Broks has crafted a nonfiction book with an unreliable narrator. He is exploring the line between reality and imagination, the world of dreams and hallucinations. His wife has passed away and he is dramatically rejecting magical thinking, spirituality, belief that she endures. He imagines confronting C.S. Lewis, that sentimental author of the grieving memoir, and telling him that he's weak, overemotional, and prone to believing magic acts. But Broks dreams in his wakeful state all too often to put before us a scientific treatise on neuropsychology. He tells us in the introduction that fiction will sit beside fact in his essays, but he assures us it will be obvious. It is not necessarily.
My primary complain is his exploration of Paolo Faraldo's Theory of Neuronal Relativity, because both the theorist and the theory are fictional, as is Broks' story of his colleague Lewys and his wife Ava. Broks tells the story of his colleague wrestling with and producing a test for consciousness. He claims that 10% of humans are in fact not sentient, not fully conscious, simply going through the motions of life but not truly living it. It's a harmless and intriguing philosophical idea, right? Well, philosophy zombies is an idea that's out there. But there's no test, there are few believers, and the idea is more than a little dangerous. Because Broks presents it as science, as in: "Lewys is a brilliant scientist. I can’t find fault with his work." I know he's playing a philosophical game, toying with what we'll believe of our fellow humans. But imagine those readers who don't know he's playing a game. They will learn that 10% of humans are, in fact, sub-human, empty shells without souls (to whatever extent they believe in souls in the first place). If you believe that, what won't you believe of 10% of the population? That their presence in our country is an infestation? that they are animals, not people? how do they deserve to be treated?
Broks has meticulously brought these ideas together. The paralysis upon waking that gives rise to waking dreams, the question of real hallucinations and subjective truths, the question of consciousness. He has a debate with the archangel Michael. He's wondering how the brain deals with grief, with loss. With the stabs of absence he feels when he remembers that his wife Kate is not beside him. It's a fascinating collection of essays and meditation. It's truth alongside fiction. Things that are true in essence though not in literal fact. It's quite beautiful. But it's not a new genre. We already have a word for beautiful explorations of reality that explore the edges of truth and fabrication. That word is Fiction. This is a beautiful work of fiction, and should be shelved as such. If it were described as fiction in the blurb, I would give it more stars. But the fact that the author and publisher both consider this nonfiction worries me. Hopefully only responsible readers will attempt this one. And hopefully they will enjoy it, because I did. Just... enjoy responsibly.
I got a copy to review from First to Read.