After the computational studies in Part III, there are three interrelated topics with which I'll conclude. The first is about new methods of invention based on the generative power of software loops, the second is about the elevated role of style in studies of computational texts such as the snowball, and the third is the importance of recognizing the way the software programs developed in Part III demonstrate one way in which alphabetic and numeric thought are interrelated in a programming project.

Invention and the Loop

In The Language of New Media, Manovich writes about the importance of the software loop. In fact, he characterizes it as the concept that “gave birth . . . to computer programming” (317). His explanation is that loops are what generate the basic flow of software programs. He writes, “A computer program progresses from start to finish by executing a series of loops” (317). In conjunction with conditional statements such as the if-else statement that was used in Lines 45-50 in Snowball_3.as, looping structures are essential. Based on the role that the two for loops played in all three software programs, Manovich’s claims seem well-founded. The two-dimensional texts in all three programs were generated by running two for loops.

Directly related to the topic of invention, Manovich asks, “Can the loop be a new narrative form appropriate for the computer age?” (317). It’s a provocative question, but I’m more interested in the role of the loop in visual rhetoric and writing. Based on the role of the for loops in these and numerous other programs that I’ve written, I argue that software loops can be the basis for new forms of invention. This is because the loop is not just an iterating structure. In the context of software programs such as the three presented here, the loop is a quantitative force. Like the wind that makes a pinwheel turn, it is a numerical force that can be used to transform the way in which objects on the screen appear as well as interact with each other. In the second and third snowball projects, values from the two for loops were instrumental in generating the novel textual forms displayed on the screen. The numerical values of c and r (the variables in the two for loops) were channeled to the x and y properties of the textfields, which helped generate the novel textual forms in both the second and third snowballs.

Software Studies and Style

There are two stylistic approaches to computational forms of text such as the snowball that have a bearing on the theory (and practice) of visual rhetoric. I introduced the first one at the end of the section titled “Snowballs and the Canon of Style.” In that section, I argued that snowballs de longueur are visually related to rhetorical schemes like climax and the period. Additionally, the second snowball could characterized as a visual representation of the running style. Lanham describes the running style as one that was supposed to simulate the rambling, stream-of-consciousness of thought: “It tried to reflect the mind in the process of thinking by using connectives that did not subordinate but simply added on” (65). The structure of the second snowball begins in a manner that seems periodic, but the changes to the placement and rotation of the elements on the screen demonstrate a devolution toward an unstructured process. Incidentally, if you change the value of mag in Snowball_2.as to 30 or dare I say 75, the text will have changed dramatically from the well-structured triangle with which it started. It will have turned into a provocative text that devolves, twists, and eventually explodes into a running style.

Figure 14. The output of Snowball_2.as when mag is assigned the value of 75

Finally, the third snowball’s folded appearance could be characterized as visual forms of schemes like antithesis, chiasmus, and other schemes in which oppositions are exploited. Moreover, as additional texts are added to that program, the juxtaposition of form and content could lead to “thick” stylistic studies of visual rhetorical texts.

In fact, if the following changes are made to Snowball_3.as, you can use any text that you like. All you have to do is replace lines 11 – 18 with the following:

The text that you add between the quotes in Line 11 can be hundreds of words long, if you like. In Line twelve, there should be a single white space between the set of quotes inside the parentheses.

The second stylistic approach is to develop associations between software concepts and methods and rhetorical style. For example, looping structures could be equated with the role of repetition in the canon of style. If studies of digital rhetoric incorporate explicit associations between numerate and literate forms of writing, the canon of style may be a productive body of knowledge on which to draw. It may be possible for scholars in visual rhetoric to reconcile the programming used to generate a text with the visual forms displayed on the screen. That kind of cross-disciplinary reading of new media textuality would be a fascinating contribution to “software studies.”

Literacy++;

Finally, the three software offer both scholars and practitioners of digital rhetoric and writing an opportunity to begin thinking “extra-curricularly.” First, there is the use of variables, and the use of operators to combine or transfer values from one “container” to another. Perhaps the most interesting aspect of the three software programs is the way in which the variable r is used in both for loops as well as in the lines that define the y value of the textfields. Compared to a literate approach to writing, the way in which the variable r is linked to several areas within the software code demonstrates a difference in the ways in which a numerate writer will approach a problem.