The book is more like a collection of short stories, or perhaps even story fragments, than a book as such. But it just might be the point that our brain is much like that. ( )

This book is a very unsatisfying read. First of the problems I had was how Broks gives you many broken fragments of stories and ideas without ever introducing or finishing them well. For example, you read about a lady who is having radical surgery to remove parts of her brain to stop daily seizures, but you never know how the surgery goes. Another major issue is how scatter-brained the book feels. The topic is constantly shifting, not in a positive way, and the entire book feels very messy and disorganized. These two problems quickly led me to frustration and unwillingness to read for long durations.

On the positive side, there were times when Broks really got me thinking. The book is very lucid and readable, and I didn't have a hard time understanding the complex philosophies and theories the author was pitching at me. He certainly has an ability to write, I think he just needs to refine it a bit. I wouldn't discourage anyone from reading Into the Silent Land, but you probably won't see me recommending it very often either. I also won't mark Paul Broks off any list of authors to read in the future. It wasn't great, but not a complete waste of time. ( )

Broks shows promise as a writer, but the book goes off in too many directions at once to be satisfying. Is it a book about the philosophy of neuroscience? Is it a collection of case studies? Is it a dreamlike riff on the material origin of consciousness? None of these approaches are fully developed; if you're expecting fascinating case studies along the lines of Oliver Sacks, you may be disappointed. ( )

In the first half of this book, Broks says of the philosopher Wittgenstein that for him 'philosophy was not so much about finding solutions to puzzles as about correcting fundamental misunderstandings.' This book could be described as following the same premise, in that it doesn't set out to give definitive answers. With its individual take on neuropsychology and what defines `the self', this a book was by turns both fascinating and frustrating.
Broks has, inevitably, been compared to Oliver Sacks, and in many regards this book is in parts similar to books written by Sacks, in that it explores interesting cases of neurological diseases or injury. Broks has taken a more idiosyncratic path, choosing to intersperse his recalling of such cases with discourses on his own opinions on neuropsychology, anecdotes from his personal life, and some fictional episodes. Sometimes these work, sometimes they don't. My favourite part of the whole book is the futuristic story about teleportation - the book is worth the price for this section alone, as it is sure to have you thinking for long after you have finished. Yet other sections - including the parts where he takes part in a conversation with a disembodied brain - don't work for me. I think that the enjoyment of this book will be down to personal taste - some people will love some sections, which will be loathed by others, and vice versa.

This book is written in a very British style, both the type of humour (of which there is much) and its 'quirky' view on life. It is much less clinical in style than you would expect from a neuropsychologist writing about his own area of expertise. Broks' honest, admitting that sometimes he despairs, often he doesn't know, and that even as a professional there are times I hope that this book is bought and read by many, as it is the type of reading that is both entertaining and very thought provoking - it will have you questioning such fundamental issues as what am i? what is the basis of existence? While not as scientifically rigorous as some of the Oliver Sacks books, it is still an important contribution to the genre of 'popular neurology writing' if there is such a thing, and would be of appeal to anyone interested in how the brain works and/or the nature of being. ( )

People say Paul Broks is like Oliver Sacks. The only resemblance I found was in the subject matter, but not in the treatment. For me, Sacks is a writer first and a doctor second. With Paul Broks, I felt he was a bit too detached and so more like a doctor than a writer. Still, this is a powerful book. I just wish Mr. Broks would have included more depth, ( )