In the book, Puzo uses several times the technique of describing the results of an event before he tells us how it happened.
- We learn about the assassination of Vito when Michael reads the newspaper headlines.
- After the assassination of the Don the Corleones ask themselves "Where was Luca Brasi?" Only later we learn how he was murdered by Bruno and Sollozzo.
- The most suprising scene is when we read about Bonasera's worries. Then Hagen rings, and the Don suprisingly stands in Bonasera's parlor and wants a favor. As if this is not surprising enough: Sonny is dead! (Only later we read about the events which lead to his death.)

Now, how did you like this technique when you read the book. Did you find it cheap or clever? (I guess, most of us had been influenced by the film...)

I think it was more cheap than clever, but it didn't get in the way of my enjoying the novel.
The two most pithy comments I heard about the novel were: "Reads like an inspired first draft," and "trashy but interesting."

Normally, I hate it when a novel changes either tense or point of view, but I didn't really mind it in "The Godfather." The book's strengh was never that it was well written. It was just a great story. Puzo was a much better storyteller than he was a writer.

I think I recall reading (Lebo's book?) that Coppola actually toyed with the idea of filming it the same way. Thank God he didn't!

...but he did do the back-and-forth thing for II, even though most of II didn't appear in the novel.

Hm. What do you mean? I think in GF2 he intertwined two different stories: Michael's and Vito's.
But we don't see the results of an action before the action, like the corpse of Sonny and then his killing.