I have imagined myself as a world-famous author before. I am sure many English majors have. And when I do, I consider the individual people who would be reading my book: my mother, my best friend, my priest, high school teachers. It's not something I can really control. You see, when people choose what to wear for the day, they consider a multitude of things - the temperature and weather, their activities, the setting of their activities, and the people they will see. The people they will see! Many will beg to differ, but a large portion of people determine their clothes based on the fact that they need to be presentable to a group of other humans. I originally thought it was the same for novels, but this is probably because it was the same for me, at least to a certain degree.
But take a look here.
"A well-known novelist friend of mine only laughed when I asked of him if, as he was writing a novel, he imagined his real readers - the woman on the subway deep in his book, the student in his room, the businessman on a vacation, the scholar in his study." (Ong, 10).
The moment I read this, I was surprised and taken aback. Isn't keeping an audience in mind essential when you're writing, I thought. Reading into it more, though, I realized that Ong wasn't saying creating an audience was unnecessary, maybe quite the opposite, but rather, the audience is seen as a collective noun, a body of people. It is still true that the audience fires the writer's imagination, but the readers are not addressed individually, and that's just it. An audience must be "fictionalized" in order for the writer to be successful.
In turn then, the audience must correspondingly fictionalize itself. (Ong, 12). But what in the world does that mean? I'm hoping to break it down in a way that I (and even you!) understand it. I believe that the simplest way to do that is to introduce this statement, which will probably be seen by some as a self-explanatory piece of information, while others might see it as gibberish: "A reader has to play the role in which the author has cast him, which seldom coincides with his role in the rest of his actual life. Readers over the ages have had to learn this game of literacy, how to conform themselves to the projections of the writers they read, or at least how to operate in terms of these projections." (Ong, 12). At first, when you think about it, it doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. There is no "game" in reading; you merely buy a book and read it. I suppose that reading could be considered "conforming ourselves" to the ideas of a writer, since, chances are, the individual reader will not agree with everything the author says or thinks or puts in between the lines. It is up to the reader(s) to accept the story or writing for what it is and make him/herself attainable "mind-wise," at -least. In addition, as the pages are turned and the reader digresses deeper into the novel, he/she becomes more familiar with the style, narration, and character of the author, creating a link between the two that it one-sided in reality.
This whole confusing "audience" business is also discussed at length in Ede and Lunsford's "Audience Addressed - Audience Invoked," when the same thing is repeated: the audience is a construction of the writer, and therefore a "created fiction." (Ede and Lunsford, 160). It is also argued that the authors use language to keep the power in their own hands rather than in the reader's, which reinforces the conception that the reader is conforming to the author. This is all in opposition to when the audience is "addressed" (directly?) and then is emphasized in its concrete reality and needs. (That's right! We, as an audience, have needs and expectations when reading!)
The audience is an interesting and vital component to any piece of writing, but it is often difficult to determine exactly how the audience plays into composition theory and therefore changes the writer, affecting the writing.
~Sara Schluender
You say that in many cases the reader must conform to the author. This is how an audience is in fact fictional, because the author essentially creates them, even as they are reading. I noticed that you don't believe this is the case when the audience is addressed directly. Now, do you mean the audience in an oratory setting or in a written setting? In a written setting, the audience can be directly addressed through the use of the second person perspective. In these cases, I believe the author still reigns some control over the audience. An author can write, "You are here. You see this. You are feeling this. Your mother told you not to do that." In this sense, the author is telling you exactly what is going on around you and is not only creating your environment but also creating you as his audience. He is putting thoughts into your head to make you think about the environment he has created in your present moment of reading and you become the audience he has constructed.
ReplyDeleteAs I was reading this post, I was thinking of Ede and Lunsford entirely! I love the idea of audience addressed/audience invoked because I think it makes the issue of audience almost tangible. It allows the writer to have a firmer grasp on the challenges of facing the audience by categorizing and separating the audience into two. I think this gives the author more agency when formulating how they want to write a certain piece. They can either address the audience or invoke the fictional audience that you mention in your post. I am curious to know if you think the author can both address the actual audience and invoke a fictional one? I feel that it is possible but am not concrete on how to do so.
ReplyDeleteAlso context plays a key role when making decisions on how to deal with the audience. In academic writing for instance, you may need to address or appeal to a specific audience. On the other hand if you are writing a novel for your own pleasure, you may only need to invoke a fictional audience. These are just thoughts and musings however!
Good, catchy title! It made me laugh and want to read what you had to say. I had never heard of the reference to Ede and Lunsford, so thank you for sharing that! Also, I really liked your take on how/why people get up and get dressed the way they do (and I admit, I totally do that).
ReplyDeleteWhen you said this - "The audience is an interesting and vital component to any piece of writing, but it is often difficult to determine exactly how the audience plays into composition theory and therefore changes the writer, affecting the writing." - I went, hmmm, so true. I think it's funny how these theorists come up with these grandiose statements and try to back their thoughts up, sort of like I/we are doing right now, but really, you can argue anything you want if you have even just a little support to back it up. It is hard to determine how the audience changes the writer; however, I think Ong does a great job backing up his claim. I agree with Samantha M ^, that it gives the author more agency when writing.
The only part in your blog post that I am confused by is when you said "the readers are not addressed individually". Do you mean you see readers as a collective group of people? I don't, because I think your experiences in life shape the way you read things and how they affect you; thus, you cannot put readers into categorization.
I also was a little taken aback when Ong said that the reader should not be addressed individually. This seems to contradict all that we have ever learned in writing! I do understand his point about considering the audience as a whole and agree that it is essential. He talks about understanding spacial and temporal positions of audiences as well as socioeconomic class, race, and so on. These are all essential considerations. But perhaps the readership is much broader than just one assimilated audience. It is important to consider those individual differences. I also think it's quite nice and maybe even nostalgic to think of each individual Perhaps this could enhance writing. I would have liked to maybe see Ong meditate on this point more. You could address it as well. It think it would very interesting to delve into this area and take a spin that Ong did not. Maybe we could see how different authors construct their audiences. This would definitely provide a fascinating study. Surely everyone has a different method and some are more effective than others. Perhaps Ong is wrong. Perhaps his method is not the most effective. Maybe the writer needs to imagine a few individuals rather than a whole, or even in addition to a whole.
ReplyDeleteAudiences adapt more to bad authors than to good ones.This adaptation that the audience needs to do is controlled in part by the author, but also by the personal experiences and perspectives (the lens) through which the audience is consuming the literature. A book about America will sell more copies than a book about foreign foods on July 4th, so context is important no matter how good the book written actually is. That being said, I think that the effectiveness of an author is dependent upon how well they can convey the emotional and rationale state they or the characters are in when they are writing. In other words, emotions are easy to have, it's execution and presentation of those emotions which is the challenging part. Making writing accessible and easy to understand will not only help cement a personal point of view for the reader, but will help the author find any discrepancies in their writings.
ReplyDelete