ong / barthes - writers audience

After reading Ong's writings on the writers audience I began to question some of what he was saying. To me it seemed that he was implying that because a writer's audience was removed by time and space it would become harder to implement rhetorical devices. This seems true because, as Ong states, so much of rhetoric is transferred orally and physically from a speaker to their audience. However, Ong brings up the notion that because an audience is listening to something and in one collective place, an orator has more control over and knowledge of the audience than the writer does. On page 3 Ong gives the example of an audience that has written word. He writes that when the audience looks down to read the text the become individuals and must then be collected again when they return to listening. However, to me it seems that even though an audience is collective listening to an orator they would still be bringing their own ideas, experiences and opinions to the table and therefore considered individual from one another.

As I read on Ong described in more detail why an audience must fictionalize their audience. He states "the student is not talking, he is writing. No one is listening. There is no feedback. Where does he find his audience? He has to make readers up, fictionalize them." Here Ong is implying that an oral speaker does not have to do this, because their audience is presented in front of them. However just because there is a physical audience does not mean that an orator knows who is his audience is. In many ways he must still fictionalize them. Furthermore, today we are surrounded by technology that allows a speaker to be deeply removed from his audience while giving a rhetorical speech. Where does the line get drawn between a present and collective audience and a fictionalized and individual one?

Barthes writes more on how the piece of writing is removed from the writer and therefore becomes an individual and therefore becomes "neutral" and void of any voice. However, this again seems to be deeply connected to the presence of a body in a rhetorical situation. Barthe speaks less of the writers lack of connection with the audience and more of the author creating an individual piece of work. I began to think about how this could be considered today with writing on the internet or anon pieces of text. In this sense, does the text lose some of it's rhetorical power?

- Estes