So this is the second book that I've read on my roommate's recommendation, the first being Jurassic Park. With both of these, he told me that the book was better than the movie. With Jurassic Park, I just flat-out disagree. With this, I am much more on his side.

Most of the really funny lines in the movie are taken verbatim from the book (yes, even down to Peter O'Toole's charmingly impedimental wedding ceremony). The only alterations made to the actual story are slightly better in the book (Vizzini is more interesting although less funny in the book). The framing of the story is more interesting in the book, with funnier author's asides and of course more depth to the story and characters. Plus, Humperdinck has a Zoo of Death. Pretty badass.

All of these aspects make me ALMOST agree that the book is better, and when it comes to the narrative quality I think it actually is. However, I've got mad loyalty to the movie. I think it's the casting. Goldman's descriptions of some characters are physically very different from the actors who played them, and I kept wanting to correct him: "Sorry to argue, Billy-boy, but Humperdinck is actually very attractive and sort of a Prince-Charming-Who-Is-A-Dick-And-Coward, rather than the social misfit you seem to think he is."

So yes. Very good book. If you like fantasy, fiction, fencing, or funny, read it. If you hate fun, don't.