A few observations...

The film is definitely better. The book is not as well written as I remember it, and altho it was a huge bestseller, I don't think anyone will ever confuse it with one of all-time great works of fiction.

In just about every case where dialogue in the film was lifted directly from the book, the film version changes a word or two for the better. Some examples:

Sollozzo (book): "...blood costs too much money"
Sollozzo (film): "...blood is a big expense"

Hagen (book): "Luca Brasi is sleeping on the bottom of the ocean"
Tessio (?) (film): "Luca Brasi sleeps with the fishes"

Don Corleone (book): "See how they have massacred my son"
Don Corleone (film): "Look how they massacred my boy"

Don Corleone (book): "Tattaglia is a pimp. He could never have outfought Santino. That's why I don't have to know about what happened. It's enough to know that Barzini had a hand in it."
Don Corleone (film): Tattaglia is a pimp. He never could have outfought Santino. But I didn't know until this day... that it was Barzini all along."

Puzo does, however have a rather unique style of writing, IMO. Kind of like if the book was originally written in Italian, and then translated to English by someone who wasn't completely familiar with all of our colloquialisms. Here's one example: talking about
"Racing tracks" (instead of racetracks).

Everyone should absolutely read the book. It's a necessary companion piece to the film because it fills in a lot of character development and back story. But I think it's safe to say that its the films which have brought us all here, and for good reason. There'd be no website like this if there was only a novel

I saw the films before I read the book. I wish tho I had read the book first, just for that 'new' perspective on it.
I have to admit though I never noticed any of the excellent observations you made between the two.
I'm going to have a re-read myself soon
Another insightful posting Plawrence

FH

Yes, a very thoughtful posting and many insightful observations, plawrence. Thanks!
I agree that the novel had many rough edges. And since the novel appeared before the film, it was judged on its own at the time. A co-worker at the time told me she thought it "reads like a first draft." My mom called it "trashy but interesting." I thought it was thoroughly absorbing, rough edges and all.
Ah, but think of the combination of the novel and the film! Only "Gone With the Wind" enjoys similar status--and had similar success on both fronts.

No movie without the book. But plawrence you are right. I like the quotes of the film more then that from the book.

Coincidentally: NYTimes Magazine has an essay by Charles McGrath, the editor of the NYTimes Book Review, on Random House's call for a GF sequel. He writes: "Puzo himself was ambivalent about how much credit to take for The Godfather. 'I always wish I'd written it better,' he told Larry King in 1996, adding that he preferred his earlier, more literary novels, like The Dark Arena and The Fortunate Pilgrim. Like a lot of artists who feel tainted by popular success...Puzo misunderstood his own gifts. The early books weren't bad, but neither were they memorable. The Godfather, though, is one of the great pop epics, and it won't be easy for Random House to come up with a writer with both Puzo's genuine sensibility and his pulpish, National Enquirer imagination...thanks to Puzo, the story of 'the family' has replaced the Western as the most enduring and revealing American myth--the one that most explains us to ourselves."

I saw the movie first, then read a half dozen Puzo novels, not The Godfather.

I then re-read The Godfather, gained some new insight to watch the movie again, and watched the movie again. It was like seeing the movie new again, a great experience.