What do you think?
Rate this book
The Man Without a Face
Charles didn't know much about life...until he met The Man Without a face...
"I'd never had a friend, and he was my friend; I'd never really, except for a shadowy memory, had a father, and he was my father. I'd never known an adult I could communicate with or trust, and I communicated with him all the time, whether I was actually talking to him or not. And I trusted him...."
Fourteen-year-old Charles desperately wants two things: a father and a way out. Little love has come his way until the summer he befriends a mysterious scarred man named Justin McLeod, nicknamed "The Man Without a Face." Charles enlists McLeod's help as tutor for the St. Matthew's school entrance exams, his ticket away from the unpleasant restrictions of his home life. But more important than anything he could get out of a book, that summer Charles learns from McLeod a stirring life lesson about the many faces of love.
"I'd never had a friend, and he was my friend; I'd never really, except for a shadowy memory, had a father, and he was my father. I'd never known an adult I could communicate with or trust, and I communicated with him all the time, whether I was actually talking to him or not. And I trusted him...."
Fourteen-year-old Charles desperately wants two things: a father and a way out. Little love has come his way until the summer he befriends a mysterious scarred man named Justin McLeod, nicknamed "The Man Without a Face." Charles enlists McLeod's help as tutor for the St. Matthew's school entrance exams, his ticket away from the unpleasant restrictions of his home life. But more important than anything he could get out of a book, that summer Charles learns from McLeod a stirring life lesson about the many faces of love.
157 pages, Mass Market Paperback
First published January 1, 1972
22 people are currently reading
770 people want to read
About the author
Isabelle Holland
66 books28 followersIsabelle Christian Holland (born June 16, 1920 in Basel, Switzerland — died February 9, 2002) was an author of children and adult fiction. Her father was the American Consul in Liverpool, England during WWII. She moved to America in 1940 due to the war. She wrote Gothic novels, adult mysteries, romantic thrillers, and many books for children and young adults. She wrote over 50 books in her lifetime, and was still working at the time of her death at age 81 in New York City.
Two of her novels have been made into movies:
Bump in the Night, 1991,
The Man Without a Face, 1993
Both of these novels deal with issues or allegations of pedophilia.
Two of her novels have been made into movies:
Bump in the Night, 1991,
The Man Without a Face, 1993
Both of these novels deal with issues or allegations of pedophilia.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 86 reviews
October 20, 2011
The Man Without a Face is about a 14 year old boy named Charles who, while spending the summer at his family's beach house, asks the local recluse (Justin McLeod) to tutor him. McLeod is nicknamed by the local kids, the "man without a face" because he was terribly burned in a car accident a number of years before. The story is told from Charles' viewpoint, and explores the complicated relationships within his family, and eventually, with McLeod. Charles is struggling to deal with his a absence of his father, his fear of friendship and love, and his resentment of all the women in his life.
I saw the movie (starring Mel Gibson) a number of years ago, and remember liking it a lot. There are some significant differences between the book and the film, and I have to say, this is one of those rare occurrences when I preferred the movie version.
Isabelle Young is purportedly writing for young adults, but I think a lot of the story's subtleties would be lost on younger readers. Additionally, there's some stranger parts, and a lot of ambiguous sexuality that may be confusing for younger kids.
UPDATE: I went back and re-read a couple of sections in the book, and I think I might be more confused now than when I read it the first time. The relationship between Charles and McLeod is sexually ambiguous. Unlike the movie, there are a series of scenes that seem to blur a healthy relationship (father-son type of relationship) and a sexual one, and one scene in particular that seems to imply that something happened between them. What's disturbing is that quite possibly, the intention of those scenes seems to be to "wonder" if sexual attraction between a man and a boy is a "normal" aspect to any father son (or mentor) relationship. The answer is: "no." Pedophilia is not normal, or appropriate, and I'm very surprised this book has made itself onto recommended reading lists for young adults. I'm not a book banner by any stretch, but I would never give this novel to a child, fearing it could dangerously distort their idea of what healthy, safe relationships with adults look like.
I saw the movie (starring Mel Gibson) a number of years ago, and remember liking it a lot. There are some significant differences between the book and the film, and I have to say, this is one of those rare occurrences when I preferred the movie version.
Isabelle Young is purportedly writing for young adults, but I think a lot of the story's subtleties would be lost on younger readers. Additionally, there's some stranger parts, and a lot of ambiguous sexuality that may be confusing for younger kids.
UPDATE: I went back and re-read a couple of sections in the book, and I think I might be more confused now than when I read it the first time. The relationship between Charles and McLeod is sexually ambiguous. Unlike the movie, there are a series of scenes that seem to blur a healthy relationship (father-son type of relationship) and a sexual one, and one scene in particular that seems to imply that something happened between them. What's disturbing is that quite possibly, the intention of those scenes seems to be to "wonder" if sexual attraction between a man and a boy is a "normal" aspect to any father son (or mentor) relationship. The answer is: "no." Pedophilia is not normal, or appropriate, and I'm very surprised this book has made itself onto recommended reading lists for young adults. I'm not a book banner by any stretch, but I would never give this novel to a child, fearing it could dangerously distort their idea of what healthy, safe relationships with adults look like.
November 25, 2025
Quite frankly one of the best young adult novels I've ever read. It is definitely an adult and complex young adult novel about self discovery, first and forbidden love, and how love transcends and defies stereotypes.
The grey area that happens between Chuck and Justin is morally ambiguous and the deeper question of whether Justin is grooming him sexually can be seen as disturbing, yet part of a young man’s coming of age. I am aware there’s a film adaptation starring Mel Gibson as Justin, and I’m sure he removed all queer aspects of the novel.
The grey area that happens between Chuck and Justin is morally ambiguous and the deeper question of whether Justin is grooming him sexually can be seen as disturbing, yet part of a young man’s coming of age. I am aware there’s a film adaptation starring Mel Gibson as Justin, and I’m sure he removed all queer aspects of the novel.
April 5, 2010
The movie based on this book is one of my favorite movies, but it makes some changes to avoid controversy. Having loved the movie for years and just recently reading the book, I can safely say the book is better. The voice of the narrator is realistic, funny, and witty. The family dynamics are well drawn and the book avoids what the movie didn't: tying everything up too neatly.
January 28, 2008
I can't decide if I like this better than the movie. The "twist" in the book is definitely more risque, but I don't think a kid would pick up on it. Then again, I'm kind of a perv, so...
January 2, 2012
In 1972, when the novel was published, I was 9 years old but read the novel a few years later. At the time, and still, I greatly appreciated the novel and I liked both the main characters. I was pleased with the boys reaction to his teacher's orientation but with todays standards I'm irritated that the gay guy had to loose his face/job etc (all gay people seemed to be portrayed that way for far too long). In 1993 I was furious that the film took out any hint of gayness thus betraying what was a story of love, forgiveness, coming of age, and healing. Read the book, as with many, skip the movie.
March 29, 2015
3.5 stars - I really liked this book up until the end. The very end almost made me give it two stars. Before the last chapter or so, I was tempted to give it 4.5 or even 5. Love the author's writing style and can't wait to seek out more of her stuff. The movie was actually better, which I figured because this book was so short and the movie so brilliant and indepth. There are some differences, but the main things remain the same. A beautiful and psychologically rich story, wonderful characterization, although McLeod seemed a bit more wooden in written form than he was on screen played well by Mel Gibson. Charles is convincing, and his dysfunctional family dynamic intriguing. Worth reading if you enjoyed the movie (or haven't seen it, whichever), although the end is souring. Sexuality is more focused on with the book rather than the film, with an almost confusing bend. What really bugged me during the last pages is what happened to a main character. It's like an uplifting surge of the heart through growth and recovery from the past, through friendship and understanding, to unfairness and being sold short.
As to the very end, no, I don't think he was molested.
As to the very end, no, I don't think he was molested.
August 25, 2010
This book concerns the experiences of a 14 year-old spending his summer with his family in a perfect upper-class "summering" location. He has isolated himself emotionally from his family both through conceived (and demonstrated) persecution of him as being "stupid", and his lack of understanding of who he is related to the fact that he has no father figure (his siblings too, as they are all half-brothers/sisters through different marital experiments on their mother's part). The theme through this whole book is "The Boy Without a Dad".
The titular character is introduced at first as a conflict, then as a cooling, steadying presence guiding him on how to achieve "freedom"; first academically, then emotionally. This is a coming of age story told from an adolescent point of view, and most importantly the search for a father. The plot leads him into conflict with his family with him asserting himself (awkwardly at times) to define that independence.
The wholly-engrossing story suffers from two faults: the sometimes-awkward situations that the speaker and the MWOAF find themselves in that almost ghost the line between father figure and lover (that made me uncomfortable), and overall the lack of resolution on this, the numerable of back-stories, and outcome of choices made at the end. It's a great read however I am left wondering at the end what it meant?
The titular character is introduced at first as a conflict, then as a cooling, steadying presence guiding him on how to achieve "freedom"; first academically, then emotionally. This is a coming of age story told from an adolescent point of view, and most importantly the search for a father. The plot leads him into conflict with his family with him asserting himself (awkwardly at times) to define that independence.
The wholly-engrossing story suffers from two faults: the sometimes-awkward situations that the speaker and the MWOAF find themselves in that almost ghost the line between father figure and lover (that made me uncomfortable), and overall the lack of resolution on this, the numerable of back-stories, and outcome of choices made at the end. It's a great read however I am left wondering at the end what it meant?
September 11, 2017
Tragic...
I, by far, prefer the movie with Mel Gibson and Nick Stahl to the book.
Now, I will say that most of the 12 chapters of the book actually enhance the movie quite a bit, and the connection of Barry (in the book) to McLeod would have been a nice addition to the film if it could have been worked in, but that would still require one major change from the book.
Please, do not misunderstand me as I give my explanation. And take some time to consider that I have spent a decent amount of time thinking about this before posting my comments.
Let me first say again, that I love the movie. The movie is firmly based on the book with a couple of differences, which would be spoilers to anyone wanting to read the book but I have to give them so that my explanation will make sense soooooo.....
[SPOILER ALERT!!!]
....
1) Of course, there is an expansion of detail concerning the activities of the summer that the book covers. The book is more specific about the school that Charles is trying to enter, and the movie alters the ending of the book both in the "controversy" of it and in the graduation scene. These expansions in the book are fine enhancements to the story told by the movie, all building toward the end.
2) In the book there is a character named Barry. He is a love interest for Mother, marrying her toward the end of the summer, and is not "The Hairball" which was a recently divorced husband in the book. Apparently the humor of the "Hairball" character was easier to fit into the movie as they did than having the character of Barry as well. Barry is at least acquainted with McLeod in the book (again, he is not in the movie at all).
3) There is the "controversy" of homosexuality / pedophilia / ephebephilia / molestation, or whatever you wish to label it by. I have seen a number of persons claiming to be homosexual who praise the book because of this element of the book. This element really is limited to a few paragraphs or two printed pages and a few lines more in the book. It is only slightly ambiguous and there are some readers who claim they do not believe that a homosexual act took place at this point. I believe that they are showing a great deal of wishful thinking to interpret it that way. More in a moment.
4) McLeod dies in the end of the book and leaves everything to Charles who returns to school at St. Andrews (the specific school that Charles was applying for). By the way, the McLeod character was a teacher at this school prior to the car accident, and in the book McLeod was driving drunk instead of the movie's representation of the incident; the movie is a better version in my opinion.
5) The movie re-writes the "controversy" with the additional scenes that include "abuse" allegations against McLeod and the "informal trial" of McLeod, along with some other minute alterations in connection with these.
The book is seriously and fatally flawed by the "controversy" in it. It would have to be deleted and a portion re-written to fix it. Praise to the movie for so doing.
The last lines of the book are:
"As we left I said, 'What happened to Richard and Mickey?' [the horse and dog of McLeod]
'Before Justin wend abroad he gave them to a guy in Vermont who seems to have his particular talent.'
'You mean he's a writer?'
'No. His other talent, for salvaging flawed and fallen creatures. Himself included.'
And me, I thought, as we drove through the gate. "
------
No. Just, NO. This doesn't work with the "controversy."
I'm sorry, but I can't (and I tried) to read the end of the book (the "controversy") in another way than a homosexual act between the two main characters, and with that clear implication, this ending is impossible.
Again, I've seen claims by homosexuals that the book is worthy of praise because of the incident. This is ridiculous. The character of Charles himself condemns the act, but in a very awkwardly written way. This part of the book is really an out-of-place, poorly executed, seemingly inserted for controversy's sake, devastating occurrence which crushes everything the book was building towards and tries to claim in the very ending given above. OOORRR, the ending should have been changed to the reality that this "scene" brings about, which is the complete crumbling of the character of McLeod and the devastating effects that will haunt Charles for the rest of his life. This is reality.
Any attempt to make the sexual encounter "virtuous" will fail on all accounts. Pedophilia cannot be spun to a 'virtue' or to being appropriate. This alteration in the movie is clearly a far better version of the story.
In several moments in the book the character of McLeod is portrayed as understanding this sexual issue that Charles is facing and what should be interpreted as guidance away from homosexual inclinations. Perhaps the author herself failed to realize how close she was to the truth concerning the character of Charles and this issue. The fact of the matter is that this would be a terrible attempt at advocacy for any normality in homosexual inclinations, not to reiterate the problem of ephebephilia / pedophilia that the particulars necessarily attach to this incident. At no point in this portion of the book does Charles accept this incident as appropriate or edifying, but it actually destroys the story building to this point and leaves the reader with a great deal of unresolved issues concerning both main characters. In addition, it implies some additional issues in regard to the other adult characters in the book, especially the character of Barry. The book fails dramatically to deal with these things. The book was a strong four stars until this portion. The book falls apart because of this and cannot justify the ending it goes to in the following chapter.
The fact of the matter is that the book leads in the direction of the movie, and even attempts to end on a similar high note of resolution, but the book is dreadfully marred by the homosexual incident. I admire the ability of some who claim that they take a different interpretation of "what was happening to me until it had happened." The "it" of pages 147-149. Although slightly ambiguous, the implication seems too clear in my mind for me to see it some other way. If anyone would like to try, I will be happy to be convinced.
For those who would like to criticize me for rejecting their attempts to make the incident into a "victory" for homosexuals; please, just give it a few moments of thought and come to the realization of how weak your "hero" is. By which I mean, the characters or the author herself, and the utter failure to make this inclination in any way seem to be normal, appropriate, or acceptable.
I truly am saddened by the author's error herein.
I, by far, prefer the movie with Mel Gibson and Nick Stahl to the book.
Now, I will say that most of the 12 chapters of the book actually enhance the movie quite a bit, and the connection of Barry (in the book) to McLeod would have been a nice addition to the film if it could have been worked in, but that would still require one major change from the book.
Please, do not misunderstand me as I give my explanation. And take some time to consider that I have spent a decent amount of time thinking about this before posting my comments.
Let me first say again, that I love the movie. The movie is firmly based on the book with a couple of differences, which would be spoilers to anyone wanting to read the book but I have to give them so that my explanation will make sense soooooo.....
[SPOILER ALERT!!!]
....
1) Of course, there is an expansion of detail concerning the activities of the summer that the book covers. The book is more specific about the school that Charles is trying to enter, and the movie alters the ending of the book both in the "controversy" of it and in the graduation scene. These expansions in the book are fine enhancements to the story told by the movie, all building toward the end.
2) In the book there is a character named Barry. He is a love interest for Mother, marrying her toward the end of the summer, and is not "The Hairball" which was a recently divorced husband in the book. Apparently the humor of the "Hairball" character was easier to fit into the movie as they did than having the character of Barry as well. Barry is at least acquainted with McLeod in the book (again, he is not in the movie at all).
3) There is the "controversy" of homosexuality / pedophilia / ephebephilia / molestation, or whatever you wish to label it by. I have seen a number of persons claiming to be homosexual who praise the book because of this element of the book. This element really is limited to a few paragraphs or two printed pages and a few lines more in the book. It is only slightly ambiguous and there are some readers who claim they do not believe that a homosexual act took place at this point. I believe that they are showing a great deal of wishful thinking to interpret it that way. More in a moment.
4) McLeod dies in the end of the book and leaves everything to Charles who returns to school at St. Andrews (the specific school that Charles was applying for). By the way, the McLeod character was a teacher at this school prior to the car accident, and in the book McLeod was driving drunk instead of the movie's representation of the incident; the movie is a better version in my opinion.
5) The movie re-writes the "controversy" with the additional scenes that include "abuse" allegations against McLeod and the "informal trial" of McLeod, along with some other minute alterations in connection with these.
The book is seriously and fatally flawed by the "controversy" in it. It would have to be deleted and a portion re-written to fix it. Praise to the movie for so doing.
The last lines of the book are:
"As we left I said, 'What happened to Richard and Mickey?' [the horse and dog of McLeod]
'Before Justin wend abroad he gave them to a guy in Vermont who seems to have his particular talent.'
'You mean he's a writer?'
'No. His other talent, for salvaging flawed and fallen creatures. Himself included.'
And me, I thought, as we drove through the gate. "
------
No. Just, NO. This doesn't work with the "controversy."
I'm sorry, but I can't (and I tried) to read the end of the book (the "controversy") in another way than a homosexual act between the two main characters, and with that clear implication, this ending is impossible.
Again, I've seen claims by homosexuals that the book is worthy of praise because of the incident. This is ridiculous. The character of Charles himself condemns the act, but in a very awkwardly written way. This part of the book is really an out-of-place, poorly executed, seemingly inserted for controversy's sake, devastating occurrence which crushes everything the book was building towards and tries to claim in the very ending given above. OOORRR, the ending should have been changed to the reality that this "scene" brings about, which is the complete crumbling of the character of McLeod and the devastating effects that will haunt Charles for the rest of his life. This is reality.
Any attempt to make the sexual encounter "virtuous" will fail on all accounts. Pedophilia cannot be spun to a 'virtue' or to being appropriate. This alteration in the movie is clearly a far better version of the story.
In several moments in the book the character of McLeod is portrayed as understanding this sexual issue that Charles is facing and what should be interpreted as guidance away from homosexual inclinations. Perhaps the author herself failed to realize how close she was to the truth concerning the character of Charles and this issue. The fact of the matter is that this would be a terrible attempt at advocacy for any normality in homosexual inclinations, not to reiterate the problem of ephebephilia / pedophilia that the particulars necessarily attach to this incident. At no point in this portion of the book does Charles accept this incident as appropriate or edifying, but it actually destroys the story building to this point and leaves the reader with a great deal of unresolved issues concerning both main characters. In addition, it implies some additional issues in regard to the other adult characters in the book, especially the character of Barry. The book fails dramatically to deal with these things. The book was a strong four stars until this portion. The book falls apart because of this and cannot justify the ending it goes to in the following chapter.
The fact of the matter is that the book leads in the direction of the movie, and even attempts to end on a similar high note of resolution, but the book is dreadfully marred by the homosexual incident. I admire the ability of some who claim that they take a different interpretation of "what was happening to me until it had happened." The "it" of pages 147-149. Although slightly ambiguous, the implication seems too clear in my mind for me to see it some other way. If anyone would like to try, I will be happy to be convinced.
For those who would like to criticize me for rejecting their attempts to make the incident into a "victory" for homosexuals; please, just give it a few moments of thought and come to the realization of how weak your "hero" is. By which I mean, the characters or the author herself, and the utter failure to make this inclination in any way seem to be normal, appropriate, or acceptable.
I truly am saddened by the author's error herein.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
October 22, 2011
Having seen the movie and hearing about the controversy surrounding Mel Gibson playing the title role, I had still never read the book. I saw this copy on a clearance table at Haslam's Bookstore and the 75 cent price appealed to me. It was also somehow fitting that this copy had a scarred front cover.
The story deals with a teen-aged guy in an otherwise all female household who's looking to escape to a boarding school but he's tanked the entrance exams and when the family goes to a coastal town in New England for the summer he ends up enlisting the aid of a mysterious local nicknamed "The Grouch" to aid him in preparing for a retest. The Grouch has horrible facial burns from some nebulous accident in the past and is a bit of a hermit and a misanthrope who prefers the isolation of his cliffside house, his horse and his ferocious dog.
The boy is a loner himself and a bit of a misogynist but he and his reluctant tutor begin to form a band and a friendship. The novel is set firmly in the 70's with the parents suffering from the pop psychology of the time and the kid thinking in terms such as "ratfink" but otherwise the story is pretty timeless.
Though a loner, the kid is charming and we grow to like and understand him through the course of the tale. As we learn more about Justin, the man without a face, we also understand him. Given the era in which it was written the climactic scenes of the story are necessarily a little vague and much of what Gibson was criticized for was really the same in the book.
As it is, this is an interesting and compelling coming of age story, and perhaps a coming-out story though that's far from clear. Either way, it is a worthwhile read.
BTW... I'm not sure if it's coincidence or serendipity but as I started reading this I was listening to a TV rebroadcast of the Joseph Campbell/Bill Moyers talks. The Hero With a Thousand Faces meets The Man Without a Face it made for some interesting conjecture.
The story deals with a teen-aged guy in an otherwise all female household who's looking to escape to a boarding school but he's tanked the entrance exams and when the family goes to a coastal town in New England for the summer he ends up enlisting the aid of a mysterious local nicknamed "The Grouch" to aid him in preparing for a retest. The Grouch has horrible facial burns from some nebulous accident in the past and is a bit of a hermit and a misanthrope who prefers the isolation of his cliffside house, his horse and his ferocious dog.
The boy is a loner himself and a bit of a misogynist but he and his reluctant tutor begin to form a band and a friendship. The novel is set firmly in the 70's with the parents suffering from the pop psychology of the time and the kid thinking in terms such as "ratfink" but otherwise the story is pretty timeless.
Though a loner, the kid is charming and we grow to like and understand him through the course of the tale. As we learn more about Justin, the man without a face, we also understand him. Given the era in which it was written the climactic scenes of the story are necessarily a little vague and much of what Gibson was criticized for was really the same in the book.
As it is, this is an interesting and compelling coming of age story, and perhaps a coming-out story though that's far from clear. Either way, it is a worthwhile read.
BTW... I'm not sure if it's coincidence or serendipity but as I started reading this I was listening to a TV rebroadcast of the Joseph Campbell/Bill Moyers talks. The Hero With a Thousand Faces meets The Man Without a Face it made for some interesting conjecture.
May 5, 2022
This award-winning novel tells the story of a teenage misogynist and compulsive underachiever, Charles Norstadt (Chuck), who strains to pass his boarding school entrance exams the second time around and thereby escape the constraints of his much-married mother (castrating even in her desire to alter the cat which Chuck sees as ""just part of (her) wholesale plan for the taming and domesticating of the male species"") and nymphet sister. He finds a mentor in the horribly scarred and romantic recluse Justin McLeod who proves a demanding tutor (smashing some straw-man defenses of "progressive education"). This relationship between two emotional cripples leads to a once-only homosexual encounter (though the episode is handled very subtly). Chuck's bitterness is painfully real and the recognition of his sexual feelings commendably frank, but in return for this measure of honesty, the whole story is slanted to justify the daring subject matter -- the psychological underpinnings are intrusive (talk of Oedipus complexes and sibling rivalry), the twin mysteries in the pasts of Chuck's dead father and Justin unlikely, the decadence and nastiness of Chuck's family is somewhat over stressed. In spite of these flaws the novel works well, especially as a morality tale for young adults who, at least in 1971, may not be very sophisticated.
January 1, 2017
This is a story about a teenaged boy trying to find his place in the world. He has family problems and personal issues that need to be worked through.
This is a good story to pass along to teen boys that are trying to figure things out. They can see that they aren't alone.
This is a good story to pass along to teen boys that are trying to figure things out. They can see that they aren't alone.
May 31, 2016
The Novel I read was The Man Without a Face written by Isabelle Holland and in this book the story revolves around a 14 year old boy named Charles who is living in a his summer home temporarily instead of their regular home in New York with his mother who has been divorced 4 different times and his older sister Gloria ,and younger sister Meg during their summer break from school. One day at the local supermarket him his mother and they run into a a local that is well known and nicknamed as "The man without a Face", who's real name was Justin McLeod . There had been many rumors concerning Justin McLeod, but Charles had recently been informed of terrifying news that his older snobby sister was not going to be going to school and instead going to be staying with him, his mother ,and his younger sister meg throughout the next four years. This motivates Charles even more to pass the exams he had failed for the school he wanted to go to called St. Matthews boarding school during the school year. He sees going to St. Matthews as his only chance of escaping his mean mother and older sister. He then takes his younger sister megs advice to receive tutoring from the man without a face. Charles meets Justin McLeod who at first refuses to tutor Charles but later realizes the good in trying to help a young person better their life. McLeod is not open at first but later on begins to build a relationship with Charles, and ends up telling Charles how his face became so disfigured trusting Charles to keep his secret even though Charles tells some of his old friends after Charles gets mad at McLeod. They later on finish Charles tutoring and Charles passes the St. Matthews exams and goes away to school on bad terms with Justin McLeod. He doesn't think much of McLeod at first but later realizes how he was like a father he never had and how much he helped him into getting into the school he wanted to go to. When he goes back briefly to Se McLeod he discovers he is gone and left him a note about how much he appreciated Charles being his friend.
October 23, 2008
I adored this movie when I saw it as a kid, and at some point in my childhood found the book and read it. I was kind of startled by the differences.. the way any hint of queer sexuality is excised from the movie-plotline. I think when I read it the first time I was so surprised that I didn't fully take in the book.
It's an excellent book. The characters are real, deftly rendered, and very compelling. It is also one of the few young adult books that deals directly and compellingly with adolescent sexuality without having it become the focus of the book. I appreciate that.
Coming right off the Boy from the Basement, this one, (also about a Charles) felt so much more vibrant and real, each episode peeling back a larger piece to reveal more of these full lives. It's nice and simple prose, but beautifully complex storytelling.
Full of heart.
It's an excellent book. The characters are real, deftly rendered, and very compelling. It is also one of the few young adult books that deals directly and compellingly with adolescent sexuality without having it become the focus of the book. I appreciate that.
Coming right off the Boy from the Basement, this one, (also about a Charles) felt so much more vibrant and real, each episode peeling back a larger piece to reveal more of these full lives. It's nice and simple prose, but beautifully complex storytelling.
Full of heart.
December 3, 2011
I've read this book a couple times before, the first time when I was rather young. I think it took me four times before I realised what went on between Chuck and Justin and then I marveled at how I could've missed it, being gay myself (even if I didn't really realise it at that age). Now, reading as a writer, I can see how I missed it because it is so wonderfully subtle. I'd love to be able to write so subdued as this. She has a wonderful grasp of character, only explaining the motives of Chuck in the spots it's most needed. Quite brilliant.
I'm really sad the movie doesn't have the "romantic" subplot because it's pretty much what drives Chuck, but it's understandable as well and it's still a good movie.
But the book is so much better.
I'm really sad the movie doesn't have the "romantic" subplot because it's pretty much what drives Chuck, but it's understandable as well and it's still a good movie.
But the book is so much better.
October 19, 2007
It is obviously about a Man Without A Face. When he was a young adult there is many myths that he was in a car accident and his car explodded and his face was diformed. The other main myth is that he was a scientist and he was working with chemicals and it blew up in his face and deformed it. But i just started to read it recently so im trying to find out what happened to him so i waill keep you updated......
November 30, 2022
I’ve wanted to read this since I was a tween (the movie was a firm favourite) but was put off by the controversies. I’m glad I read it now - I loved it. I think I’m in the minority by interpreting it positively (I.e. that McLeod wasn’t interested in Charles - just a gay man who understood him & loved him like a son) but I don’t mind. It’s so rich partially because it can be read in a variety of ways - even if some are awful & uncomfortable. will definitely stick with me !
February 19, 2011
I just loved it!Charles a loner had finally found a father unexpectedly in 'The Man without a Face'.
In the end was sad, though I didn't think it ought to.What hapenned in the end,in my opinion, wasn't entirely necessary, but I guess Charles was left the wiser.
In the end was sad, though I didn't think it ought to.What hapenned in the end,in my opinion, wasn't entirely necessary, but I guess Charles was left the wiser.
January 16, 2023
I picked this book up at the library randomly for something to read on the exercycle. Short, ALA-recommended, and I remembered Mel Gibson had made a movie with the same title.
The plot is unbelievable and disturbing, and the voice of the narrator --supposedly a 14-year-old--often rang false.
The plot is unbelievable and disturbing, and the voice of the narrator --supposedly a 14-year-old--often rang false.
September 30, 2012
this book was influential on me as a teen. The idea that you could love and connect with someone, who might have flaws or mismatches with you, who might in fact not be perfect, was huge.
February 16, 2019
I believe that Justin and Charles did not do anything, although Charles wanted to.
September 11, 2019
Mel Gibson's version is much better.
June 3, 2015
Well written and I actually liked the narrator, Chuck, which is rare when I read books narrated by children. I thought he was just enough cynical without overdoing it. He seemed like a realistic son of a socialite mother in the 70s. I liked the premise of the book and thought it was paced nicely, although more family interactions might have furthered Chuck's feelings of alienation from his family.
HOWEVER, I did not like the ending. I see others in the comments skirting around this issue, as if it was just a vague feeling that made them uncomfortable (and others wholly ignoring it, talking as if Justin is some kind of Father Figure only). Chuck represents the classic textbook example of a child at-risk for sexual predators: fatherless, seeking male companionship, alienated, alone. While Justin doesn't at first pursue anything, he essentially grooms Chuck by giving him what he wants: a father. While I can see some restraint in Justin's interactions, he ultimately gives in to his desires(I think his reluctance stems from the boy dying in the car, who was also probably someone he was "with"). I think Justin feels conflicted about what is happening, so it's hard to view him as an evil sexual predator, although I do believe he is a pedophile (or at least an ephebephile).
BUT the fact remains that his is a 47 year old man and Chuck is only 14. Their relationship not only borders on inappropriate, it crosses the line. Most disturbing to me, however, isn't this, as this makes an interesting story. What is disturbing is Chuck's feelings toward Justin, who he essentially mourns at the end. There seems to be nothing that shows Chuck's understanding of what happened was inappropriate beyond the fact that Justin was a man.
On a side note, Barry totally knew what was up. It seems hinted at that Barry and Justin knew each other...
HOWEVER, I did not like the ending. I see others in the comments skirting around this issue, as if it was just a vague feeling that made them uncomfortable (and others wholly ignoring it, talking as if Justin is some kind of Father Figure only). Chuck represents the classic textbook example of a child at-risk for sexual predators: fatherless, seeking male companionship, alienated, alone. While Justin doesn't at first pursue anything, he essentially grooms Chuck by giving him what he wants: a father. While I can see some restraint in Justin's interactions, he ultimately gives in to his desires(I think his reluctance stems from the boy dying in the car, who was also probably someone he was "with"). I think Justin feels conflicted about what is happening, so it's hard to view him as an evil sexual predator, although I do believe he is a pedophile (or at least an ephebephile).
BUT the fact remains that his is a 47 year old man and Chuck is only 14. Their relationship not only borders on inappropriate, it crosses the line. Most disturbing to me, however, isn't this, as this makes an interesting story. What is disturbing is Chuck's feelings toward Justin, who he essentially mourns at the end. There seems to be nothing that shows Chuck's understanding of what happened was inappropriate beyond the fact that Justin was a man.
On a side note, Barry totally knew what was up. It seems hinted at that Barry and Justin knew each other...
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
September 28, 2017
I really liked this book. At the beginning it wasn't too interesting but after a few pages it got way better. You can definitely not see what comes at the end of the book. His life changes drastically throughout the book. It made me very happy that all of Chucks hard work and fun paid off at the end. He finally gets into the school he wanted. It is really nice to see how someone can go from failing everything to accomplishing all of their goals and completely turn their life around.
One of my favorite characters in the book is of course Chuck. Everytime Mcleod told him about a flaw that he had he would look back and see that. He would acknowledge it and most of the time try to fix it. But at least if he had a flaw he would accept it instead of denying it like most people do. Mcleod was another one of my favorite characters. He was very smart and helped Chuck out a lot! He could always see when Chuck was lying or when something was wrong with him. He was very nice to Chuck along with his rescue animals. He was nice to Chuck by studying with him every day and even exercising with him. He was also very fit for his age.
I did not care much for Gloria or Percy. Gloria was always mean to Chuck and Meg. Always putting them down throughout the book and trying to turn their mother against them. Percy was the same way as Gloria and did not get along with Chuck at all. Meg was a character I liked too. She was the only one there for Chuck when the rest of his family didn't really talk to him or care for him. She would always listen to his problems and never tell anyone about them.
One of my favorite characters in the book is of course Chuck. Everytime Mcleod told him about a flaw that he had he would look back and see that. He would acknowledge it and most of the time try to fix it. But at least if he had a flaw he would accept it instead of denying it like most people do. Mcleod was another one of my favorite characters. He was very smart and helped Chuck out a lot! He could always see when Chuck was lying or when something was wrong with him. He was very nice to Chuck along with his rescue animals. He was nice to Chuck by studying with him every day and even exercising with him. He was also very fit for his age.
I did not care much for Gloria or Percy. Gloria was always mean to Chuck and Meg. Always putting them down throughout the book and trying to turn their mother against them. Percy was the same way as Gloria and did not get along with Chuck at all. Meg was a character I liked too. She was the only one there for Chuck when the rest of his family didn't really talk to him or care for him. She would always listen to his problems and never tell anyone about them.
June 19, 2010
I bought this as a sort of literary supplement to a project I'm working on about face research, but as it turns out, the plot has very little to do with the facial disfigurement the titular character has suffered, except to explain his isolation from others, and eventually to explain his tragic past.
This turned out actually to be a nearly 40-year-old coming of age story that is pretty entertaining, even if it has some flaws. Holland is writing at a time when "advanced" parents hardly ever disciplined their children, and she uses her plot to make sure everyone knows how disastrous that can be. The protagonist of the book, Chuck, detests his older sister, likes his younger sister, and tries to keep his mom at arm's length as the family settles into their summer cottage on an island. Chuck's mother has been through several husbands, and part of his tension with her is that she won't tell him what happened to his own father.
To pay her back, he has deliberately flunked the entrance exam to a private school, but now wants to get in anyway because he finds his nemesis sister plans to live at home in Manhattan when the summer is over. And so, hearing that the mysterious grump on the island with a half disfigured face was once a teacher, he asks to be tutored, and to his and the man's surprise, his offer is agreed to.
You can in part tell where this is heading for a boy who never had a father, but Holland's attempt to give the story a "modern" controversy at the end marred the book for me, as much as most of it pulled me along.
June 2, 2008
I found this book while browsing the young adult section of the library. I had forgotten how much I liked the film, which was adapted from this novel, and I felt it would be worthwhile.
The book was much shorter than expected, but it was also complex. I did not necessarily like the narrator, Charles. His attitude was annoyingly tedious. He wanted to escape his "horrible" mother and sisters by getting into a boarding school and so he sought the help of the town grouch, also know as the Man without a Face.
I realize that many teenagers go through a whiny period and so I continued reading. I cannot tell you how surprised I was to discover the true story, which was much different from the movie. The ending came about and I felt like I had smacked my face on a glass door. Stick to the movie, for it is better than analyzing the author's words. (As a previous reviewer stated, young adults may not even pick up on it.) You are allowed to decide for yourself what happened on a certain night between this teen and his mentor/father figure. I am sure you can guess and it's unfortunate to have a story that was so seemingly innocent become one that you feared. This book only causes one to consider that it IS impossible for a boy to have a genuine friendship with a man-especially when the boy is starving for affection. The author truly paints their friendship so beautifully that you wonder what you should think when the story ends.
The book was much shorter than expected, but it was also complex. I did not necessarily like the narrator, Charles. His attitude was annoyingly tedious. He wanted to escape his "horrible" mother and sisters by getting into a boarding school and so he sought the help of the town grouch, also know as the Man without a Face.
I realize that many teenagers go through a whiny period and so I continued reading. I cannot tell you how surprised I was to discover the true story, which was much different from the movie. The ending came about and I felt like I had smacked my face on a glass door. Stick to the movie, for it is better than analyzing the author's words. (As a previous reviewer stated, young adults may not even pick up on it.) You are allowed to decide for yourself what happened on a certain night between this teen and his mentor/father figure. I am sure you can guess and it's unfortunate to have a story that was so seemingly innocent become one that you feared. This book only causes one to consider that it IS impossible for a boy to have a genuine friendship with a man-especially when the boy is starving for affection. The author truly paints their friendship so beautifully that you wonder what you should think when the story ends.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
November 29, 2022
I’ll have to think a lot before I rate this one. I did like it a lot—saw that ending coming a mile away—and it’s a very realistic depiction of how relationships like this develop. You know, kind of like watching a train wreck in slow motion. It’s very much a product of its time in number of ways, particularly with problematic old-school gay stereotypes, which I’m used to because I like books written in this era.
(It’s a spot-on depiction of a disgustingly misogynistic young man that rings true even compared to boys today. I said in an update as I read that it reminds me of serial killers whose mothers were cruel to them just for being boys, and then you read about their crimes and think “yeah that makes sense for them.”)
The problem is, of course, that Chuck only feels bad about the relationship because he felt like he was at fault for how it ended or because they’re both male, not because it was pederasty. I’ll have to give it more thought before I rate—I did like it but don’t want to give the impression that I’m okay with what happened between McLeod and Chuck.
Edit two days later: I can’t stop thinking about this book—about how textbook McLeod taking advantage of Chuck was, how the twisted and sad it was that Chuck didn’t fully grasp what happened to him, all of it. It makes me feel gross, but I think that’s what the author intended. Very disturbing and affecting for a book for short. Four stars it is.
(It’s a spot-on depiction of a disgustingly misogynistic young man that rings true even compared to boys today. I said in an update as I read that it reminds me of serial killers whose mothers were cruel to them just for being boys, and then you read about their crimes and think “yeah that makes sense for them.”)
The problem is, of course, that Chuck only feels bad about the relationship because he felt like he was at fault for how it ended or because they’re both male, not because it was pederasty. I’ll have to give it more thought before I rate—I did like it but don’t want to give the impression that I’m okay with what happened between McLeod and Chuck.
Edit two days later: I can’t stop thinking about this book—about how textbook McLeod taking advantage of Chuck was, how the twisted and sad it was that Chuck didn’t fully grasp what happened to him, all of it. It makes me feel gross, but I think that’s what the author intended. Very disturbing and affecting for a book for short. Four stars it is.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
June 27, 2010
This is a coming of age story about a boy in a trouble home, having issues with sisters, his mother, & his mothers many husbands. After deliberately flunking an entrance exam for a private school, he decides he wants to get out of the house in the fall, so makes arrangements to be coached by the man without a face. There is a movie based on the book. I watched it years ago. I may see if I can find it & rewatch just to see how close the book & movie are. It does have a redeeming statement...You can be free from everything but the consequences of what you do. This statement should be printed on the packaging condoms. Maybe there would be few less abortions.
February 9, 2014
This is really more of a 3.5 for me. The writing is simple, but it really provides the narrator a strong voice and conveys his personality well. In that regard, it reminds me a lot of The Catcher in the Rye. It was a compelling read and I had no trouble finishing it quickly. There is a lot of uncertainty around some of the main plot points, which should make for a good discussion with my book club, but as a reader I would maybe have liked a little more certainty. The ending came on a bit quickly for me, as the first 2/3 don't necessarily have a whole lot of action, and then the majority of comes in a landslide at the end.
June 13, 2019
This novel tells the story of a boy's initiation into the adult world. Longing for a friend--and a father--and an escape from his home life, where his mother and older sister take every opportunity to tell him how worthless and shameful he is, the main character talks his way, relunctantly, into being tutored by a severely scarred man who leads a reclusive life in the summer community where the book takes place.
The story unfolds with characters learning secrets, betraying one another, and otherwise going about the bruising business of growing up and getting on with life.
The story unfolds with characters learning secrets, betraying one another, and otherwise going about the bruising business of growing up and getting on with life.
March 27, 2018
This book really addressed some of the questions I had in my own youth and actually gave me the litmus test for whether or not something was a true calling. Funny how a book can answer a single, desperate question. What do I want to be when I grow up? Answer: You'll know when you're willing to put in the effort to succeed at it. Though this book's ending may make a few queasy, I really felt like I had a bit of a mentoring from The Man Without a Face.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 86 reviews