly. This is a story about a girl who took title one classes multiple times in order to improve her reading. First off, Madison went into her 2nd year of title one with a negative attitude. This year was different though. I didn’t have the same teacher, the one I actually liked. “This year my name was called by an old, tall, skinny, grey haired woman with a coconut haircut. She called off our names and would sigh in between them. Her teeth were stained as if she drank too much coffee. Her name was Mrs. Millisauskis and I knew that this wouldn’t be a fun year.” It is clear that Madison not only wasn’t excited about learning with her new teacher but just wanted her old one back as well. Madison writes in her narrative “Even though I hated being in Title 1, I missed being with Mrs. Ouimette. She was about making learning fun, Mrs. Millisauskis didn’t care if we enjoyed it or not, we were getting our reading done.” This is a clear example of her over sensitivity. School wasn’t made to be a place where you have fun. It was made to empower young children with knowledge so that when they enter the real world they are ready to take it head on. Clearly Madison missed this point when she was younger and never realized it after she grew up. Her sponsor Mrs. Millisauski was there to help her learn not to make things fun like her teacher Mrs. Ouimette did in the past year. Technically, we can say as a sponsor, Mrs. Ouimette failed because Madison ended up in title one class the following year.
Another thing that I want to prove is that the sponsors are just trying to make the students better at their reading and writing. One student wrote a narrative about a teacher who took the book twilight away from her when she was in elementary school. “She started to cause a scene in front of the whole class about how she thought that book was out of my reading level, and I wasn’t old enough” I think that the sponsor for one thought twilight was too much of an inappropriate book to be reading in elementary school. I also believe that yes the student might be able to read the book but while she be able to grasp all the concepts within it. Just because you can read a word doesn’t mean you know what that word means. This teacher was a sponsor that was doing her job. Brandt defines a sponsor as “Usually richer, more knowledgeable, and more entrenched than the sponsored, sponsors nevertheless enter a reciprocal relationship with those they underwrite.” She would have been a bad sponsor if she didn’t walk around the classroom and look at everything that everyone was reading. I think the students because they are so young at the time remember the situation much worse or how they want to remember it. Bronwyn expands on this concept by arguing “It is obvious that imagining a scenario doesn’t make it happen. Yet many students who do not feel successful as readers and writers think that these identities are the results of external judgements handed down by the literacy “authorities” in their lives” (Bronwyn 345). Between students trying to be a hero and not taking constructive criticism they are able to paint the sponsor as a bad person when in reality most of the time I feel that they are just trying to help out.
When a sponsor, specifically a teacher, is giving advice they tend to talk to the students like they are on the same level of understanding. Some students take this advice and use it to become a better reader and writer. Others tend to interpret it differently and instead of taking this advice as a learning point they instead take it personal. I do agree that there are some sponsors who just are terrible and don’t care to see their students succeed. But at the same time I feel as though students can misinterpret the message the teacher is trying to send especially at a young age.
I think it is obvious that at times students can take a situation with a sponsor too serious. I think the reasons for this is that they’re too young to put things into a logical perspective and therefore they remember the situation as something bad and scarring from their childhood instead of taking it as a learning situations. I wish that there was a way for us to hear the side of the bad sponsors in certain narratives so we can get a sense of understanding on their side. Maybe they don’t know that they can come across rude to students at times but they’ll never know unless someone speaks up. When students ask a question there is always some type of response. It could be a passionate one that is trying to see the student succeed or a rude one that doesn’t care at all. But if students just sit in silence and allow themselves to feel like the victim then their problems can never be solved.
