I thought the book was excellent. Not on the same level as 'The Godfather' or 'Omerta' but it deffinetly did Mario Puzo's 'Godfather' justice. I think the only reason people didnt like it is either because it wasnt as good as 'the godfather' [really, what kind of idiot would set there expectations so high] or it's the cool thing to do. There were only three things i didnt enjoy about the book. The first is that it ends up Kay didnt have an abortion. That was stupid and ruined the entire GF2. The second is that Anthony Corleone somehow knew about his uncle Frado's death and at the age of 10 seemed to understand his fathers business.

I also felt that the ending was a little rushed, but thats all of my complaints. I though Frado being Gay was excellent and a very good idea. Winegardner may not be as good as Puzo but he deffinetly holds his own.

Well, Im going to have to disagree on some things. I didn't think the book was excellent at all. To me this just some crazy story about the Corleones that never should have been told. I also thought making Fredo gay was a very stupid move. After all the girls in Vages did he just get tired of them? No story will ever be as good as The Godfather. I think the Corlones should just be left alone. I read the GFR because I would have liked to see what the Corleones did during these times but It wasnt good so in my mind it wasnt true. I do agree about Kays abortion, I thought that was a very stupid idea too, but Mario Puzo wouldn't have written the screen play for her to say that if he didnt want it to be true. The ending did seem to be rushed and I fully didn't understand it. About Anthony knowing about Fredo, he had to find out some how but im sure it wasnt on the day he was murderd.

Well anyways welcome to the boards.

Yes, thats what could of happened. It's very common for men who have had many women to get bored with them and begin to want more.

I dont think Frado was gay. Never in the book does it actually say Frado was gay. He was probably bisexual because it's illustrated in the book that on some occasions he does enjoy sexual intercourse with a women. This explanation would explain his sexual activity with both men and women.

Good point. But I still think it was alittle odd and shouldnt have been added.

Sleeping with all those women could have also been a front to hide the fact that he was gay or bisexual. He also had the trophy wife which also tried to hide the fact that he was gay/bi.

And I highly doubt ANYONE (in their right mind, at least) thought that the book was going to be as good as Puzo's book. And if someone expected the book to be good, like everything else with the Godfather name has been, it's because there's such a high standard when it comes to the Godfather.

If you liked the book, that's great, I'm glad someone was able to get enjoyment from it, I wish I could have. But for me, it was still a horribly written book that bastardized the original characters and goes against what we've seen/read before.

I have no doubt in my mind that another writer could have made this a good book. Still not as good as the original book or movies, but a nice look into the gaps between the original book and movies.

What I got did not suffice, and IMO, it never happened.

I just started reading the book, and so far its kinda interesting, but loaded with errors. Today I read about the reference to the TV show "The Untouchables". The book mentioned it was on the radio. It was never on the radio. The series started as a sort of mini series, and was so popular they made it into a weekly series. I think the author was thinking of the radio series called GangBusters"

Fredo being gay/bi is an interesting twist to the character. I found it to be in line with his character. He was basically a weak person, that just like to have fun and pleasure without much regards to morality.

would you be kind enough to give us the name of the author that you feel could have done a better job with a Godfather sequal.

GFR is one of the worst books I've ever read. I've defended GF III, but there is no defending this book.

Turnbull

GFR is one of the worst books I've ever read. I've defended GF III, but there is no defending this book. [/b][/quote]I rushed out to buy it the day it hit the stores, and was one of the first here to complete it and post my thoughts, so I didn't trash it because I thought it was "the cool thing to do."

Much like the film "Godfather III", had this book been a "stand alone" effort, with no previous basis for the characters or storyline, I probably would have thought it was better and enjoyed it a lot more.

But this was supposed to be a sequel, and as such, the author had a responsibility, I think, to stick to characterizations and storylines of the original, using his imagination only to fill in the gaps.

Unlike, GFIII which could have "stood alone", I don't believe GFR could. The storyline assumes that the reader knows the extensive background of all the main characters. I would think that someone with no knowledge of any of the characters would be completely lost. It has a built in appeal, and that is that as we read the book, we have picture perfect images in our minds as to what the characters look like! In the little I have read, I think its an interesting attempt to "fill in" the missing pieces of the original stories. My only negative reaction, is some of the inaccuracies of the write as to "facts"

would you be kind enough to give us the name of the author that you feel could have done a better job with a Godfather sequal. [/b][/quote]About half of the posters here could probably come up with a better story than was featured in TGR. As for authors out there who could do a better job... I'm not sure, I don't really read enough different authors to know one that could do a better job, especially in this genre.

I know Stephen King is primarily known for suspense and horror, but I believe that he's an excellent writer no matter what genre he's in, so I would be interested to see what he could come up with, if interested in having written TGR.

That said, I'm not saying that Winegardner isn't a good writer, I just think that he didn't do a good job with TGR. At all.

, I don't really read enough different authors to know one that could do a better job, especially in this genre[/QB][/QUOTE]

There you go! MW is the only author i can think of who has written a mafia fiction book in the last 5 years [excluding Joseph D. Pistone]. Do you think a Publisher who rely on stephen king to write a book about the mafia when he has no prior knowledge on the subject?

Maybe Random house should have got Carol Gino to write, I mean she was a great friend of Puzos and she did finish The Family.

I think any publisher in the world would publish anything that Stephen King writes, no matter what the genre. Bottom line is, if SK wanted to write TGR, SK would have written it.

Anyhow, Puzo wasn't a mafia writer before he wrote the Godfather, so a mafia author wouldn't need to be chosen to write TGR. I wouldn't really consider MW to be a mafia writer either. He just writes books about Cleveland and unnecessarily tied Cleveland into TGR too much.

I don't blame Random House for picking MW, they thought he was the best guy for the job with the best story (even though I and millions will disagree) and they did their best. It failed. They didn't make as much money as they hoped and the readers didn't get the story they wanted. Not a big deal. I'm glad I was able to revisit the GF universe one more time (even though it could have been better) and I've moved on. I'm not going to launch a campaign to have MW wacked or anything, but I do wish the book was better and I feel that someone else could have done a better job. We'll never know, so oh well.

Yes. I found it extremely annoying that he fed us all of this information about Cleveland and it was so irrelevent.