The term “audience” manifests itself to writers in a multitude of facets. It is complicated to define because it is more than just the reader or readers to whom you are writing for. One has to determine whether they are simply accommodating to an audience or trying to evoke them into an active state. If one were to reference Bitzer’s “Rhetorical Situation” article, then the definition of audience would be the external presence outside of the discourse that contained its own beliefs and attitudes, setting it within a context that calls for a response. On the other end of the theoretical spectrum, Walter Ong’s view of rhetoric would say that the audience only exists in the text because the reader can be at varying levels of participation, which would mean that audiences can be extremely evoked, or not at all. The problem with writers considering the “audience” is that the concept has been oversimplified as the concrete image of external readers. Thus, discourse is produced as if it were in a factory, catering to an exclusive audience strictly because it will be successful or more likely to be published.
Park’s critique of how writers easily fall into the trap of underestimating the complexities of audience is very evident in writing, or any media, today. It’s almost as if cookie-cutter produced texts, music, and movies are surrounding us. When works are created through a formula and rewarded with repeated success, it’s not hard to understand why it has become a perpetual cycle. I agree with Park that it might be bred in schools, but it is the responsibility of all levels of discourse to change that by writer writing thought-provoking material because it is what audiences need, not want. If we continue to think of audiences as a presence we have to constantly cater to, new texts will “baby” them to the point where it forces a deterioration of any published work thereafter.
No comments:
Post a Comment