Customer Reviews

the man without a face

5 star:		(19)
4 star:		(11)
3 star:		(7)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(5)

 

 

Man Without a Face engaged me from the first page. I picked it up because I had heard of (but not seen) the movie, and was further intrigued because I have read and liked some of Holland's mysteries. Finished Man without a Face in one sitting. Among other things, this book shows the complexity of human relationships, and how difficult it is to judge any relationship from the outside. One of the other reviewers takes the most negative view of the relationship: that it is predatory, with Justin's goal being the seduction of Charles. The most generous view is that the sexual event happened with no action on Justin's part other than holding Charles to comfort him. Given Justin's actions throughout the book, the latter is the interpretation I would place on it. I am curious, of course, what Isabelle Holland intended, and would love to know the genesis of this story.

I do think she copped out on the ending. While it neatly tied up the close of the book, life is rarely that tidy, and what's more, Charles will be haunted by Justin the rest of his (fictional) life. Thank god he has Barry, who becomes a real person to Charles toward the end of the book.

A book to be read and discussed in the family. Freedom and consequences, love, trust, intimacy, affection, and boundaries: all important themes that are worth considering whether one is 14 or 44.

Teacher/student relationships are as old as Mentor and Telemachus in the ODYSSEY. Think also of GOODBYE, MR CHIPS and TOM BROWN'S SCHOOLDAYS.***

Like other reviewers I first saw the Mel Gibson movie, then decided to read the book. Surprising to me was how different the two are. The book dates from 1972 and perhaps the revisions for the movie are an attempt at a retelling for more recent times. The decidedly athletic boy who in the book walked twice a day for four or five miles one way to his mentor's home is replaced in the film by a less vigorous boy on a bike. Pot smoking is important in the book, insignificant in the film.***

In the book the teacher does not have his pupil learn math by digging square holes in his yard. The book is altogether more conventional, low key and pedestrian. In the book the boy is obviously seriously concerned about his sexuality, which is barely looked at in the film.***

On balance, I think the book holds up better. The movie is more like a negative book review of the book than an original film. Normally, films eliminate scenes from a book. THE MAN WITHOUT A FACE adds scenes and changes the ending. This reminds of the pointlessly changed ending of the recent film verion of Graham Greene's THE END OF THE AFFAIR.***

The book is indeed an easy, quick read. But it is put together by a master and in its simplicity rings truer than the film.-OOO-

What an excellent book this is. In reading the reviews you may become confused as several reviewers have in fact reviewed the film, which was also very good, but very different. In fact, the last third of the film really has little to do with the last third of the novel.

We get to know Holland's characters and in the end there is a lot of redemption. Charles' step-father Barry really sums it up when he speaks of McLeod and says "his other talent for salvaging flawed and fallen creatures. Himself included." The book has lots of examples of the classic struggle of man against himself.

A book review should not really spend too much time comparing books and film. However, in this case its worth looking at both the film and the book. The book of course, published in 1972, was not subject to the modern North American tendency to run literature and film through a moral filter. The film, excellent in its own way did just that, I believe, and therefore we get a very different final third. The "man against-himself struggle" of the novel is replaced in the film with a "man against man/or society struggle" as McLeod is wrongly accused by the unjust "group". The latter is just little too Hollywood and the former made for better literature.

This is a quick read and I highly recommend it.

I bought the book because I liked the movie. I watched the movie several years ago and liked it then. I watched it again recently and it really hit home because the movie takes to heart the faulty assumptions people make about friendships... thinking they are all Freudian. In the movie, a genuine love (in the true, non-sexual sense of the word) develops between McLeod and Charles, the 14 year old boy. Gibson et. al. in the movie did a wonderful job of portraying the fact that it is not wrong for cross-generational loving friendships to develop. It addresses the prejudices people have about these relationships and I believe McLeod (played by Gibson) in the film shows true love by not dragging the issue out, which could easily damage the mind of Charles (all this is going along with the assumption that sexual contact did NOT occur in the movie- which most viewers are led to believe- especially if they have not yet read the book).

The book has its own merit and is good in its own sense. It is very easy to read (I read through in about 4 hours) and develops the characters well. I believe that Charles's relationship with his mother in the novel better fits the plot than the relationship in the movie. Each of the 5 main characters in the novel have well-defined needs, all of which are not developed in the movie. Charles's mother needs family and multiple social relationships. His older sister needs personality and control, while his younger sister (Meg) needs self-confidence and encouragement. The bond between Charles and Meg is accentuated by their mutual need and ability to fufill eachother's need for encouragement. While Charles slips at fulfillment occasionally, he does care for Meg (better displayed in the novel). Charles also needs a father-figure who truly cares about him (not out of obligation). Both his need for encouragement and need for a father-figure are met by McLeod, who he in turn provides needed companionship for.

The one thing I didn't like about the book as much as the movie was the way the "last night" scene was dealt with in the book. While the movie leads the viewer to believe that McLeod was a true, positive, non-sexual friend and mentor to Charles, the book leaves me thinking that there was more sexual attraction. I'm not going to try to say I know what the author was thinking or meaning by the "last night" scene. I do think that in the book there was attraction (shown by McLeod's quick negative reactions to moments when Charles showed son-like affection) and whether or not he really let his guard down when Charles's was down in the end is debatable since it is not explicitly stated (more so in the book that the movie). Read it for yourself and decide yourself. It could mean different things to different people.

I suggest watching the movie first because I like its portrayl of the relationship more. However, the book is good reading and will allow you to think more about the characters without turning you off as it could possibly do if you didn't watch the movie first.

I read the book Man Without a Face like another reviewer did in one sitting. I have seen the movie with Mel Gibson in it as well. A hobby of mine is to see a movie and read the book or visa versa. I don't always agree with the theory that the book is always better than the movie and I still haven't decided which I like better at this point. I think that most people that read the book after seeing the movie will not appreciate the relationship that was formed between McLeod and Charles. They will like the movie's version better. I think that the ending will also make them unhappy because they would rather have it that Mel Gibson's character has kept track of Charles through the academy from a distance. The whole plot line involving what other people thought of the relationship in the movie and assuming the wrong things about what was going on is very good but takes away from what the author intended. I believe that she wanted the book to be about Charles and finding himself not the way the movie portrayed it as the making of a friendship. Don't get me wrong it is part of the novel but not the entire basis. Charles was meant to discover his real self and all that he had been hiding because of his father and being put down by his sister. What he needed in life was a father figure that stayed and when he found one he found himself. The tittle of the novel also has a double meaning in my opinion. One of the nickname's for McLeod was the Man Without a Face but for Charles his father had no face either. If I remember clearly Charles mentions this at one point, it was part of his understanding and growing. I liked both book and movie but I suggest that if you've never seen the movie then read the book. If you have seen the movie and have throughly liked it then it might not be wise to read the book. You will either feel let down or will dislike the concepts that the book was based on. Overall I liked the book.

'The Man Without A Face' is a heartwarming story of a fatherless fourteen year old boy who befriends the town "Grouch."

Justin McLeod is a former teacher who was in a car accident ten years before. Knowing he could never return to the life he once had, McLeod stays away from the public, going into town only when he needs to.

Chuck Norstadt failed the entrance exams for Saint Mathews and needs to desperately learn the material for a retest after the summer months. He learns from his younger sister that McLeod was a former teacher, and goes to him for help.

The friendship Chuck and Justin share is a heartwarming story for the whole family. Offering many themes to be learned and many surprises along the way.

If you loved the movie, starring Mel Gibson in his directorial debut as Justin McLeod, then read the book. It's a heart gripper and a tear jerker, but bound to please. -Shanno

"The Man Without a Face" is a very sad and emotional book, but it is one that will stay with you. Having a rebellious 14-year-old boy as the narrator was a wise choice, especially because of the time period, which is 1972. This story involves a platonic love between a disfigured man and an emotionally distraught boy. The trials and tribulations they both go through with one another is bumpy, but worth it. The era seems too far-fetched, but probably likely. The boy's family life is shameful and problematic (although it is not entirely his fault). And the ending is a sad one, and will leave you thinking about the entire story. A remarkable book. I recommend.

A Platonic friendship

Isabelle Holland is a well-established writer of distinction and needs no plaudits from me. I had already seen the excellent film version of the `The Man without a Face' before reading the book, and indeed was impelled by the substance and beauty of the film to do so. I am very glad to have taken this further step: this slim volume is a minor masterpiece, gripping, insightful, and disturbing. And it is so easy, so natural to read - the boy tells his own story with all the guilelessness and spontaneity of youth. His emotional questions, problems and finally trauma are palpable.

It is an important book for another reason: it treats of a relationship between a teenage boy and an adult male, and the peculiar force that such a relationship can have. In these times when such contacts are often viewed as exploitative or even abusive, it is refreshing to find a story which presents a different picture. Here an adolescent (Charles Norstadt) struggling to cope with a family in emotional disarray, reaches out for help, support and love, which he finds - eventually and fleetingly - in the person of a lonely and eccentric retired teacher (Justin McLeod), who reluctantly responds to the boy's almost desperate plea to be coached for an all-important school entrance exam.

The author is too sophisticated to overplay the drama of the story's conclusion which (I have noted) has elicited some negative reviewer comment. There is a certain ambiguity about the physical contact which occurred, but seen in the context of the boy's pain and distress, it would seem unnatural to exclude such human contact even if - in Chuck's mind - there is subsequent concern for its implications. After all, Chuck had consciously `desired' to touch and be touched earlier in the story, which does not necessarily imply an overt sexual feeling. Whether or not this is important to know, the writer is sure of her ground as far as Justin is concerned - he at no point made any `overtures', and there is no suggestion that he wanted to.

This book is only mildly provocative but nonetheless makes a powerful statement on a theme of courage and love.

There's not really much I can say, except that this book is an exception to the stereotyped teen novels. This book has a subliminal moral from the beginning and quietly unravels throughout the book. I admit, I saw the movie first, but when I saw this novel in the library my heart raced when I thought of Nick Stahl and Mel Gibson. However, the endings are quite different. The book has a better one. (Note to guys who plan on reading this book: don't read in public - unless you want others to see you cry). Words cannot emphasize the impact of this novel enough, so I'll stop babbling. But, just for the record, I've read this book thirteen times. And Ms. Holland, if you read this . . . thanks.

It seems almost a given that anyone reviewing a movie, based on a book that they have read, will like the book better. That is not the case here. Simply put Mel Gibson, as both actor and director, took the McCloud character deeper in his film than the book did.

For example we are allowed to see McCloud's passion for teaching, and the way his past has haunted him. The book left much of McCloud undefined concentrating more on Charles and his family. I would only mildly reccommend the book to fans of the movie because it is interesting to see how the screenplay was derived.

I do agree with one of the earlier reviewers who expressed a concern at the possible ways the relationship between McCloud and Charles could be interprated based on the book's dialog. Again, I like the movie's story line better.

Mr. Gibson chose to show us that it is possible for a man and a young boy to develop a friendship. He does show how people can, and often do, make judgements based on appearance. I can't help but think that rumors about the man without a face's past would've continued to swirl even if Chuck hadn't requested his help. That's unfair, but unfortunatly, that's life.

I have been guilty of saying to friends "read the book, it's better than the movie." This time, I'd suggest that your time will be better spent watching the film. A good story made better by the screenplay and the director, and some fine perfomances by the actors.