"Given how deeply all these structures are embedded in the brain, only a neurosurgeon could have destroyed them with such precision." This is just false to the extent it isn't nonsensical. The surgeon claimed that the destruction was precise, but the autopsy actually determined that damage was much more widespread than expected. This has resulted in reconsideration of theories that were based on assumptions that the damage was more limited. In general, when reading anything that mentions H.M. without mentioning this fact it is important to keep that in mind. This article should have taken the new knowledge into account, but continues to present false information.

This is the type of jounalism that helps make it very difficult for popular but incorrect scientific information to be corrected. Another example of this I know of is how REM sleep is commonly referred to as "dream sleep" (including, unfortunately, on Wikipedia last I checked) although the idea that dreaming happens only or even primarily in REM sleep has been considered disproven for multiple decades now and was based on flawed early studies that continue to be described uncritically long after the serious flaws are well known.

On the topic of books: one really excelent (although old now, mostly written in the early 90s and maybe late 80s IIRC) technical book on brain organization is Pierre Gloor's _The Temporal Lobe and Limbic System_. I haven't looked again recently, but I don't know of a comparable work where a neroscientist tries to lay out in depth (it is a neruoscience text) almost everything known about how the brain works together (it is easy to see why; it is a huge amount of work!).