The Man Who Lost His Head (New York Review Children's Collection)

Usually if you remember a favorite story from childhood, when you read it years later as an adult you find yourself wondering what on earth you found so fascinating about it the first time. That isn't surprising if you think about it. Very few of us are who we were years ago.But this story is still strange to me even after the years have passed. Looking over the pages I feel that same sense of ambivalence I had the first time - it is a story that veers between scary and hilarious. It's also very deep - there are a lot of things in it that I didn't catch as a child. Seeing those words with those pictures I remember is an eerie sensation. It still makes a good read - but I doubt you would find it in a modern elementary school library.The story is "The Man Who Lost His Head." The author is Claire Hutchet Bishop; the illustrator is Robert McCloskey. The basic story is that a man wakes up one morning and discovers that his head is missing. He tries looking for it inside his house. When that doesn't work, he ventures outside. Not wanting to appear unusual, he tries a variety of substitute heads - none of which work. A classic moment is when the townsfolk are pointing him out saying, "That man has lost his head!" The narrative plays with the concept of literalism. "Losing your head" to us means doing something stupid or going into a panic. But this person has actually lost his head - and he goes into a panic as well. The narrative ends with a twist ending that fits right in with the strange atmosphere of the whole book - and, no, I'm not going to tell you what it is.But the narrative is not the only thing strange about the book. The illustrations are very striking and contribute further to the books unusual flavor. These illustrations are from a different generation of graphic artists - they strongly resemble the by-gone comic strips from the 1940s - 1950s. The images are both detailed and disturbing - McCloskey does an excellent job of rendering Bishop's words into pictures.The story was written in 1940 (it was out of print for nearly 40 years afterward). The pictures mirror the world as it existed then - part of which made the book such strange reading in the first place (it was already outdated when I read it as a child). One thing I did not pick up on is that the people in the pictures are not perfect. There are messy houses, patched up clothing, pockets hanging out. At the time I read the book the only pictures you saw were those out of the McGuffy readers (aka: Dick and Jane) - pictures showing people in spotless clothing, sterile houses, perfect hair. I had never seen pictures like that before - or read a story like it.Even after all these years, this is still an excellent read. And it has the distinction of being something that everyone in the family will enjoy.

I am delighted to find this book again!I first saw it when Captain Kangaroo used it for a storytime back in the early 60s, then Mom brought it home from the library. Of course, it having been on TV gave it added "star appeal" for me, but it stood on its own.Over the years, I've attempted to find "that funny book where the man used a parsnip for his head" and had no luck. Searching under McCloskey didn't help, even though I was *sure* it was his style of illustration. I was beginning to think I'd imagined the whole thing when I finally found it this year, and bought that sucker!It's even better than I remembered.There's a subtle cleverness in both Bishop's writing and McCloskey's illustration, as in our headless friend substituting a pumpkin head for a trip into town and the villagers telling him how well he looks, or when he's wearing his wooden head and a woodpecker is drawing a bead on him.This is a wonderful story with great vocabulary for a children's picture book. The treatment of a man waking up headless is absurd and lighthearted rather than scary or gory. If I had kids, I'd read this to them.

First, the title drew us in, then the picture on the cover and then the story! When I first checked this out at our local libary years ago when my kids were little, it became one of our all time favoriltes. Now, I have a grandchild of my own and when this popped up under the Christmas tree my daughter, who remember it from her childhood, just stood speechless. Now another generation enoys this delightfully weird story--witj a happy ending.

I bought this sweet story for my husband who remembered it from his childhood. Illustrated by Robert McCloskey, it has the final "and then he work up" ending which we all recognize, but children readers will enjoy as a clever solution. To be honest, as an adult, I think the illustrations are the best part of the story, but children will be delighted with the incongruity of this sweet man who lost his head and tried out various vegetables as replacements. I thought it was lovely that the man described his missing head as being sort of unremarkable, but dear to him. Isn't that the way of all of us? Just kind of pleasantly normal, but we like how we look, anyway? This is not a frantic story, but has a quiet silliness to it, and would be wonderful as a bedtime story.

I'd never read this book as a child but was bemused by the 1942 illustrations and potential storyline shown on Amazon. The full story turned out to be just "ok" at best. Suppose I should have read a review or two about how the end of the story involves a child clocking the man hard in his wooden head to help him (wake up from his dream). I find the picture sort of violent and makes punching someone in the face seem "entertaining" (as a viewer, by way of how it's drawn) and "for his own good" (though the character does follow that up by saying, he wouldn't do it if the man hadn't lost his head). I don't find that charming or appropriate for children, where the illustrations could be misconstrued, even with explanation. To put it in perspective, I don't shield my child from the violence of say animals (predators/prey) or cycles of life (life/death with people and animals), but find this behaviorally, a bad example for an age group where kids are learning social skills. What might have been acceptable in 1942, or 1970 as a reprint, as is my used copy, I am not so certain is in 2014 for this mom. Am donating this book.

My 5-year old loves this story. I could do without the punching in the nose bit (where did that come from?) but it cracks my (otherwise gentle) daughter up. I've read this many times already. I like the repetition, the vocabulary and the illustrations. All excellent.

Fun quirky read. Lovely illustrations.