After reading Focault and Ong, it seems to me that in the relationship between the audience, the author, and the text, the text is the only permanent aspect. The audience and the author are both created.
The audience makes assumptions about the author based on his texts, or on what they already know about him. They read the text through the lens of this identity that they have constructed for the author, and that shapes their reception of the text. If they already know who the author is and they have a positive view of the author, then they will be more receptive towards the text. If they dislike the author or the author's views, then they will go out of their way to find things to criticize about the text. How many of us defend our favorite musicians even when they produce a less-than-stellar album?
Likewise when an author sits down to write, he creates a fictional audience. In his mind he creates visions of his intended audience. He thinks about how receptive they would be to X, what they would think if he wrote Y, what arguments they would have to Z and how he can preemptively counter those arguments. The author does not know who his true audience will be, he can only imagine them. He might be wrong and his text might not have the impact that he expected.
Then the text is the only "real" connection between them. In a relationship where the audience and the author both fictionalize each other, they can only try to communicate through the text, and even then that communication is warped by other constraints. Now I have all sorts of strange anxiety, because now I imagine writing to be like playing Telephone with some comedic cast of animals who are all hard of hearing (or who might just be a figment of your imagination).