Did you finish it DC ?
How obnoxious to suggest that "Fausto's Bargain" would go on to inspire three movies. An obvious allusion to the trilogy, written by a faux Puzo.

Oops. I see that you did finish it and you picked up on the reference to the three movies. Great minds.....

Yes, extremely obnoxious. And how about the Fredo's child thing? Winegardner is definitely leaving the door open for another book. What a terrible thought!

Don Cardi

Returns/Revenge would have been an OK pulp potboiler if it had been boiled down into one book -- and all the allusions to the Corleone Family saga deleted -- just make the book completely about the Gerace Family. Because in the end, that's what both books ended up being about anyway.

He even mentions that Sergio Lupo, his Mario Puzo alter ego, was best known for "An Immigrant's Tale", based on his mother.
Sounds an awful like "The Fortunate Pilgrim", which was based on Puzo's mother. Where does he get the balls ?

Great catch Pizzaboy! That one got by me. What a pair of balls, huh?



Don Cardi

Wow, DC. I was so relieved to finish GF's Revenge that I didn't even consider the idea of a third Winegardner book.
You are so right about Winegardner conveniently giving Fredo an heir. The worst part of it is that, given the age of this alleged child, he could set it after the events of GF 3.
Sonny's bastard son vs. Fredo's bastard son
He must be stopped !

Maybe we can get Annie Wilkes to kidnap him and put him through some "Misery."



Don Cardi

DC-
What a great idea that was.

Well, thanks guys. I was wondering if I should get this for Christmas or buy it or something, but after reading this thread and remembering what a heap of crap Returns was, it looks like you've done me a huge favor. I will not be reading this book.

And isn't it sad that any future movies/books will have to probably be tied in with these clunkers somehow? I know that the prospect of future movies is another discussion in itself, but now that these 2 books really screwed the pooch, I almost don't want any movies made -- and I would go see anything related to the GF in any way!

I actually thought about taking this out of the library today, but I decided to pass. Even for FREE, I don't want to read it.

Amazon.com has already dropped the price for its hardcover version to $4.99. It was released six weeks ago and its already in the bargain basement bins.

Are you kidding me?

I bought mine through the banner on this site. Geoff, I want a REBATE!

Come to think of it, Winegardner should give me a full refund!



Don Cardi

No way in hell. GFRturns and GFRvenge BOTH have NUMEROUS major breaks with canon as already established in the movies, to make any further GF movies using Returns or Revenge as a basis would, in effect, throw III and part of II out of canon.

Returns and Revenge have to be simply considered as "Elseworlds" or "Imaginary Stories" loosely based on the Corleone characters, and only peripherally involving them in the storyline.

Now, if they want to make a "Nick Gerace" movie -- focusing almost completely on him -- and maybe mention in passing that he knows, or knows of, the Corleone Family, that might work.

But no established character from the Godfather movies should appear onscreen in a Nick Gerace movie.

I demand that Winegardner give us a full refund on both of his GF books.

Miggy, you finish this trash book yet?

Has anyone that started reading it finished it yet? Or am I the only sadist victim who suffered through the whole thing?



Don Cardi

I have read it and i absoutley hated it! I mean Tom Hagen's death!

I finished it. It was the literary equivelant of a full rectal examination. Ironically, I was in Barnes and Noble on 86th St in Manhattan today. It's marked down to 75% off, so if you have a membership card, you can get it for like 5 bucks.
Hopefully, being that the general public isn't buying it, Paramount will take it as a sign to NOT exercise their option on it.

I think that you're being a little too kind.




Don Cardi

Nope sorry I haven't yet. I'm on pg.161 chapter 12

The Shea brothers thing was too close to what happened, all he did was copied history, he didn't even change anything about it until near the end. At least Puzo took real life events and put his own spin on them...

Longneck. Bottom line is that his followups on the Godfather Novel sucked big time. The guy had a license to use these characters, and in having that privilege he could have written some great stories using some very interesting GF characters. Characters like Pentageli, Clemenza, etc. Instead he blew it big time.

Over in another topic I said, along with another member, that Winegardner wanted to introduce his own characters, characters like Nick Gerace, and in doing so he just used Puzo's characters to suround his own. Using the GF names only helped him to sell his trash novels.

Don Cardi

AMEN.....

I've seen this in hardback in the local Waterstones. I must admit I was tempted, but I remembered the first book and I felt a lot better. Been following Don Cardi's continuing review and I have to say I don't feel too inspired. But then again, I'm a sucker for all things Corleone. I'll probably read it. Buggered if I'm gonna buy it though.

I just hope we don't get a repeat performance of Michael's "wood".

No, you don't get a repeat performance of Michael's wood in this book. Just Johnny Fontaine's.

When I read that I felt like throwing up.

You know, I was re-watching the Saga on Bravo yesterday and I caught the deleted scene where Francesca introduces Gardner Shaw to Michael.

It just fucking galls me that Winegardner completely overlooked this.

You seemed surpried by this, c'mon it's Winegardner!

"GFRturns and GFRvenge BOTH have NUMEROUS major breaks with canon as already established in the movies, to make any further GF movies using Returns or Revenge as a basis would, in effect, throw III and part of II out of canon."

I don't understand this attitude at all. It's perfectly clear to me that Winegardner was not instructed by his publisher and the Puzo estate to create a sequel to the FILMS, but to create a sequel to the BOOK. By that reckoning, the films would not be canon, but the book is, first and foremost. He would be obligated to proceed from what the book says and follow up from there. Therefore, he was not at all obligated to say ALL the heads of the Five Families were clipped when, in the book, only Barzini and Tattaglia were killed. Nor, for that matter, was he obligated to follow a scene from Part II that wasn't even in the finished film, but cut, regarding a proposal from Garner Shaw or anyone else, for instance. It could have been done if he wished to, but if he felt he had a better story to tell regarding Francesca, why should he have been so straightjacketed? Again, it wasn't even in the finished film, and for obvious reasons it wasn't in the book, so he decided not to use it. Over. Basta. Who cares if it galls us? Did I notice the difference? Yes, I did. But really, in the long run, how the hell is my life any better or worse if Francesca married Gardner Shaw or William Van Arsdale? How is Godfather Part II any different, since you're so concerned about that? Is the film fundamentally ruined for you? If so, that's your problem, not mine, and not Winegardner's.

Still, it is perfectly understandable that the films be considered canon by so many, here and elsewhere, because let's face it, the films are what most people know, not the book. The book was a bestseller, a potboiler (Hell, even Puzo - like the Sergio Lupo character modeled after him in Revenge - considered it a sell-out), but the films became iconic, some of the finest works of art the cinema ever produced. For that reason, Winegardner could not ignore Part II altogether; ignoring the small issue of Gardner Shaw was one thing, ignoring the much larger issues of Fredo's death, Hyman Roth and Cuba quite another. To do that would be to earn more ire than you've already sent his way. He had to at least acknowledge the films. But it was always gonna be HIS story, not the films'. That's why he had to include Geraci at the periphery of the conspiracy that got Fredo killed. Geraci was his villain, and he had to be the one hurting the Corleones, so he had to have a role - via Forlenza and Russo - in Roth's plan. But that's it. It doesn't change Roth as a character, doesn't make him any less dangerous, it just explains where he got some of his ideas. Again, how does that change your life?

But again, he didn't want to just novelize Part II for his book (I'm sure some of you wouldn't have minded that, and to tell the truth, I wouldn't have taken issue with it either) but what self-respecting creative author, give the freedom he was given, would want to do that? He had his own story to tell, for better or worse, and to accomodate both sides of the divide he just worked around Part II. The result was a hybrid where, as long as things in the films didn't contradict either Puzo's book or his own intentions, it was acknowledged and regarded as "canon." Because of this, in Winegardner's books, the flashbacks show Michael, as in the film, enlisting in the U.S. Marines on Vito's birthday, which fell on the bombing of Pearl Harbor in December 1941 (a scene that was fundamental to the message and meaning of the film and was not cut, I might add), since there was nothing in the book of sufficient importance to contradict that such a thing happened. He also puts the scene into the framework of Michael's life by discussing what happens before, during and after that scene. Or how about this? the original Puzo book had nothing at all about Vito going back to Sicily and getting vengeance. The Mafia chief was never even named, let alone named Ciccio. But after the film was released showing Vito killing Ciccio (again, this was fundamental to the flashback sequences since it put a satisfying coda on those scenes), even Puzo acknowledged it by mentioning it in his "side-quel," The Sicilian. So of course Winegardner acknowledged it both in Returns and Revenge. Winegardner acknowledged those films and their continuity or "canon," if you wanna use that word, much more than you give him credit for, and he didn't have to do it.

And by the way, concerning what Don Cardi had to say: "The guy had a license to use these characters, and in having that privilege he could have written some great stories using some very interesting GF characters. Characters like Pentageli, Clemenza, etc. Instead he blew it big time." What? Did we read the same book? Clemenza was in a huge chunk of Returns. In fact, every major character - and several minor ones - from Puzo's book who was alive was included in this story, Michael, Fredo, Tom, Kay, Connie, Clemenza, Johnny, etc. Pentangeli was a Coppola/Puzo last-minute creation (and a very good one) to compensate for Richard Castellano not being able to agree to be Clemenza in the sequel, so did Winegardner have to write for him? He was acknowledged; that's enough (though, to be fair to you, his name was consistently misspelled). And speaking of, you decry Winegardner for creating his own characters, but you don't give Coppola the same lip when he helps to create new characters himself. Pentangeli, or Hyman Roth, or Pat Geary, you have no problem with, but add Nick Geraci, or Louie Russo, or Mickey Shea to that and suddenly it's "Oh, my virgin ears!" And you bitch about the "wood" jokes in Returns, as if playful and witty married couples never talk that way, but ignore the even sicker scene of Sonny banging Lucy Mancini in the original Puzo book. C'mon! These are pulp novels, neither more nor less. Coarse writing and dialogue comes with the turf.

What are you all mad at, that he wrote a story that didn't fit into canon, or that he wrote one that didn't fit into canon in the way YOU wanted? Well, who's "you?" Who are we, really, but some guys who got on the Web to bitch? Some of us could conceivably write a Godfather story ourselves, true, but we have no established record of publishing books, do we? That's why the Puzo estate picked Winegardner in the first place, because like Puzo he'd already published a couple books that had artistic merit but not widespread readership. And for that matter, they liked his outline the best (that's right; the Puzo estate knew what it was getting from him from the first and said "go do it" with their blessing). If we're bitching now, well, we should have written some other books that had nothing to do with mobsters so we'd have an established publishing record like he did, but we didn't, so the Puzo estate never came to us, and so anything we write is nothing but fanon, which is just the same as saying it's worthless to anyone but ourselves.

For better or worse, the Winegardner books are the approved sequels to the Puzo novel, and you may like or dislike that if you choose, but to treat him like he's a piece of shit like you've all been doing is just monstrous. You call his work garbage (which may be considered a legitimate criticism) and you treat him like he's some kind of a damned infidel for laying hands on the sacred texts (which is definitely not). Well, it ain't sacred, and you're not priests of the holy church of the Corleones. None of us are. We're fanboys, and pretty damned picky ones at that. If you wanted something different, you should have worked for it. But we didn't; we went on to pursue our own lives and interests, whatever they are, and that's fine. But don't blame Winegardner for getting the chance to do what everyone here claims to want and then running with it as he saw fit, as an artist should. You don't like the art, fine, but don't make the artist a freaking criminal for it. That's an infamita.

Well, welcome to the boards Mark, er, I mean Erik.

The dialogue in both books was horrible, end of story, "behold the wood," or Geraci's father calling him a big dummy and telling him he's gonna get a meat hook up his ass "butta-beepa-dee-boppa-dee boop." PUH-LEEZE!! It's insulting to Italian-Americans that a non Italian would write such nonsense. When James Caan brilliantly ad-libbed butta beep, etc...it was one thing, to put it on paper in a "novel," and I use that term loosely, is another.

He had every right to write the books, it's the American way, but he did a poor job.

And by the way, if he was SOOOO true to Puzo's novel, instead of the films, where were Michael's TWO sons?

Like I say, welcome to these boards, I mean that, but you won't find too many fans of those trash books around here. And not because they're based on "sacred texts" but because they're poorly written.