Fairly recently, a book was turned my way by a small village worth's of people, all convinced the book was fantastic and a great read for myself, specifically. The book in question, Perks of Being a Wallflower, did not instantly grab my attention, yet ended up rocking my world of entertainment right down to it's core.

I struggled to gain interest through the first 20 pages or so, getting to page 20 in about two weeks. Then I finished the book in 36 hours. My interest went from zero to 100 in a heartbeat. Shortly after finishing the literary genius of Stephen Chbosky on paper, I was turned to his film producing and directing expertise, and still, I was impressed. A near-mirrored film depicting exactly what the book entailed, skipping only a few, minor scenes from its literary brethren.

As stated previously, I read the book first, and oh Lord, did I ever struggle through the first few pages. I have no idea why, but i just couldn't pick the book up for more than 5 minutes at first. His writing style was great and the story development was fairly good as well, but I believe I took so much time because I thought the rest of the book was going to be predictable. I was more than wrong. The book told the tale of a young man named Charlie, entering high school as a freshman with little bearings on what to expect and how to act. The story progresses over his entire freshman year, all the way up until the start of his sophomore year. The story really revolves around the growth year of Charlie and his expansion over his horizons. Charlie would go on to make friends, find love, conquer fears and learn who he is. The book was fantastic, with such vivid detail and background it feels like you're watching over Charlie's shoulder the entire time. I also am a huge fan of Chbosky's writing style as a whole, being as I am a huge John Green fan, yet Chbosky did something different. Green's writing is like a Belgian waffle; light and airy yet satisfyingly crunchy and warm, whereas Chbosky is more like a lemon crepe; light and fluffy, but with a more edgy, crisp finish. I also loved to make comparisons of writers to breakfast foods.

The movie, also a great piece of entertainment, was much more to the point and focused, as the film adaptation of books tend to be. The movie was more like the book version of Paper Towns, and I say the book version because the book for Paper Towns was similarly focused and at a certain perspective, unlike the movie of Paper Towns, which was shit. No offense, Green, but Jake Schreier should never be your director of choice again. Sorry, got a little off track, but how disappointing was that movie, right? So, Perks of Being a Wallflower was obviously better, and how could it not be, when Chbosky was the director himself?? A few minor scenes were skipped, but for obvious reasons that make perfect sense. Why cover an additional 20 minutes of film when you can sum it all up and tie it together in a pretty bow with a strong narration? Chbosky knows, and he knows how to write and write it well. An amazing cast, you can't beat Emma Watson and Paul Rudd, even when you mix in a few mystery actors like Ezra Miller and Logan Lerman. Nicely represented, both the film and the book bring something amazing to the table, unlike any book/film adaptational duo I've ever encountered.