<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Oliver Sacks on SummaryShelf</title><link>https://summaryshelf.app/authors/oliver-sacks/</link><description>Recent content in Oliver Sacks on SummaryShelf</description><generator>Hugo</generator><language>en-us</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 17 Aug 2026 00:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://summaryshelf.app/authors/oliver-sacks/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat: And Other Clinical Tales</title><link>https://summaryshelf.app/man-who-mistook-his-wife-for-a-hat/</link><pubDate>Mon, 17 Aug 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://summaryshelf.app/man-who-mistook-his-wife-for-a-hat/</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;Neurology&amp;rsquo;s favourite word, Sacks writes at the head of the book&amp;rsquo;s first part, is &lt;em&gt;deficit&lt;/em&gt; — a vocabulary of subtraction, with a privative term for every faculty a person can lose. His objection is not that the accounting is wrong, but that a list of losses is not a patient. Modern case histories, he complains in the preface, name the subject in a passing phrase — &amp;ldquo;a trisomic albino female of 21&amp;rdquo; — that could as well describe a rat. To put the person back at the centre, on Sacks&amp;rsquo;s argument, a case history has to be deepened into a tale, so that you end up with a &lt;em&gt;who&lt;/em&gt; as well as a &lt;em&gt;what&lt;/em&gt;. The twenty-four cases that follow are that argument carried out rather than stated.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item></channel></rss>