Ong, S.J, Walter J. “The Writer’s Audience is Always a Fiction.” Cross-Talk in Comp Theory: A Reader. Ed. Victor Villanueva. Second ed. United States: National Council of Teachers of English, 2003. 55-76.

In the academic journal article “The Writer’s Audience is Always a Fiction,” Walter Ong (1984) argues that writers of all types should consider fictionalizing the audience they believe will read their work. Ong cites numerous authors who have written similar beliefs in order to strengthen his argument as he expands on the idea of his thesis.  Ong writes this in order to convince writers of all levels the benefits of considering the audience to which they write in every aspect of composition. Ong’s essay is for anybody who wishes to write or to teach others how to write. His argument is convincing, since, I believe, it is something writers do all the time, even if unconsciously as demonstrated in a passage Ong of Hemingway, Ong asks, “’The late summer of that year,’ the reader begins.  What year? The reader gathers that there is no need to say” (62).  Writers often fictionalize their audiences, but what Ong suggests is to create a rhetorical weapon of the practice that will create better writing overall in every practice.

Ede, Lisa & Lunsford, Andrea “Audience Addressed/Audience Invoked.” Cross-Talk in Comp Theory: A Reader. Ed. Victor Villanueva. Second ed. United States: National Council of Teachers of English, 2003. 77-124.

In the academic journal article “Audience Addressed/Audience Invoked” Lisa Ede and Andrea Lunsford explore the role of the audience in composition theory and pedagogy. Ede and Lunsford explore the research of various scholars and use their own empirical experiences to dissect the impact considering the audience has in the process of writing.  Ede and Lunsford believe the writer should “both analyze and invent an audience” (86) in order to have the most impact in the finished piece.  The authors audience is writers and students, since the advice can be applied to those who are accomplished at writing and those who are learning.  I think the detail the Ede and Lunsford manage within the essay is very useful.  They dissect who and what the audience, real and perceived, might be and the rhetorical practices one can use to hone an argument or a piece most effectively.  They put to word something I believe most writers do unconsciously and explained it in a way that made the practice obvious.  I believe this can be difficult to do without appearing to retread common and obvious things, but they managed to make the entire essay feel novel.

Breuch, Lee-Ann M Kastman. “Post-Process Pedagogy.” Cross-Talk in Comp Theory: A Reader. Ed. Victor Villanueva. Second ed. United States: National Council of Teachers of English, 2003. 97-125.

In the academic journal article “Post-Process Pedagogy,” explores meaning and implications behind the idea of a “post process pedagogy.”  Ong explores many writers who outline the applications and meanings of the post-process pedagogy, focusing on the writing of Thomas Kent. Breuch explores post-pedagogy theory in order to dissect its weaknesses through the writing of post-process pedagogists, and what aspects of the theory can be applied to the writing process in teaching how to write.  Breuch writes primarily to teachers, as demonstrated when she states, “While post-process theory does not offer concrete pedagogical agendas based on content, I believe that it offers valuable pedagogical principles that guide our practice as teachers” (118).  The exploration of post-process is valuable, it presents the arguments from prominent scholars as well as the pieces which Breuch feels are useful to implement in the classroom. There is an immense power in being able to explore an idea one might not agree with and still seeing value in its pieces if not the whole.