'Of Mice and Men' is probably the dullest book I've ever read. I have no idea why literature critics have drooled over it for the past few decades. There's no action or adventure in this book, just men trying to get one up on each other by being brutal.
I think it’s because John Steinbeck has a talent for detail. I’ve read that book as well, and though I didn’t enjoy the plot itself, I liked the description of scenes and layouts and characters.
I shall have a good rant about the
Twilight series. Before the film, no-one really paid attention to this book. I hadn't even heard of it before the film.
It was very popular with a friend of mine after she read it (believe it or not by borrowing my copy when I bought it when it first came out). And it‘s popularity began to REALLY grow around my area, not really peaking until rumors of the movie came out.It's not that the book is crap - who am I kidding? It actually is! - it's the fact that doed-eyed female fanatics compare this tosh to
Harry Potter (How DARE they!). Okay, so people may think that but it's not only the book that matters with me, it's the author. So, for example:
1. J.K Rowling is a good writer. Whoever wrote Twilight - I don't give a toss what her name is, I've deliberately wiped it from memory - isn't a good writer.
Though I didn’t care for the last couple of HP books, I must say this is true. How can people call 200 pages of needless whining ‘talent‘?!2. J.K Rowling is a noble charity giver, a family women who lives to keep herself to herself and has finally settled down. The writer of Twilight is trying desperately to cling on to the remains of her career by writing more and more of these wretched books.
3. The writer of Twlight cannot handle criticism - something which can really rattle my cage when it comes to writing. If your book is crap, it's crap; end of story.
4. Someone actually once told me that Harry Potter was a rip off of Twlight. Now, I'm not a die-hard fan of Harry Potter but I know a better book when I see one. I told this girl to shove her book right up her you-know-what
(Go you! 
) and look at the publication date whilst she's doing it. Harry Potter was first published in 1997 whilst Twilight was published nearly NINE years later, in 2006.
Ah, I remember those days back in late 1990s early 2000 well ^^5. Is there any solid reason why it's better? For God's sake, do NOT say "Because the main character is better looking". This is a BOOK we're talking about, not the FILM.
*stands and starts a slow clap* They seriously need help if they think a character from a BOOK is ‘hot‘… or the guy who played Edward over who played Harry…not really big on Daniel Radcliff, but he was better to look at than a sparkly-brooding vampire!OK, I'm done ranting. Have it out with me, Twilight fans. I'm waiting.
I‘ve had that a long time coming myself :3 
Luckily she only got it from a charity shop 
