While initially comforted by the sense of authority put in place of a protagonist specifically the male symbol of the law and it's presence in the story, the viewer in the audience must deal with the consequences of the sadistic viewings of this character. the protagonist's superego is used to confront the viewers own intentions and by having them follow along with the character, he finds himself questioning the moral correctness of the "hero"'s actions. The audience finds themselves saying, "Are the sadistic and intense actions of those characters that they follow still a representation of structure and justice?"

Hitchcock's filmmaking is being correlated to both a moral or legal polarity of right and wrong and that conflict being used as an excuse to still display this voyeuristic lens onto the female characters of the films. While initially painting the woman in the wrong in order to further push the woman as the aforementioned emotional and sexual piece in the story used to get a rise out of the male protagonist, but that inherently leads to the audience and the rest of the characters to voyeuristically analyze the woman's every aspects.

Even in her role as the instigator of an erotic and emotional desire for the protagonist of a plotline, women still are merely just valued for their influence on the male of the story. It is not her own self that is valued in the story as much as it is how she affects the protagonist. This meshes with the aforementioned, scopophilic and egotistic connection that the male viewers have towards the film, as the voyeuristic urge to sexualize the woman and the connection to the protagonist both become fulfilled through the female taking on her role as the influencer of the man. A system that is the peak of objectification in media as well as society as a whole.

These two influences of film cause the viewer to live in a form of perception dedicated to diverting from what we call reality, the sexual desire and fantasy allows for a stimulation through voyeurism that the viewer doesn't achieve while they find an avenue of escape from the sense of self through ridding the ego and living through the character on the screen. Every experience as the viewer is just a sexual dream, living out life through the lens of the protagonist and sexual idolization of the woman on the screen, using her looks as an object; a burden she carries on the screen. While the fantastical depictions of story and action let the viewer delve into the life of someone doing something that they forget that they could never do; reinforcing their own egos through the loss of their sense of self, at least in that moment.

Mulvay points to a sort of upheaval in film in an attempt to rip the cinematic landscape of "hollywood" out of it's comfort zone which has become a mere reinforcement of patriarichal archetypes through erotic and sexist undertones dispersed through popular culture. This media revolution must be enacted in such a direction that there is no way to simply replace the pleasure and stroking of the male ego with another pleasure, but instead, in the presence of the abstract and avant-garde, film should stimulate the jagged and unnerving feeling of not being in the comfort zone of male fantasies in order to rid cinema of a symbolic bearer of sexual or romantic burdens that the woman in film takes upon today. I find that the way in which this revolution could occur is through independent film making and, as Mulvay previously mentioned, an alternative cinema that not only goes against the modern culture but evokes post modern imagery that shakes the industry to it's core. What other ways could this societal change be achieved in media? is it solely restricted by film or are there other art forms that need upending?

Mulvay eludes to the fact that not only does film use women as a vessel to represent a lack of power through their "castration" or lack of a male, patriarchal power in society, but the female character ends up being restricted by this trope. She is unable expand beyond her role as a powerless symbol of fear for men in society, who may be afraid of losing their power. In other words, women are restricted to merely a symbol for men, and their film representation is powerless in her own agency and in her society.

This one hundred percent ties into the beginning, as it is this "necessity" that takes shape as a passion or pain that influences the pathos in writing. However, I find that so many times, writers use this passion as a cliche way to get across to the reader that I even mentioned earlier, but I failed to acknowledge that this fear or fury isn't there to just communicate to someone else's struggle. Instead it is actually the writing itself that is helping you find yourself in the midst of this emotional crossroads.

i think this quote from Kafka is actually very funny and interesting. In a way it is almost as if Kafka is reminded of the harm that his education had done to him when he takes the space break or as he plans out one of his paragraphs. This stream of consciousness from Kafka gives way to how the education process directly affects our writing as it was the harm that his education had done to him that still influences his ability to write well into his later years. Showing how much effect the lack of adequate education in writing can have on everyone.

This is a good point. There are a lot of times where people may start to antagonize the system and personify their criticisms in the forms of the teachers who are working to educate the kids. However, this perception lacks the empathy towards the teacher's position as they are stuck between a rock and a hard place as they try to entice the student's youth for learning while simultaneously adjusting to the criteria prevalent in the education system. However, in order to solve this would it just require society as a whole to upend the entire standardized testing system and balance out the competition with emphasis on engagement of curriculum?

I think this passage, despite it's humorous undertones, still has a lot of truth to it. In the education system as a whole, the curriculum finds itself prioritizing digesting the material at face value instead of applying it and understanding the true meaning behind what kids are learning. For example, I am unable to remember most of the information i have learned in grammar or chemistry classes. In math classes i'll need to refresh all the knowledge on certain topics that i completely forgot about because my main goal when i was initially learning these topics was to memorize them for the upcoming assessment but never to truly take in any of the information.

I find that Stielstra is conveying in this segment, the importance of pathos and a gripping question that entices the reader of a paper and sticks with them long after they read the paper. Her use of the words "fear or a fury" and "makes your blood boil" express how the importance of the essays intro is it's ability to resonate with the reader on an emotional level in any capacity of what they may be passionate about. Although she has a good point as merely informational works can seem monotonous, i think that forming a structure behind writing still has it's importance as pure passion can just seem to be the ramblings of an overtly zealous writer in a stream of conscious. However, what does it take to find the balance between the structure and passion in writing?