Ong’s article, “The Writer’s Audience is Always a Fiction,” discusses
the interconnection of both reader and author through the use of a written
text. As an author formulates a text, he or she is left to visualize and put
into perspective the potential readers of the particular text he or she is
writing for. This is generally based on traditions of past written works, in which an author is forced to make an assumption based on what his readers are already
aware of.
Ong goes on to perceive the differences between orator and
writer. Writer and orator take on different roles, as orator can physically
face and express emotion to their audience, while the writer is only left to
fictionalize and assume. On orator can sense an audience’s emotions and perceive
their reactions to the information being presented. In doing so, the audience is collective and
unified, coming together as one to react to the speech. The orator also has the
ability to express certain ideas through tone of voice and body language. Reading
a physical text differs in that a reader partakes in an ongoing process of
reading and comprehending in an isolated manner. The text is a concrete,
permanent aspect that the writer is left to perceive only through written
words. The author is forced to envision his reader’s response to these words.
The reader must also fictionalize the words himself take on the particular role
that the author had originally expected them to. The issue with this, however,
is that the mindset of reader varies from person to person. What one reader may
fictionalize, another reader may do so differently. It is difficult to predict
beforehand if a reader will enjoy an author’s work. This can be supported when
Ong states, “Practically speaking, he does not have to take into consideration
he real, social, economic, and psychological state of possible readers. He has
to write a book that real persons will buy and read.” (Ong, 10)
We can relate this to Foucault’s theory, which also
investigates the relationship between author, text, and reader. However, he
believes that a specific author should not be the focus of reading. He theorizes that the reader is the one who negotiates the meaning of the author’s
text. This generally refers to an author’s style of his or her writing, just as Ong
explains when he poses the example of an author writing a statement such as “the
tree.” (Ong, 13) The reader is expected to imagine whatever tree the author may
be referring to and create this vision, despite the lack of detail incorporated into the phrase. Sometimes, if it is a known author, the
style of writing is presumably understood beforehand. This notion forms a
particular relationship between reader and writer. “There are some things that
writers must assume that every reader knows because virtually every reader
does.” (Ong, 13) Basically, we as readers are expected to know and understand
certain universal ideas and notions that an author brings to his work. In a
sense, readers are gradually trained to understand these ideas.
Foucault does not necessarily believe that there is no
author, but that the recipient holds a higher significance than the author. In
doing so, the text does not become completely consumed by personal opinions and
ideas that relate back to the author. For example, when reading a novel, we do
not picture the author speaking, but rather, the characters themselves. Focault’s
“author-function,” which is the relationship between reader and interpreter,
allows for a text to have an author without the personal connections that trace
back to a specific individual. However, he also believes that it’s important
for a reader to take on his or her presumed role. Basically, certain phrases
that an author uses should be already understood by the reader, which again relates back to Ong's Hemingway example of phrases that an author assumes a reader will understand.
Essentially, readers and authors are several times left to
fictionalize one another’s roles. The text becomes the ultimate form of
communication between the two, in which no real interaction is ever truly made.
Unless writing for a specific audience, the process of reading requires both
roles to be envisioned. However, a reader can never truly know if he or she
absorbed the text as expected by the writer, and vice versa. The reactions of
each role are an unanswered question that occurs each time a text is explored.
One can only assume that the ideas observed are the “right” ones.
-Vanessa Coppola
Hi Vanessa,
ReplyDeleteI think it's really interesting that you chose to compare Ong and Foucault. I had a very different interpretation of Foucault's text, so the conclusion you reached is not something I can easily relate to. I think he takes a much stronger stance against the author than you indicate in your post. Based on his background in studying marginalized groups and power dynamics, it's hard for me to believe that he would expect the reader to already understand certain constructions due to privilege placed on certain classes of people within society. I don't understand why he would reinforce roles of any kind, even a presumed role of a reader, because of his strong ties to investigating, what he saw as, corruption. When I read his article, I interpreted it more as a text about breaking boundaries by questioning an author's authority and redefining what exactly an author is. I'm also not sure I would say that his text investigates a relationship between author, reader, and text. I think the text is kind of irrelevant. He does refer to the text to some degree, but it's only in light of illustrating historico-transcendentalism of certain pervasive texts of different time periods (especially when discussing how scientific texts belong in a different category of discourse separate from religious and literary texts). Therefore, Foucault's ideas are better suited in ignoring the text, and rather interpreting the power dynamics at play in the author/reader relationship, explored by the author-function.
Although I have some disagreement about your analysis of Foucault, I think you make some really good points about Ong's article and make it more accessible by deconstruction in your post. I had a harder time with this text than Foucault, so this has been really helpful. When I'd originally read his article, I thought Ong was simply arguing that a writer had to fictionalize his audience/reader, but I hadn't understood that this perspective could also be switched- that the reader also has to fictionalize the author and their meaning, at least to some extent, in order to understand the text.
I also agree with your concluding paragraph. This is probably the most objective way to view the author-function, and also probably the most accurate. The author-function is a process; therefore, it's hard to put either positive or negative label on it and call it a day. We can only examine it and be aware of its existence.
-Jasmine Spitler
I find your analysis and post quite interesting when discussing Ong and Foucault.I would have to say that my understanding of Foucault would compare to your analysis. Foucault's discussion had confused me substantially so your analysis really helped me.
ReplyDeleteI would have to agree with Jasmine when she states that your analysis helped her understand Ong a little better. When I read Ong, I thought that the reader had to fictionalize the audience. But after reading your paper, it is clear to see that the text can have multiple interpretations.
I thoroughly enjoyed your post.
-Anjelica MacGregor
Hi Vanessa,
ReplyDeleteI really like how you chose to compare Foucault to Ong through their interpretations of the role of the reader. In fact, I focused on Foucault and Ong as well, but in the light of the writer. Ong states that the writer must fictionalize his audience, and I think your argument that the audience must also fictionalize the writer and the text is interesting. However, I think that the reader’s task is more to assume the role assigned to him by the author rather than fictionalizing the writer in the way that the writer is fictionalizing him. Ong used Hemingway as an example, as you said, to explain how a writer can fictionalize his audience. I tend to agree with what Jasmine said about expecting a reader to understand versus investigating his audience. I don’t think Ong would argue that Hemingway assumed readers would understand what he was talking about when he used a definite article—rather, I think he was trying to indicate to the reader that, as part of their role, they were expected to understand. The reader, in that instance, was to assume the role of a friend who was familiar with the place and time in which the story took place. It’s a subtle difference, but I think it’s important. Where Foucault places the emphasis on the role of the reader, Ong attempts to indicate the importance of the writer’s job of fictionalizing his audience—that is, letting them know whose shoes they are stepping into for the duration of the text.
I do love that you pointed out how Foucault stated that it is the reader’s job to negotiate the meaning of the text. His essay focused a lot on the author-function as a relationship between the author and the reader, and he said that part of the author-function is to “determine and articulate the universe of discourse.” I think it’s really interesting that the author-function can be responsible for this if the reader is responsible for negotiating the meaning of that discourse. As I said before, I compared Ong’s writer to Foucault’s author-function, and as similar as I think the two are, after reading your post, I can’t seem to reconcile those two points.
-Jessica Gonzalez