The Godfather VS. Other Books

I've read three of Puzo's books. I first read the Godfather. I found it incredible. It over threw all the other books I read, as a tyrant siezes the throne of the previous king. It immediately became my favorite book. I next read the Last Don. Not too shabby. But then I looked at the Godfather Papers. It began with Puzo stating that the Godfather is his least favorite book. I was shocked. He also said that the Fortunate Pilgrim was his favorite, and it was a novelization of his life. So I read it. It was great. But what was wrong with the Godfather. Was it because it protrayed Southern Italians in a bad way. Is it that us, Sicilians, are now all Gansters because of it. Or is it that he made more bread from that book, than any other. Dimmi qualcosa, I really felt like I connected with Puzo himself in all his books. So sad that my favorite book from an author is his least favorite.

Welcome Archangel, hope to see many thoughtful posts from you.
Puzo's pre-GF novels, "The Dark Arena" and "The Fortunate Pilgrim," got good critical reviews and were considered "artistic" works--that is, "serious" novels according to critics' standards. But they went nowhere commercially. Puzo wrote "The Godfather" in part because he needed money to pay off gambling debts. So, instead of following the "artistic" formula of the first two novels, he wrote a "popular" or "sensational" novel to make money. Was he overly critical of "The Godfather"? He's certainly entitled to his opinion of his own work. But, I'm one of his readers. I read both the early novels and didn't like them. I've read "The Godfather" hundreds of times, and loved it each time.