←back to thread

47 points barry-cotter | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
rendaw ◴[] No.46207335[source]
Subtitle

> The scientist was famous for linking healing with storytelling. Sometimes that meant reshaping patients’ reality.

TLDR

> after her grandmother’s death...she becomes decisive, joining a theatre group.... in the transcripts... [she] never joins a theatre group or emerges from her despair.

AFAICT the quote above is the only thing directly relevant to the title.

From what I read, skimming through the article, it paints Sacks as being a delusion driven emotional romantic and was practicing some sort of cult medicine, but I can't tell how much of that is reality and how much is NYT's ridiculously flowery embellishing of everything.

replies(4): >>46207513 #>>46207746 #>>46208230 #>>46212128 #
burningChrome ◴[] No.46207746[source]
I agree that its a hard read, and seemingly never got to the point of the title of the article. I started reading it and by about the eighth or nineth paragraph the article was still ruminating on his gay love affair so I just skimmed the rest and I couldn't make heads or tails of the rest of it either.

Its shocking how bad some writers are these days.

replies(6): >>46208394 #>>46208424 #>>46208562 #>>46208628 #>>46208801 #>>46209091 #
1. RC_ITR ◴[] No.46208628[source]
Speaking of suboptimal writing, why call it a 'gay' love affair, when he was openly gay?
replies(1): >>46209525 #
2. Matterless ◴[] No.46209525[source]
One of the most important details of Sacks's life which dogged him nearly to the end (and which is important to this NY piece), was a minimization by Sacks of his own sexuality. He was not "openly gay" at all.