The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat

by Oliver Sacks

With an introduction by Will Self

A classic work of psychology, this international bestseller provides a groundbreaking insight into the human mind.

If a man has lost a leg or an eye, he knows he has lost a leg or an eye; but if he has lost a self - himself - he cannot know it, because he is no longer there to know it.

In this extraordinary book, Dr. Oliver Sacks recounts the stories of patients struggling to adapt to often bizarre worlds of neurological disorder. Here are people who can no longer recognize everyday objects or those they love; who are stricken with violent tics or shout involuntary obscenities; who have been dismissed as autistic or retarded, yet are gifted with uncanny artistic or mathematical talents. If inconceivably strange, these brilliant tales illuminate what it means to be human.

A provocative exploration of the mysteries of the human mind, The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat is a million-copy bestseller by the twentieth century's greatest neurologist.

Genres: Nonfiction, Psychology, Science, Medicine, Neuroscience, Medical, Short Stories

282 pages, Kindle Edition

First published January 1, 1985

About the author

Oliver Wolf Sacks, CBE, was a British neurologist residing in the United States, who has written popular books about his patients, the most famous of which is Awakenings, which was adapted into a film of the same name starring Robin Williams and Robert De Niro.

Sacks was the youngest of four children born to a prosperous North London Jewish couple: Sam, a physician, and Elsie, a surgeon. When he was six years old, he and his brother were evacuated from London to escape The Blitz, retreating to a boarding school in the Midlands, where he remained until 1943. During his youth, he was a keen amateur chemist, as recalled in his memoir Uncle Tungsten. He also learned to share his parents' enthusiasm for medicine and entered The Queen's College, Oxford University in 1951, from which he received a Bachelor of Arts (BA) in physiology and biology in 1954. At the same institution, he went on to earn in 1958, a Master of Arts (MA) and an MB ChB in chemistry, thereby qualifying to practice medicine.

After converting his British qualifications to American recognition (i.e., an MD as opposed to MB ChB), Sacks moved to New York, where he has lived since 1965, and taken twice weekly therapy sessions since 1966.

Sacks began consulting at chronic care facility Beth Abraham Hospital (now Beth Abraham Health Service) in 1966. At Beth Abraham, Sacks worked with a group of survivors of the 1920s sleeping sickness, encephalitis lethargica, who had been unable to move on their own for decades. These patients and his treatment of them were the basis of Sacks' book Awakenings.

His work at Beth Abraham helped provide the foundation on which the Institute for Music and Neurologic Function (IMNF), where Sacks is currently an honorary medical advisor, is built. In 2000, IMNF honored Sacks, its founder, with its first Music Has Power Award. The IMNF again bestowed a Music Has Power Award on Sacks in 2006 to commemorate "his 40 years at Beth Abraham and honor his outstanding contributions in support of music therapy and the effect of music on the human brain and mind".

Sacks was formerly employed as a clinical professor of neurology at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine and at the New York University School of Medicine, serving the latter school for 42 years. On 1 July 2007, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons appointed Sacks to a position as professor of clinical neurology and clinical psychiatry, at the same time opening to him a new position as "artist", which the university hoped will help interconnect disciplines such as medicine, law, and economics. Sacks was a consultant neurologist to the Little Sisters of the Poor, and maintained a practice in New York City.

Since 1996, Sacks was a member of The American Academy of Arts and Letters (Literature). In 1999, Sacks became a Fellow of the New York Academy of Sciences. Also in 1999, he became an Honorary Fellow at The Queen's College, Oxford. In 2002, he became Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences (Class IV—Humanities and Arts, Section 4—Literature).[38] and he was awarded the 2001 Lewis Thomas Prize by Rockefeller University. Sacks was awarded honorary doctorates from the College of Staten Island (1991), Tufts University (1991), New York Medical College (1991), Georgetown University (1992), Medical College of Pennsylvania (1992), Bard College (1992), Queen's University (Ontario) (2001), Gallaudet University (2005), University of Oxford (2005), Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú (2006). He was appointed Commander of the Order of the British Empire (CBE) in the 2008 Birthday Honours. Asteroid 84928 Oliversacks, discovered in 2003 and 2 miles (3.2 km) in diameter, has been named in his honor.

Reviews

[Dru · Rating 3 out of 5]

Dear Dr. Sacks,
On page 112 of the paperback edition of your book, the second paragraph begins with the following sentence:
"And with this, no feeling that he has lost feeling (for the feeling he has lost), no feeling that he has lost the depth, that unfathomable, mysterious, myriad-levelled depth which somehow defines identity or reality."
I've read this sentence at least twelve times, and I still don't even have the slightest inkling of what the hell it means. What is the subject? What is the verb? Why is the word "that" italicized (twice?)? Good God man, what are you trying to tell me?
Sincerely,
Baffled in Brooklyn

Some people may think "well, if I read the whole chapter, I'm sure I could decipher the meaning." To those people I say: good luck, Charlie. I hope you may succeed where I have so miserably failed.
This book has many fascinating studies of neurological disorders, and the stories behind the patients are easily understood and, in many cases, enthralling. However, Dr. Sacks seems to give his readers too much credit when he throws off "hyperagnosia", "Korsokovian", and "meningioma" like he assumes we had read an entire neurology textbook before picking this one up. Also, many of his sentences (like the example above) include so many digressions and sudden turns that each one could practically be its own M. Night Shaymalan film pitch. All of this might have to do with the fact that it was written in the eighties, when I presume people were smarter.

[Patrick · Rating 5 out of 5]

It's rare that I read non-fiction. It's just not my bag.

That said, this is one of the most fascinating books I've ever read. I'm guessing I've brought it up hundreds of times in conversation.

It's written by a neurologist who works with people who have stranger-than-usual brain issues. And not only are the cases interesting, but the way he writes about the people invovled is really lovely. It's not clinical at all. Not judgemental. It's very... loving, I would say. It's interesting to see someone who obviously knows a lot of hard-line science write about these cases in terms that seem to me more suited to someone who would be a philosopher or a spiritualist.

Amazing book. Can't recommend it highly enough...

[Sheffy · Rating 2 out of 5]

Despite so many people recommending this book, my high expectations were disappointed. Yes, it's perversely interesting to hear about neurological conundrums that afflict people in peculiar ways, but Sacks isn't a particularly good writer, nor does he have a good grasp on his audience. At times he obliquely refers to medical syndromes or footnotes other neurologists, as if he is writing for a technical physician audience, but on the whole his stories are too simplistic to engage such an audience. He talks about phenomenology, but doesn't satisfactorily discuss mechanistically what is going on in the brain, so what's the point? To quote a friend in college, it's his own "mental masterbation"--he likes to show off how well-read he his, how many bizarre patients have been referred to him (or he's God's gift to them) and erudite his vocabulary is, but fails to clearly get his points across. On top of his confusing musings, his reconstructed dialogue is incredible unrealistic, it's clear why doctors need to learn to communicate better.

[هدى يحيى · Rating 4 out of 5]

كيف يمكن لإنسانٍ أن يخسر هويته ولا يدري خسارته
كيف يتحول معنى الهوية بروحه إلى لا معنى،،إلى لاشئ؟

في هذا الكتاب تتعلم من جديد إحترام الإنسانية
فجنون أدب العبث ولامنطقيته يتجسد هنا في نماذج حقيقة لبشرٍ يفتشون عن بقاياهم المتناثرة في الكون العابث بهم والمنتظر لردود أفعالهم التي تأتي مذهلة وغير متوقعة

هنا نتعلم معانٍ جديدة لكلمتي
مأســـاة و نضـــال

هنا يتجلى الوجع الإنساني وغرائبه وضياعه الفلسفي المتجسد في أمراضٍ عصبية عجيبة ومثيرة للدهشة

كلنا هذا الكائن المسكين الضائع في الكون الضخم والباحث عن هويته
عن معنى وجوده ،، نحن نحاول دوماً أن نحيا،، أن نجد للحياة المعنى ، والمغزى

أن نتحدى الجنون المتلاعب بنا دوماً

قد ننجح ،، وقد نخلق جنوناً جديداً رداً على كل العبث السائد

لن تكون القراءة الأخيرة لساكس فهو طبيب وإنسان شغوف وممتليء بإحترام الإنسانية

[Mark Lawrence · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is an utterly fascinating book, a collection of case studies by neurologist Oliver Sacks, presented in an eminently readable style.

These studies deal with the most extraordinary mental conditions, often arising from damage to the brain, from the title case where a man in full charge of his faculties is unable to identify the purpose of any object (thus his mistaking his wife for a hat) to individuals who, again otherwise wholly reasonable, will deny ownership of one of their limbs.

This isn't presented as a freak show. Each person is shown as an individual demanding our respect and sympathy. The over-arching message is how little we understand ourselves and how both revealing and bizarre it is when the machinery of the mind breaks down.

An enthralling, humbling read that will make you think in ways you have never thought before.


Join my Patreon
Join my 3-emails-a-year newsletter #prizes


...

[Dr. Appu Sasidharan (Dasfill) · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book contains case studies written in a philosophical way by a British Neurologist, Oliver Sacks. You will be bewildered at times while reading this book if you are not a Doctor as the author throws you into the fanatical world of complicated medical jargon bolt out of the blue. If you can tolerate this minor snag, you are in for a treat here. Even though the author tells us about difficult health conditions that people had to suffer, which might be painful for some people to read, the author's extraordinary writing style will keep us glued to it. This book is a must-read one for everyone who loves to read medical non-fiction.

“‘Dangerously well’— what an irony is this: it expresses precisely the doubleness, the paradox, of feeling ‘too well’”

[Orsodimondo · Rating 4 out of 5]

LA MALATTIA È LA CONDIZIONE UMANA PER ECCELLENZA


Ceci est ma femme.

Mi sento infatti medico e naturalista al tempo stesso; mi interessano in pari misura le malattie e le persone; e forse sono anche insieme, benché in modo insoddisfacente, un teorico e un drammaturgo, sono attratto dall'aspetto romanzesco non meno che da quello scientifico, e li vedo continuamente entrambi nella condizione umana, non ultima in quella che è la condizione umana per eccellenza, la malattia: gli animali si ammalano, ma solo l'uomo cade radicalmente in preda alla malattia



Oliver ci ha preso gusto: se all’inizio della sua carriera di scrittore ha lasciato passare anche dieci anni tra un libro e l’altro, a un certo punto i titoli si sommano, pubblica più di frequente, rimette le mani e aggiorna in nuove edizioni quelli già usciti, diventa decisamente prolifico.
Ci ha preso gusto anche Adelphi che verificato il successo, adesso s’impegna a tradurre e pubblicare con un lasso di tempo inferiore rispetto a prima: il libro è uscito in inglese nel 1985 e in italiano nel 1986.

E io ci ho preso gusto con lui: dopo Risvegli, ho proseguito con questo, e più avanti ho letto anche Vedere voci e Su una gamba sola. Poi, come spesso mi succede, alla scorpacciata faccio seguire un lungo digiuno, che a volte dura per sempre.



Sacks continua sulla falsariga del libro precedente, racconta casi clinici: lo fa con ironia, lo fa con empatia, con sensibilità. E oltre l’aspetto umano della malattia, dei confini che impone, del dolore che genera, da bravo medico (neurologo) non trascura l’aspetto scientifico.
In questo mix perfettamente riuscito consiste la sua peculiarità, il suo talento e la sua genialità.
Che, essendo composta per larga fetta da umanità e sensibilità, non solo suffragata da conoscenza medica, ha spesso spinto la comunità dei suoi colleghi a guardarlo con sospetto e scarsa simpatia.



Il libro è diviso in quattro sezioni il cui titolo è piuttosto esplicativo: Perdite, Eccessi, Trasporti, Il mondo dei semplici.
Le storie sono immersioni in particolari sindromi e disfunzioni, vedi Tourette, Korsakov, Conard, le atassie, agnosie, afasie, amnesie…
La prima storia è proprio quella che intitola la raccolta e racconta del dottor P., un musicista che non riusciva a dare un significato visivo alle cose (prosopagnosia), scambia oggetti e persone, fino a confondere la testa di sua moglie per il suo cappello, e quindi cercare di prenderla in mano (staccandola) per mettersela (metterselo, visto che lui credeva fosse un cappello) sulla sua propria testa.



Il deficit, cioè la perdita, di P. non era ottica, visiva: in lui scompare la capacità di assegnare un significato alle cose che vede, pur riuscendo attraverso gli altri quattro sensi a riconoscerle. Si veda l’esempio del guanto, che P. descrive ma non capisce a cosa serva finché non lo indossa e quindi tramite il senso del tatto riesce ad associare oggetto e funzione.

Nella sezione Eccessi spicca Ray dai mille tic. I tic di Ray sono quelli della sindrome di Tourette, quella portata al cinema, secondo me in maniera egregia, da Edward Norton nel suo adattamento del romanzo Motherless Brooklyn. I farmaci placano i tic, ma rendono Ray troppo assopito, poco vivo: il dott Sacks decide di sospenderglieli. Meglio tic e vitalità che uno zombie.


Oliver Sacks: Londra, 9 luglio 1933 – New York, 30 agosto 2015.

[Supratim · Rating 4 out of 5]

When I had come across the title of the book on Goodreads, I had mistakenly assumed to it to be a humour novel. But, when I finally found the book during one of my book hunts, I learnt that it is a non-fiction book where the author, a neurologist as well as a gifted writer, has presented some fascinating case studies about his patients with unique afflictions.

The book has been divided into 4 parts wherein each section contains the case studies pertaining to a particular category of neurological afflictions.

Medical case studies are written in a dry, clinical language where the patient is dehumanized, and reduced to a cursory phrase . In the preface the author says, “Such [medical case] histories are a form of natural history – but they tell us nothing about the individual and his history; they convey nothing of the person, and the experience of the person, as he faces, and struggles to survive, his disease.” Thus, the author has attempted to “deepen the case history to a narrative or tale” and I liked the way he has talked about his patients with warmth, sympathy and respect.

The narratives are often enriched with quotes, theories and experiences of other doctors, some of whom were stalwarts in their fields. There is a reference to Anton Chekhov as well.

I believe most of us understand what a magnificent and complex entity the human brain is, and the book reinforced the fact that how fragile it can be – a little bit of damage and it can turn a person’s life upside down, make it difficult or even impossible for the individual to do even some basic functions which are so mundane that we do not even think about them.

In the pages of the book, I came across afflictions I wouldn’t have imagined possible even in my weirdest dreams. A gifted music teacher suffering from “visual agnosia” had indeed mistaken his wife’s hand for a hat, and provided the title of the book; a woman would learn to use her hands at the age of 60 and prove herself to be a gifted sculptor; a man had the problem of leaning like the Tower of Pisa without his knowledge and would come up with his own novel solution and the list goes on. In some cases the patients would learn to cope, but in others they would not be so lucky.
What a coincidence that I had just read Forrest Gump, the story of a fictional “idiot savant” before coming across real life idiot savants in the pages of this book.

One particular comment by the author – “The power of music, narrative and drama is of the greatest practical and theoretical importance” , pleasantly surprised me. I wouldn’t have expected this from a doctor, but maybe I shouldn’t have been surprised because the author did show his preference for a humane (for the lack of a better word) treatment of the patients.

One problem you might encounter while reading the book is that the narrative is full of medical jargon. Thanks to the internet, we can find out the meanings much effortlessly compared to a dictionary, but if you read a real book, like I did and always do, then you need to put in the effort to type the words in your browser a lot of times. But, you know what, even if you do not check out every single jargon, you can till understand the fact of the matter.

I understand that everybody might not like this book. But, if my review has piqued your interest, then I would urge you to at least check out the Goodreads page of the book.

I just came across the list of : 100 books everyone should read by Amazon, and guess what! This book is included in the list.

[PattyMacDotComma · Rating 5 out of 5]

5★
“He also appeared to have decided that the examination was over and started to look around for his hat. He reached out his hand and took hold of his wife’s head, tried to lift it off, to put it on. He had apparently mistaken his wife for a hat! His wife looked as if she was used to such things.”

This is such a classic that all I can do is share some stories. Oliver Sacks was the much-loved, highly regarded neurologist who opened up the world of the mind and brain not only to doctors but also to the public.

The well-known movie, ‘Awakenings’, where he was played by Robin Williams, was based on his successful treatment of catatonic patients (including Leonard, played by Robert De Niro), ‘frozen’ for decades after being afflicted with encephalitis. Sacks’s perception and inspiration led to the trial which ‘awakened’ them, and he continued to use his remarkable insight and warmth until he died in August 2015.

This book is a collection of cases of people with various brain anomalies, some caused by accidents or illness and some conditions present at birth. It is disconcerting today to read some of the accepted references to patients in 1985: retardates, defectives, idiots, morons, simpletons.

‘The Man’ of the title piece, lost not only the ability to recognise faces, he didn’t even know what a face was. When he tried to put his shoe and sock back on after a medical test, he picked up his foot and asked if that was his shoe. His wife was seated next to him, and he reached across and pulled on her head when looking for his hat. He was almost like a blind man, guessing what and where things were by feel, smell, taste. Yet he still functioned as a music school teacher and sang or hummed his way through his daily life to keep himself on some sort of track.

Other cases include phantom limbs (gone but still painful), limbs that are perceived as foreign (it’s somebody else’s leg in my bed, doctor, and when I try to throw it out, I end up on the floor), and a woman who had completely lost her proprioception – which is our sense of where our body is in space (a common failing of drunks, but not to this extent). We know how to pick up our foot and move it forward. She had to concentrate every second on where her body was and what she needed to do or she folded up and collapsed. Couldn’t sit or stand without actively thinking about it.

Another woman’s case is worth sharing, it’s so unusual:

“She has totally lost the idea of ‘left’, with regard to both the world and her own body. Sometimes she complains that her portions are too small, but this is because she only eats from the right half of the plate—it does not occur to her that it has a left half as well. Sometimes, she will put on lipstick, and make up the right half of her face, leaving the left half completely neglected: it is almost impossible to treat these things, because her attention cannot be drawn to them (‘hemi-inattention’—see Battersby 1956) and she has no conception that they are wrong. She knows it intellectually, and can understand, and laugh; but it is impossible for her to know it directly.
. . .
Knowing it intellectually, knowing it inferentially, she has worked out strategies for dealing with her imperception. She cannot look left, directly, she cannot turn left, so what she does is to turn right—and right through a circle. Thus she requested, and was given, a rotating wheelchair. And now if she cannot find something which she knows should be there, she swivels to the right, through a circle, until it comes into view.
. . .
If her portions seem too small, she will swivel to the right, keeping her eyes to the right, until the previously missed half now comes into view; she will eat this, or rather half of this, and feel less hungry than before. But if she is still hungry, or if she thinks on the matter, and realizes that she may have perceived only half of the missing half, she will make a second rotation . . . ” and so on. Incredible, isn’t it?

Tourette’s, Parkinson’s, Syphilis, Epilepsy, so very many conditions that cause brain malfunctions. The last part of the book deals with retardation and autism and how Sacks discovered that many people who were considered to be without any intelligence actually did have views of the world --it just couldn’t be measured.

He says testing measures deficits. It doesn’t allow for the human, as opposed to the neurological, vision of a person. It reminds me of the saying: Don’t judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree.

Sacks says although our brain is computer-like, it is also personal and involves judging and feeling. Without that, our brains actually do become defective, and we can’t understand what is real and concrete, like ‘The Man’. He obviously can’t really interpret the world except the part he understands through music. And that still makes sense to him.

But Sacks watched ‘hopeless cases’ carefully, figured out what they reacted to when he spent time with them, and had the insight (and, dare I say, patience) to interact with them. They drew for him, played games, expressed themselves in their own way, and enjoyed his company.

One simple, clumsy girl who couldn’t learn but who loved listening to her grandmother read stories, also loved being outside. He approached her in the park one day, and she gave him a huge smile, gestured, and then called out single words: “spring, birth, growing, stirring, coming to life, seasons, everything in its time.” Sacks realised she did have her own very clear, poetic, perception of the world after all.

Regarding the people who seem to have unexplained abilities with numbers and calendars but who cannot perform on tests, he understands that they may see the world in numbers (as we see it perhaps in pictures or sounds).

In 1966, he met a pair of severely impaired young twin men who always sat together giggling and calling out long numbers to teach other. They could also tell you any calendar date, but they didn’t seem able to ‘do’ mathematics. Sacks started writing down their numbers, checked them, and discovered they were all, without exception, prime numbers (like 3 or 5, divisible only by 1 or by themselves, for those of you unfamiliar with primes.) But these were several digits long.

So he got out his chart, sat with them one day, and then called out a prime number that was one digit longer than theirs. They were stunned! Sat and thought about it, smiled, and started calling out numbers the same length (7 and 8 digits). They eventually outstripped him (12 digits!), but Sacks had no way of checking anything more than 10. They ended up with 20 digits, which he had to assume were also prime.

He quotes the mathematician Wim Klein, speaking about himself: “‘Numbers are friends for me, more or less. It doesn’t mean the same for you, does it—3,844? For you it’s just a three and an eight and a four and a four. But I say, ‘Hi! 62 squared.’”

I don’t know how much has changed in the thinking since this book was written, but I quite like his idea that we all respond to order and patterns, and while most of us respond in similar ways to similar things, some people need to have music to order their activities (‘The Man’ could function as long as he sang or hummed), some need numbers, some need nature. Given the right conditions, many people who were previously cast aside could enjoy life more on their own terms.

He does caution about what we would now call ‘mainstreaming’ people (to make them more like ‘us’). The number twins were separated to give them a better chance to live a normal life, which they did to some extent (catching public transport, etc.), but the joy seemed to disappear. What kind of price is that to pay to meet our standards instead of their own?

“One is reminded somewhat of the treatment meted out to Nadia— an autistic child with a phenomenal gift for drawing . . . Nadia too was subjected to a therapeutic regime ‘to find ways in which her potentialities in other directions could be maximized’. The net effect was that she started talking—and stopped drawing. Nigel Dennis comments: ‘We are left with a genius who has had her genius removed, leaving nothing behind but a general defectiveness.’ ”

It's a fascinating glimpse into a fascinating field of study. It’s scary to think how many people we’ve passed judgement on over the years who could have been freer to enjoy life if we’d figured out how to enable them.

I’m looking forward to reading some of his newer work to see where it took him and whether or not we’re doing a better job of understanding the immense variation of the human condition today.

P.S. Another GR reviewer, Barbara, has done a nice job of summarising some of the cases in her review. https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

This is a terrific "Washington Post" article from June 2023 about some surprising successes that have come from his work. https://www.washingtonpost.com/wellne...

[Shaghayegh · Rating 4 out of 5]

نوشتم و بغض به گلوم چنگ زد. نوشتم و گریه کردم. نوشتم و بیخیال نوشتن شدم. اما این بار میخوام بنویسم. از چیزهایی که آدم ها به سادگی ازشون رد میشن و متوجه نیستن چطور دنیای کسی رو به هم میریزن. با جملاتی که از نظر خودشون عادی هست، اما قابلیت این رو داره تا آدمی رو طرد کنن. جوری که مثل بعضی از شخصیت های داستایفسکی، تنها بمونن و بیشتر وقتشون رو تو کنج اتاقشون صرف کنن.
کی گفته تایپ شخصیتی رو با یه سری سوال مزخرف، میشه مشخص کرد؟ آیا تا حالا از خودت پرسیدی شاید این منم که باعث شدم اون آدم درونگرا بشه؟
آره، منظورم خود تو هست. همین تویی که گاهی اوقات با افتادن کسی از خنده روده بر میشی. همین تویی که اگه رهگذر جلوییت آروم قدم برداره، کاسه صبرت لبریز میشه و با طعنه و چشم غره از کنارش رد میشی. همین تویی که اگه بهت تنه بزنن، کفری میشی و میگی چته؟ مگه جلو راهت رو نمیبینی؟‌ همین تویی که نمیدونی چطور میشه آدمی رو ویران کرد و نفهمید!
اما من میخوام یکم بهت بفهمونم. به این امید که کمتر آدما رو از صفحه زندگی محو کنی!

روزگاری یه تومور لعنتی جا خوش کرد تو سر عزیزترین آدم زندگیم. کسی که برام حکم بودن رو داشت، نه فقط زنده بودن. اما به تدریج ورق برگشت. شیره ی زندگی از وجود نازنینش مکیده شد. عملی که انجام داد نه تنها تومورش، بلکه اس و اساسش رو هم بیرون کشید. شاید به این خاطر هست که فکر میکنم، همیشه چیزهایی که از دست میدیم بیشتر از چیزهایی هستن که به دستشون میاریم. زندگی تمام چیزهایی که میتونه بهت بده رو جلوی چشمت میذاره و میگه خوب دیدیشون؟ حالا بتمرگ سر جات چون همونایی هم که داری، میتونم ازت بگیرم.
و صد البته که گرفت، طوری که از به یاد آوردنش  هنوز هم واهمه دارم. بعد از اون عمل هیچی مثل سابق نشد. از دریچه ی نگاهش دیگه یک شقایق دیده نمیشد. همه چیز و همه کس دوبرابر بودن. دیگه نمیتونست کل شهر رو به تنهایی بگرده چون نیاز به همراه داشت. کسی که مراقبش باشه تا از پله ها نیفته و دستش رو موقع رد شدن از خیابون محکم بگیره. میتونستی تو چشم هاش به محض اینکه لحظه ای رهاش میکنی بخونی:
Hold me like the night sky holds the moon
Wrap me in your arms like you do
و چشم هات رو هاله ای از اشک پر کنه و تو دلت بگی متاسفم که یادم رفت دیگه مثل گذشته نیستی. یه آن چشمت بخوره به همون کلاهی که از سرش هیچوقت برنمیداره. و تو خوب میدونی ک�� بخاطر سرما نیست.
شاید بهتر باشه به خود کتاب رجوع کنم:

"حس میکنم بدنم نسبت به خودش کر و کور است... هیچ حسی از خودش ندارد" این ها حرف های خود اوست. او هیچ واژه ای، هیچ واژه صریح و روشنی برای بیان این غریبی، این تاریکی (یا سکوت) حسی ندارد. تاریکی و سکوتی که شبیه به نابینایی یا ناشنوایی است. او واژه ای پیدا نمیکند، ما هم واژه ای پیدا نمیکنیم و جامعه هم واژه ای و همدلی‌ای برای این حالت ندارد. با نابینا دست کم با مراقبت و دلواپسی رفتار میشود؛ می‌توانیم حالت او را تصور کنیم و طبق آن رفتار کنیم، اما وقتی کریستینا با درد و ناشیانه سوار اتوبوس میشود چیزی جز پرخاش هایی خشم آلود نمی‌شنود:"خانم چه‌تان است؟ کورید؟ مستید؟" چه جوابی میتواند بدهد که من "گیرندگی حس عمقی ندارم؟" فقدان حمایت و همدلی اجتماعی درد و رنجی است مضاعف: معلول است، ولی معلولیتش آشکار نیست. به هر حال او که نابینا یا فلج نیست، به طور آشکار مشکل ندارد، پس با او مثل یک متظاهر یا یک کودن برخورد میشود.

آره. واژه ها حتی برای مایی که ادبیات رو شخم میزنیم هم ناکافین :)

این کتاب برای من فقط یکسری کیس عجیب و نادری که به تور دکتر ساکس خوردن نبود. خود خود خود زندگی بود.
دکتر ساکس عصب شناس به نظرم محشری بود که به بیمارهاش به چشم کالا نگاه نمیکرد. دغدغه مند بود و برای درمان نهایت تلاشش رو میکرد. اگرچه همیشه موفقیت آمیز نبود.
کتاب شامل ۴ بخش هست. بخش اول به بیمارهایی می پردازه که چیزهایی رو از دست دادن. بخش دوم به کسایی اشاره میکنه که یه چی هم اضافی دارن. بخش سوم شامل کیس هایی هست که درکشون تغییر پیدا کرده. مثل داستایفسکی عزیزم که به گمونم در تمام کارهاش اگه اشاره نکرده باشه در اکثر آثارش یه شخصیتی هست که دچار صرع هست و معلوم نیست چیزی که میبینه تخیل و رویاست یا واقعیت. و در بخش چهارم به دنیایی می پردازه که از دید معلول های ذهنی روایت میشه.
نویسنده اگرچه بعضی جاها تخصصی حرف زده اما اون بخش انسانی قضیه هم فراموش نکرده. جوری که موقع خوندنش این حس بهت دست نمیده که داری یه مقاله ی علمی میخونی. تو رو با چیزهایی مواجه میکنه که تو هیچ کتاب انگوزشی بهش نپرداختن! بهت نشون میده که چطور بیماری ای برای کسی موهبت بوده و برای دیگری رنج و عذاب. از چیزهایی میگه که در حالت عادی بهشون توجهی نمیکنی با اینکه نقش حیاتی ای دارن. از امید میگه و از ناامیدی. از تلخی و شیرینی. از کسی که بدنی براش نمونده و از آدمی که انگار روحش رو از دست داده. از کلی مسائل که نمیتونم تک تک نام ببرم و خودت باید بخونیشون.
شاید اینطور تونستی خیلی چیزهایی که به سادگی ازشون میگذری رو درک کنی. یهو زیر لب بگی پس نکنه به این خاطر بود که فلانی همش زمین میخورد و میذاشتیم به حساب دست و پاچلفتی بودنش...

آره خواننده ی صبورم که تا اینجا تحملم کردی. این دفعه دلت رو بذار پیش کسی که واژه ای برای شرح حالش وجود نداره. شاید با برخورد مهربانانه ت این احساس رو درش بوجود آوردی که زندگی میتونه کمی بهش آسون بگیره و انسانیت هنوز نمرده :)

[Pakinam Mahmoud · Rating 4 out of 5]

هذه زوجتي:الرجل الذي حسب زوجته قبعة كتاب لدكتور الأعصاب البريطاني أوليفر ساكس الشهير بمؤلفاته العديدة التي تهتم بدراسة حالات الأفراد الذين يعانون من خلل وظيفي في أدمغتهم وقد صدر هذا الكتاب عام ١٩٨٥...

الكتاب مقسم إلي ٤ فصول بيتكلم فيهم الكاتب عن عدد من الحالات التي صادفها في عمله بصفته طبيب أعصاب...
الحكايات غريبة... أمراض عصبية نادرة جداً و حاجات حتقرأها و انت مش مصدق إنه يوجد مثل هذه الحالات اللي في الغالب معظمنا حيكون أول مرة يسمع عنها!
حتلاقي مثلاً المريض اللي بجد كان فاكر زوجته قبعة لأنه لا يمكنه التعرف علي الأشكال أو حتي الوجوه ومريض آخر لا يستطيع التعرف علي ساقه ومريضة كانت تري فقط كل الأشياء في الجانب الأيمن ولا تستطيع أن تري أي شئ في الجانب الأيسر و العديد من المرضي السذج تماماً ولكن عندهم القدرة علي القيام بعمليات حساببة بالغة التعقيد ..كل دة و أكتر موجود داخل صفحات هذا الكتاب الرائع...

الكتاب مكتوب بإسلوب سلس والترجمة كمان كانت ممتازة..يوجد بعض المعلومات الطبية اللي بتكون قراءتها تقيلة شوية بس للأمانة مش كتير خالص و وجودها كان مفيد..

الكتاب حيخليك تشوف قد ايه الانسان بيكون قوي وعنده قدرة مذهلة علي التكيف وهو يواجه ظروف من أصعب ما يكون...
أجمل ما في الكتاب إنك حتخلصه وتقول كلمة واحدة بس...الحمدلله.
الحمدلله علي نعمة العقل و نعمة الصحة اللي بجد مفيش أي حاجة في الدنيا دي حيكون ليها أي معني من غيرهم و مفيش أي حاجة ممكن تعوضهم...

[Francesc · Rating 3 out of 5]

Es un libro curioso y muy clarificador. Te enseña, sobre todo, casos peculiares de personas que sufren algún tipo de alteración a nivel neurológico. Es muy interesante para estudiantes de psicología o lectores con inquietudes similares.
Son casos sorprendentes. No dejan indiferente.

It is a curious and very clarifying book. It teaches you, above all, peculiar cases of people who suffer some kind of alteration at neurological level. It is very interesting for psychology students or readers with similar concerns.
These are surprising cases. They do not leave you indifferent.

[Mohammed · Rating 4 out of 5]

مراجعة مختصرة جدا لمن ليس لديه وقت: كتاب جميل يجمع بين الرصانة العلمية ومتعة الحكايات وله عمق إنساني مؤثر.


مراجعة مختصرة لمن لديه القليل من الوقت:مجموعة قصصية نسجها المؤلف من حالات عاينها شخصياً ظاهرها الظرافة وباطنها البؤس. كتاب ممتع ينصح بقراءته إذا تمكن القارئ من التعامل مع المادة العلمية التي تطغى أحياناً، وتمكن من التغاضي عن هنّات الترجمة التي قد تعكر مزاجه أحياناً.

مراجعة لمن لديهم الوقت الكافي والمزاج المناسب: حكايات متنوعة لحالات مرضية تتنوع مابين العته، فقدان الحواس، فقدان الذاكرة والعديد من الاعتلالات النادرة والغريبة. بعض الحالات مثيرة للاهتمام حقاً، البعض مكرر والبعض الآخر مأساوي لدرجة الألم. الطرح العلمي جيد لتوسيع المدارك واكتساب المعرفة، وللخروج بالكتاب من إطار التسلية المحضة، غير أن الطرح أحياناً يستعصي على فهم القارئ العادي. أتفهم ما ذكره البعض من نقد للترجمة، لكنني أجد نفسي في صف المترجمة. فالمادة العلمية التي يتضمنها الكتاب تزخر بالمصطلحات الجافة. وفي كثير من الأحيان، لا يوجد بديل عربي لهذا المصطلح أو ذاك غير ماهو مذكور في القواميس المتخصصة. أعتقد أن القارئ أو الدارس في علم الأعصاب لن يتضايق من تلك المصطلحات بما أنه قد صادفها هنا وهناك. أذكر مثلا مصطلح الواقع الافتراضي، لم يكن له معنى وكان ممجوجا ومفتعلا قبل عامين تقريبا، أما الآن فهو دارج ومستساغ. هل كان بالإمكان أن تكون الترجمة أفضل من ذلك؟ نعم. هل ضايقتني الترجمة لدرجة أن أتوقف عن القراءة؟ لا.

لاحظت أن بعض الحالات ألهمت أفلاما سنمائية رائعة مثل حالة التخلف الذي يصاحبه قدرات عددية خارقة فلم (Rain Man)، التوحد المصحوب بولع شديد بالألغاز (Mercury Rising)، و عدم القدرة على تمييز الوجوه (Faces in the Crowd)، الزهايمر (Still Alice) أما أفلام فقدان الذاكرة فلا حصر لها.

أبرز فكرتيّن خرجت بهما من الكتاب:
1- أن بعض العلل تبدو ذات منشأ نفسي وهي في الحقيقة أمراض عصبية عضوية لا شأن له بالحالة النفسية.
2-أن الإعاقة العصبية التي لاتظهر أعراضها للعيان تسبب معاناة مضاعفة للمصابين بها حيث أنها لا تنبئ الناس من حول المريض بأنه مصاب بشيء ما. أقصد أن الأعرج أو الأكتع يحصل على التعاطف والتعاون بسهولة فعلته بادية عليه. أما الذي يعجز عن التذكر أو يجد عسراً في تفسير الكلمات أو التمييز بين الناس والأشياء، فلن يتفهمه أو يتقبله الناس بسهولة مالم يشرح لهم أحد الحالة بالتفصيل. ولاتنس أن بعض الحالات تستعصي على التصديق أصلاً.

ثلاث مراجعات في مراجعة حسب ظرف كل قارئ. إن شاء الله ماقصرنا مع أحد :)

[Rosh ~catching up slowly~ · Rating 3 out of 5]

In a Nutshell: Expected something very different. Learnt a lot. But didn’t enjoy this read. Might work better for those familiar with neurological terms.

Acclaimed neurologist Dr. Oliver Sacks has been called the ‘Poet Laureate of Medicine’ by the New York Times. This book, first published in 1985, is a collection of twenty-four of his most intriguing case histories, each dealing with a peculiar issue connected to neurological health. The book is divided in four parts: Losses – which deals with abilities or senses being ‘lost’, Excesses – exactly the opposite of the first section with unusual senses being ‘gained’, Transports – mental portals into another time/place while the body is here, and The World of the Simple – the neurological issues of the ‘simple-minded’.

Ranging from a woman who could not feel her body, to twins who had a remarkable faculty for digits and nothing else, and of course, the titular man who mistook his wife for a hat, the cases are mind-boggling. If ever you need a book to make you realise the extent to which the nervous system impacts every factor of your being, this is the book to read.

One of the epigraphs at the start is a quote by William Osler, saying "To talk of diseases is a sort of Arabian Nights entertainment." You can see that Dr. Sacks believes in this quote to the core. Every case reveals his fascination with the disorder/problem, with his tendency towards evaluating the indicators, studying them keeping known cases in mind, and providing a neurological opinion wherever possible. No matter how shocking the symptoms, the doctor’s approach remains neutral towards the patient but passionate about the neurological factors. His explanations involve terms that medical professionals or those interested/knowledgeable in the field would get completely.

Why only three stars then?

I am not from a medical background, nor am I much aware of neurological terminology beyond some common or popular concepts. As such, most of his explanation went above my head. After a point, I started skipping the explanation and read only the cases.

More importantly, I couldn’t accept his level of apathy easily. Here I was, horrified at the symptoms displayed by the patient, and there he was, going gaga over the same. I could see why he felt excited about tackling a previously unknown neurological affliction, but c’mon! Those affected were regular humans, many of whose lives were messed up by their sickness. Show some hint of sorrow or regret for them! Surely being clinical doesn’t interfere with being humane. (Good thing I didn’t become a doctor like my dad had wanted me to! I would have been hopeless at staying placid next to the patient’s bedside! 😄)

Also, honest confession: I thought it will be a funny book based on the title. To a certain extent, I was expecting something on the lines of books by Adam Kay or Rosemary Leonard, both of whom wrote relatively light-hearted experiences of their work. Both these were professionals who wrote for the general populace. This one, however, seems to have been written as a documentation of potential case studies for medical students or neurological professionals or anyone with a keen insight of the subject. Definitely not for lay people with not much medical knowhow. And definitely not humorous in the remotest sense of the word.

In short, the cases are startling, no doubt in that. The writing style, not for me. Will work better for those who have a certain familiarity with the medical concepts and who don’t mind the eccentric bedside manner of the doctor who is more excited about the neurological aspects than bothered about the patients.

3 stars, mainly for scaring me with what can go wrong with the brain.

PS: I get that this book was written ages ago. But it has been in print all these years. So the vocabulary in the final section - 'The World of the Simple' - should have been updated to match contemporary standards. It is quite outdated, and borderline offensive. I wish those in charge of handling this book at present look into this. (My copy was published in 2021, so nothing edited till then at least.)


———————————————
Connect with me through:
My Blog | The StoryGraph | Facebook | Twitter

[Tim · Rating 2 out of 5]

I picked up this book because I am a fan of Oliver Sacks and his various speaking engagements (lectures, public radio interviews, etc)...but I have to say I was fairly nonplussed with it.

While the case studies in and of themselves make for interesting reading, the tone of the writing is fairly "clinical" and...removed. Despite the review blurbs stating that these are "personal" and "touchingly human" looks at neurological disorders, I saw only a few glimpses of this warmth (an example that springs to mind is the "Returning To India" story).

I can't really pin down what I didn't like about the book, but reading it, I had the sense I was being whisked in and out of hospital rooms by a busy, clipboard-toting doctor...which wasn't the best feeling.

[Barbara · Rating 3 out of 5]

Dr. Oliver Sacks


Dr. Oliver Sacks was a physician, author, and neurology professor who published several books about people with neurological problems. In this book Dr. Sacks discusses patients whose brain malfunctions cause a variety of 'maladies' including: a musician who lost the ability to see faces or recognize familiar objects; a former sailor who believed the year was permanently 1945; a man who thought his leg belonged to someone else; and other unusual afflictions. To provide a feel for the book I'll just give a capsule description of the most interesting cases.

THE MAN WHO MISTOOK HIS WIFE FOR A HAT

Dr. P was a talented musician and music teacher whose problems began when he lost the ability to see people's faces - though he could recognize them by their voices and movements. The problem worsened to the point where Dr. P mistakenly thought inanimate objects - like fire hydrants, parking meters, and furniture knobs - were humans.



In time Dr. P could no longer identify everybody objects. For example, he thought his shoe was his foot and vice versa. Though Dr. P was not diagnosed, physicians speculate that he had a brain tumor or brain damage that caused 'agnosia' - "the loss of ability to recognize objects, persons, sounds, shapes, or smells."

The title of the story refers to the fact that - when looking for his hat one day - Dr. P mistook his wife for a hatrack, took hold of her head and tried to put it on. Luckily, Dr. P retained the ability to play and teach music, and was able to continue with his fulfilling career.

🔷

THE LOST MARINER

In 1975, Dr. Sacks saw Jimmie G - a 49-year-old man who left the Navy in 1965 after serving for more than two decades. Jimmie seemed confused about his current situation but was able to describe his school days and his experiences during and after WWII - which he talked about in the present tense.



Dr. Sacks learned that - in Jimmie's mind - the year was perpetually 1945 and he was 19-years-old. Jimmie couldn't recall anything that post-dated 1945 and was unable to form ANY new memories. In fact, if Dr. Sacks walked out of the room and returned, Jimmie thought they were meeting for the first time.

When shown a mirror, Jimmie was shocked at his 'old' appearance, and - though his brother was long-married with grandchildren - thought his sibling was a single man in accounting school.

Apparently Jimmie was competent until he left the Navy, but by 1971 was totally disoriented - probably from alcohol abuse. It was determined that Jimmie suffered from amnesia due to 'Korsakov's Syndrome' - "an amnestic disorder usually associated with prolonged ingestion of alcohol."

🔷

THE DISEMBODIED LADY

Christina was a bright, athletic 27-year-old computer programmer who worked from home. When health problems required the removal of her gall bladder, Christina was treated with prophylactic antibiotics prior to the operation. This was a common precaution, not expected to have any deleterious effects.

Shortly before the surgery Christina had a dream in which she lost sensation in her hands and feet. A couple of days later Christina REALLY lost sensation in her entire body. Christina couldn't feel her arms, hands, legs, feet, etc. She couldn't walk, was unable to pick things up, and so on. Christina felt like her body was 'dead, not real, not hers.'



Christina was diagnosed with inflammation of the nerves in her limbs. As a result, Christina lost her sense of 'proprioception' - "the ability to sense the relative positions of body parts without looking at them or thinking about it." It's unknown whether the prophylactic antibiotics caused this or not.

Eventually, Christina learned to use her other senses - especially vision - to compensate for her loss of propioception. Christina had to consciously monitor and regulate every motion, making her movements difficult and clumsy. Nevertheless, Christina persevered and tried to live as normal a life as possible.

🔷

THE MAN WHO FELL OUT OF BED

Dr. Sacks was called in to see a man who had been admitted to the hospital because of a problem with his leg. After falling asleep in the hospital, the patient woke up to find 'someone's leg in the bed', a severed human limb.



The man was horrified, and concluded that a nurse had perpetrated a bizarre joke. The patient threw the leg out of bed, but he went with it, because the limb was attached to him.

While Dr. Sacks was in the room, the patient began punching and tearing at his left leg. Dr. Sacks advised the man to stop, as he was injuring his own limb, but the patient refused to accept this.The man apparently had hemiplegia - "paralysis on one side of the body", probably caused by brain damage.

🔷

PHANTOM

A 'phantom' is the sensation that a lost body part (usually an amputated limb) is still there.

Dr. Sacks tells the story of a sailor who accidently cut off his right index finger, but couldn't dislodge the notion that the digit was still sticking out of his hand. For the next 40 years, the sailor was wary of bringing his damaged hand near his face - to eat or scratch his nose - because the finger might poke his eye out. The sailor knew this couldn't really happen, but was unable to make the feeling go away.



The sailor was finally 'cured' when he lost sensation in ALL of his fingers due to diabetic neuropathy (nerve damage). The phantom finger 'disappeared' with the rest of his digits.

🔷

TILT

Mr. Dunston, a 93-year-old man with Parkinson's disease, tilted to the side when walking - to the point he was in danger of falling over. However Mr. Dunston was unaware of the slant, and refused to believe he wasn't upright until Dr. Sacks filmed him in motion.



Mr. Dunston, who had been a carpenter, attributed the problem to the loss of his inner 'spirit level' (an instrument used to determine whether a surface is perfectly horizontal or vertical).

Mr. Dunston, being a clever fellow, rigged up a 'level' that could be attached to his eyeglasses - called 'spirit spectacles' - which he could use to correct his posture. The spirit spectacles became very popular with patients afflicted with Parkinson's disease.

🔷

EYES RIGHT

After a massive stroke, Mrs. S - a woman in her sixties - lost the ability to see anything on the left side. If Mrs. S's dessert was on the left side of her tray, she couldn't see it; in fact Mrs. S couldn't even see the food on the left side of her plate. This 'left blindness' extended to everything, so that Mrs. S. would only make up the right side of her face, etc.



To compensate, Mrs. S got a rotating wheelchair and swiveled in a circle until things came into view - a crafty solution to (some of) her problems.

🔷

CUPID'S DISEASE

Natasha, a 90-year-old woman, had begun feeling unusually 'frisky' at the age of 88 - giggling, telling jokes, and flirting with men.



Natasha realized this was 'inappropriate', and - surmising she was physically ill - consulted a doctor. Natasha reported that, at age twenty, she had contracted 'Cupid's Disease' (syphilis) - which was treated, but apparently not eradicated.

In fact Natasha WAS suffering from neurosyphilis - an infection of the brain and/or spinal cord caused by the bacteria Treponema pallidum. The bacteria were stimulating her cerebral cortex and affecting her behavior.


Natasha didn't want to get end-stage syphilis, but didn't want to be cured either since she was enjoying her girlish feelings. So doctors gave Natasha penicillin to kill the microbes, but did nothing to repair her cerebral cortex - allowing the elderly woman to remain playful. (At 90 years old, why not. LOL)

🔷

REMINISCENCE

Mrs. O'C - an 88-year-old Irishwoman living in an old age home in NY - was a little deaf but otherwise in good health. One night Mrs. O'C dreamed of her childhood in Ireland, complete with a woman singing Irish songs. When Mrs. O'C awoke, she still heard the Irish songs - very loud - and went to turn off the radio broadcasting the music. But there was no radio. Mrs. O'C then thought her dental fillings were picking up a broadcast, but this wasn't the case either. Finally, Mrs. O'C concluded something was wrong with her ears - and consulted a doctor.



Mrs. O'C was eventually sent to a neurologist - Dr. Sacks - but had trouble hearing him through the music. Dr. Sacks determined that the songs were neurological, probably due to a stroke that caused seizures in Mrs. O'C's temporal lobe (a part of the brain that processes music). As Mrs. O'C recovered, the music faded away.

🔷

THE DOG BENEATH THE SKIN

Stephen D. was a 22-year-old medical student who regularly used amphetamines, cocaine, and PCP. One night Stephen dreamed he was a dog, and woke up with a greatly heightened sense of smell.



Stephen was able to distinguish all kinds of things by their 'aroma' including: friends, patients, streets, stores, sexual activity, foods, and so on. Unfortunately, unpleasant odors were stronger as well. Moreover, Stephen felt COMPELLED to sniff everything (like a pooch)....and had to be careful to avoid being inappropriate.

After three weeks the enhanced sense of smell disappeared, and Stephen returned to normal. Years later, Dr. Sacks revealed that HE was Stephen D. (Naughty naughty)

🔷

THE WORLD OF THE SIMPLE

**I have to insert a note here. To modern ears, some of the language used in this section is very disturbing. Talking about people who are mentally challenged, Dr. Sacks uses terms like: simple, simpleton, retardate, mental cripple, idiot, moron, and dullard. Granted, these essays were written before such terms became 'forbidden.' Still, the book has been re-released several times over the years, and these words could have been changed (IMO).**

JOHN AND MICHAEL

John and Michael were 26-year-old twins who had been institutionalized since the age of seven. They had an IQ under 60, and were variously diagnosed as autistic, psychotic, or severely retarded.

As happens with some autistic people, the twins were 'idiot savants' - "mentally handicapped persons who display brilliance in a specific area, especially involving memory."

The twins had clear memories of ALL their experiences and had a 'calender program' in their heads so that - given any date, past or future - they could instantly pair it with a day of the week. The twins were also able to recall and repeat a long string of numbers (over 300 digits), explaining that they 'could see it.'



Perhaps most remarkable of all, the twins made up a game in which they recited increasingly large prime numbers to each other, a feat that's almost impossible without a computer. In fact, Dr. Sacks - wanting to join the game - got a 'cheat book' of prime numbers. (Ha ha ha)

Dr. Sacks waxes poetic about the twins, saying: "The twins, though morons, hear the world's symphony, but hear it entirely in the form of numbers."

Eventually the twins were separated - 'for their own good' - which seems very sad to me.

THE AUTIST ARTIST

José was a mentally handicapped man whose epileptic seizures and (possible) autism became obvious when he was eight. At that time José's family confined him to the cellar, where he was isolated and deprived of stimulation for 15 years. Finally, at the age of 22, José 'blew up in a rage' and was hospitalized.

In the hospital, José - now properly medicated - showed a remarkable talent for drawing.



This was when Dr. Sacks met the patient. Dr. Sacks showed José his pocket watch and asked him to draw it. José studied the timepiece, then quickly and confidently drew a faithful facsimile, with creative flourishes. Dr. Sacks was impressed, thinking José had more mental agility than people thought.

During a later visit, Dr. Sacks showed José an issue of 'Arizona Highways' magazine, which had a scene of people canoeing. José swiftly copied the canoe and canoers - making the people seem even more intense and alive than the original. To Dr. Sacks, this demonstrated José's powers of imagination and creativity.

Then, when Dr. Sacks showed José an image of a rainbow trout, the patient drew a fish of his own - with an amusing roguish look, like a 'fish-person.' This showed not only imagination, but a sense of humor.

Eventually, surrounded by caring doctors and staff, José began to blossom. He no longer accepted his deprived state, strived to recover speech and understanding, and began to draw for self-expression.

🔷

Dr. Sacks' case studies are interesting and informative, and - when originally published - shed light on afflictions that were not well understood at the time. Dr. Sacks' stories are still fascinating and I enjoyed reading them.

I also applaud the fact that Dr. Sacks showed that mentally challenged individuals can have talents and abilities that rival those of mainstream society - which usually marginalizes these people. And I admire Dr. Sacks attempts to help his patients find happiness and meaning in their lives.

That said, Dr. Sacks includes a LOT of philosophical musing in his stories, in an attempt to imbue neurological afflictions with some deeper meaning. In my opinion, illnesses (even brain malfunctions) are biological phenomena. Thus they have no abstract significance, and I found the 'philosophical' sections of the book boring and sometimes incomprehensible.

I'd recommend the book to readers interested in neurology.

You can follow my reviews at https://reviewsbybarbsaffer.blogspot....

[Simon Clark · Rating 5 out of 5]

I've read a lot of popular science books in my time, and in one way or another they have always felt cut from same cloth. Similar language used, similar structure, drawing on the same inspirations. After a while it almost feels like you are reading the same book over and over again, with only slight variations in content.
So The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat came as a complete breath of fresh air. A blast, in fact. Oliver Sacks has written a book rather unlike anything I've read before, both in its content and delivery, but also the way it acts as a meta-commentary on the field of science communication. The book is a collection of case studies from Sacks' career as a neurologist, each chapter focusing on a particular patient. The stories themselves are fascinating, ranging from the titular man who's vision is so neurologically impaired that he literally mistakes his wife for a hat, to the woman who lost all sense of proprioception - if she did not look at where her body was in space, she had no idea where it was. However the way that Sacks tells these stories was what gripped me. Quite apart from other popular science writers, he draws on a wide range of inspirations from poetry to philosophy to music to medical papers. The text is sumptuous. One gets the feeling of a writer who has lived a rich life, who has not been confined to one box of academia, and who allows his experiences to wash together in a melange of words on the page. I loved, loved, loved it.
You could argue that Sacks actually makes a point about this in the final chapter, a neurological patient who is a brilliant artist but almost completely incapable of interpersonal communication. Reading this, at the very end of the book, I got the impression that Sacks was holding up the mirror to the way science was written about at the time, and still is to this day. Are you scientists not brilliant at abstract thought, gifted beyond measure in unpicking complex behaviour from a mass of data, yet totally incapable of connecting another human to that process? You spend so much time living in your box, in your world of abstraction, that you lack the necessary experience in being human, exposure to the humanities, to make a genuine connection to other people. Sacks demonstrates that if you allow the human to take centre stage, pushing the science to a supporting character, then communication, and wonder, will flow.
Absolutely recommended. A real must-read.

[sAmAnE · Rating 4 out of 5]

آلیور ساکس یک عصب‌شناس معروف است که خارج از حیطه‌ی کاری در زمینه‌ی موسیقی و ادبیات هم فعال بوده است. او پزشک مغز و اعصاب است و در این کتاب پیرامون بیماری برخی از افردا که عمدتا بیماری‌های عجیب و نادری دارند، نوشته است.
تلاش و دید متفاوت او به بیماری آدم‌ها و داشتن نگاه مثبت و متفاوت او برای من خیلی جالب بود. نقطه‌ی عطف کتاب برای من جایی بود که او در سالی که به سرطان دچار شد و در مجله‌ی نیویورک تایمز این‌گونه نوشت:
" می‌خواهم تا جایی که می‌توانم به عمیق‌ترین، غنی‌ترین و مثمرثمرترین وجه زندگی کنم. می‌خواهم و امیدوارم که در این زمان باقی‌مانده دوستی‌هایم را عمیق‌تر سازم، با تمامی کسانی که دوستشان می‌دارم خداحافظی کنم، بیش‌تر بنویسم، و اگر قدرتی در من مانده باشد مسافرت کنم تا به درجات جدیدی از درک و بینش برسم.

او به انسانیت در حرفه‌اش بیشتر از هرچیزی اهمیت می‌دهد.

[Valeriu Gherghel · Rating 3 out of 5]

Nu mai e nevoie să menționez. Pacientul psihotic nu joacă un rol pe care îl poate părăsi oricînd vrea. Devine o marionetă aflată în slujba unei „forțe” care își bate joc de el, fără ca el să-și dea seama.

Uneori, psihicul o ia razna. Omul își pierde mințile, cum se spune, și, odată cu ele, în unele cazuri, identitatea. Nimic mai trist decît un om care se crede altul (un personaj istoric) sau, pur și simplu, nu mai este în stare să spună cine / ce este (în Alzheimer). Am văzut astfel de oameni, i-am privit în ochi și n-am găsit acolo decît întuneric și suferință.

Singurul lucru demn de a fi ținut minte și discutat amănunțit (ceea ce Oliver Sacks nu face) este încercarea autorului de a defini eul / sinele / self-ul altfel decît Locke, Hume și ceilalți gînditori care au meditat la asta. Dacă sinele unui individ oarecare divulgă identitatea lui, atunci cum ar trebui să definim această identitate?

Răspunsul lui Oliver Sacks e cunoscut. Sinele este naratorul și protagonistul unei povești despre sine, pe care „biograful” o rescrie permanent. Este ceea ce criticii literari au numit o „autoficțiune”. Altfel spus:

„Dacă vrem să cunoaștem un om, punem întrebarea: «Care e povestea lui, povestea lui adevărată, cea mai adîncă?» - pentru că fiecare dintre noi este o biografie, o poveste. Fiecare dintre noi este o narațiune singulară, construită continuu, inconștient, de noi, prin noi și în noi, prin percepțiile, senzațiile, gîndurile și acțiunile noastre; și, nu în ultimul rînd, prin discursul nostru, narațunile noastre vorbite. Sub raport biologic, fiziologic, nu sîntem atît de diferiți unii de altii; sub raport istoric, ca narațiuni, fiecare dintre noi e unic. Pentru a fi noi înșine, trebuie să ne avem pe noi înșine, să punem stăpînire, la nevoie să punem din nou stăpînire, pe poveștile vieților noastre. Trebuie să ne «adunăm», să adunăm drama interioară, narațiunea despre noi. Un om are nevoie de o asemenea narațiune, o narațiune interioară continuă, pentru a-și menține identitatea, sinele său”.

Pornind de la acest fragment, m-am întrebat adeseori:
Cînd sfîntul Augustin spunea „eu / ego”, la ce se referea mai precis? La „suflet” sau la „minte”? La ceva material sau imaterial? La ceva permanent sau temporar? Întrebarea poate fi repetată cu privire la sfîntul Thoma de Aquino sau Descartes? Încă n-am citit o istorie a reprezentărilor sinelui. Din păcate...

[Paria · Rating 5 out of 5]

الیور ساکس، نورولوژیست و استاد دانشگاه، توی این کتاب عجیب‌ترین کیس ها و بیمارانش رو معرفی کرده. بیمارانی که به علت آسیب‌های مغزی متفاوت، عارضه‌های متفاوتی رو از خودشون نشون دادن. مثلا مردی که همسرش رو با کلاه اشتباه می‌گیره، زنی که بدنش واسش بیگانه میشه و نسبت بهش هیچ احساس تعلقی نداره و کنترلی هم نسبت بهش نداره، مردی که پای خودش رو بیگانه تلقی میکنه و وقت خواب سعی میکنه اونو از تخت بیرون بندازه، مردی که به علت آسیب مغزی نه تنها نابینا میشه بلکه بعد از اون مفاهیم نور و دیدن هم واسش بیگانه میشن، زنی که در اثر سکته‌ی مغزی تمام مدت موسیقی محبوبش مثل کنسرت توی مغزش پخش میشه و همیشه صدای اونو میشنوه، کودک مبتلا به اوتیسمی که فقط از طریق نقاشی میتونه با دنیای پیرامونش ارتباط برقرار کنه و ...

کیس های بسیار متفاوت و عجیبی توی این کتاب بررسی شده که خوندنش میتونه خیلی جالب باشه. اگه با نوروفیزیولوژی و بعضی از آسیب‌های مغزی آشنایی داشته باشید، لذت خوندنش دوچندان میشه.

[Dream.M · Rating 4 out of 5]

یکروز صبح از خواب بیدار شدم و هیچ چیز اتاق برام آشنا نبود. با وحشت روی تخت نشستم و دنبال یک نشونه آشنا روی در و دیوار گشتم. یادم نمیومد کی ام. اینجا کجاست و من وسط این اتاق چکار میکنم. حتی اسمم یادم نمیومد. بزرگترین وحشت زندگیم رو تجربه کردم. کسی اسمی رو صدا میکرد که اسم من نبود. مغزم خالی بود. هیچ نشونه آشنایی با این دنیا نداشتم. خالیه خالیه خالی بودم. تنها حسم وحشت بود و تهی بودن عمیق. حتی میترسیدم از اتاق بیرون برم و بگم چیزی یادم نمیاد. میترسیدم دیوونه شده باشم. چند دقیقه طول کشید تا یادم اومد کی ام. افتادم روی تخت و به شدت گریه کردم. اون چند دقیقه وحشتناک ترین لحظات زندگیم بودن. بخاطر همین وقتی دکتر ساکس توی کتابش میگه بی خاطرگی و فراموشی ترسناکترین اتفاق برای یک انسانه ، من باور میکنم.
.....
این کتاب رو با اشتیاق خوندم چون توی یه دوره رایگان روانشناسی عمومی که دانشگاه ییل گذاشته بود، دکتر پل بلوم پیشنهادش کرده بود و خب نوروساینس هم مبحث مورد علاقه منه.

[سلطان · Rating 5 out of 5]

من أجمل ما قرأت في هذه السنة.
لقد غيّر هذا الكتاب الكثير من المفاهيم الخاصة بالذاكرة عندي. كما تغيّرت عندي مفاهيم أخرى تتعلق بحالات الجنون والاكتئاب والحالات النفسية.
هذا الكتاب ليس كتاباً طبياً، أو نفسياً، أو تجارياً. بل هو كتاب إنساني بالمقام الأول.
هل تعرف قيمة ذاكرتك أيها الإنسان؟ هل تعرف قيمة حياتك بلا ذاكرة؟ بنصف ذاكرة؟ بربع ذاكرة؟ بذاكرة قديمة؟
هل تعرف لماذا يتصرف بعض الأشخاص أحياناً بصورة تجعلنا نظن بأنهم مجانين؟
وأخيراً.. هل تعرف كم فاتك إن لم تكن قرأت هذا الكتاب بعد؟

[BookHunter M ُH َM َD · Rating 4 out of 5]

تعطلت السيارة ذات مرة في الطريق السريع. كان عطلا فريدا من نوعه. المصباح الداخلي يضيء وينطفئ بلا توقف وكأنها سيارة اسعاف. ولكن الضوء في داخل السيارة بدلا من أعلاها. كان ذلك يشوش عقلي ويشتتني ويثير حالة من الضحك في الطريق. توقفت بالسيارة على جانب الطريق واتصلت بأحد الأصدقاء فوجهني لإزالة الفيوز الخاص بهذا المصباح من علبة الفيوزات لحين اصلاح العطل. وقد كان.
لماذا تذكرت هذه القصة الآن؟
عندما قرأت هذا الكتاب أيقنت أن الإنسان له أيضا علبة فيوزات تماما كالسيارة. ولكن ليس من السهل تغيير فيوز ليتوقف الصرع أو تنتعش الذاكرة أو تقل الكوابيس.

الكتاب الشيق الذي ينقسم إلى أربعة أقسام يتحدث عن أربعة أشياء أساسية نتجت عن تأثر الجهاز العصبي للإنسان نتيجة حادث ما سواء كان هذا بصورة عرضية أو منذ الولادة. وأولها هو الفقد: فقد الذاكرة أو فقد الإحساس بأحد أعضاء الجسم أو حواسه أو فقد الإحساس بالكليات أو الجزئيات. والثاني هو الفرط: فرط الحركة. فرط التفكير. فرط الإدراك. فرط الإحساس بشيء ما. الثالث هو ما سماه الحالات النقلية وهي حالات غريبة تعود فيها الذاكرة إلى الماضي وربما تعلق به تماما أو بجزء منه مع تذكر كل شيء بتفاصيله وان كان شيئا حاضرا على خلفية الأحداث مهما بدا هامشيا أو بلا قيمة. والأخير هو حالات البله والتوحد.
ما يجمع الحالات السابقة على اختلافها هو تعطل أحد الفيوزات أو أكثر داخل الجهاز العصبي. فقد يجد شخصا ما فجأة أن لديه حاسة شم تتفوق على الكلاب أو سوبر رؤية أو سمع يتخطى الهمس والجدران وقد يجد أحدهم أن لديه القدرة على تذكر أحداث في طفولته المبكرة لم يكن يعييها أو يدركها من قبل. أو أن تحلم بشيء ويتحقق في الواقع.
كل هذا جعلني أفكر مرة أخرى. هل يمتلك كل انسان تلك القدرات جميعها ولكنها معطلة بداخله لأسباب تطورية ترجع لعدم قد��ة الإنسان على أن يمتلك كل تلك الصفات دفعة واحدة أم أن هذه القدرات هي قدرات خاصة جدا يمتلكها عدد محدود من البشر؟
ولكن لماذا نجد شخصا عاديا تحدث له حادثة ما أو يتعاطى دواء معين فتتعطل إحدى الحواس أو ترتقي. ألا يعد هذا دليلا على أن علبة الفيوزات هي نفسها وكل ما يحدث هو تفعيل أو تعطيل للفيوز الخاص بهذه الخاصية أو تلك؟
الأمر الأهم الذي خرجت به من هذا الكتاب هو ألا أنظر نظرة استعلاء إلى أي شخص غريب أو مختلف فالحكايات التي أوردها الكاتب تفسر الكثير من السلوكيات التي قد لا نفهمها في البشر والتي ترجع لاختلاف تطور الجهازه العصبي لهذا الشخص وطريقة تعامله مع الأحداث والأشياء على مدار تاريخه. فالشخص المتوجس والشخص المتمهل والشخص الغير مبالي والموهوب موسيقيا أو فنيا أو رياضيا والعبقري والغبي والمتوحد والمتشنج والمكتئب وغيرها من الصفات قد لا يكون لنا فيها يد وكل ما نستطيع هو تهذيب هذه الصفات ومحاولة إبراز الجيد منها وكنس الخبيث ولو بإخفائه تحت السجادة.
هذا الإنسان العجيب الذي يمتد تاريخه إلى الكهوف والغابات ما زال يحتفظ بخوفه وحذره وأنانيته وما زال يرهف سمعه ويرنو ببصره إلى مواطن الخطر. وما زالت هواجسه تسيطر عليه وما زال يحمل بداخله تاريخ انتصاراته وهزائمه وما زالت أفعاله تدهشنا وتجعلنا نعي أننا لا نعرف إلا أقل القليل مما يدور داخل أدمغتنا.

[Greta G · Rating 2 out of 5]

I guess I'm just not smart enough to fully appreciate this book.
But I do realize that an awful lot can go wrong with our brains, and when that should happen to me, I would be very lucky with such an empathetic and humane doctor.
Yet, his writing is dry and clinical, which is a shame because there were really interesting cases. I enjoyed reading some parts of the book, but not enough to feel satisfied about reading this book.
Especially the chapter "The Visions of Hildegard", in which he describes the hallucinatory visions of migrainous origin from a 12th century nun Hildegard from Bingen, made me wonder why this book is so popular.

[Callum's Column · Rating 4 out of 5]

Oliver Sacks explores personal and clinical experiences with individuals facing neurological impairments. The book also examines philosophical elements, drawing connections between these patients' reality and the writings of, for instance, David Hume and Friedrich Nietzsche. It enlightens the reader on how mental impairments shape our perception and actions, while showcasing the resilience of individuals facing neurological adversities. It also highlights the profound impact even minor brain trauma can have on one's life. One critique, however, is the excessive use of unexplained psychological jargon.

[ساره · Rating 4 out of 5]

اگر مثل خود من علاقه مند به نورولوژی و نوروسایکولوژی هستید، اگر دلتون میخواد چند روزی در دنیای بیمارانی قدم بزنید که بعضی بیزار و بعضی خوشحال از بیماریشون هستند و میخواید بدونید چرا و اگر از همراه شدن با پزشکی که بیمارانش را "می بیند" کیف می کنید، این کتاب رو بخونید.

[HAMiD · Rating 5 out of 5]

خواندنِ این حکایت ها دریچه هایی عجیب می گشاید(برای من که چنین بود و هست). دریچه هایی برای از نو دیدن. انگار بیدارت می کند برای به یادآوردن و دوباره در خود یافتن، یافتن چه چیز اما؟ یافتن انسان آیا؟ وقتی متوجه می شوی که زندگی و همه ی معیارهای آن ممکن است وهمی بیش نباشد! چه هولناک است پس ماهیتِ انسان! کتابِ عجیبی ست. نمی گویم خوب، نمی گویم خواندنی، کتابِ زندگی بهترین گزارش است درباره ی آن. آنهم در این روزهای هیاهو زده ی مسلول، ما آدم های عقرب گزیده ی متظاهر را چه چیز بهتر از بازخوانی ذهن و روان؟ نکند که ذهن و روان ِ خویش را کمر بسته ایم به ساختن دنیایی دروغین برای زیستِ نکبت زده ی خویش؟ چه می گذرد در ذهنِ انسان؟ ماجرا چیست؟ و این آن چیزی ست که در این کتاب یافته ام(کاملن شخصی شده و شاید بدونِ شرح برای دیگران. بنابراین پیشنهادش نمی کنم اگر خواهان نباشد کسی برای کنار زدن پرده ها. کتاب ممکن است حال را دگرگون کند، عجیب بشود پیرامون آدم از بس که می روی در کنکاشی درونی و شخصی).

برداشت یکم) دی شیخ با چراغ همی گشت گِرد شهر – کز دیو و دد ملولم و انسانم آرزوست: آیا تعریفِ کسانی که گمان می برند کاملن سالم هستند درباره ی دیگرانی که آنها را بیمار روانی می دانند درست است؟ می شود وارونه نگاه کرد؟ می شود گفت این به ظاهر آدم ها سالم هستند که بیمارند؟ و راستی مگر یک نقص یا زیاده از اندازه داشتن را باید بیماری خواند؟ اصلن اگر دقیق تر بخواهم بگویم، می شود کلِ فرآیند وجودِ انسان را یک اشتباه بزرگ دانست؟ شاید هم بشود گفت اتفاق! و عجیب این جاست که همه ی بودن و نبودن و همه ی تعریف ها و حالت ها و احساس ها از یک جا سرچشمه دارند، از مغز! همه چیز! و پس از آن یک آسیب همه ی جهان تعریف شده ی انسانی را به شکلی دیگر نشان می دهد. راستی حقیقت چیست؟ و راستی مگر اصلن حقیقتی وجود دارد؟ اصلن می شود گفت کسی بیمارِ روانی است؟ کسی که مغزش آسیب دیده است! چه بسا که جهان او بی اندازه پاک و دلنشین تر باشد از ما دیگرانِ در ظاهر بی آسیب.
یادآوری: مغز آسیب دیده است. خاطره ها پریده اند. زوال آمده است. دیگر هویتی وجود ندارد. هیچ کیفی ندارد هیچ چیز. انسان سقوط می کند در ورطه ای که نمی شود درکش کرد. آیا اینْ سرانجام، فرجامِ انسان نیست؟ فراموشی ابدی، نبود هویت، ناشناختگی و گاه بی خویشتنی محض. آنجا که حتا خدا را به آن راه نیست!

برداشت دوم) اینجا برای از تو نوشتن هوا کم است – دنیا برای از تو نوشتن مرا کم است: در نگاه مردمِ عاقل تو دیوانه ای بیش نبودی! سودا زده ی بی خیالِ تمامِ شهر! ای بیچاره همه ی مردم شهر که ناآگاه بودند که این تنها تو هستی که جان به در برده ای از دیوانگی! تنها تو هستی که می دانی همه ی آن مردمانِ دیگرند که بی بهره اند از عقل! دلبستگانِ وابسته ی همیشه نگران! فلک زده های غرقْ در خوابِ همیشه گریان! گوشهاشان نشنود! که همه چیز حرام، چشم هاشان نبیند! که همه چیز عذاب، دهانشان نجنبد! که همه چیز کفاره ی گناهان! ای بیچاره مردم شهر که تو را دیوانه می پنداشتند که تنها تو بودی که دلت زلالِ بود شسته از همه نیرنگ ها! جهانِ تو اما ای کاش که می دانستم چگونه بود. که هرچه بود که هرچه هست تنها یادهاست! خاطره هاست. همه ی آن منظره ها و حس ها. جاده ها، کوچه ها، لرزش بطری آب را یادم می آید بر کناره ی پنجره ی قطار، چه می گذرد در ذهن در خیال؟ ای دوست داشتی ترین دیوانه ی تمام جهان. ای دیوانگی ارجمندِ عقلِ محض.

برداشت سوم) سپاس از خانم فرهادیان که دست برده است به بازگرداندن این متن به پارسی؛ جز این که بهتر می بود اگر کمی از دراز نویسی فعل ها کم می شد(مشکلی که ما در همه ی نوشته هامان هست و حتا در گفتگوی روزانه مان) اگرچه به روان بودن متن آسیب نزده است. چاپِ نشرنو هم که حرف ندارد. خوش دست و سبک و حرفه ای.

1398/03/05

[Riku Sayuj · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is not a series of medical case studies, but a series of philosophical musings on the human condition. Full Review to follow (in time)

[Collin · Rating 1 out of 5]

Dry. Reading this book is like eating saltine crackers without anything to drink. He only briefly discusses the cases (these are, ahem, the interesting parts of the book) and then embarks on tedious philosophical discussions about neurology. He does seem very proud of himself and his education, though; I will give him that as a backhanded compliment.

[Olive Fellows (abookolive) · Rating 2 out of 5]

I really, really struggled with this book.

This is one of those popular nonfiction books that it seems even those who don't read a lot of nonfiction pick up; that is to say, a very popular, wide-appealing book. I'm on a mission to read more of the popular nonfiction books out there since I tend to be drawn toward the more obscure ones. Realizing that fact made me think that I might be missing on on all those buzzy books that everyone seems to love.

Not the case with this one. It's a collection of stories from neurologist Oliver Sacks's career treating unusual patients whose brains caused them to perceive the world in atypical ways. It begins with the eye-catching titular case: a man who lost the ability to recognize people and objects, and so tried to reach over to grab his hat at the end of an appointment and instead started pulling at his wife's head, unable to recognize his error.

There are other stories of patients who lost their memories, some who developed a sense of a phantom limb, and others who were deemed "human calculators," possessing the ability to manipulate large numbers or know exactly how many items spilled onto the floor in a large heap, but who couldn't handle the necessities of everyday life.

It's interesting material. But it's been my experience as a reader and reviewer over the past decade that fascinating nonfiction books often get a bump in their average rating simply because the material keeps the reader's interest, not because it's necessarily well done. I'm inclined to think that's the case with this one.

The language couldn't be more highfalutin and unapproachable and it only serves to highlight my biggest issue: the verbiage used to describe the patients. Maybe it's symptomatic of the era in which this book was written, but in what universe is it acceptable to use the word "moron" to mean "mentally challenged"? Was he running out of synonyms or was he that big of an ass to speak about other human beings in that way?

I'm always happy when other people enjoy books I don't and if this book can get people to pick up nonfiction, that's wonderful. That's the whole reason I started hosting Nonfiction November in the first place. But I'm the child of a special education teacher. I've met people quite similar to the ones Sacks speaks about here. They are wonderful and deserve better from us. So this isn't, nor ever could be the kind of book for me.