The problem with "Fools Die" is that its starts out in Gronevelts Casino and then you keep reading for 403 pages hoping the book gets back on that topic, it doesnt, it just keeps on blabling about a noobs life..

I finished both Winegardners. Must say I can understand that people here dont like it, it alters the Corleone saga very much. But it is a hell of a lot better then Puzo's "Fools Die"!

Classic literature is usually marked by its popularity and longevity or by a large enough number of of erudite scholars saying that it is so. Take, for instance, Mario Puzo's The Godfather, Jane Austen's Emma, or even William Faulkner's Sound and the Fury. Each one of these novels fits someone's definition of a classic novel, even if some of us can't stand one or more of the novels I've just mentioned. I, for instance, can only stomach Jane Austen novels for more than three pages at a time before I start to get nauseous, think Puzo's books made much better movies, and understand people when they tell me that Faulkner's just too convoluted for their tastes. I don't know what makes a novel a classic, at least not definitively. Furthermore, I charge that anyone who does is probably lying to themselves and, consequently, to everyone who asks the question. There are, however, some universal factors of commonly recognized classic novels that can be used as a bell weather for finding out which novels should or should not be considered so.
.............
The goal is not to change your Photo on Canvas or Photo to Canvas , but for the subject to change the photographer. ~Author Unknown

The only books of Puzo's that I've read are The Godfather and Omerta, though that was many years ago. I do know that I enjoyed them both about the same, though I remember really really being inspired by Omerta. I own the Sicilian and read the first 20 pages, but it never sparked an interest with me!

I've just read three books, and i think the best is Omerta, second place The Sicilian, third place The Last Don. But Omerta... that's something amazing