Wise King Taken by the Foolish One essay no. 17 The Twin Kings of Fiction: My Audience Dan Plonsey November, 2001 Keywords: intended audience, hypothetical audience, numbered audience; identification with the falsely accused, the persecuted, the unreasonably hated, the Jews. Go to: Wise King essays, home page, or one of the Wise King essays: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, or Plonsey's "Kingdoms Diptych" home page, or Dan Plonsey home page.

The Twin Kings of Fiction: My Audience

Now if my audience is a work of fiction, what categories are open for this writing itself? Could be: sheer randomly selected words, yes, that's one. Or phrases without pattern or function, or whole sentence-long speculation upon the possibility of speculation, a kind of "does this rise to the level of speculation or not?" Certainly this writing is nothing verifiable, but perhaps neither is it patently unverifiable either - such a process of verification would require a certification that my audience and I understand one another. But, given the fact that said audience does not exist, or may not exist, and certainly doesn't exist while I sit here writing, clearly no such "certification" of "understanding" is possible (at this time, at least, for me the writer). For that matter, there is no possibility currently of even "false agreement" (a.k.a. disagreement, but of that sort which goes unnoticed by either of the two parties). This is because there is no true contact, but agreement is only possible with a minimum of: first, statement by one party; second, response (affirmation) by the second party; third - and here's the kicker - a third statement, this from the first party, of confirmation that the statement of agreement by the second party has been registered and understood, and that the identity of the second party has been verified securely, and that all possibilities of tampering by any intermediate parties ("messengers") have been ruled out. Also, there must be similar verification by the second party of the identity of the first, and the same non-tampering clause reviewed, and furthermore, both parties must ascertain that the language employed in the message is itself fully consistent and unambiguous. The language review must extend (ideally) to all elements of the language, and to the set of all valid statements, not just those units which comprise the message. Such a review includes the consideration of whether one party's "blue" could designate the other's "green," etc. And how many back-and-forth messages must be sent to accomplish this? I don't know, but clearly the bare minimum is three. Yet the relationship of author to hypothetical reader (as all readers must be during the course of construction of the text) allows for at most two exchanges: the author cannot respond to the reader's responses during the course of writing - though he may be around later to converse with the reader, as at a book-signing, but at this later time he becomes just another reader. That is, in no scenario - whether the audience does come into existence or does not - may the reader contact the author. The author does contact the reader, oh yes, can deluge the reader with an effectively infinite amount of material, can perhaps even duplicate himself in said material so that he gives the reader himself, as he was, just before the moment of writing. That is, so far as the author knows himself - yet in the case of a brilliant author, can he transmit this very brilliance to the reader? The stuff that does the work, not the results, that is: can he make the reader more brilliant? That is the hope. That is why the reader reads: not just to find out about stuff, but to obtain greater brilliance capabilities.

No Wise King or Foolish One tonight, please. Let's have a third one. No symmetry, no, no. You said it was an asymmetrical band, Dan; you said it just today, and you copied it out into keystrokes, and sent it off for publication, and you made a political statement, Dan, you allied yourself with an underdog, with those tarred by association or by accident or by maliciousness of a neighbor: you identified with the falsely accused. The persecuted. The unreasonably hated. The Jews.

-- Dan Plonsey, November 2001, El Cerrito, California Go to: Wise King essays: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, or Plonsey's "Kingdoms Diptych" home page, or Dan Plonsey home page.