In the Telegraph, Simon Ings reviews The Mind’s Eye by Oliver Sacks:

Oliver Sacks’s neurological case histories make exemplary short stories. Even without their documentary spice, their frisson of ‘there, but for the grace of God, goes the reader’, they would rank amongst the finer output of the New Yorker. They sport that publication’s motley – the careful closure, the circumspect reassurance of the fireside ‘weird tale’.

This time, however, and deliberately, Sacks has allowed the cracks to show. One of his subjects – hidden away until page 82, and then cast ever-more centrally as the book progresses – is Oliver Sacks himself: a man who remembers faces very poorly and is more than capable of walking past his apartment without recognising it – not once, but three times in a row.

Sacks’s decision to shift, just this once, from case history to confessional appears purely pragmatic at first: a way for him to map the ‘mind’s eye’ of the title. Introspection is a perfectly legitimate way of exploring subjectivity, and Sacks is out to show how subjective experience depends largely (but not exclusively) upon the extraordinarily creative interplay between seeing and thinking.

More here. See additional reviews in the LA times, the NY Times, and the Guardian.