Scan barcode
bludgeoned_by_hail's review against another edition
challenging
hopeful
informative
inspiring
reflective
sad
medium-paced
3.5
A warm, empathetic approach to the harrowing existential horror pit of neuropathology.
While sometimes it may get a bit slow or overly technical for a lay audience, I believe the book balances the tasks of presenting thorough neuropathological case studies, making interesting narratives of them, highlighting the human individuals behind the conditions, and analyzing the broader patterns these cases reflect in science and society with a lot of poise, compassion, and curiosity.
Very recommended to anyone looking to pursue a career in the field.
While sometimes it may get a bit slow or overly technical for a lay audience, I believe the book balances the tasks of presenting thorough neuropathological case studies, making interesting narratives of them, highlighting the human individuals behind the conditions, and analyzing the broader patterns these cases reflect in science and society with a lot of poise, compassion, and curiosity.
Very recommended to anyone looking to pursue a career in the field.
Content Warnings
Moderate: Medical content and Injury/Injury detail
Minor: Ableism and Forced institutionalization
faerietale_princess's review against another edition
challenging
informative
reflective
medium-paced
4.5
Really fascinating book. Incredibly thought-provoking. I enjoyed the little philosophical musings as well.
There were some points where I struggled to continue because Sacks would go on some tangents that were neither philosophical nor about neurology, but I was able to push through regardless.
The language is outdated, as this was published in the 80s. I did cringe a bit, because I live in modern times where we refer to these things more gently and with more respect, but I wouldn’t say Sacks regards his patients with disrespect. It’s just the language that was used that the time. It was interesting to see how far we have come. However, the phrasing and language used here is not for all readers, so if you’re especially sensitive (I don’t mean that in a bad way) to ableism, you probably shouldn’t read this.
If you aren’t and enjoy philosophy and neurology, it’s definitely worth the read, despite some tangential writings sprinkled throughout.
There were some points where I struggled to continue because Sacks would go on some tangents that were neither philosophical nor about neurology, but I was able to push through regardless.
The language is outdated, as this was published in the 80s. I did cringe a bit, because I live in modern times where we refer to these things more gently and with more respect, but I wouldn’t say Sacks regards his patients with disrespect. It’s just the language that was used that the time. It was interesting to see how far we have come. However, the phrasing and language used here is not for all readers, so if you’re especially sensitive (I don’t mean that in a bad way) to ableism, you probably shouldn’t read this.
If you aren’t and enjoy philosophy and neurology, it’s definitely worth the read, despite some tangential writings sprinkled throughout.
Content Warnings
Graphic: Ableism
hammock_napper's review against another edition
emotional
funny
hopeful
informative
reflective
medium-paced
4.5
Content Warnings
Graphic: Ableism
There is some hugely out of date and offensive language, especially in the final chapters of the book.simone_ebony's review against another edition
informative
inspiring
sad
slow-paced
3.5
It took me a while to get used to this style of writing, but Oliver Sacks is definitely a great author. I think he manages a great mix of information and description to properly convey people's lives and conditions. I did think the outdated language and attitudes, although obviously appropriate for the time, did affect my enjoyment of the book, as did the pace.
Though what really surprised me about this book was that it's not really a neuroscience book as was said when I was recommended this. There's actually very little scientific content, but rather the appeal is that you get to see the clinician's perspective and the thought processes that led to a lot of conclusions in early neuroscience.
Though what really surprised me about this book was that it's not really a neuroscience book as was said when I was recommended this. There's actually very little scientific content, but rather the appeal is that you get to see the clinician's perspective and the thought processes that led to a lot of conclusions in early neuroscience.
Content Warnings
Graphic: Ableism
kat_smith24's review against another edition
hopeful
informative
reflective
slow-paced
3.5
Though the language is outdated and paternalistic, this book offers a surprisingly nuanced approach to (at the time) rarer neurological disorders.
Content Warnings
Moderate: Ableism, Confinement, Mental illness, Panic attacks/disorders, Forced institutionalization, Dementia, and Schizophrenia/Psychosis
mabel_xo's review against another edition
2.75
Some interesting case studies here but Sacks can't seem to help but pity and other his patients at almost every turn. He writes about them in dramatic prose, often as if they are afflicted by the most tragic states of being imaginable—usually with the assumption that "fixing" them is the goal (i.e. making them "normal"). He even muses on multiple occasions as to whether some patients have "lost their souls", which reeks of eugenics. Sacks does occasionally show a better understanding of the neurodivergent than his colleagues at the time but that seems to have been a low bar to clear. His empathy feels woefully held back by some deep sense of inequality between himself and his patients. He's also an adept writer but parts of these stories seem like they are embellished. Not that these patients and their conditions weren't real but much of the dialogue and narrative particularities seem dramatized. Writings by the patients themselves would have been more enlightening.
Content Warnings
Moderate: Ableism
otteraxandbadger's review against another edition
3.0
Content Warnings
Minor: Ableism
uses the r-word