Well, really, Puzo and Winegardner ARE different people, and thus with different writing styles. Because Puzo worked closely with Coppola on the films, it's understandable that the emphases would be the same as in the original book. But really, who's to say that's the only way that a Godfather book should be written? There have to be as many ways to write one as there are writers. That's coming from a hardcore Godfather fan myself. And, by the way, a pretty decent amount of time was spent on the villain, Don Croce, in The Sicilian, and Puzo WROTE that one!

But the plot structure is one of the trademarks of the Godfather book and movies. Part of the fun was figuring out who was plotting against the family and why. In some cases you had to draw your own conclusions to find out why so and so wanted so and so killed. See Mike vs Roth. But MW took this mystery away by focusing on Geraci too much.

Now this is lower on my list of complaints but it is an important one none the less.

He took the mystery away. So what? That didn't hinder my enjoyment of the story at all. MW's way of doing things really isn't THAT much worse than Puzo/Coppola's way. There are times when the plot is just TOO damned confusing to follow WITHOUT having it just spelled out and having more time with the plotters. Lord knows I would have had less of a hard time with Godfather III if the whole Joey Zasa/Osvaldo Altobello/Licio Luchesse/P2 plot was explained a lot better. If there had been more time spent with any of those characters, the whole thing would probably have made a little more sense. No, strike that... a LOT more sense.

You see, as much as I was not really thrilled with Returns and Revenge, I agree with Erik here in the sense that I thought that the Geraci character, especially in Returns, was a pretty interesting character with a good story. In Revenge I did happen to enjoy the way Winegardner brought him back and how he involved Geraci's father.

Revenge, in my opinion, could have been a much better book had Winegardner evolved some of his own characters, especially those from the Brooklyn scenerios.

As for the Tom Hagen scenerio with his involvement in politics, I thought that was one of the better subplots that Winegarner presented. I've always felt that Hagen would have gone in that direction for the Corleones, and Winegardner set that up pretty well.

But again, where I feel that he dropped the ball was with the way that he killed off Hagen. It was somewhat suspenseful in leading up to Hagen's death, but at the same time it was very predictable and pretty anti climactic.

Nah, they still sucked!

Don't abandon me now, DC.

Again, in my opinion, what made them suck, was the fact that the author had the opportunity to run with some of the well known, more interesting characters from the novel and the movie, but instead chose to run too far with a boring Johnny Fontaine character. There was a chapter on Fontaine that was very interesting and Sinatra like, but Winegardner went a little overboard with Fontaine overall.

As I said, I thought that his Geraci character was pretty interesting, and in Revenge, I did enjoy the Carlos Tramonti storyline and I really liked the Paradise character, but felt that Winegardner did not take the opportunity to bring the Paradise character to his fullest potential.

With The GF's Revenge, I do give credit to Winegardner in that he seems to have done his homework as far as real life mobsters and polticians go and creatively applied some of those real life happenings to his charaters in the book.

Revenge had some really good potential, but it never really reached that potential. However, out of the two that he wrote, if I had to pick one, I would pick Revenge over Returns.

Yeah, I'd say the first third, maybe even half of Revenge was the best part of either of the two.

When Johnny starts boning Francesca I keep thinking of a 50 year old Al Martino singing while the 5 year old twins (Francesca being one of them) watch.

Infamita

I felt the same way about the Francesca / Johnny storyline. Totally uncalled for. Added absolutely nothing to the book.

I agree. After Vito got Johnny that role in the movie he wanted, he brought zero to the overall plot of the films and books.

That's exactly why Coppola was right to just remove the Fontane subplot from the film version of Godfather altogether. Having said that, if MW had to pick up that plot for his books, I think he did a superb job in Returns, including commenting on the Rat Pack days, and especially bringing Fontane to the conclusion of realizing that, no matter how close he is to James Shea, he'll always be a stupid Guinea to them. That's a good side-story. It's when he gets to Revenge that, I have to concede, there was very little for Fontane to do and very little reason for him to be in the book. He hosted Columbus Day, yawn. He played Columbus in a flop movie, yawn. Having him angrily dynamiting his helipad in Returns was a fine climax to his story; having him marry Francesca not necessarily so. That's a plotline that would require its own little short story to clarify and, perhaps, make less gross.

Now, when the book says Fontane got his second Oscar for being in the film based on Lupo's book that was based on Geraci's memoir, THAT peaks my interest. I've said this before. Who did he play in the film? The Fontane stand-in? Maybe even the Don? Who knows? And given that he's still friends with the Corleones, then and later, why would the Corleones let him do a film that's a thinly-veiled attack on them and their lives? What were the behind-the-scenes arguments like? Did Michael and Fontane talk about it? THAT's a possible short story waiting to be told: behind the scenes of the "Fausto's Bargain" films.

And that's where I feel that Winegardner dropped the ball. It was fine that he wove Johnny back into the storyline of his novels, but in my opinion he wasted too much time and energy in the Fonataine / Francesca relationship, instead of using that energy to have one of his own creations like Paradise develop into a much more interesting and important character in the storyline.

The guy is not a terrible writer. At various times in those books he shows that he actually has a talent for writing. But what bothers me is that he had such a fantastic foundation, in The Godfather, to work with and he didn't take full advantage of the foundation that he was handed.

And with all this back and forth, you and I both know, that when he comes out with his next GF novel, we'll be right there paying for it at the counter of our local bookstore.

Stop it! Stop it! Stop it! Stop it! Stop it! Stop it! Stop it!

Weingardner is a turd!

Just a tad too militant there, are we, Pizza?

Look at this guy calling me miltant?

He's here all of 3 days and, aw, screw it, my BB brothers don't love me no more.

I still love you, Pizz'.

Wait, maybe this'll work better:

"You can ACT LIKE A MAN!" SMACK! "What's the matter with you?! Is this how you turned out? A Hollywood finnochio that cries like a woman? 'Whaaah-hah-hah! My BB brothers don't love me no more! What can I do? What can I do?' What is that nonsense. Ridiculous."

There. That help?

Holy shit.

Okay, I'll go "and I want everybody here to know, there's not gonna be no trouble here fom me. DC, a porta!"

My parting words: Winegardner is still a turd. Erik Pflueger is a turd fondler.

So long cruel boards.

Pizz', I'm just breaking your balls, that's all. I'm only kidding with you. If you want, just write a response where you do a Billy Batts on me, beat the tar out of me, throw me in the car trunk, then stab me, shoot me, and then bury me in a lot where you'll have to dig me up a few months later anyway. "What'd'ya like, the leg or the wing, Henry? Or do ya still go for the old hearts 'n' lungs?"

Or, you know what? Why waste time? Just call me Spider and blow me away.

"I use'ta fuck guys like Pflueger inee ass, inee ass I use'ta fuck 'em."

Like that?

**Cardi walks into the room and Erik glances over at him and then continues:

"You spend time with your gangsterbb family? Because a man that doesn't spend time with his gangsterbb family can never be a real man."

"I use'ta fuck guys like Pflueger inee ass, inee ass I use'ta fuck 'em." You know, I should know what movie that's from, but I'm ashamed to say I don't. All I can think of is the guy in Road House who taunts Swayze with "I used to fuck guys like you in prison!" Probably not the same thing...

**Erik kisses the ring of Don Cardi.

That's Batts at the bar in GOODFELLAS!!

After his initial argument with Tommy, when he's talking to the bearded guy.

What'sa matter wit u?

PB the know it all...

Did you use Michael's Wood?

Nah, he broke it off on Kay at the movies. He was diabetic anyway, long before Viagra.

He didn't need it.

That's the old Pizza! Sorry, the "shine box" jokes distracted me from the inee ass line...

And he couldn't use the wood anyway, it isn't my fifth anniversary

You're alright, Erik.

C'mon, let's be friends.

I have a private message for you in the spoiler window. No one else look, k?

Stronzo