Ceci n'est pas une pipe?

That felt like a nice little reunion episode; what joy to find all our friends from previous readings (Manovich, Hayles, Kittler, etc.) coming together in this article.

I was curious about Galloway's assertion that code has similarities to narrative (page 327). It seems odd to me that so many of our discussions of code come down to making it something else - that is, code as language, code as art, or code as narrative. I'm beginning to wonder whether you couldn't make the same arguments across the board, likening narrative to language and art to narrative (in fact, I think you could in both instances), and the cynic in me pops up to say, 'So what does it mean to re-classify code in the first place? Why can't we just call code 'code' and accept that while it has similarities to other, more familiar categories, it's something unique?' Well, it wouldn't be as fun that way.

Don't get me wrong: I think there's something to be gained from making comparisons. It brings our attention to the ways code works, by highlighting the ways it's the same or different from whatever it's being compared to. (For example, when we're talking about code as language, we have Hayles' argument that code, unlike spoken language, is 'performative.') I do think that trying to re-classify code at the end of the discussion is counterproductive, though, because now that we've talked about all the similarities between code and language, or art, or whatever, it seems like we're supposed to ignore or forgive all the important differences and go "Yep, gotcha, code is X." Code is code, dude.

All that said, Galloway cites Aarseth but doesn't really explain how he likened code to narrative, and as a narrative geek I'd be curious to hear more about that. So long as we don't conclude that they're the same thing.