Repetita juvant! A reply to Gwilym Eades

We reply to Gwilym Eades’s (2010) criticisms by emphasizing the dangers of predestined readings and restating three key points that we made in our previous article (Kingsbury and Jones, 2009): first, that Apollo and Dionysus are mutually affirming rather than oppositional; second, that Walter Benjamin provides valuable theoretical resources to consider the uncertainties and possibilities of technology; and third, that one cannot simply read politics off technology.