First, thank you for welcoming me here and for letting me rant. Maybe I won't find many fans of the sequel books here, but I will proclaim in all honesty that I am a fan myself. And I don't think he did a poor job, and I don't think he findamentally wrecked anyone's definition of canon. As you said, it's the American way, so feel free to feel he DID do a bad job if that's what you think. But people are bagging on him to an extent that he doesn't deserve for just writing a "bad book," as you call it. It;s one thing just to say that, but to call the book a the equivalent of a "full rectal examination?" That's exaggerating it a bit too far. The book didn't suit your tastes, that's all. You didn't like it, but your ass-equivalent is still intact, I'm happy to say.
No, I'm not Mark. But we DO live in the same state.
Second, the dialogue in ALL the books was not-so-hot. But I think that, including "butta-beppa-dee-boppa-dee-boop" (though Winegardner didn't spell it the way Caan ad-libbed it), the dialogue was at least more appropriate for the people inhabiting the story. The terminology is more like Mafia terminology to me. Regimes are referred to at the ground-level as crews, and so on. It actually reminded me of what Scorcese did with his Mafia films, if you want a film reference. Keep in mind that, while Michael, Kay and even Geraci (among certain other characters) were college-educated and could turn a phrase, most of the characters were not. Sonny and Fredo never finished school, for instance. Revenge shows a perfect contrast by having Michael tell Eddie Paradise, "The profits are a by-product of good relationships, a good reputation that spreads by word of mouth and causes other people to come to us, seeking our services." and Eddie following up by simply saying "See, in our world, money’s just a prick. But favors – givin’ favors out, callin’ ‘em in, everything – favors are pussy." Same message, different manner of speaking. It's just one more way of showing how these people generally were never well served by the system, educational or otherwise, or else why join the Mafia? That was one of both Puzo's and Coppola's principal messages. Just ask Bonasera if you don't take my word for it...
Third, you're absolutely right: in the end of the Puzo book, Michael did indeed have two SONS, not just two children, a son and a daughter. That, I'm sure, is one of Winegardner's many concessions to the films. Let's be honest here, it makes little difference to the story of the original Godfather if Michael has two boys or just one and a girl. And the films later elaborated that he had a son, Anthony, and a daughter, Mary. And because, as I said, the movies are more well known, he coudn't just ignore something that the films later made pivotal. The story of Part III would have been presumably quite different if Michael had only had sons. Evidently Winegardner decided, "Where's the harm in keeping the son-daughter thing? It doesn't harm the story I want to tell, and it keeps Part III from becoming completely invalid, especially since I'm not going that far forward in time anyway." Again, it's one thing to ignore Gardner Shaw - his scene was considered so unimportant that it was cut, after all - but it's quite another to ignore Anthony and Mary, who ended up having a LARGE impact on the saga's events. You follow?
So my arguing phase is passed, and "I'm glad that we could come here and reason together." But even if you don't prefer Winegardner's work, all I ask is that you don't bash him so bad that I'll have no place here as possibly the lone proponent. I'd like to feel as welcome as you bid me to feel. Be fair to me, is all.
