Hi!

I know this gonna be a provocation. Nevertheless, I think that, with all due respect, the Godfather book basically sucks, and if it were not for the brilliant Trilogy FFC and Puzo put together, the market success would be the only positive thing about the book. Now it can serve as a perfect companion to the movies - sorry, I don't see it anywhere close as a piece of art.

Best regards.

Alexander

[ December 19, 2001: Message edited by: Alexander Supalov ]

Alex:
(Supalov, Supafly?)

Just curious, which did you do first, read the book or see the movie?

I read the book a long time ago first before I saw the movies. Then I saw the movies numerous times and never read the book again until much later. I have to admit, after seeing the movies, there is no comparison. I would imagine if you saw the movies first and already had the impressions of Brando, Pacino, DeNiro, etc...in your mind, it would be hard to go back and read the novel. Also the novel goes into alot more specifics about some people whom aren't in the movie or whom are minor characters. I found the novel to be very "Hollywood" in dealing with the whole Johnny Fontaine/Lucy Mancini/Jules Segal angle.

Ooops, I'm rambling. I wouldn't say the novel sucks, I liked it alot...but I have read better.

[ December 19, 2001: Message edited by: La Dolce Vita ]

I've got to say your polite posts have been quite refreshing and you entitled to your own opinion. Thats perfectly cool with me. Heres mine.

The Godfather novel at the time it was written was one of the fastest selling books ever and a huge hit, a best seller even before the film was even thought of. Now on, (I think it was written maybe '64 or '66) over 30 years on it is still being read and enjoyed by people all over the world. I think it is safe to say it's a classic.

I love the book. To me I prefer most books to films anyway and this is a classic. The book without the film stands tall. But when there together they both add to each other's interest.

I too like the book. The reason for liking it is probably because I had the movie characters in mind, and whatever wasn't in the movie, I can just imagine them doing the scenes.

With that said, the only part of the book that I disliked was the whole Dr. Jules/Lucy Mancini section. Totally unrelated, totally unnecessary...

I watched the GF trilogy hundreds of times and then I read the book. I couldn't even put the book down, it was that good.

Hi!


... very market oriented... I read somewhere that Puzo just got tired writing good books that nobody read, and decided to make a hit. Well, he managed it, in a sense. I mean, being a bestseller is undoubtly a good thing (see the original mail), but this doesn't help to qualify as a piece of art, sorry: you also can name a few, I guess.

Perhaps I have to expand on this: the amount of really great books is so big that an outstanding (in some parts) achievement of Mario Puzo is dwarved by comparison. The amount of movies, although noticeable, is very much smaller, and here the Trilogy stands out as a sole peak on a very uneven mountainous landscape, with dinosaurs crawling way down along the river.

Best regards.

Alexander

Hi!



Yes, I saw the movies first, and then bought the book to get some background. I got that, sure, but was very disappointed by the quality of writing, as well as by those annoying side stories. Without the movies, I'd have hardly even cared to have a look.

Best regards.

Alexander

[ December 20, 2001: Message edited by: Alexander Supalov ]

[ December 21, 2001: Message edited by: Alexander Supalov ]

I love The Land Before Time movies......

I seen the movie first (it wasn't intentional, just the way things panned out) and then I read the book. I adore both of them. I love the film because you can see the actor's emotions and see what Puzo wanted you to see with his writing, but I also loved the book, having seen the film, it gave a face to the characters but it gave you all those minute details that you often wonder about, all their thoughts and all

The book rules and there's nothing u can say to change OUR minds

The book was very poorly written. Anyone who knows anything about writing could tell how poorly the book was written. However, having said that, the book's story was very interesting.

if you want to start an argument, you do what you just did. But we all know that the book is one of the best books ever written and thats a fact not an opinion

You're mistaken. The book may be one of the most popular books of all time but that doesn't mean it was well written. There's a difference between popular and something that is artistic.

well bad written or good written or the type of writing that makes you think you can pull a better book out of your ass i dont care its still my favorite book.

I'd be interested in hearing which books Alexander Supalov and joshyz have read and considered better written. (Remember, I said have read )

In any event, I loved the book, but I don't consider it the "best" novel of all time either. But the writing is great, the story is great, and Mario is a great storyteller. Fuggedaboutit. (And count me as a fan not thrilled with the Dr/Lucy stuff either)

JG

Anything by Raymond Carver has been fantastic. JD Salinger. Fitzgerald. David Sedaris. Like I said the Godfather was a very interesting story it was just poorly written. Puzo tells a lot of what's happening. He doesn't let the reader discover it on their own.

jgeoff is right, but if you really think godfather is written so poorly then go read something else thats written so much better.

Just as there is a difference between something that is artistic and something that is just plain good.

"The Godfather" by Mario Puzo (IMHO) is one of the best novels of the last 50 years.

I'd be interested in hearing your view-point on what was "not artistic" or "poorly written" about the Godfather. One has to keep in mind that in works of Art/Entertainment (for example, music, painting, movies, books, and even food) THERE IS NOTHING THAT IS OBJECTIVELY ARTISTIC. There will be people who like any movie (wheather it's comedy, drama, suspence, sci-fi, gangster...etc) and will consider that movie is the best movie of all time. The same goes for books, music, paintings...etc.

As far as I know, there were never any rules that limited "artistic works" to certain guidlines. Remember that many artists (like Amadeus Mozart and Beathoven among thousands of other artists) were considered flops during their life-times. However, their artistic-nature came on eventually. That is a classic example of the different tastes of the people who make the definition of what's artistic.

As was pointed above, you are entitled to your own opinion of how artistic the book is. And so is Puzo (RIP) (referring to the book not being his best work). However, I'd disagree. Although I do agree that nothing he wrote after The Godfather was better (personal-artistically speaking) than The Fortunate Pilgrim, but I still think that with very little modification of some sub-plots, nothing that I have read could be better than the Godfather (not that I can think of anything that is better than it now).

ps: I don't mean any disrespect to anyone here, but this thread kind-of reminds me on the movie Amadeus (about Mozart). Where some rival-musicians' criticism was that the works had "too many notes". I used to laugh my eyes off when they said it. "...exactly which notes did you have in mind..."

I agree that Salinger and Fitzgerald are both great novelists. You'd have a tough time finding someone who disputes that. The Catcher in the Rye and The Great Gatsby are among the greatest novels ever writen. But come on, David Sadaris? I have Me Talk Pretty One Day sitting right next to me. Sure his stories are funny, but to even compare his work with Mario Puzos is hard for me to imagine. For those of you who don't know Sadaris, he basically recounts funny stories of his daily life and puts a bunch together and makes a book. He's not even a novelist. So, I agree with you that he is a good writer, but putting him against Puzo(especially The Godfather ) is like putting Chris Witney against Michael Jordan.

And I also feel that The Godfather was very well written.

Hi!

For starters, "The cruel sea" by Nicholas Monsarrat, and generally everything written by this author: "HMS Marlboro will enter harbour", "Leave cancelled", etc.

Then, everything written by Ray Bradbury, especially his short stories - they are singularly brilliant without exception.

One shouldn't either forget Edgar Allan Poe and Arthur Conan Doyle, who were doing some early research in the relatively close genre of crime story.

Then one recalls assorted bits of Ernest Hamingway, early Erich Maria Remarque, some of Heinrich Boehl, and many other interesting authors of the 20th century.

For a taste of an exceptional historical writing that never fails to entertain one should really have a go of the books written by Winston S. Churchill (yes, that Churchill), starting with his famous history of the Second World War.

For dessert one can proceed to the classic Russian and French literature and disappear there for a very long time just compiling the list of the worthy books I have read.



Best regards.

Alexander

I've never read the Great Gatsby, but I have read the Catcher in the Rye and I didn't really it. Maybe because I forced to read it for one of my classes put me off it straight away, but the story didn't really interest me too much. Just my opinion.

I watched each of the three movies once and then read the book. I read it in a week, I seriously couldn't put it down, even though I knew most of what happens.

I have never seen a movie that is as good as the book it was based on. That was until the Godfather. I think I benefited from having the pictures of Pacino, Deniro, Brando, Duvall etc in my head when I read it. This gave a real face to the book, however It takes out that 'imagination' part of it.

Well said. The title is right, Ay Caramba YOU'RE an outcast, Supalov.

Yeah, the Catcher and the Goddamn Rye, wasn't that Goddamn good. it was pretty Goddmn boring, thats why we read it at the Goddamn school, becasue we wouldbn't read the goddamn in our own free goddamn time lol.

well said. The book he'd pull out of his ass is probably Poppa Beaver's Story Time lol

he might prefer Shaq over Jordan lol

Ricardo, I don't want to sound rude but is there anyway you could put all your replies into one reply. It'll be less annoying and easier to read.

Thanks.

Hi!

Cut the crap, ah? Do you think you know it better than the Pope?

Best regards (still).

Alexander

I didn't read the book, but I read sort of thing also from a reviewer. But you've gotta admit: a good director can make things change. How can you otherwise explain that Bible films are most of the time good, the Bible sucks a literature (with all respect for catholics et alii)

I enjoyed the book immensely. I'd seen the movies first (all 3), so maybe that's why I got into the novel so much. However, although I enjoyed it, I can see how someone else--even a Mafia "fan"--might not appreciate it as a "great piece of literature." Held up to the old, old classics (e.g., Beowulf, The Odyssey, Fall of the House of Usher, Great Expectations, etc.), The Godfather is--literarily speaking--a dime novel. But on its own, I consider it a classic.

I Don't know how....
I usually click the Reply with Quote. How do i reply to more than one quote in ONE reply?

Like this

Ah it doesn't matter mate, you do what you feel comfortable with.

Let's TRY this

HOY HOY

Let's TRY this

HOY HOY[/b][/QUOTE]

It kind of worked.

I figured outt he qb shit, i'l probably ever ememebr it next time tho lol.

when i lived in Sicily, I bought and read Il Padrino in Italian. I loved it! mabe it was just the atmosphere i read the book in, in Sicily and all, but i liked the book better than the movies. the book is still a top seller over there! (as are the movies)