First off I'd like to say that I think the Godfather is a great book. The movie wouldn't have apealed or been as clear to me if i hadn't read the book first. With all that said I was just wondering if anyone else got bored when the book went into detail about Johnny Fontane. The part which talked about how he wanted to make things right with his wife and etc. I thought the book was great but honestly I couldn't have cared less about Fontane's efforts on making things right with his family, what do you think?

Didn't think I was the only one...

Puzo could not resist inflicting us with bits of knowledge he had accumulated--whether or not the bits of knowledge had any relevance to the plot. Johnny was included in the novel to make a parallel with Frank Sinatra, on whom he's modeled. That part's relevant. Puzo did go on and on about Johnny's film and recording work, which added nothing to the plot but gave Puzo a chance to show off the knowledge he'd acquired about "show biz." The really boring stuff was his coverage of Nino (a completely forgettable character) and Jules and Lucy. Their affair seems to have been included solely so that Puzo could inflict on us the details of Lucy's gynecological operation--another bit of erudition he acquired somewhere and couldn't resist passing along.
Fortunately, these are minor blemishes in a great novel. But, if you thought that stuff was boring, wait till you read the Hollywood crap he loaded into "The Last Don."

Thats hilarious Bull. Now I can't wait to read The Last Don.

I personally didn't mind seeing all that stuff on Fontane in the novel, in fact, I never really cared much for the character in the film but I found him a helluva lot more interesting in the novel.

But yeah, I can see why some would deem all that stuff with Johnny, Nino, Jules, Lucy etc. unnecessary, but I guess Puzo wanted to show us how Vito's world had it's effects on even these seemingly insignificant characters.

If you read the novel first, as I did, I think you look at it from a different perspective. Fontane was certainly a major character, almost like another son to Vito, and, as such, held my interest. He was also a vehicle used to illustrate the power of the Don, as when Vito gets him released from his contract with the bandleader, "arranges" his movie role with Woltz, and finally fixes his Academy Award win. Finally, I think Puzo may have had something (metaphors? contrasts?) in mind in using the fim industry and organized crime in counterpoint.

If you see the film first, then Fontane is a minor character, and it's understandable why the lengthy parts about him in the novel are boring.

Is it just me or does that sound quite funny? I've never heard Turnbull referred to as 'Bull' before

I thought all the filling in the novel was a pain in the arse to wade through too Don A. Especially all the 'Lucy and Jules' chapters and as 'Bull' said Nino was boring too.
I'm going against the grain a little bit here I think, but I really enjoyed reading The Last Don.

FH

Don A,.. I'm reading the book now for the second time. First time was 33 years ago. So inbetween I've seen the GFs about XXXX number of times. Reading it the second time, yes the Johnny stuff was a little boring. But I know the story. I don't care that his ex-wife made him bacon and eggs and served it to him in bed. But as others have stated, I think it demonstrates the Don's far reaching power, his deep sense of commitment and friendship and the respect that he commanded. I haven't gotten to Lucy's vagina yet, so I can't wait to see the relevance.

LOL!

lol

I actually thought the stuff about Johnny Fontane was really interesting. I agree with TB that all that information on Jules Segal, Lucy, and Nino was completely irrelevant, and the time Puzo spent writing about them would have been much better spent giving us more details about the Corleone family. I mean honestly, who gives a crap about Lucy's vagina??

DA
I couldn't agree more. The Johnny Fontaine story in the book, along with the Lucy Mancini story, were completely unnecessary. FFC did the right thing by omitting both from the film.

Having said that, I really enjoyed the rest of the book. I liked how characters such as Luca Brasi, Kay Adams, Carlo, and Al Neri were developed more. The book fleshed out Santino & Fredo much more, which books usually do. I was pleasantly surprised (having seen the movie first) of the subtle differences from book to movie: 1) Tom's explanation to Kay at the end 2) what Mama believed about Michael 3) how Michael was brought back from Sicily 4) and how Fredo was disfavorably viewed by his father because of his actions in Vegas.