Scan barcode
jon288's review against another edition
5.0
Fascinating, and it changed the way I thought about deaf people. Sacks shows that Sign language is as full and complete a language as English, French, or Chinese, and that the Deaf are in some ways as much like an independant cultural minority than as just individual people with a disability. He shows how devastating it can be to be born deaf (as opposed to losing hearing later in life), more so even than being born blind, because it can cut you off from meaningful communication with parents, and from learning any language at all. And if you don't have a language, how can you think about anything that isn't immediate and concrete?
enheduanna_'s review against another edition
3.0
I love Oliver Sacks, but this book wasn't really my cup of tea as it appeared to be largely dated and a little tedious at times.
tboltkid's review against another edition
3.0
An interesting book of some of the history of deaf culture in the USA, but now dated and in reality a shallow view from the outside.
matthewwester's review against another edition
3.0
Very interesting book.
Pros: This book will give you a glimpse of Sign Language that you have never seen before. Not only does it go into the mechanics of Sign, it also explores history and culture of Sign. This book is more about history/sociology than it is linguistics but I would still recommend it to anyone who is interested in linguistics. Also, be aware that the book is a little dated.
Cons: This book is a bit dry. The footnotes feel like sludge to fight through. The author uses technical vocabulary and the sentence structure feels clinical/academic. This is one of those rare books where I disliked the reading experience but really enjoyed the content itself.
Pros: This book will give you a glimpse of Sign Language that you have never seen before. Not only does it go into the mechanics of Sign, it also explores history and culture of Sign. This book is more about history/sociology than it is linguistics but I would still recommend it to anyone who is interested in linguistics. Also, be aware that the book is a little dated.
Cons: This book is a bit dry. The footnotes feel like sludge to fight through. The author uses technical vocabulary and the sentence structure feels clinical/academic. This is one of those rare books where I disliked the reading experience but really enjoyed the content itself.
madeleinekl's review against another edition
4.0
This is the first Sacks book I've read, and seems like one of the less accessible ones to start with, but I still found it very fascinating and eye-opening. While I struggled to fully grasp some of the neurological and linguistic theories around deafness, the concept of deaf people as having a unique, totally different, and in many ways, superior culture and communication was something I had, unfortunately for me, never thought about or read about, and was endlessly interesting and revelatory. Written thirty years ago, I just wish there could have been an updated version, to see if some of the ideas had been proven/disproving, and how the advancement of ASL continued to progress in America.
blackberryblues's review against another edition
slow-paced
2.5
The first half of this book is fascinating, talking about the ability to propositionize within pre-lingually deaf people. There is a good chunk in the middle, though, that feels like Oliver Sacks is making the same point over and over for like five chapters. If I didn't agree ASL was a language going into the book, maybe it would have changed something, but as it is I found it repetitive and vaguely condescending. The end, though. I really enjoyed that.
alexis_explored's review against another edition
5.0
This book was assigned for my intro to neuroscience class. As an Oliver Sacks fan, I had high expectations... and ended up loving the book! It provides wonderful insight into the lives of the deaf. Almost all of my classmates loved the book as well. It's not as technical as some of his other works' and is filled with stories of the deaf, some of them accompanied by figures to better understand the concept.
acnacb's review against another edition
4.0
I was skeptical about this book over Deaf culture/history written by a hearing person. However, while I’m sure there are still some holes and missing perspective, overall I think this book was incredibly well researched and thoughtful. A detailed glance into the complex history of the American Deaf community and their incredible language.
In particular, I loved the first-hand account of the “Deaf President Now” movement, a truly monumental event in history.
In particular, I loved the first-hand account of the “Deaf President Now” movement, a truly monumental event in history.
sfletcher26's review against another edition
3.0
Oliver Sacks is one of my favourite writers. his books never fail to inform.
This is a collection of three of his pieces on deafness and the neurological basis of sign as a language. It is though not one of his best books. It is, because it is a collection, a little disjointed and a little unfocused.
Other than this slight quibble it is a good book.
This is a collection of three of his pieces on deafness and the neurological basis of sign as a language. It is though not one of his best books. It is, because it is a collection, a little disjointed and a little unfocused.
Other than this slight quibble it is a good book.
lela's review against another edition
I haven't picked this up in 2 weeks so I'm officially DNFing. 2 main reasons I'm not finishing:
1. Footnotes are too much. In the intro Sacks says these were articles that he published independently then beefed up and put together to make this book and it seems to me that he kept all his additions in the footnotes rather than rewriting/restructuring parts of his original articles. I love a footnote but these are so frequent and so long it REALLY breaks up the flow of the articles and makes it hard to get into
2. Outdated takes. I was expecting this going in, its hardly a surprise but I though it would be an interesting read to take with a hefty grain of salt. The fact that its outdated AND difficult to get through... just not worth it
1. Footnotes are too much. In the intro Sacks says these were articles that he published independently then beefed up and put together to make this book and it seems to me that he kept all his additions in the footnotes rather than rewriting/restructuring parts of his original articles. I love a footnote but these are so frequent and so long it REALLY breaks up the flow of the articles and makes it hard to get into
2. Outdated takes. I was expecting this going in, its hardly a surprise but I though it would be an interesting read to take with a hefty grain of salt. The fact that its outdated AND difficult to get through... just not worth it