Good riddance, I say. Unless forced against my will, I'll never read another book by this guy again.
You see, he had the nasty habbit of referring to his other books, but not saying a word about how they were really related or how they helped his argument. It seemed more to me that he was advertising his books and expected you either to have already read his other books or to run out and buy them to understand why it was important.
I ignored most of his footnotes after the first chapter. I found that most of them were either a pointless reference to a past book, to other patients not written about yet, or every so often, to someone else's research. I didn't miss anything by not reading them. They never had anything to do with what the book was actually talking about at the moment.
Sacks would also go off on tangents. It was very hard to keep track of who or what he was talking about because of these tangents, and even more often it distracted from what he was actually trying to get at.
Also, for someone who's supposed to be very scientific and have medical knowledge, he used "seemed" far to often to sound so. This use of "seemed" actually came off as sounding like he had no idea what he was really talking about.
Over all, I thought it was a lousy book. I would never recommend it to anyone else to read unless they need help falling asleep. I hated it.