The Godfather question

I agree with both of your comments. I recently re-read again and was not impressed with Lucy/Johnny chapters, and I know why they were deleted from the movie.

The only reason I could see was the set up for the family going to Las Vegas, but the other characters were so good that Las Vegas transition could have been done more effectively with Fredo character enhanced and his dealings with Moe Green brought to the forefront.

I'm in the minority on this one. I liked the Fontane scenes in the book. I'd recommend THE OUTFIT for a fascinating non-fiction book on this era of the Syndicate's infiltration of Vegas and Hollywood and the entertainment industry.

I agree regarding the surgery nonsense but I did like the Johnny Fontane sections

i found the chapter with Michael in sicily really dull but enjoyed it in the movie, i agree it could have done with less Johnny Fontane.

I agree. I think they should've just mentioned in short paragraphs what's going on with Johnny and Lucy. Not dedicate a chapter or two for them. I honestly got bored reading some of the parts because of their exposure there.

Completely agreed. What was all that about the perverted surgery? I am sure the Godfather himself would not consent for such nonsense.

I'm quite confused now. So, basically something medical stood between 'the classic' status? Not the fact that most women where pictured as stupid in this novel? The only exception was that american girl but only for some time.

It's been so long since I read the book, but I think many people's problem with it is they saw the movie first. And it is one of those rare films that is better than the book. The movie is a classic, while the book is merely good.

I think the Lucy Mancini character was overused if not for anything other than the extension of the whole illegitimate son thing in Godfather 3. This Mancini connection is what kept the third movie from reachingas high as the first two!

I agree with your comments about the book, but the third film is just not as good. Not as a story, not as well acted, not as beautifully filmed. It is inferior in almost every aspect, but that can't be blamed on the original book.

I should say that I found certain sections of the book insanely out of place in such a novel.
Despite this, I don't believe such sections take The Godfather out of its classic status.
Many classics have objectionable content--likely most of them do. The awful content is a small part of a large book so the Godfather and many other classics gets away with it.
I'd also like to add that a review stating that a book has flaws but is a masterpiece, is more credible than stating that a book has no flaws.

Puzo himself said that he wrote the book to make some money, as his critically acclaimed books preceding this one hardly sold. What would be more appealing to a mass audience than the Mancini segment? Fontane, as we know, is based on Frank Sinatra. The allure of musing on Sinatra's private life also added to its appeal. Lots of things in the book seem to be unnecessary if we attach our tastes to them. The book is too young to be even judged so unfairly by not calling it a classic. It already has literary value in the fact that it introduced the public to niche supposed practices of the Mafia. As Christopher Hitchens writes in his essay, "As American as Apple Pie," the book introduced the masses to the term "blowjob." With regard to what is "necessary," any response suggesting trimming parts is rather facetious. The book could very well convey the whole plot in a third of its prose, but that isn't the point, is it? Its his book, he chose to write it that way, and that's just the way it is. It's almost like saying that someone wearing coloured socks is unnecessary. Most enjoyable things in life are unnecessary, if you look at what function they serve. Sex, biologically, is meant merely to propagate the species. That deems sex with contraception unnecessary, which is all very well for Isaac Newton, who died a virgin, but what about the rest of us?

And with regard to "Puzo's" treatment of women, I think the rampant misogyny was rather an accurate portrayal of his characters. I suppose that was "unnecessary" too.

The novel is damn good. I also agree to the thing that Lucy's part was somewhat dragged too much, her operation and the intimacies with Jules Segal. It could have been stopped with Sonny's part. And for Johny Fontane's scenes it was too much for his character. The scene in Las Vegas where Michael Corleone goes to visit Moe Greene for business, these two people Lucy and Fontane were not required. But the movie portrayed it very good. The screenplay was done by Mario Puzo, so maybe he understood and removed the most unnecessary parts of these both.

But all things apart, The Godfather is the best fiction and the real Godfather of all the novels.

This is a book better served by its movie, a rare occurrence. The movie perfectly captures what is relevant and omits what is not.