why does no one like the Winegartner novels?

I am new to this forum and just got finished with The Godfathers Revenge, I have yet to read The Godfather Returns. I think Winegartner's take on the story was very fresh. I was immediately drawn into the storyline, which I felt was very clever and worthy of following/continuing Mario Puzo. I am curious of the reasons some members dislike the Winegartner novels.......

so, it hasn't been much time since my post about Mike Winegartner's novels. However I've noticed many views since my post. If so many members have such a negative opinion about his novels, why are there no replies? I am not pro or con, but I would like some opinions..........

First and foremost, welcome.

Sometimes it takes a while to get replies. Who can say why? In this instance it might be because lots of people think the premise is so obvious as to not be worth discussing or has been discussed over and over again. Or maybe board activity is just at a temporary low tide. But again that's just a guess. It is always good to have people with contrary opinions here.

I can tell you my opinions. I was interested in the books when they came out but upon reading lost interest. I simply didn't think the writing style was very good. I didn't need the Fredo being a closeted homosexual theme as an explanation for his angst and "weakness". I considered that really lazy writing. I thought the names of some of the other mobsters were cartoonish and Tom getting involved in hits pretty outside of his character. I had zero interest in the lives of Sonny's children.

But fundamentally for all of the flaws, repetitive themes, weird obsessions and poorly written sections of Puzo's novels they were HIS novels. Winegartner's versions read like rushed fan fiction. And I'm not a fan of fan fiction. It's like sitting down to read a Conan story and discovering it was written by L. Sprague DeCamp or Lin Carter and not Robert E. Howard. Yeah, the names are the same and the structure recognizable but the spark is gone.

I would almost be more impressed if Winegartner had just written his own story of Cleveland or Midwest mobs and just included a few teaser references to the Corleone or Barzini Families back east. That certainly seems to be where his primary interests lay.

I remember attempting to read 'The Godfather Returns' only because somebody who had heard I liked the movies plopped the paperback on my desk. Found it unbelievably boring and much like Lilo states, very 'lazy' and cheap writing. As if Winegartner just typed what he thought the reader would either expect or most likely want to hear. Fredo's suggested 'homosexuality' being ont of them. (I always wondered if someone other than Cazale had played the part, would he have taken that turn w/ the character...).

Last segment I recall dealing with was the one introducing Sonny's now teenaged daughters, who if I recall correctly (but maybe not it's been nearly 4yrs)...were growing up unaware of their 'Corleone' background, who their father was and where they came from.

After that I put the book down & never picked it back up.

Winegartner can't really be blamed, though...he was awarded the contract and did what he thought he needed to do.

It's been a while since I read them, and the plots are a little fuzzy now, but as I recall my main objection to the two books was that they relegated Corleone Family characters to fairly minor roles while going on in great detail about the adventures of Nick Geraci (Winegardner's alter ego) and other new characters we had never heard of.

And as I recall there were several whopping continuity problems where certain plot points in the books contradicted events which took place in the movies (especially GF III), which I consider ironclad canon.

I thank those who have replied as i am able to use other opinions to help my understanding of certain plots or themes that i may have missed. I will continue to post and ask questions,as I am an avid reader of all the posts here since joining, hopefully getting some much appreciated and valuable outlooks on this Universe in which we are all drawn.

Check out this thread, started by me...

http://www.gangsterbb.net/threads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=279066#Post279066

Man, has it been 5 years already???

Just starting "Returns". Already read "Revenge", just a matter of i found that book first and curiosity took over. I'm not one to read things backwards. 2 chapters, so far, so good. PLEASE MEMBERS GIVE M.W. ANOTHER CHANCE>>>>>>

Honestly, I can understand why people don't like them. If I hadn't known that there would be a number of prominent characters who aren't members of the Corleone family or others that the movie focused on, I'd probably be more disappointed.

I am enjoying "Returns" so far, however, knowing that there are other plots and characters in play.

Generally I like anything to do with the Godfather or the mafia in general but I agree with Lilo, Apple on Ya, and Enzo Baker. I stated in another email that the story of Nick Geraci should have been ditched. I would have been in favor of the Rosato brothers being more in Geraci's role. Since the Cleveland Mob (Lakeville road group) was affiliated with Roth who backed the Rosatos. Since Pentangelli and Cicci would be out of commission, I would say that the other NY families would be looking to encroach on the Corleone NY territory. Mike would need someone fierce to hold the NY territory so the Rosatos could fill that role for a time until Mike could take his revenge for them causing trouble in the family. The stories of Joey Zasa and Don Altobello could have been done as well. Chicago along with Cleveland and the one of the NY families (along the same vein as Vito Genovese)would look to take over and be Boss of Bosses (Apalachian) and Mike could foil that plan and thats the start of the book.

Agreed with Lilo and Apple. I read The Godfather Returns...well about 3/4 of it, and I found it a complete bore.

Why he starts with Santino's daughters going to college is beyond me, and the Fredo homosexuality thing is ridiculous.
Is he implying homosexual are weak and stupid, or what?

As for Nick Geraci, he was a 2 dimensional character, alost a parody of the gangsters Puzo created, i.e. Sollozzo, Barzini, Tatt etc.

Nedless to say I never read the second one.

No.

I recently tried giving Winegartner a chance. I later punched myself for not taking the majority of this boards views on it into more into consideration.

Now there's a couple hours of my life Im not going to get back. I coulda been doing something productice, like sleeping.

What dreck. Its like...how dare he??? And as for Nick "First I survived death by virtue of an underground grave, then I faked my death in an aeroplane crash" Geraci...if Winegartner really modelled the character after himself, then Winegartner is probably one of those guys that masturbates while looking in the mirror.

"Me! ME! Oh yeah, me, oh yes, yeah, uh-huh, me, me, me, ME!...I want a bowl of cereal and then sleep now"

I have read enough of the Winegardner novels to come to a conclusion, and that conclusion is simple.

I think that Winegardner's biggest mistake was not his writing style, but to add his own alter ego to an excisting and popular story, which really is an insult to the fans and to Mario Puzo himself.

You don't do such a thing. It's a big fuck you to everyone who loves the original story and films. He had to show some respect, but he ignorantly or arrogantly chose otherwise. And this I think is the main reason why many fans hate his novels.

It's a shame, because I feel that the rest of the story isn't bad at all. I'm convinced that he could have made a decent novel if he chose to only expand upon the story and characters of the original novel and the first two films. Characters such as the Rosato Brothers (the most interesting and popular side characters which we are pretty much kept in the dark about), Don Altobello, and ofcourse Hyman Roth and his cold war with Michael. He could have told alot about the Corleones' dealings in Cuba just like TB has done on this forum.

But to make things even worse, he let's his own character kill Tom Hagen! And then he let's Michael receive a dead baby alligator as a sign of Tom's demise just as the dead fish was for Luca in the film. At this point his story was at its worst.

But I do like the Louise Russo/Chicago story, Michael's earlier years, Tom Hagen's story and him trying to become elected in congress, and Clemenza's story in New York. I think even the story of Tramonti organizing the death of the president wasn't bad. But since sixty percent of the story consists of Nick Geraci and how awesome and ingenieus he (Winegardner) was, I don't like sixty percent of the novels.

I think that Winegardner isn't a bad writer, but he fucked things up by making some really bad decisions. But he probably doesn't give a shit and think's he's better than Puzo ever was.

The late 1950s were the most interesting period for the Mafia and also The Godfather and a novel about those years deserves to be a good one. It's disapointing that this is not the case.

Well put, Sonny .

Thanks, pb.

I forgot to add that I also noticed that Winegardner did a lot of research on the mafia and also The Godfather, so I want to give him credit for that. I liked how he explained the dealings between the families. For instance, the idea that Clemenza's son married Zaluchi's daughter to strengthen ties between the Corleones and Zaluchis. This is obviously a reference to Profaci's daughters marrying the sons of Detroit's bosses. I also liked the idea of 'The Fredo Corleone show' in Las Vegas. I would see Fredo do such a thing as he really was that kind of a person. So these are all plausible ideas.

So again, all the side stories and its characters are pretty decent, but sadly the main story with his own character being in the center of it all is highly implausible, even awkward.

I just got The Godfather's Revenge. I've read somehting over 30 pages so far. Madonne! Puzo was a sloppy write; this guy is a non-writer. I am already bored with it. His transparent mimicing of historical events is just plain unexciting. I don't know if I am going to read any more of it.

These books were probably one of the biggest disappointments I have ever experienced outside of the 1997 Orioles, 2006 Ravens and 2010 Ravens.

Wow, when I read these books when they came out I really enjoyed them. Hmmm... Maybe I was naive and need to read them again judging by the thoughts of our moustache Petes here at GBB! ;-)

I'm not sure if that could be considered a compliment.

I enjoyed them when I first read them too, but after re-reading them a couple of years later it was obvious they were rubbish, and I completely understand why so many on these boards hate them so much.

Most of my initial enjoyment clearly stemmed from the novelty of 'A New Godfather Story', and I wasn't expecting great literature anyway, so it was easy to be forgiving.

To put it bluntly, the problem is that he billed it as Godfather novel, and it was mostly about his own characters. It might have been better received if it was a "Tales from the Godfather" type of story, revolving around other minor characters that we aren't aware of from the movies/novel, but referencing the Corleones. Instead it was billed to be ABOUT the Corleones, and it wasn't.

To add insult to injury, Winegardner committed the gravest of all sins in writing: He used a Mary Sue character and to make matters worse he took established characters with established personalities and had them act completely contrary to how they were established to act in canon.

In my opinion it is because his books are the same thing as us talking about the Godfather on here, not Puzo.

Never read the books, but I read this.



Winegartner living out some creepy fantasy, egomania behavior.



Not believable.

Personally I was deterred from reading the books when I discovered the main character is some guy we've never heard of from the series.

Which is why it never happened.

I think I've read one of them back in the day (can't recall much of the plot) but Nick Geraci is just a Gary Stu. How were these published? It's fanfiction.

Expanding on what I said previously last year, it wouldn't have been as bad if it had been done like the Star Wars "Tales From" novels that took minor/background characters and gave them life. As I recall the books were based on the novel, and not the movies, but he could have done it a lot better if the first book had expanded on characters from GFII (e.g. Pentangeli, the Rosatos) and the second characters from GFIII (e.g. Zaza and The Ant, Altobello) to fill in the gaps with their background. Instead he went off on entirely his own tangent, with new characters and ignored existing characters entirely and had characters act totally different to how they acted previously. Basically the books should have been the filler between each movie, and ended just before the movies started (so the first book would have ended with the Corleones preparing for Anthony's communion, which would segue into the beginning of GFII, and the second would have ended with Michael learning that he's receiving that award from the Church).

The books would have been more well received if it had ONLY focused on his own characters and then made some vague references to the Godfather (e.g. have one of his own characters talk about "Don Michael's operations in Nevada" or have a cameo appearance in a scene).

Yeah, but when that happens you always run into a Jar Jar Binks like character, and the GF doesn't need that!