as if you had taken a book from your friend yesterday, and you’d give it back now.

This could be OK, in modernist literary English that bends grammar a little. Actually, it is OK in normal English too, but definitely unusual. Much more common are:

"and now [[ I was | you were | he was | they were ]] giving it back"

"and now [[ I was | you were | he was | they were ]] about to give it back" or "going to give it back"

or even "and now you were to give it back."  "You are to give it back", "he is to give it back", "you were to
give it back" -- these all express obligation, they are found in literature but they have been archaic since 1960 or so, at least here in America. But "he is supposed to give it back", "he was supposed to give it back" is a similar form that is still used avery commonly; it expresses an obligation to do something (or sometimes just an expectation that someone will do something).


Yeah, this book is really interesting and taking

Taking? You can say that a medical treatment "is taking" (which means, taking hold). Or, an attempt to change someone's mind about something might be "taking" or "not taking, so far". But this can only be used when it is already very clear that someone is undergoing some process. I could say, "I've been reading this book that's supposed to [ = this book that's expected to ] convince people that the Trojan War never really happened - but it's not taking. But if I simply say, "here's a book a got last week - but it's not taking", this is unclear; most native speakers would understand what I mean, but some would not get it.


spin quickly at crazy dancing

"In crazy dancing/dances" (meaning "in the course of crazy dances") is better. "At" does almost work, but not quite.


I will take a great pleasure in it

There should be no 'a', because pleasure is a 'mass noun' in the phrase "take pleasure". 'Pleasure' can also be a 'count noun' - as in, "it's a pleasure to meet you." Wikipedia explains how it can have both mass noun and count noun forms:

Most mass nouns in English can also be used in a countable form; when this happens the meaning of the word has shifted to something related but not identical. For example "air" is normally a mass noun, but sailors can speak of "light airs"; in this case "airs" refers not to the air itself but to breezes, or a humid sort of air or a dry sort. "Justices" refers not to justice in the abstract but to persons who try to sift it—"beauties" not to the abstract but to beautiful objects—"butters" (in a restaurant) not to butter in the mass but to individual pats of butter.

Anyway, nice to see you again. Let me know if anything is too unclear. It's not too complicated, but it must be very hard to understand grammar explanations in a foreign language. I myself certainly can't understand descriptions of German grammar that are written in German, but your English is a good deal beter than my German.