Tuesday, September 25, 2007

Ede and Lundsford Reading Response

In "Audience Addressed/Audience Invoked," Ede and Lunsford attempt to determine the role of audience in composition theory and pedagogy. In today's academic discourse, scholars and writing teachers are having trouble defining "audience" and determining what it means to address an audience.

Ede and Lundsford argue that there are two main theories for teachers to choose from when teaching composition students about audience. The first theory is “audience addressed,” which instructs students to write to a specific and realistic audience. Those who prefer this theory have been greatly influenced by speech communication practices. They identify most with “real-world” writing. “Audience addressed” theory is strongly supported by theorists Ruth Mitchell and Mary Taylor, who believe the first priority in teaching composition is determining strategies for structuring ideas. However, “audience addressed” theory fails to work for several reasons. Most notably, it does not recognize the role writers play as both creators and readers. It also places too much emphasis on the role of audience and not enough on the role of the writer.
Ede and Lundsford’s second theory is “audience invoked,” which instructs students to write to an imaginative audience. Those who favor this theory argue that a real audience limits writers because it is impossible for them to understand audience as personally as a speaker can. “Audience invoked” theory works by providing cues for the reader which help to define the role the author wishes for the reader to take. “Audience invoked” theory corresponds with Ong’s argument that a writer's audience is always fictitious. Ong believed that writers are responsible for constructing an “audience” and that in response; the audience will play along accordingly. The problem with Ong's theory is that it is too simple- there are far too many restrictions that hinder this theory from realistically working out.
In conclusion, Ede and Lundsford determined that a fully elaborate view of audience must balance the creativity of the writer with the creativity of the reader. It is important that each of these components is given equal consideration. Ede and Lundsford believe that if an enriched conception of audience can be achieved, we can better understand the complexities of writing.

Personally, I found this article to be incredibly confusing. I had to re-read it several times. I also spent time browsing my classmates’ responses to better understand what Ede and Lundsford were trying to articulate. In the end, I was able to see that the authors were basically saying audience involves a balance between the creativity of the writer and the creativity of the reader. I think that this article was more or less a waste of time because I don’t believe that the concept of “audience” is hard to define. Whenever a writer begins to work, he/she is writing with a goal in mind. In order to achieve this goal, he/she has an audience in mind. Thus, audience is defined subconsciously without much consideration. Granted, I can understand how better identifying an audience may help to achieve the writer’s goal, but I am not sure the information in this article is very helpful. I can see why there is a big difference between the audience of a writer and the audience of a speaker, but I do not see how there is much of a difference between a "realistic" audience and an "imaginative" audience. How do these two really change the writer's work? Overall, I am still very confused and I hope to make more sense of this article during classroom discussion.

2 comments:

Lindsay said...

I, too, shared your frustration with this article! My summary was similar to yours, however I didn't really even fully understand it.

I also liked your point on your opinion with concern to audience. I agree with you that when an author is writing he/she usually has an author in mind (at least in academic/skilled writing). I also didn't understand how Ede and Lunsford offer help to an unskilled writer in finding an audience, which would be more helpful to us as tutors.

bMerle said...

I agree with you and Lindsay. The article was confusing, but class discussions helped me understand it better. In principle, I think they are trying to define to types of audiences: one which is clearly objective, and one which is uniquely subjective to both reader and author.

Now that being said, I believe the theory that goes into such is too flexible. Most theories are based off assumptions or involve some type of foundational concept. Obviously one purpose for this theory is to improve compositional skills, but the article and discussion afterwards only led me to assume that these author were to preoccupied with the black and whites of their audience to explain much of the gray areas.

word.