Was The Sicilian better than The Godfather?

I haven't read any of these novels yet, but what do you think?

Not by a long shot.

Godfather is a masterpiece. The Sicilian read like Puzo was trying to just get some more money quick.

I didn't think the Godfather book was great, either. Way too much on Fontane. Puzo had a hard on for Sinatra for some reason and it came off a lot like jealousy.

puzo never knew Sinatra oak. but it was widely known in and
around Hollywood that Sinatra had the backing of the mob,
Sinatra was as most will tell you was a punk-ass bully and was very well not only disliked, but hated.

without the mob Sinatra could not even have a job.

"He thought he desired respect from his talent and because of the people he ran around with.

I had a chance to meet him in Rao's me and a guy I was protecting we're sitting at a table. Then Sinatra and his people come in. No one knew me, but they did know the guy with me. One of Sinatra people comes over and invites him to his table. I was pretty excited how many chances do you get to meet Sinatra. The guy I was with was in his 20s I was in my 30s.

Instead of moving to his table like a normal person would he tells him to come to ours. Sinatra gets insulted and leaves. I almost shot ray- Ray myself. I am still annoyed I did not get a chance to meet him.

Your guy must have been pretty high up, a skipper at least, if he expected Sinatra to come to HIS table.

The Godfather is a great book, but it's written poorly in places. Puzo is a great storyteller, but not a great writer. I think The Sicilian is the better-written book.

I have to agree. Tried reading the Godfather several times. It's no wonder Coppola tossed out about half the book to make the movie. Chapter after chapter on Johnny Fontane and bizarre Hollywood characters. I think Hollywood is where Puzo's wits lie. I'm guessing all the Profaci/Colombo guys hanging around the set deserve the most to credit for the realism in I and II.