An Anthropologist on Mars
Seven Paradoxical Tales
by Oliver SacksMr. I is a painter, enjoying color contrasts. He was also synesthetic, and saw music. In a car accident, Mr. I. lost his color vision, and was thereafter able to see only in grays. This plunged him into depression; he could no longer enjoy his music or his art; what was left to him? But after time had passed, Mr. I. came to see his colorblindness as a sort of gift; his overall vision had improved, and he now saw textures much better. His night vision became superior to his daytime vision, and he became a night person. Three years after his accident, when a possible cure was suggested to him, Mr.I. no longer wished to be cured. At his fiancee's urging, Virgil had the cataracts removed from his eyes and had sight for the first time in 40some years. But this soon proved to be of little or no use; Virgil could not process what he saw, and preferred to let his arm "see" for him. He was happier when illness subsequently removed his sight. Franco sees nothing but the Pontito(a city) of his dreams. During the course of every day, he sees scenes from his childhood Pontito. He paints and dreams his childhood Pontito. It is his life.
Dr. Bennett is a surgeon. He has Tourette syndrome, which slows him down not at all(if anything it speeds him). Sacks accompanies him for a weekend of his life. Stephen is an autistic artist, and a prodigy. Sacks spends time with him as well. Temple Grandin is a brilliant autistic engineer, and Sacks spend a weekend trying to understand her world. He does this badly because he comes at it from the angle of a Martian. Not in sync with any of the other patients is Greg, in whom a tumor ate away part of his brain. He is blind and doesn't know it, and lives only in the present, with no past and no future. Well into the 80s, Greg is still in the 60s.
At the beginning of this book, Sacks says that he will not treat his patients merely as case studies, but intends to see them as human beings with real feelings. But Sacks fails utterly. His first flaw is in referring to his subjects again and again as "patients". His second is in approach; Sacks never once tries to place himself in the shoes of his subjects. He persists in seeing them as alien. Footnotes are used throughout the book; they add to the narrative with reminiscences and didactic notes. Annoyingly, two refer to other footnotes within the book.
What do these tales have in common? They are not, as the subtitle suggests, paradoxical. (Unless I'm totally missing the point of the book.) All seven stories picture people conventionally seen as disabled. These are shown to be dis/abled, where four openly opine that they would
not wish to be cured. Of the others, two are unaware of their dis/abilites, and one does not have to decide as his blindness was returned to him. But although Sacks presents these four with their own opinions, his own tone holds a note of incredulity;
he does not see how these people could prefer their disabilities. Do you?
Happy reading.
