Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

So, I absolutely love this book.

It seems as though everyone either thinks that the book is better than the movie, or vice versa.
I think that the movie had to cut out what it had to cut out or it would have been long and honestly kinda boring.
Besides, if the movie was exactly like the book, what would be the point of reading the book if you've already seen the movie?
Also, if the movie wasn't different, we wouldn't have had "Have fun storming the castle!" or, Humperdink: "Surrender!"
Westley: "You? I accept".
See what we would have missed out on?
And the book.
I would never have known that the book existed were it not for my older brother and the movie.
The ending had me on the verge of tears, and I was freaking out about the inconclusiveness.
Then I read that bit of Buttercup's Baby and I calmed down.
Mostly.
The rest of the book was great!
You know, you've got the Zoo of Death, you've got Mostly Dead people, *stifles laughter* and you've got machines that LITERALLY suck the life out of you.
Ahhh.
Then there's the whole America and blue jeans existed before Europe.
*Snickers*
As it turns out, Morgenstern does not exist.
For one thing, his writing style is suspiciously like William Goldmans, and, at the end of the book, Goldman's talking about BW finding happiness, and when the book ends, it says,

Florin City/New York City
April 16, 1998.

That made me kind of sad. There is no abridged or unabridged version. This is the one and only version. *Sighs*
Man, I was looking forward to reading about all those hats.

Anyway, the point IS, I don't think that the book should exist without the movie, or the movie without the book. They are both genius.
Five stars. Obviously. What other option is there?