Originally Posted By: ErikPflueger
Thanks, Death, and I have to say that of the criticisms I've read so far, yours are the most substantive. They go past Winegardner being a sonufabitch or something and speak to real issues. So I'll answer on that level:

1.) I can agree that Geraci's relationship with his grumpy-ass father was quite memorable, but there were other memorable characters as well. Mickey "Cahn-sig-liary" Shea was one; Joe Lucadello was another. Not everyone was, though. Russo could have been more interesting as a character, though the whole "Fuckface" bit did make him a little memorable. Forlenza was a total no-interest character, though, to be fair to you.

2.) The "wood" line. I'm married, and we say stupid things like that constantly. But to speak to the central point you made, you've as much as said that what bothers you about the state of their marriage in late 1955 is that it wasn't fitting in with HOW YOU SAW IT. Yes, a case could be made that, four months after realizing that Michael lied to her face and fleeing to New Hampshire until Hagen got her to come back, Kay'd be a little more cold to him still. But that's asking human relationships to be consistent and have a proper through-line, and they don't. I've only been married for eight months, and I sometimes already want out. Then the next weekend we're happy as all get-out again. But as a side note, it wasn't entirely Winegardner's own creation; Puzo has her taking up Catholicism and becoming the Corleone equivalent of a stepford wife. The precedent is there.

3.) OK, the gay thing. I have to admit that it took me some time to get used to the idea too. And there may be something else at work here: Winegardner's need to comment on things relevant to our time by using their equivalents in other times (no matter who the author is, every story about a certain time period is really about the concerns of the people expected to read it), in this case the issue of pedophilic priests in the Catholic Church. Remember that the first mention of anything hinky is when Fredo, at ten, wants to become a priest by studying under Father Stefano, and then he suddenly emerges at thirteen strong, serious, powerful, and shy around women. One day he's just clumsy, then one day he goes off into his room for long periods of time. Finally, at sixteen, he announces that he no longer wants to be a priest and ends up joining the family business. One admittedly has to read between the lines, but it can be argued that Winegardner at least laid the groundwork. As to how it changes the character of Fredo and offers an explanation for his weakness he didn't need, I can't comment either for or against that. It's a valid opinion.

4.) The abortion/miscarriage thing, I totally agree with you; it should have remained an abortion. But the argument I could offer is that Kay was still standing up to Michael, whether the abortion was real or not. She wants out of this marriage, period. She knows she cannot stay with this man. She knows that if Michael thinks he has to, he will make her a prisoner again. He will never change. And he will never allow her to leave, unless she tells him what she has decided to tell him, even if it is a lie. And it works; the marriage is already on the rocks, and now it's ended. They divorce. It brings nothing to the story, really, but it does briong something to the color of the piece, and that may not matter, but it's all I have on that one.

5.) With Clemenza dying, that may not have been as planted as you think. The script for Godfather Part II said outright that Clemenza's heart attack was real, that it came from stress related to the troubles the Rosatos were giving to him. Pentangeli said to Michael: "Sure, Pete Clemenza died of a heart attack, but the Rosato Brothers gave it to him." He later said to one of the Rosatos: "You drove old Pete Clemenza to his grave, Carmine; you and your brother. Turning on him; trouble in his territories, you and your demands. I hold you responsible, just as though you shot him in the head. And I ain’t gonna let that go for long!" That's all in the script, if not the finished film, so it can be argued that the intent, at least, from the beginning was that Clemenza really did die of a heart attack, no matter what Cicci said (he really died from his actor being unreasonable, but what're ya gonna do?).

6.) Finally, regarding Hagen: I have seen nothing in Part III to indicate that he died of a heart attack, or any other cause of death. The only mention of Hagen dying in the film is Michael telling B.J. Harrison that he didn't live to see the ordination of his son Andrew Hagen (well played by John Savage in a brief role; he gets the Robert Duvall voice down perfectly). But that's all; the rest is an open slate. And determining that he might as well cover Hagen's established death, Winegardner chose to do so in the most heart-wrenching manner he could, and to me, it was just that. I'm sorry you felt it was lame, but I'm not sure how a simple heart attack is an improvement.

Finally, not to sound like I'm lecturing, or talking down to you, but if you only read 150 pages into the book, and then gave up, can you really have the most imformed opinion you can get? Just give it another shot; you don't have to change your opinions at all if you don't want to, but at least you'll know they're fully-informed opinions. We can still disagree, but you'll have more ammo. And there's no harm in that. \:\)


I just watched Part III last night even then I missed it. You're right, Michael does say that Hagen never lived to see his son ordained. Nothing about a heart attack. I totally missed that one. If you are right about the original Part II script and Clemenze in deed dying of the heart attack, then I might owe MW an apology since it would be the way that FFC and Puzo intended, but like you said about the Gardner Shaw scene, it was cut from the film so all we have to go on is the theatrical version.

I disagree with that, however. I think that there is so much to the GF world that even deleted scenes hold some weight in the grand scheme of things. Why did MW have to invent Geraci out of thin air? He had the Corleone family tree at his disposal... he could have just used the Nick Geraci character he had created and just changed the name so that it was one of the guys on that family tree. He could have done the same thing with Bill Van Arsdale. Just make him Gardner Shaw.

All in all, these are small things, but done the right way they make the reading and viewing experience all that more rewarding.

And that's my biggest beef with these books. MW knew he had to sacrifice some of his artistic integrity to write these books. Anyone writing a GF novel or 2, would have to realize that there are already things that exist, that cannot be changed, whatsoever. But a lot of times MW ignored this and just rewrote things as he saw fit. He should have thought about the fans more. Even in minor cases, like changing Geraci's name to someone on the billboard.

And finally about the book/movie thing. I can understand why MW would keep Cuneo and Stracci around if they were an integral part to the story... but they weren't. MW only mentioned them in passing... so why not defer to the films in this case? Doesn't it seem odd in Revenge when MW is referring to Cuneo and Stracci as the Corleone's oldest friends? I can't get passed stuff like that.

MW could have done a better job making these books more integrated with the films. That is probably my biggest beef. He does some good things in these books... but because he changed around too much and didn't include other things, I will always call these books failures.

Maybe I will re-read them though. I had forgotten so much stuff from Returns when reading Revenge that I wanted to do that. We'll see. As it stands now I just don't have much motivation to.