why would Michael kill his brother, vito would not have, sonny would not have, and how could he ever find peace in his mind by killing his mothers son. he always knew fredo was weak, give him a position in the family, don't let him in on the business side, let him manage a hotel, michael refused to take him under his wing, Michael proved by killing his own blood, he was the most savage one of the entire family, why kill fredo?

BC, I agree completely. However, there are several Board members who are apologists for Michael. Actually, Michael did exile Fredo as you suggest he should have. However, those apologists come up with some bizarre rationalizations about Fredo's continuing threat to Michael. For example, one Board member posted that if Fredo was not murdered by Michael then he could provide Roth with a layout of the Tahoe compound (as if the attack on Michael did not already require that information).

So, you are right. Fratricide places Michael at the apogee of life's degenerates.

thank you oly, my thoughts exactly.

One of the things that makes Michael reprehensible is the choices he made, consciously and knowingly. When he chose to become the Don, he chose a way of life that made his killing of his own brother a necessity, to his way of thinking.

Fredo had betrayed Michael to his enemy, and endangered not only Michael's life, but Kay's. As a brother, Michael of course could have given Fredo a pass--punished him, perhaps, but spared his life. But, as Don, Michael believed that, if he showed any sign of "weakness"--even toward his own brother--others might get the idea that he had a "soft spot" that could be exploited. Tessio thought him weak in the face of Barzini's provocations, and betrayed him. After the Tahoe shooting, Michael could not rule out the possibility that Rocco and Neri--who, earlier in the day, he described to Geary as men he trusted with his life--were part of the conspiracy. Call it paranoia, but it comes with choosing to be the Don: anyone, no matter how close to you, could become your enemy.

(N.B.: Binnie, you posted a good question, but it belongs in the Trilogy section because killing Fredo wasn't in the novel.)

I think the book informs the topic a bit. At the start of the book Michael intends to become a mathematics professor, and he can be seen as a cerebral character. Kay says that she loves Michael because he's "always fair." Fairness, though, is a mathematical calculation - it means that Michael always gives back to people what they deserve, good or bad. When Fredo betrays Michael, they're both trapped, because Michael's mind doesn't have the flexibility to make an allowance for his dim brother.

I think that one of the themes of the book is that intelligence is overrated. Paulie gets cute, Carlo gets cute, Tessio was always smarter. The dimwitted Bocchicchios make a good living and have Vito's respect.

TB, I've never bought into the Michael thought of as weak reasoning. Tessio did not think that Michael was weak; he thought that Michael's decision to not let him and Clememza "build up our regimes" left the Corleones understrength. Tessio betrayed Michael simply because he thought that, under the circumstances, Barzini's victory was inevitable. When Michael murdered Fredo, he was (and had been for years) king of the underworld. I don't know how anyone in that world would think him weak. He wasn't paranoid; he was realistic and prudent. As he told Tom, our people are businessmen. Their loyalty is based on that. Thus, when the Corleone business becomes unprofitable for them, their loyalty is affected. Michael recognized that just as anyone in that business should.

It's not just a question of Michael's motivation. To murder Fredo, Michael used his son and his sister. That's the apogee of avarice. As you state, Michael was reprehensible.

Of all of Michaels' men, I feel that neither Clemenza or Neri would have betrayed him. Neri was gotten out of jail for a murder charge when he was a cop. Clemenza, you you are how,he felt about Mike when he was showing him the restaurant gun in his basement.
As I have said before, Neri didn't want to kill Fredo, but had no choice to Do so on Mike's orders.
The theory of shooting him on the lake with the shot echoing all over the place - bad decision. How do you explain a gunshot to the back of someone's head "that drowned".
Neri could have whacked him over the head with an oar, " He stood up in they very front of the boat to pull in a big fish,lost his balance, fell and hit his head on the side of the boat and fell in
I got up to get him, but he already went under". Reach your arms into the water almost up to your shoulders and that's it. If the body is retreived, there's a cut on the head, case closed. Forensics in the late 50's when ever this happened was not like it is today.
In the scene where Nero pulls the gun out, there's hills around the lake, too many possible witnesses to at least hear that shot, let alone heard it then be looking around and see 1 boat on the water and someone dumping a body overboard.

tb sorry about the posting, didn.t know.

Not a problem, Binnie--you started an interesting thread.

Off topic but why was Fredo ever allowed into the family in the first place. They knew he was stupid and to have him that close to the family leaders was disaster waiting to happen.

I'm surprised Vito didn't set him up in a legitimate job and keep him away from the family business.

I think you might be letting Fredo in the movie bleed into Fredo in the book. I think the novel might describe him as "dutiful," maybe not the sharpest cookie but mostly just lacking in imagination and drive. I think that when he falls apart after the shooting, they say they were surprised because he was a genuinely tough guy.

Thanks for the explanation mustachepete. You're right. I've never been able to finish the novel and don't remember much about what I did read.

I was thinking about his portrayal in the movie.