A Writer's Audience Is Always Fiction: A Case Study

In this essay Ong discusses the difference between oral and written word. These are two seemingly similar ways of conveying ideas to others but their functionalities and mechanisms actually prove to be quite different. With this in mind, the debate whether or not one method is more practical than the other, comes into question. After reading the thoughts of Ong, it seems as though the appropriateness of written versus spoken word seems to vary depending on context. One of the most vital components affecting the effectiveness of a text is its audience.

One very obvious but critical difference between spoken and written word, is the accessibility the author has to their audience. “For the speaker, the audience is in front of him. For the writer the audience is further away, in time or space or both” (10). Written word lacks the actual encounter between writer and receiver; there is distance between the two, providing a completely different experience. Because of this ‘space’ between writer and reader, Ohm suggests that more work must go into transcription to close this gap and ensure the intended message is understood. Without explicitly saying so, Ong discusses issues of agency in his essay. In circumstances where words can be exchanged orally, the ‘agent’ of delivery is what Ohm refers to as ‘circumambient actuality’ which I believe refers to present circumstances and the immediate translation from speaker to listener. Written texts lack this agent, the texts themselves and their medium are the major agents for transcending a message.

Ong then goes on to differentiate a writer’s concept and awareness of audience to that of a speaker. This part becomes more abstract and potentially confusing because there are moments of contradiction. When ohm first addresses audience, he negates the need for a writer to think of them in actuality while writing. Nevertheless, Ong does stress the importance of recognizing an audience that sparks creativity within the writer, but where does one draw the line between actual audience and imaginative audience? This is when Ong uses the hypothetical situation of a young student completing a writing assignment about their summer (pg. 11). He suggests that it is difficult for the student to complete this assignment because there is no real intended audience (besides the teacher) and that a young person would rarely ever discuss their summer activities in the first place (which I find disputable). I found this to contradict his opening remarks about the writer’s consideration of audience while writing, but perhaps the parameters for a novice writer are different than that of a published writer. The remixed version of Mr. Roger’s Garden of Your Mind however is an excellent example of a creative display. The ‘author’ or composer of this piece has taken something that already exists and altered its form for eventual release to people who may have or have not seen the original. Mr. Rogers’ Neighborhood was a television show originally intended for children around preschool age and it can be assumed that when produced, this exact and realistic audience was held into account so that the content would be appropriate to its viewers. In the biography of the remixed video, a mash-up artist was chosen to work with Mr. Rogers clips. PBS, as a form of tribute to Mr. Rogers, released this video so that alone suggests that the intended audience is persons who know of or have watched Mr. Rogers in the past. The creative nature of the remixed video, and the message it puts forth suggests the potential for an even broader audience. This video promoted the expansion of thought and this can be known by simply reading the title Garden of Your Mind in addition to the thoughtfully selected clips of Mr. Rogers promoting open thought. The mash up artist who created this clip had a larger fictionalized audience, therefore more room to experiment with their work.

There are parts of Ong’s theory that could coincide with Barthes ideas on author ‘death’ but also parts that contradict it. Barthes states that a text is unrelated to its author and that reader’s shouldn't contemplate the intention or background of an author when reading their work. Ong, on the other hand, discusses the authors duty to regard their audience but not necessarily in a realistic sense, but more so in an imaginative creative sense. While Ong discusses thought from the writer’s perspective and Barthes discusses thought from the reader’s, it would be interesting to hear their thoughts on the opposing point of view. Ong briefly mentions the reader’s role through a sales and profit perspective (pg.16).