We've all heard that there is no such thing as an original written work. Everything is based on something else. In his last paragraph in part one of "The Writer's Audience is Always a Fiction," Ong has an interesting viewpoint on that particular topic. He supports his belief that originality is possible by saying, "If and when he becomes truly adept, an 'original writer,' he can do more
than project the earlier audience, he can alter it" (11). Out of context this quote holds little meaning, but I will express my reaction to his more complete viewpoint.
Ong's point in the whole article is that an author does not have a "real" audience. This simply means that his audience is based on audiences of previous written works. (11). The pattern of course repeats itself. When an author can stop doing that, as he says in the quote I offered in my first paragraph, he becomes original. It seems to me that there is a middle step missing in this journey to originality. Step one: stop projecting earlier audiences. Step two: alter the audience. But, what audience? Should the author not first intentionally write for a "real" audience?
I think that writing might be more original if it was done in a public setting with people intentionally watching the writer, in Ong's view. Ong talks about how public speech is a much more original because "spoken word is part of present actuality and has its meaning established by the total situation in which it comes into being (p.10)." Basically because spoken word is told to a person in real time it makes the story much more real than if the writer were by himself setting up the "role" in which he wants the reader to play. The same goes for the receiver of the information. On the same note, I don't even think that Ong has a problem with this idea of the "imaginary audience" or would even say that it hampers originality. He only seems to point out that speaking and writing are different, and that writing is interesting for its differences. Writing and reading allow people to lose touch with their individual reality because everything about them is a loss of reality. When someone sits down to read or sits down to right, they lose themselves and perform differently than they would if they were simply listening to someone or saying something to someone. I think all Ong is doing is pointing out the difference and saying that it is interesting, but not that it causes a loss in originality.
ReplyDelete