OK, I sort of know what Twilight is but can someone give me a very brief over view of what it is? As far as I can tell it's about a vampire that sparkles and seduces 40 year old women and dates Taylor Swift.
From unfortunately seeing the movie and getting the rundown from my wife: New girl in school is attracted to the emo "kid" who happens to be a vampire. Vampire "teen" likes new girl, but that attraction also means she should taste really good. But he is a "vegan vampire."
They have a wonderful abstinent relationship based purely on love, because if he were to lose control of himself in passion he might accidentally eat her (aww, so sweet). "Bad" vampires also exist and so "good" vampire "boy" must protect new girl from them, since she apparently smells delicious. Love triangle ensues with local native american boy whose tribe are also wolf metamorphs (not werewolves, even though Stephenie Meyer got this wrong and called them that for two full books, only to correct herself in the last book) who have vowed to protect humans by killing the vampires.
Actually, you know what. My head hurts. Just don't worry. Due to circumstances they have to be abstinent and so it is such a romantic relationship as a result that girls just swoon over it, and then hate their boyfriends/husbands for a while after reading it, not realizing that in order to get a guy like that he has to want to eat their flesh first.
It is a series of books written by a Mormon woman about abstinent teens in order to promote abstinence, with bastardized monster mythology to make something actually happen.
Oh, and sunlight doesn't kill vampires, it makes them sparkle like a disco ball, which is apparently beautiful, and not nearly as laugh out loud funny as I found it to be.
Surely, to "unlike" a book you'd have to have read it?
Definitely. Also, I think it should be a book, not a play, or series of plays, as is the case with Shakespeare.
Why is everyone jumping on the I-hate-Twilight bandwagon?
Because it is a bandwagon? Five years ago it would be Harry Potter. Or they have female significant others that are easily swayed emotionally by such poor tripe as romance novels and thus their relationships become hell while she is reading the book because they can't be like Edward.
Anything by Stephen King post-1990, anything by Clive Barker post-Hellraiser/Books of Blood.
I felt King was doing OK until the car crash. He took a more metaphysical approach to his stories in the 90's, thus changing his style, but after the car crash every character had to have some past trauma.
As for Clive Barker, surely you mean The Hellbound Heart, and not the movies known as Hellraiser? I felt Weaveworld was very good too (a year after Hellbound Heart). I made the mistake of reading Sacrament though.
It takes a lot for me to dislike, unlike, or hate a book though. The one that most sticks out in my mind is A Scarlet Letter. Nathaniel Hawthorne's style feels like a hammer hitting me in the head. I have nothing against the story itself. It is a good story, but the way he writes leaves me with a headache.
A close second is Bram Stoker's Dracula. Again this is a style issue. It starts out very, very slow. It gets exciting in the middle and then he ends the thing as if he couldn't think of a way to end the story. There is none of the battle or stuff that is featured in movies. They catch up to the carriage, beating the sun, turnover the casket and cut off his head. The whole climax occurs in a paragraph.
And I have a personal dislike of Bobbie Ann Mason mainly because everyone tells me I should like her tales of working class families from Kentucky. I grew up in a working class family from Kentucky. I'm not exactly thrilled to read tales my grandmother or parents could have just as easily written.
I'm also fed up of every girl on youtube flaming anyone who dislikes it.
Nah, Ive always had so much trouble understanding old literature well. You either have a knack for it or you dont... 
