←back to thread

47 points barry-cotter | 1 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 #
giraffe_lady ◴[] No.46208801[source]
I love when the new yorker gets posted to HN because of how many people will proudly announce themselves not equal to the challenge of a mainstream middlebrow magazine article.
replies(5): >>46208896 #>>46209089 #>>46209365 #>>46211015 #>>46211460 #
1. expedition32 ◴[] No.46211015[source]
In a few decades reading will be a lost art. Yes the stats are really that worrying.