oliver sacks, with thanks

My late sister Lucy introduced me to Oliver Sacks back in the late 1980s. Not literally. She didn’t grab me by the sleeve, pull me over at a cocktail party and say: “Hey, Ame, this is Dr. Sacks,” introducing me to the broad, bald Brit who spent his career spelunking and explaining the deepest recesses of the brain. No, Lucy simply called me up one day and announced, “‘The Man Who Mistook His Wife For a Hat’ — you need to read it.”

I read it. And almost everything else he ever published. After Lucy took her own life in 1992, Sacks became, for me, both an invisible thread connecting me to my sister and a way to understand her better — a way to process all that had happened to her, all the temporal-lobe dysfunction and unremitting suicidality that resulted from it. Reading his accounts of brains and brokenness, I felt closer to my sister, more grateful to her, more awed by her strength and stick-to-it-ive-ness in staying alive as long as she did. I learned about the plasticity of the brain, the strangeness of it. I learned about resilience and fortitude and love. All of that was in his books. All of that illuminated his writing and, as I read it, my own eccentric and rattled brain.

Lucy loved him. So did I. We loved him because he treated people like her — people with serious and mysterious neurological woes — with profound comprehension and compassion, never discounting their humanity for the sake of science, never forgetting that the colorblind artist or the autistic anthropologist or the locked-in Parkinson’s patient had joys, depths, yearnings that fell outside the order and disorders of neurology. Instead, the exactitude of his science informed every case study with an exquisite, clear-eyed pathos. His patients weren’t less human because of their problems. They were more human, more realized and whole.

I read a ton of Sacks after Lucy died, cranking through his best-sellers as well as his less-read works — “Hearing Voices,” “Uncle Tungsten.” I returned to him again in late 2011, when, exhausted by my husband’s six-month descent into insomnia, anxiety, depression and suicide, I gave up on easy explanations — there bloody hell weren’t any — and returned to the voice that had always described our oddball human brains with a reverence, a poetry, that saw beyond the broken bits and found creativity, personality and a fabulous, fertile quirk.

I learned from Oliver Sacks that no brain is a simple thing, that no life is easy. But what beauty lies in them both. What wisdom lies in opening ourselves to their mysteries. What gratitude I owe him for opening my mind and my heart, too.

Learning of his death, I felt as though I’d lost a friend. I’d written to him a few months back, after he published that column announcing his terminal cancer. My words felt grievously insufficient, but I thanked him for living his life and thus enriching mine. I included a copy of my latest book, but not because I wanted or expected him to read it; I only wanted to give him something, although that, too, felt grievously insufficient. He had given me so much.

This morning, I expressed these sentiments again. I hope he heard me, and I hope he hears me now, although I imagine the heavens are noisy with shouts of gratitude. Whether he hears me really doesn’t matter. I have to say it once more. Goodbye, Dr. Sacks. And thank you.

6 thoughts on “oliver sacks, with thanks

  1. Amy, I just learned from you here about his passing. I have long been fascinated by his writings on the brain. And on music! There are some fascinating interviews with him that I have seen online. I’m glad you sent him your book; I’ll bet he appreciated it.

  2. Amy, forgive me if this is a duplicate—I seem to have trouble w/wordpress. I have long admired Sacks, & just read here of his passing. What a brilliant & fascinating mind! I was especially interested in his writing about music, as I’m sure you were too. I’ve seen some recorded interviews with him that were also great. I’m glad you sent him your book, and i’m sure he appreciated it.

  3. Amy I met him a few times when I worked in Brooklyn, and what struck me was that he was always interested. Interested in really everything. He always made a point of asking my name and chatting a bit (I was a secretary, not accustomed to niceties from people who were in the office to see someone more important in the um corporate structure.) I think he held onto that abiding curiousity, interest, until his final minutes. We should all be so fortunate…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s