Well now...I thought I had the whole relationship of an author and the audience under a somewhat decent understanding. However, once I began reading Ong, I found my perspective spun around yet again and my head pretty much fell off my shoulders. The part that gave me this side-effect was on page 13 in the right hand column where he mentions Hemingway's style of writing. Hemingway had a style of writing that was very 'you and me' according to Ong, which, as I understood it to be, meant that he would make the reader rely heavily on his descriptions and voice. He would be vague while at the same time being deliberate and detailed. Ex) "That mountain you see ten miles away is indicated there on the map on the wall." By doing this, we as the audience are relying heavily on his point of view and his existence-which brings me to a warped conclusion. This relationship he created is a very "you and me"-you the audience, me the writer. This relationship goes against what Aristotle and several others theorists say when they refer to the author as being 'dead' or invisible.
On the other hand, I can still definitely see instances where both parties can be dead or invisible to one another. When an author is writing, there is no audience in the room with them, but when they write, they pretend in the back of their mind that there will be people in the near or distant future to read their work, and thus come into existence as their audience.
My point in all this is, who is right and who is wrong? Who is real and who is fake (or dead)? Is there such thing as being right or wrong in this situation?
Another thought I had while reading this and comparing it to audience of different genres was: what about actors when they are filming a new movie? Their audience isn't the set or crew, but it is the camera. That single lens captures them and transmits their performance to thousands of people. So would the audience for a movie be more like that of an audience who reads a book, or for an orator's?