A Retraction of my "wrong", and further thoughts

At the end of our last class I threw around the word "wrong" a lot. I'd like to further clarify what I meant. I don't think of what Sacks does as "wrong", explicitly--rather something about reading narrative case studies feels wrong to me personally. Voyeurism and exploitation of others are things I try ardently to avoid, as a scholar, artist, and human being in the world; and I know that the work of Sacks is sometimes read for those purposes.


I found Cassuto's analysis of Sacks' work thoughtful and fascinating, though I also discovered some holes in his argument. In his metaphor of the freak show, Cassuto neglects to reflect on the charlatanism rampant in that tradition. Of course, of course, many of the "ringmasters" did travel the country, seeking out (and even trading amongst themselves) people with medical oddities. But they also would use makeup, props, and sleights of hand to create the illusion of a freak where there was really only an out-of-work actor. Somehow this knowledge shifts Cassuto's metaphor for me, and slightly invalidates it, though I understand his use.

Secondly, I objected to a specific evaluation he made: "Sacks is writing narratives of wonder at a time when wonder is hard to come by. These wonder narratives wind up creating a uniquely collaborative space within which disabled people can express themselves--rather than closing one off" (329).

Now, I would argue that the people represented in Sacks' narratives are not "express[ing] themselves". What is expressed is Sacks' own perception of their self, which is an entirely different beast. I also think the degree to which this process is "collaborative" necessarily depends a great deal on the abilities/lucidity of the individual patients. Someone like Temple Grandin, for instance, has a deep understanding of how she is being portrayed and is participating actively in shaping Sacks' narrative of her (as well as writing her own, of course). Someone like Jessy Park, on the other hand, doesn't have the same kind of grasp on what it means for her to be in Sacks' documentary. I wouldn't call her a "collaborator". This is a term Cassuto returns to often, and I question his choice.


To go back to this idea of "wrong". I really appreciated Hawkins' comments on Sacks' project--and I agree wholeheartedly that his approach is novel and commendable. To be as a doctor a "traveler into the world of the patient" is brave, difficult, and compassionate. I do support the work. Sacks clearly comes across, both as a writer and a man, as a compassionate, thoughtful, respectful, curious, engaging individual. I understand how his work has broadened the public's mind to ideas of difference/the neurotypical, living with disease, etc... and honestly, his work also entertains, titillates, and provides scintillating stories. The problem for me only lies in the extremely public display of other people's lives, because you can't control how it will be received. As someone who has lived through an array of medical emergencies and strange conditions, I personally am concurrently very open and very protective of those details. I feel no shame when relating a story from my medical history, but at the same time, *I* want to be in control of that information, *I* want to be able to present it and myself. Therefore, I feel a sense of guilt when reading Sacks' work, alongside the intellectual interest and pleasure in his writing style. This is what feels "wrong". Does anyone else feel this way, or is it particular to me?