To help explain my frustration I'll summarize in list form the what I saw presented by Ede and Lunsford.
1) Introduction to topic- there's a debate over how to conceptualize the audience in composition classes in colleges. Ede and Lunsford feel the debate is too narrow. they define what they believe have been the current parameters of the debate. One sentence at the end of the intro suggests that Ede and Lunsford have another alternative, it isn't defined.
2) audience addressed- briefly we learn about Fred Pfister and Joanne Petrik and their contributions to this understanding. Ede and Lunsford (maybe) explain Mitchell and Taylor's theory.
Basically this section went as follows: M and T say _____. This isn't correct because _____. M and T say ______. That's not right either.
It got REALLY frustrating to try and summarize this section point by point.
3) audience invoked- metion of Richard Long and a brief description of what Ede and Lunsford the way Ede and Lunsford understand this topic precedes a rip job on Ong. To me it seemed like Ede and Lunsford were a little more complimentary to Ong than M and T but it still wouldn't amount to glowing praise of his work.
4) rhetoric and its situations- AAAAHHHH- both theories are bad so what do we do? The authors argue that there really isn't much of a difference between these two theories? ok maybe I could understand that but I need examples of how this will happen since so many people before you haven't seen it this way. They explained that when writing their paper they considered both audiences they were addressing and invoking.
I don't know what to say about this article, hopefully discussion will make it more clear.
1 comment:
Thanks, Luke, for your honest expression of dissonance! This may not be a bad thing, given Sommers' claim that "good writing disturbs; it creates dissonance" (53).
Okay, let me play the naysayer here, not to create more dissonance, but in an attempt to restore the dynamic relationship between the writers (Ede & Lunsford), reader (you), your response and the written product (the article).
First, let me suggest, Luke, that your response is "audience-centered"--notice the frequent use of "I" ("I just had a bad reaction. . . "I don't necessarily think. . ."I could understand, but I need examples.")
Ede and Lunsford complain that M and T's "general model of writing" overemphasizes *audience* over both the writer and the written product--for instance, by "suggesting that the writer has less control than the audience over both evaluation and motivation" (80).
Perhaps, Luke, you're essentially agreeing with Mitchell and Taylor's claim that "the audience not only judges writing, it also motivates it." You want your frustrations resolved! You want your questions answered! ("AAAH! Both theories are bad, so what do we do?")
Let's say that you are frustrated in part because, as an addressed audience, you don't actually have as much control over the writers' motivating concerns or their rhetorical strategies as Mitchell and Taylor suggest.
Although you judge the writing as poor, the status of the writers and the inclusion of the article in an anthology (and inclusion in the course) constitute an authoritative judgment that the article is worth reading. All this disempowers the reader, subordinating your reader response to the authority of the writers and the written product. As an 'invoked' audience, students are often placed in such a subordinate role relative to authoritative texts and the power of writers.
I think that Ede and Lunsford want us to see that both conceptions of audience--addressed audience as powerful/ invoked audience as subordinate--are incomplete. "The most complete understanding of audience thus involves a synthesis of the perspectives we have termed audience addressed, with its focus on the reader, and audience invoked, with its focus on the writer" (90).
Luke's frustration reflects the limitations of a model of audience that focuses on the writer; publishing his frustration on a blog (a medium that didn't even exist when E&L's article was published) invites further response and opens up possibilities for reading as a creative act, rather than a subordinate one.
Post a Comment