Author Sacks takes a look back in 'Hallucinations'
Oliver Sacks never meant to be part of the story. Indeed, much of his new book, “Hallucinations,” which mixes case studies, analysis and personal observation, had already been written when, in March 2011, the 79-year-old author and neurologist tripped over a box of books in his lower Manhattan apartment and broke his hip.
While in the hospital, he was visited by a friend who got him talking about the 1960s — especially his experiences, as a UCLA graduate student, with drugs.
“I started with cannabis,” Sacks writes. “A friend in Topanga Canyon, where I lived at the time, offered me a joint; I took two puffs and was transfixed by what happened then.” From there, it was a short step to LSD and morning-glory seeds and eventually amphetamines — although for the most part, his experiences never got particularly out of hand.
Still, looking back, Sacks seems somewhat abashed by the memories. “But I told him the story,” he says of his friend, “and he scribbled it down and brought back a typed-up version the next day. He encouraged me: Don't hide this away.”
A year-and-a-half later, Sacks sits at the desk in his home office, wearing khakis and sneakers, looking none the worse for wear. It's a warm fall morning, and outside, construction trucks rumble through the West Village streets. Sacks is speaking softly, pausing often, discussing the elusive balance between his responsibilities as a clinician and as an author, a process that has occupied his writing since the publication of his second book, “Awakenings,” in 1973.
“Hallucinations,” as it turns out, puts the issue front and center — and not only because its sixth chapter, excerpted in the New Yorker this past August, grew out of those transcribed hospital-room memories. Moving between present and past (he uses Dostoevsky, for instance, to discuss epileptic seizures), Sacks frames hallucination as the most human of phenomena, an experience many people share.
He opens the book with a discussion of Charles Bonnet syndrome, a common condition among patients with failing eyesight who see things — faces, shapes — in their visual fields. He writes about Parkinson's patients who “see” music (“a collage of music scores,” one notes, “superimposed upon the surface, especially with my peripheral vision”) and narcoleptics prone to sleep paralysis. Phantom limbs, migraine auras; this is not the stuff of psychosis or schizophrenia but of the rational human mind.
Even Sacks' drug experiences come off as innocent, remembered with a sense of play.
“Hedonism wasn't absent,” he admits with a low laugh, “especially with amphetamines.” But more to the point was a sense of discovery — not least of which were the boundaries of his mind.
For Sacks, the key is revelation: How the stories he tells — his own and other people's — allow him to make what might seem an abstract subject concrete.
“Hallucinations” seeks to work against our preconceptions, whether they have to do with clinical distance or the larger question of what hallucination means.
“Hallucinations are not like imagination,” Sacks says flatly. “There are many sorts of hallucinations,” he continues, “and one shouldn't be afraid of mentioning that one has them.”
As an example, he cites the story of a religious novice who had hallucinations of Satan. “She saw him,” he recalls, “she heard him, and she smelled him, a little bit of sulfur. This was probably a schizophrenic psychosis, but I wasn't sure. Some of the nuns in the religious center where I worked said they would agree that in a nonreligious person this would be like a psychosis, but a novice may have to wrestle with deep questions of good and evil before feeling the call or dedication, and visions like this are not so uncommon. This is a dramatization of thought they may have to go through.”
That's a fascinating distinction, suggesting the importance of taking each situation on its own terms, which has been Sacks' intention all along. How else to see from the inside the oddities he writes about, the syndromes and dysfunctions?
In “Awakenings,” he describes a group of patients who contracted encephalitic lethargica, or sleeping sickness, in the 1920s, only to be “awakened,” 40 years later, by an experimental drug. In his 1985 breakthrough “The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat,” he introduces a wide array of brain disorders; the title piece involves a man who cannot recognize what he sees.
As with most of Sacks' writing — including “Hallucinations” — these books are built around case studies, that 19th-century diagnostic device.
“I am a describer,” Sacks admits, “a storyteller, for better or worse. Without descriptions, one can't get the whole picture, nor identify with all the dynamics of a case.”
This style of descriptive narrative fell into disfavor in the 1950s, with the advent of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, or DSM. Sacks, though, still considers it an essential tool.
“When I did more clinical teaching,” he remembers, “I had a small group of students every Friday afternoon, and I would take them round to patients. There was one patient who had a rather rare condition, a cavity in the spinal cord, and she would show herself. ‘Look at the painless burn,' she would say, ‘I leaned against a radiator and didn't feel it.' And she would tell the students: ‘Don't memorize Page 900 of the textbooks, visualize me. Use my image, it'll be with you.' I used to love going to clinical rounds, and in some sense, I'm taking my readers on clinical rounds.”
“To some extent,” he says, “I regard myself as potential clinical material. Whether this pushes too far into self-revelation or self-exhibition, I don't know. I enjoy doing it, but I feel uncomfortable at times ... and never more than in regard to the scandalous Chapter 6. When the book proofs were delivered to the New Yorker, I hoped they might do anything but Chapter 6. But they chose Chapter 6.”
David L. Ulin is a staff writer for the Los Angeles Times.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.