I am about 1/3 through the GF book. Although I find it interesting and it also fills in many gaps that are left out of the movie, I also have to say that the novel portrays the various characters in VERY different ways than the GF Trilogy does. It is rather disappointing to me, actually. I suppose it has to do with the fact that I saw the movies BEFORE I read the book. But, I find the characters in the book rather hostile and not at all like they are portrayed in the movie. Michael seems much more hostile toward Sonny in the book than in the movie. The whole relationship between the brothers (including Tom) is much more negative (I think) than how it is portrayed in the movie.

I have to say that, although the book has provided a lot of information, it is not as satisfying as I thought it would be. Perhaps it will get better as I go further into the book.

Anybody else get the same or similar take?

~~ Lollie

Identical feeling. Even I watched the movies before reading the book (though only till book 1). Not only is michael more hostile towards sonny, but also talks a lot, compared to the movies where his silence was more powerful. But this being the trilogy forum, movies will be ultimate truth( Just for Me atleast )

Give Mike a break, he's just a college boy. He'll become less and less talkative.
What makes this book so unique, is the development of character, incredible knowledge of human nature and portrayal of subtleties in it and in the processes of human mind.
I can write endless hymns to every line, every phrase in the main storyline, but I believe that with time you'll come to appreciate such things yourselves. Of course it's impossible on the first reading, who doubts.
As to someone's being hostile, I can't see where you got that. I feel the intercourse within the family to be portrayed with much more warmth and autenticity in the book than in the movie.
Read on!

I agree with you on the development of the various characters through the novel. Although each character experiences both physical and mental changes (Vito Corleone the most) the changes are not implausible nor what would be uncharacteristic of them.

Truly Puzo was a great storyteller, and experienced at people, how they view the world, and how they affect the ones closest to them.

Now, just think of the actor that you dislike the most and put him in the movie role of Michael instead of Pacino. Would you still think that the movie was better than the book? A movie stimulates different parts of the brain than a book does. A book requires that our brains work harder than when we view a movie. A book requires that we work; a movie only requires that we view it. It's an intellectual difference.

A picture is indeed worth a thousand words.

What can you do? Hollywood likes to sugarcoat things; especially in the 70s, when movie goers weren't used to seemingly depressing films such as now (it seems like happy-endings are a no-no now, although the Godfather didn't exactly have a happy ending... But that is mostly due to the novel).