Sunday Sundries: 3 Cakes and A Revelation

No Sunday Sundries post last week, how lame was that! (Not very, since I realise NO ONE goes online on a Sunday. But shh, and let me do a little bit of an online diary). But really, it was my Grandad's birthday, and I hadn't got my act together on the Saturday to write a post (to be fair, there was a cake to make and decorate, plus Eurovision to watch, so...) and yeah, amazingly, blog posts don't write themselves! Who knew?!

But anyway. To make it up to you, allow me to show you some cakes I've made in the last few weeks, aka my busy season where, in the space of 10 or so days, my dad, grandad and mum were all born. Super inconsiderate of them, if you ask me, but there you go! My dad's came first, and this is the magnificence that was his cake:

Yeah, that's a funfetti cake! An unknown and unimaginably excellent concept that I only discovered maybe a month ago, and so of COURSE I had to make one. It was really delish, too. And then, for my grandad was his favourite:

                                    

Chocolate Orange cake, which I very much forgot to take a picture of before we put the candles in (whoops!) but which, to be fair, is the only one I could be bothered to instagram, so... yeah, not too shabby! And then finally, and most recently:

                                            

My mum's Peanut Butter Cake, which I fully failed to get a good picture of, but which, apparently, was rather tasty (I am a big non-fan of basically all nuts, so I had to make chocolate cupcakes for me and my cousin's kid who's too little for peanuts, but that was still sooo good) and for which I have to thank Joy the Baker  because I totally got the recipe out of her cookbook.

So anyway. Caaaaake. But also Friday (which was my mum's birthday) was her fourth session of chemo, which was a little bit of a bummer (chemo on your birthday? No thanks!) but couldn't really be helped, and, well, we overcame as best we could! The important thing is, only two more to go! Which felt like an impossible milestone when it started like 9 weeks ago, so YAY for that, at least.

But other than the hospital this week? Well, let's see. There was some much needed catching up with a couple of old friends, some also much needed tidying, a tiny bit of tennis watching (but don't even get me started on ITV4 turning off Nadal's match to show Andy Murray's, because ARGHOMFG SO ANNOYING) and also, the cake baking. Thursday was literally an entire day of baking, which was actually pretty fun but really really tired me out! Plus it made me sad because, well, no licking the bowl because peanuts=gross!

Surprisingly there's been very little reading this week (something to do with not having that much time to sit outside, which is, you know, disappointing) and this is what led me to my revelation (you're going to be so disappointed by this revelation that it's ridiculous. But it was really like 'oh!' in my head at the time!) So I haven't been reading much, which means I haven't been finishing books, which means I basically have nothing to post about. I mean, I literally have one Stephen King post to write and that's IT. Which isn't that big of an issue, but, well, I like to have things to post! So anyway, I was thinking, 'omg, I'm going to have to read loads and why can't I finish a book and mleurgh' when I suddenly realised that oh! Next week is Armchair BEA week, and I therefore don't even need to post any reviews or anything because they've already put up topics of things I can write about.

It was a big fucking relief, let me tell you!

But seriously, I am quite excited about Armchair BEA- last time I stumbled upon it by accident, on the day it started, and I didn't really know what the hell I was doing, so I feel slightly more prepared this year, and ready to visit other blogs and things like that, so yeah, exciting! Also a tiny claim to fame for Armchair BEA right here is that it led Alice to find Alley's blog because I said it was amazing (which it is) so I feel privileged to have 'introduced' them *cue romantic music because we're all in love with each other's blogs*. So there's totally that. I'm pretty sure you're still allowed to join in because, well, I did on the first day last year, so if it's something you're interested in then head over there now to sign up! 

So, that's kind of what I'll be doing this week. In real life... I don't know, perhaps things will happen. I'm hoping to go and see Dark Shadows at some point, but we'll see if that happens; and other than that I just want it to not rain (which it seems like it's going to) so I can read outside and have things to post about for the week after next, when there'll be no Armchair BEA to save me! Oh, the horror!

Devouring Books: Fun Home by Alison Bechdel

You know when you want to review something but you kind of can't, and you just want to get it out of the way so you can move on with your life? This is what this is.

But first, a quick note on Fun Home- I read it twice in like a week (partially because I did have to pay 50p to reserve it at the library, but also because, well, to properly get graphic novels, I feel like you need to read them more than once, because, you know, hidden picture clues!) which clearly means it's awesome, and also, if you want a memoir that's also a comic book that's also a way of coming to terms with the author's closeted father's probable suicide, then you should definitely read this. And if you also want to read a coming of age memoir about one lady's experience of discovering she's a lesbian, then you should also probably read this. I apparently only want to read lesbian memoirs at the moment (I'm currently reading Why Be Happy When You Can Be Normal? by Jeanette Winterson) so this was clearly perfect for me.

So, now, let's deviate from the main point of Fun Home for a little bit, and let's talk about books. I know, I bet you thought we were doing that already, huh? Well this shit's about to get meta. So in Fun Home, Bechdel talks a lot about books that have a connection to hers and her father's lives, her father having been a High School English teacher and her being, well, a reader and stuff, plus she's written (and drawn) a book. So she talks about quite a lot of books in passing, and about how when she was in high school she was in her dad's class, and it was one of the only ways she could connect to him, AND about how she basically learnt about being a lesbian from basically alllll the books in the library. Fun Home is really a book filled with loads of other books, and, well, I really like that kind of thing.

There are two books that Bechdel really talks about in detail in Fun Home; Remembrance of Things Past by Proust, which her father started reading not long before he died (apparently as evidence of some kind of mid-life crisis since, apparently, middle-age is when you accept that you'll never read that book), and Ulysses by James Joyce, which appropriately involves a lot of talk and subtext about fathers and stuff. And here's the thing about her talking about these books- it made me really really really want to read them. Do you ever get that? Like when you're reading a book and it talks about these other books really appealingly, and you think, I really want to read that now? That's literally the only way I used to read actual good books- I remember vividly that there was this one Sweet Valley Twins book where Lila did a book report on The Great Gatsby, and literally, it made me read The Great Gatsby! So it's good to know that I still do this, even when the books mentioned are built up in my brain as the hardest EVER.

Because really. Remembrance of Things Past seems like the longest and most difficult thing ever, but reading Bechdel's descriptions and analyses of it (in relation to her own experiences, which makes it even more appealing because WHAT IF PROUST CONTAINS THE MYSTERIES OF MY LIFE?) just make it sound interesting and challenging but totally worth it. And also, you don't even know how terrified I am of Ulysses, but everything Bechdel says about it (which, again, is of course related to her dad, but still) just makes me stroke my imaginary beard and just think 'hmmm, interesting' rather than OMG I AM SCARED OF JOYCE BECAUSE HE IS DIFFICULT. Which is good because I really hate thinking in capitals. It makes my brain hurt.

So, to sum up: books that I like make me think that other books that are mentioned in them are a good idea to read. And that's probably true- I can never ever remember The Great Gatsby, but I know I enjoyed it, and you know what? Possibly it's more life enriching than that one Sweet Valley Twins book. BUT: I'm not saying that Remembrance of Things Past or Ulysses are necessarily going to be more life enriching than Fun Home was, and nor am I saying that all I got out of Fun Home was a book recommendation or two. It's really an excellent read, and if it leads me to more excellent reads, well then, good. But honestly, it's enough just by itself. Read it now.

Devouring Films: Norwegian Wood

Oh, Norwegian Wood. As I'm pretty sure I've made clear, I loved that book. Like, I still think about it all the time even though I read it in January, and well, I LOVE MURAKAMI FOREVS OK? So I thought, I'll give the film a go, because hey, I sure love subtitles, and, well, it's Norwegian Wood in movie form! How bad could it be?

As it turns out, kind of bad. Not terrible or the worst thing EVER, but I definitely had a lot of issues with it that could have been avoided by it being more... accurate and, just, better. I'll start with the good, shall I? The whole Naoko-Toru story is the main plot of the movie (not a good thing in itself, cause fucking hell, dreary!) so those bits are the most fleshed out, and truest to the book; and the retreat place where Naoko goes is really beautiful and relaxing, so that was nice. Also, they started the movie basically with Kizuki's suicide, making it clear that everything else emanates from this in shockwaves, which I don't think was fully appreciated by everyone who took part in Alice's readalong...

But. SO MANY problems I have. So many, in fact, that I think I'm just going to have to make a whole big list of them because, well, that's just easier. So, from the top:

• NOT ENOUGH MIDORI- Seriously. The Midori-Toru thing takes such a backseat to the 'A' plot of Toru and Naoko, which I guess it kind of does in the book but to a lesser extent. Like, when Midori takes him to see her dad in the film, it's like a two minute thing that reveals a lot less about what Toru is willing to do for Midori than the scene does in the book. I mean, OBViously I wanted to see more Midori, but also doing that made the end seem kind of... stupid, and not very well reasoned.
• REIKO'S STORY IS CUT OUT- Like, entirely. Reiko literally just seems to be there to sing Norwegian Wood and then *SPOILER* have sex with Toru at the end. Which does still happen! Again for basically no reason! WHAT?! *END SPOILER* It's really irritating because I love Reiko, and so that put me in a huff, basically.
• NAGASAWA ISN'T CUT OUT- It's not that I dislike the Nagasawa bit of the story, but if I was going to choose something to cut out, it would be those bits instead of the bits with Midori. I could have had this film as a straight up love triangle with a slight focus on Reiko, but instead it's like Toru-Naoko, but oh look, he also goes out with this douche and has sex with other girls, what does that mean? 
• IT'S REALLY SLOW- Like, super slow. And obviously Norwegian Wood isn't an entirely action packed book or anything, but it seems that very little from the book is actually left in the film, but the film still goes on for over 2 hours. Looking back on it now, I'm kind of like 'so... what actually did they leave in, and why did it go on for so long?' Just... I think more could have been fitted in.
• NAOKO SCREECHES. A LOT.- Yeah, this is a thing. Because like, I guess she cries a lot in Norwegian Wood, but it seems like most of her despair is inside her, and that's difficult to show on film so she weeps and wails and screeches a fair bit. Which is... ok, and better than not showing her sadness at all, but it's also kind of annoying. I know, I'm a monster.
• THE PRODUCERS ARE CLEARLY MORONS- No, really. They've paid what I can only assume is ALL THE MONEY to get the rights to the Beatles song because, well, you sort of need it when the book is named after it; and instead of using it at all in the film (well, the Beatles version, anyway) they save it for the end credits. The fuck?
• IT'S LIKE A HOLLOWED OUT VERSION OF THE BOOK- Which I guess is also true of a lot of film versions of books, but it makes me really sad with Norwegian Wood because the book made me feel lots of things, whereas the movie made me feel basically nothing. It kind of takes the struggles of Toru's not really being able to live properly because his best friend is gone, and turns them into a basic love story between a depressed girl and a slightly odd boy. Which is ok, but it's not exactly Norwegian Wood, which is GREAT.

So. I kind of believe that if you hadn't read the book first, you could watch Norwegian Wood and think 'yeah, that was pretty good!' Unfortunately, since I worship at the altar of the great Murakami, all I could really see were the things that were missing rather than what was there. Not a great skill to have when you're watching a film, I'll admit, but I couldn't help it! I just... I freaking love that book, and I think there are a lot of things about Murakami books that just might not translate to the screen, which isn't really anyone's fault, it's just the way it is. Lesson learned- Don't see any more films based on Murakami books.

Devouring Books: Restoration by Rose Tremain

"It is a fact about Merivel- and about many in this age- that they do not always wish to know the truth about a thing. And when the truth is at last revealed to them, they cannot entirely dismantle all fiction from it."

I'm about to make a seriously nerdy confession, so if you still harboured any illusions about me being cool in some way, then you'd best look away now (I know you didn't, so I won't worry). But, here it is: When I was doing my A level in English Lit, for the final paper we got a section of a text to analyse and look over a week before the exam, and then wrote an essay or something about it in the actual exam. The year I did my A levels, the extract was the first 4 or 5 pages of Restoration, and so I bought Restoration. After the exam, so it wasn't to help me at all, it was just to see how it turned out after I'd read the damn extract about 50 times.

And then I left it for like 5 years. I'm honestly an unbelievable idiot. But, as it has been 4 times already this year, the TBR challenge has been my saviour, and finally, finally Restoration's time has come. Came. Has been and gone. Whatever. I'd kind of managed to forcibly forget that it's a piece of historical fiction, but that's definitely a good thing because I probably would have continued to put it off if I hadn't. As it was, I was actually pleasantly surprised by liking Restoration, historical fiction and all! Wonders never cease...

I think a really really big part of my actually liking Restoration was the fact that it was set (obviously) in Restoration-y times, aka Charles II's reign, aka a time of excess and immodesty and other awesome things like that. I'm not going to lie, there were many times during the novel that I was thinking about The Libertine, because, well, Johnny Depp being naughty and debauched? When is there not a good time to think about that? So, inevitably that helped give me happy feelings towards this book, but it's a time that generally interests me because, until really recently, I'd kind of thought that the way the Victorians were (all buttoned up and boring and AWFUL) was the way of all history in Britain, at least from 1066, but NO! There were definitely times of debauchment and general sex-with-anything, and for some reason that pleases me (even though this sexual freedom was mainly for men, and oh those poor wives left at home while their husbands frolicked at court! Oh!)

Anyway. The first part of Restoration is basically in this spirit of sexual freedom and good times, as Merivel, our first-person protagonist (yeah, it's historical fiction and has a first person narrator, and I still liked it! Suck on that, me!) is Charles II's personal bitch, and agrees to marry (one of) Charles's lovers so that another of his lovers doesn't get jealous. So far, so 1660s, and, of course, although Merivel isn't allowed to have carnal relations with his own wife, he gets his in numerous other places. It's all fairly typical of the age, BUT it's balanced slightly by Merivel's friend Pearce, who turns up every so often voicing his disapproval of the age in general and Merivel specifically, and I think it's Pearce who spurs the novel on to be something more than a mere tale of debauchery and excess.

Because Part 2 is where it all happens. And by all happens, I either mean 'all the fun stuff stops', or 'Merivel learns how to be a proper human being, at least according to Quaker/Victorian principles'. Obviously I can't tell you how it all goes down (well, I could, but don't be lazy, read the damn book!) but it's probably clear that Pearce has something to do with it, and it should also be clear that, after the first section, I was kind of over the book. Temperance? Moderation? No sex?! I should have been bored, but actually, I'm a fan of people looking at the tragic emptiness of their lives and wanting to do something about it. Call it an American Beauty complex (although, trying to have sex with a friend of your daughter's? Probably not the way to go).

So. I dislike historical fiction, first person narration and I don't even like Merivel that much, and yet, Restoration, I still like you. Call it an anomaly or whatever you like (I'd call it something else because I can't even say anomaly, so, yeah) but it's still a really good read and, interestingly, I definitely cared about what happened to this character that I didn't even like. I can't explain it, and yet it is true. And there you have it.

Top Ten Tuesday

I should probably prefix this week's top ten Tuesday (of course hosted by The Broke and the Bookish) by admitting that I have really read very few books published in the last ten years. There are loads of reasons for this, probably no good ones, but it's mainly just that there are so many books that seem pretty awesome that I must read, that more recent books are left by the wayside because, well, how do I know they're any good? Have they stood the test of time (even of just a few years)? I guess that makes me a bit of a reading follower rather than a trendsetter, which is a bit alarming! So, as a peace offering, I here give you a highly uninformed list of books that I think could, or even should, stand the test of time.

Top Ten Books Written in the last 10 years that I hope people are still reading in 30 years

1. The Harry Potter Series by JK Rowling- Ok, so the series started slightly more than 10 years ago but the last book was published in 2007, and so this counts. I really just think these books have it in them to be children's classics FOREVER, cause, let's face it, they're amazing.

2. Middlesex by Jeffrey Eugenides- I just really liked this book, and I think it's kind of non-time specific enough to keep being relevant. Or, maybe, I just really like it so I want everyone to read it forever!

3. 1Q84 by Haruki Murakami- I have no idea if anyone will want to read this in 30 years, but I'm pretty sure that I'll still want to, and that I'll still be recommending it then. Have I mentioned that I love Murakami enough times yet?

4. How To Be A Woman by Caitlin Moran- I don't want to think of a time where people don't know who Caitlin Moran is, and therefore I want everyone to read this book forever and ever. The end.

5. Freedom by Jonathan Franzen- I think this book is so intrinsically about family and relationships and general life difficulties that are kind of universal and timeless, and so this should still apply in 30 years. And if not then, well, I'll still like it.

6. Room by Emma Donoghue- I bloody love Emma Donoghue, and this book is really exceptional (that's what I call a book when I read it in a day, I guess). But seriously- I don't think time can do anything to make a lot of the events in this book any less shocking, and it seems like it really could face the test of time.

7. The Dark Tower Series by Stephen King- Also a bit of a cheat since the series began in like 1982, but I think it ended in 2003, so... I win. And also, shhh. I really think that these books deserve to be remembered as some of King's best work, and not be forgotten in favour of some of his more famous stuff.

8. The History of Love by Nicole Krauss- I really loved this book a lot, and it's loveliness deserves not to be lost in the sands of time (lost to the sands of time? Clearly I need to learn more sayings). So, yeah. Let's remember this one and recommend it lots, yeah?

9. Eating Animals by Jonathan Safran Foer- I'd actually rather live in a world where no one has to read Eating Animals in 30 years because raising animals for meat has become so humane that no one can even believe the way things used to be done, but I don't think that's going to happen. So, I'd like people to still be curious and horrified about where their food comes from, basically.

10. A Short History of Nearly Everything by Bill Bryson- And all the Bill Bryson books ever. But especially this, because it literally blew my mind, and I think that, of the ones I've read so far, this is the one which will maybe be best for the future people because it's basically a history of science, and you don't really need to know too much about right now to enjoy it, and have your mind BLOWN.

So! I really do hope people are reading all of these in 30 years because I love them and they rock. I'm pretty impressed that I managed to come up with 10, actually, and I've basically only read these in the last 2 years. Progress! I'm really interested in seeing other people's lists today, because I feel like, the books which you want to still be read in 30 years, are books that you really really love. Or is that just me?

Devouring Stephen King: The Tommyknockers

Ugh. This book. I basically don't want to spend any more time thinking about it since I've already wasted precious hours of my life reading it, so this will be brief. Unless I start ranting and then am unable to stop, in which case, well, that'll just be fun to write and I know you'll love reading it. Oh yes.

So. As far as I know, The Tommyknockers was written in a 'difficult' period in King's life, where he was basically doing ALL THE DRUGS and generally being all high all the time. This alone is NOT a good excuse for why this book is so poor, because according to the back of the book, he wrote it over a 5 year period (1982-1987) a lot of which, I have to assume, was him putting it away in a drawer somewhere because it really wasn't working. The point is, anyway, that in a similar time period (I'm pretty sure it's something like 1981-4/5) he wrote It, which, as we're all aware, is the best book in the whole entire world (or, like, my favourite Stephen King so far. Or something.) The Tommyknockers is not It. It's not even The Talisman. It's much much worse than that.

Now. There's bad, and then there's Stephen King being bad, and those two things are very different. Because even when Stephen King's bad, he's still Stephen King, and what that means is that The Tommyknockers is a very well written bad book. And not well written as in 'observe my beautiful language that you just want to quote all the time' but as in 'wow, this is difficult to put down, I like your style Steve!' There were points where I was going 'I don't caaaaare, when is something going to happen?' but I was still like 'one more chapter. Just one more.' because I hadn't read a Stephen King since Misery waaay back in March, and, well, that's clearly too long between books!

But it's still pretty bad. And a lot of it's badness is down to things that I can't quite pin down, even, (I think a bit of it has to do with it being more sci-fi than horror-y, but that's not my main problem) but here are a few things that I can:

1. The characters- I really don't care about the characters. And that's not my fault, it's King's. Because it starts off with this nice lady Bobbi who finds a flying saucer buried in the Earth and decides to dig it out, and for a bit I like her. And then the focus shifts and we're with Bobbi's friend Gard, a suicidal alcoholic, and then I get behind him for a bit. And then it goes into the townsfolk and the 'scary' things that are happening to them, but we never knew them when they were normal, so why should we care about them now? Even in the last part when we go back to Jim and Bobbi, the focus shifts between them and characters we've never met before. Why? And also, what?

2. Nothing happens- I'm not kidding. The entire book is just Bobbi and Gard digging this flying saucer out of the earth, whilst the townspeople experience lots of 'changes' in their bodies and get all telepathic and stuff, and you might think that this is all leading up to something scary and fulfilling and which would make reading nearly 1000 pages worth it, but hey, you'd be wrong about that!

3. Ridiculousness- I mean, really the whole thing was just ridiculous in the end, but I'd like to pinpoint that 1) Around the time Bobbi first discovers the spaceship, ALL the women in Haven (that's where it's set... wow, I couldn't even be bothered to mention that!) get their periods at the same time for like a month. FOR NO REASON! Literally- it's not something that's ever brought up again like 'oh, we have to bleed out so that the alien lifeforms can possess us entirely' or whatever, it just seems to be an excuse for Stephen King to talk about periods. Or something.
And, 2) There's a killer coke machine. I swear, at that point I was nearly DONE with the whole book. I was like 'I'm sorry, this has just become too ridiculous' and I mean, seriously, what the fuck was he doing? I mean, drugs, I know, but doesn't the dude have editors?! Someone to take him to one side and just say 'Stevie, really? A killer coke machine? Come on man, you're better than this.' But apparently no one wanted to take on that task!

And the list goes on. One interesting thing about The Tommyknockers (maybe the only interesting thing) is that King didn't even realise until it was finished that it was basically a giant metaphor for addiction, in that like, the residents of Haven need to stay there (the air of the town is their 'fix') just to survive, and like Bobbi works so hard on digging out the spaceship that she loses all track of everything and forgets to eat and all she can think about is when she can get out there to dig out the spaceship again. And, of course, Gard's an alcoholic so... there's that, even though King seems to have mainly forgotten this by the third part of the book and sort of trails off on that issue. LIKE ALL THE ISSUES. But anyway, it's interesting that he wrote something that contained metaphors for addiction, whilst he was himself addicted, and it's also interesting that he didn't even notice it until later. I mean, how high did the dude get?!

So. The Tommyknockers. It's pretty bad. Like... If you've read all the Stephen King but this and want more, then you can read this and you'll be like 'ahhh... familiar writing, I feel all at home.' My fear, though, is that someone would read this and think 'I am NEVER reading another Stephen King because that was shit' because, well, he's so good! So, basically, read this at your peril. And if you really want to read it then it's here, for some reason (is this legal? I question the legality of this). But actually, read this instead, because... LOL. And also, I kind of believe it...

Devouring Books: The Man Who Mistook His Wife For A Hat by Oliver Sacks

Before I even start, I have to have a moan about the cover. Because, here's the thing- the cover suggests that the aforementioned 'man' sees a hat and thinks that it's his wife, and that's really not the case. The man in the title study mistakes his wife for a hat, in that, he's in a consultation with Sacks and gets up to leave, looks for his hat and tries to pick up and put on his wife instead. I mean, I understand that's harder to draw, but come on! Lazy cover artist.

ANYWAY! In spite of the horrifying cover error, I liked this book. I don't know if 'enjoyed' is the right word for it because it was exactly laugh/thrill a minute, but it was definitely interesting, and it was written in a style that wasn't at all dumbed down, but at the same time was immensely readable. By this I mean, I didn't understand all the sciency and medical words and terms (and neither did Sacks pause to explain them all to the layman, which actually, I respect) and yet I wanted to keep on reading and find out what happened to these patients, and what exactly was going on with their brains. In a way, it's not at all fair- Sacks is clearly super intelligent since he's a neurologist, but also, the dude can write! Not fair at all.

What he also is though, and believe me this was a real relief, is incredibly respectful and even kind towards the subjects of his case studies. Because I think it's easy to look at the title and think 'well! This is clearly going to be mocking people with neurological problems', but it doesn't do that at all. Sacks isn't adverse to seeing the humour in some of the situations created by these patients (like, for example, thinking one's own wife is a hat! What?!) but he remains respectful to them, and curious more than anything about the causes of their disorders (most of which are explained by brain injuries and abnormalities) and about how the world must seem to them. He admits, often, that the rest of us pretty much can't understand or conceive of how these people experience the world, but he at least tries to put himself in their shoes and have a bit of empathy with them.

Imagine my surprise, then, when in my extensive research* into Sacks and his work, I found out that he's been criticised for exploiting his subjects, and that his books have been compared to modern day freak shows. I just... I'm alarmed that anyone would think that, because, yeah, he's discussing delicate neurological issues that make his subjects act in odd ways, but he never mocks or disrespects them because of this, and has much more empathy for them than your average person on the street would (at least that's true in this book, but I can't imagine him ever writing like that... He's really nice!). The thing is, as far as I can tell, a lot of doctors write studies like these, and then other doctors read them and use them to help with diagnoses and things like that. But since Sacks is clearly a good writer, his books appeal to a wider audience, and, I guess, that makes it look like he's making money from other people's misery/problems. Which I guess is true, but also... I don't know, doesn't he have a right to? It's not like he just studied these people, then laughed at them, and ran all the way to the bank- he treated them, and then wrote about them. I don't know, I just don't really see the problem- or, rather, I do, but I don't think it's one that's present here.

So! Neurology for the masses, what do I think? I think, yeah. It's interesting, and I feel smarter just from reading it, and also I feel sad that there are people who have to live like that, but glad that they adapt and live, just in a whole other way. This book also has the added bonus of going into psychology and philosophy at points too (did I mention that Sacks is really really clever?) because the mind's not all about the physical, and that made me feel kind of clever because I studied both of those at various points and I knew what he was talking about. However, I don't think you need to have studied neuroscience, psychology or philosophy to appreciate this book and to learn some stuff.

*Wikipedia counts as extensive research