Pupil Barrister
Two variations on a theme. First, a bizarre missing poster from the streets of Islington
Balboa Jones went missing from Lewisham
Last weekend, I had an interesting and surprising discussion with some medical students, on the legalisation of cannabis.
Since they were students, I sort of assumed that they would be in favour of legalisation; and that the hypocrisy in the differing laws on alcohol and cannabis would be self-evident. Not so! Instead, they were almost unanimously in favour of prohibition.
Their objections to legalisation were based on their clinical experience of patients with cannabis-induced psychosis. De-criminalising cannabis would endorse and encourage cannabis use, increasing such mental illness. When I responded with a standard liberal argument on personal responsibility, they made the point that most people were not responsible. Amusingly, they pointed to the vast array of empty bottles on the table, explaining that even they were knowingly binge drinking, despite being probably the most educated group of people in the perils of substance abuse. What hope for everyone else?
All I could do was remind them that all of the psychotic episodes they will have witnessed would have been as a result of illegal cannabis use. They would not have seen comparative data for legalised, regulated inhalation. Could it be that perhaps regulated drugs were safer?
The debate was a timely reminder that political discourse amongst the general population is very different to the extremely liberal bubble in which I work. Out there in the real world, people are much less libertarian, more authoritarian, and for good honest reasons too. Amongst that group of med-school friends, the perception persists that criminalising something is the natural and appropriate response when confronted with something bad. The liberal case is often woolly, idealistic and missing crucial pieces.
So, what I should have asserted: Prohibition is only appropriate for those activities that harm others, and not for self-harming acts. We could then have had a discussion about whether smoking and drinking harms others or not, where a much more fruitful and divergent discussion is to be had (in this respect, I guess this post serves to shut the barn door, two days after the horse bolted).
What is so often missing from the liberal argument, is the acceptance, even the embracing, of the bad things that happen in an extremely liberal society. I have twice before made that point here, when discussing ID cards and other civil liberties. At the Convention on Modern Liberty, Dominic Grieve spoke of the “mythological state of absolute security.” Perhaps we need to speak of a mythological state of absolute health too, and admit that the consequence of decriminalisation will be an uptick in cannabis use, and an associated increase in the risk of health issues… but that we should do it anyway. The benefits to society would be greater, and we can work out regulatory ways to reduce that risk.
Drugs can help you see the world differently.
Photo by Ace. No drugs were used in the production of this picture.
Cryptographic by dmók on Flickr.
I enjoyed Jim Brown’s thoughts on the idea that Infitite Jest is a database, rather than a narrative as such. David Foster Wallace conveys his thoughts and (crucially) his feelings about the modern world through an onslaught of facts about the characters and their environment. Its difficult for readers, in the habit of reading linear narrative, to parse the wealth of information.
Guided by Infinite Summer, I’ve chosen to let the information flow over me, not worrying about unlocking a code or ‘getting’ the story before the author chooses to reveal it. Through this approach, I find I am quite comfortable with the abrupt changes in both style and the timeline. The dissonance, the confusion and the sheer forbidding nature of human existence, all emerge as powerful themes, despite the apparent disconnect between the myriad storylines.
Jim also mentions the idea of Lev Manovich’s “New Media Objects”. True, such objects do not need to be electronic, but Infinite Jest would be seem much easier to understand if we saw it in web form. The footnotes, and footnotes on footnotes, are really hyperlinks rendered in print form.1
Another New Media Object: Judith Adams’ Sweet Fanny Adams in Eden, definitely. Its still one of the most expansive and intellectually challenging projects I’ve ever been involved in. Not for the first time, here’s a key quote from my essay on what we did:
The constituent parts of the script (I hesitate to call them pages) existed in their very own piece of cyber space, one that neither preceded nor succeeded any other. They therefore made as much sense when put in one order, as they did in another. This matters, because non-linearity better reflects the human mind, thoughts, history. We are constantly affected by the actions of others, and each thought (indeed, each life) is affected not by one, but several narratives that have gone before. A scene has two meanings, one for each character. A scene may have two meanings, depending on what has preceded it. There is circularity to our lives and our history that is ideally represented by a non-linear medium.
1. w/r/t footnotes, I’ve complained before about those people, such as George Monbiot, who still seem to use footnotes in their online texts, when a simple inline link would do it. However, I am enjoying the way those participating in the Infinite Summer Project have ‘regressed’ to using old-styley footers, a nod to Infinite Jest.
David Foster Wallace in San Francisco, 2006. Photo by Steve Rhodes
It’s only annoying if you look at the novel as a code to crack, if you see everything as a clue.
– Marcus Sakey: ‘Decoding Infinite Jest; or, Don’t’
The first similarity I’ve noticed is between Infinite Jest, and Attempts on Her Life by Martin Crimp, a play I know intimiately after working on it at the National Theatre back in the ’07. The chapter beginning on page 27 of the book is written in a style highly reminiscent of several of scenes in Crimp’s play. I noticed it when the phrase “quote-unquote” popped up in the dialogue. It is utilised in a similar manner in both pieces, to convey a certain official or professional manner, a style of speaking that prentends to be disinterested, but it actually quite hostile. From there, it was pleasing to see that the chapter follows a similar structure to a couple of scenes from Attempts. The characters actually present describe another by means of a list that becomes an incantation of sorts, who said x or who did y:
“Who requires only daily evidence that you speak…
“Who used to pray daily for the day his own dear late father would sit, cough, open that bloody issue of the Tuscon Citizen, and not turn that newspaper into the room’s fifth wall. “
Compared with Attempts on Her Life:
Is this the same little Anne who now has witnesses breaking down in tears? …
Who screwed tiny mechanisms and mercury tilt switches to a mercury circuit board, with a mouth of deep pan pizza?
Another major parallel is in the structure. Like Infinite Jest, Crimp’s Attempts is not a code to be cracked. The seventeen or so ‘attempts’ are not related to each other, plotwise, although certain refrains and themes return more than once. It remains to be seen whether this happens with Foster Wallace’s book, but from what I have read (no spoilers, I’ve made sure of that) I am assuming this will be a feature, to some degree. Marcus Sakey confirms its not a code to be cracked, at least.
And finally, I sense several themes emerging in Infinite Jest that are shared with Attempts: A satire on commercialism and product placement; pretensiousness in modern art; women attempting suicide; and above all, an attempt to describe a dissociation brought about by modern society.
Martin Crimp. Photo by Graeme Robertson
© 2026 Robert Sharp
Theme by Anders Noren — Up ↑