So in reading "The Writer's Audience Is Always a Fiction" the way Ong continuously referred to the audience as "fiction" didn't really agree with me. Yes, an author may never meet or speak in person to the people reading his work, but to broadly label all these unknown audiences as just fiction just seems like the wrong term to use. The audience may be unknown to an author, but there are always going to be real, living breathing people that define an audience, known or unknown. I think it would be better if this reading was titled "The Writer's Audience Is Always Fictionalized." For the most part an author will write with a certain ideal/message for his target audience and yes, he will be fictionalising things as he writes, but it will always be for an audience or even the idea of an expectant audience.
Ong said on page 10 that "It would be fatuous to think that the writer addressing a so-called general audience tries to imagine his readers individually." I disagree with this completely. In fact, I think that's exactly what some authors do. Why would an author not do this? An audience is author's bread and butter. Ong obviously had a certain audience in mind when he wrote this piece. He probably knew this piece was destined mainly for the world of academia. The prior knowledge of an audience and how you cater to your current audience when writing is what this piece is about. I think anybody who writes will always have some type of audience that influences their work, whether they realize it or not. Audiences can't always be a fiction.