AndrewLoNigro

I found this academic article interesting. There were parts that were easy for me to understand and I felt that they related well with the book. However, there were other parts in which the analogies were too far of a stretch for me. I understand that this is an academic article and it's not supposed to be easy to read, however, I felt that at parts it loses the reader and seems to digress.

"Mutopia is the hybrid offspring of utopia and a reality too complex to fit into utopian forulae."

The thing that helped me understand what exactly a Mutopia was, was the definition of the prefix "mu" which means neither yes or no. I feel that this idea is accented by the thought that there are positives and negatives to every society.

"As converging smart coral creates turbulence, a few drops sprinkle on the airship, promoting 'hearty laughter from all of the fathers in the ballroom, who were delighted by the illusion of danger and the impotence of nature.'"

I liked how Hayles shows that the fathers can dominate nature without changing their own nature. It creates a great comparison with our society today. The powerful people do things that affect people below them and don't affect themselves. This brings up a great point about a utopian society. In a utopia, would this take place?