in 'on student's rights to their own texts,' lil brannon and c. h. knoblauch articulate that readers outside of the classroom typically concede the writer's authority and conveyance of material. according to the authors, this process breaks down in the teacher-student relationship because instructors as readers exercise inherent control over the conveyance of material and usually have a 'conception of what the devloping text 'ought' to look like or 'ought' to do (214).' this relationship diminishes the commitment of the student to their writing and incentive to revise their work and for branner and knoblauch 'incentive is vital to improvement and also that is linked crucially to the belief that one's writing will be read earnestly (214).' the authors also say that the teacher usually reads each student's work not as a typical audience but as a parent; paternalism (either conservative or liberal) thus bolsters its own position (and hence authority) regardless of the text or its context. brannon and knoblauch assert that in order for this phenomena to be deterred, the student-writer must be encouraged to take control of their own composition; that the role of the instructor should be articulating how effective or ineffective the student has applied logic to substantiate their claims. in other words, the instructor must become a sounding board instead of a parent. ideally, the interaction between student and teacher would change into negotiation that forces the writer to reassert control over their own writing. this process compels the student towards revision without sacrificing incentive. moreover, the student's final evaluation are standardized by their effecicacy and communication instead of the unsubstantiated, paternalistic ideal of the instructor.
brannon and knoblauch seem to be advocating the same modality many theorists have argued this semester. within their thought construction is a visible strain of guide on the side classroom management that seeks to empower the student writer before formally introducing him/her into a discourse community. thus it is no suprise that criticism of brannon and knoblauch may emerge from the fact that the article does not clearly explain how the student can ultimately inculcate themselves into a larger body of like minded thinkers. in other words, when the student writes who is he/she writing for? although a paternal reader is highly undesirable it is perhaps more desirable than no author at all.