(1) "The Jinnee in the Well-Wrought Urn" in Essays in Criticism (Oxford), volume 4, number 3 (July 1954): pages 309-324;
(2) "A Dialectic of Aural and Objective Correlatives" in Essays in Criticism (Oxford), volume 8, number 2 (April 1958): pages 166-181;
(3) "Voice as Summons for Belief: Literature, Faith, and the Divided Self" in Thought: A Review of Culture and Idea (Fordham University), volume 33, Serial Number 128 (Spring 1958): pages 43-61.
Then Ong reprinted those three essays in his 1962 book The Barbarian Within: And Other Fugitive Essays and Studies (New York: Macmillan, pages 15-25, 26-40, and 49-67, respectively) - a copy of which I bought in the fall semester of 1964.
Ong's "The Jinnee in the Well-Wrought Urn" (1954) and "Voice as Summons for Belief: Literature, Faith, and the Divided Self" (1958) are also reprinted in An Ong Reader: Challenges for Further Inquiry (2002, pages 199-208 and 259-275, respectively), mentioned above.
As I noted above, Parker sees William K. Wimsatt, Jr., of Yale University as one of the New Critic villains. Consequently, I want to call attention here to the slightly edited transcription of a radio interview conducted on April 29, 1964, by Sheila Hough with Father Ong and Professor Wimsatt for broadcast on the radio program Yale Reports, number 327, on May 24, 1964.
Ong was at Yale to deliver the 1964 Terry Lectures - the expanded version of which were published as his 1967 book The Presence of the Word: Some Prolegomena for Cultural and Religious History (Yale University Press).
In the transcription, Ong says, "We can, I think, make too much of this divorce of the work from the person [who wrote the work]."
Hough then says to Wimsatt, "Is this really how it is taught? Is literature taught in complete isolation from its author, Mr. Wimsatt, don't you consider who wrote it?"
Wimsatt's reply is a handsome compliment to Ong: "I do, of course [consider the author]. Your question, I think, was prompted by that very fine essay of Father's 'The Jinnee in the Well-Wrought Urn,' which you read in his book The Barbarian. It first appeared in Essays in Criticism at Oxford some years ago, and was, I believe, an answer to an essay written many years ago, about twenty at least, by a friend of mine, Monroe Beardsley [another of Parker's New Critic villains], and myself, called the 'Intentional Fallacy.' I would like to pay Father Ong the compliment of saying that I think that his essay 'The Jinnee in the Well-Wrought Urn' is the only sensible response that has ever been written to that essay of ours."
In Ong's 1977 book Interfaces of the Word: Studies in the Evolution of Consciousness and Culture (Cornell University Press), he further develops his thought, for example, in "The Poem as a Closed Field: The Once New Criticism and the Nature of Literature" (pages 213-229).
Incidentally, Ong dedicates his 1977 book "To the memory of William Kurtz Wimsatt, Jr." and to his surviving family.
Thomas D. Zlatic discusses Ong's thought in his lengthy essay "Faith in Pretext: An Ongian Context for [Melville's 1857 Novel] The Confidence-Man" in the 2012 book Of Ong and Media Ecology, edited by Thomas J. Farrell and Paul A. Soukup (New York: Hampton Press, pages 241-280).
Because Zlatic's Melville essay was not published until 2012, there was no way that Parker could have discussed it in his 2012 book.
To round off this review essay, I want to say that the most insightful chapter in Parker's 2012 book, in my estimate, is Chapter 18: "Why Melville Took Hawthorne to the Holy Land [in Melville's 18,000-line centennial poem Clarel: A Poem and Pilgrimage in the Holy Land (1876)]: Biography Enhanced by Databases and an Amateur Blogger [and Hawthorne reader named Nicole Perrin]" (pages 433-457).
I discuss Melville's Clarel (1876) in my OEN article "July 4, 1776; July 4, 1876; July 4, 2020" (dated June 25, 2020):
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
