An Ong Response

Ong's article focuses on the relationship between writer and audience. He believes that this relationship is rhetorical in nature because it was preceded by oral discourse; which was characterized by said rhetoric. Being this, there was a natural lack of study in the roles between writer, his text, and a reader.
One thing I took specific attention to was Ong suggestion that to improve student writers, a fictional audience should be created. The goal of this, he says, is to help the student put himself past the teacher in terms of what his focus is. Obviously, many students can not writer to an audience which does not exist, so Ong says that the reader should cast the audience in a role, and the audience should fulfill the role. He can do this by manipulating the reader using simple language techniques such as: offering a sense of intimacy through style,(journal ect,), or by using terms that are specific to the audience. I find this interesting because eI have consciously considered these concepts when I am writing. I don't think this idea is applicable to everybody, but some students might respond very well to this kind of technique.

Ong also makes a good point by recognizing the weaknesses in written communication. Ong says that writing is an indirect form of communication because it can not accurately portray feelings, fervors, tones and so on. And because of this, it makes it more difficult for the writer to manipulate or sway his audience in comparison to an oral communicator. He does also say however, that writing is not necesarily less interesting, especially when considering the different ways the writer manipulate his own communication.

I found Ong's article interesting, but sort of difficult to follow. I understand what it was about, but I'm entirely sure how it really relates to what we've been talkinga bout recently.