Growing up in the generation that we are in, a generation defined by our technology and digital tools, our lives (in all aspects) have been both altered and transformed by the use of technology. Walter Ong states that "except for a small corps of highly trained writers, most persons could get into written form few if any of the complicated and nuanced meanings they regularly convey orally". Coming from the technology driven generation, this made me personally think about text messaging. In fact, the entire argument Ong presents about the fictional audience directly correlates with the art of text messaging and just how the genres of literature have transformed from oral to written, communication has as well and therefore so has the meanings and audiences behind it.
Normally, a person sends a text message to one particular person (or sometimes a group) but they know who they are sending it to. The audience, you would argue is not fictionalized because you know who you are writing to. However, it is, because in a sense, you may know who you are speaking to, but you don't know what they are doing, what kind of mood they are in, how they will react, etc. In a sense, the writer of the message is composing this to a reader who is not present, so they meaning can be misinterpreted. How many times have text messages or emails been taken the total opposite way from intention because of their delivery and how the reader interprets and receives it. The meaning behind a text message is the same as the meaning behind writing, therefore, because the reader or audience is not actually present, so the writer will never actually know how they respond to the message or to their writing, but they have to imagine it while they write and write to that "audience".
In her blog, Katherine brought up a good question: "have authors gradually found themselves composing for a more active audience" question. The writer of a text message, as I argued above, does know who there intended audience is, but they still don't know the response, interpretation mood, activity level, etc of the person as they receive the message. Therefore in that sense, the reader is still fictionalized. I think that unless two people are actively and orally speaking to each other, the audience is fake, but certain factors, technology being a big one, influences their involvement in the author's writing and composition of it.
On a different note, Ong presents that what he means by an audience being fiction stems from two factors. One, the writer must cast his fake audience into roles and then two, that fake audience must take on that role. In my opinion, this corresponds to the idea of genres in film and literature. For example, he presents Hemingway and his A Farewell to Arms. He uses vague terms like the river and the year as if the audience would know which river or which year he was referring to, but the audience reading it wouldn't think to wonder which year or which river because they are conforming to the role of audience created by Hemingway. It almost appears as a subconscious act. For example, JK Rowling created the Harry Potter series. In her books, she created Hogwarts, Platform 9 and 3/4 as well as many other "Harry Potter things". She created these with an intended audience in mind (probably a younger, more imaginative based readership). These readers did not decide to read Harry Potter so they could wonder what each thing was and analyze it, they just conformed into the role Rowling put them in and became immersed in the literature. I agree with the idea of Ong stating that an audience is fiction, because I think the best pieces of literature, and even the best films, are those that I as a reader become immersed in. Those novels where I feel like the author or the character is writing to me. The ones where I even feel as if the words are being spoken to me, which relates back to the transformation of the oral to the written in literature. Words are put into writing to display some sort of message or meaning that the writer created, and without the context of face to face interaction and thus the creation of separation is what creates the literature's success and the audience's status in the book. In a sense, it brings the audience into the book.
-Alex Dishman
Ong, Walter J. "The Writer's Audience Is Always a Fiction." PMLA90 (1975): 9-21.
Hey Alex, I thought your ideas about text messaging and how it relates to Ong were really interesting. When I read Ong, I thought about how one might choose to fictionalize their audience on various social media platforms. But I didn't really consider text messaging because I attribute that to a form of orality with quick responses, and though it does require an audience, I didn't think one would have to necessarily fictionalize them. But after reading your blog I can see a correlation. Especially when you said,"In a sense, the writer of the message is composing this to a reader who is not present, so they meaning can be misinterpreted. How many times have text messages or emails been taken the total opposite way from intention because of their delivery and how the reader interprets and receives it." I can definitely relate to this and understand that how I fictionalize my intended audience, may not be the reality. However, I'm curious as to how Ong attributed the fictionalization of an audience in regards to real-time interaction and quick responses.
ReplyDelete