I recently finished the book Good Omens by Neil Gaiman and Terry Pratchett. It was a really good book, but it had two aspects which really ircked me. First, it portrayed heaven as boring. Second, it portrayed earth with good and evil as preferable to heaven.
It also portrayed daemons as having a sense of humor — which I agree with C.S. Lewis (in his preface to The Screwtape Letters) is a bad idea because if demons do exist, it's unrealistic. Now, it never really ircked me when demons are portrayed as humorous and not so bad — mostly it's a desire, I think, for there to be some good in everything, which I take to be a fundamental hope for redemption. Still, I think that if it's going to be done, the demons should be redeamed. Leaving them as evil but somewhat good-natured is unrealistic and, given that books about morality (which every book about Angels and Demons must be) might occasionally be taken seriously and thus do harm. An excess of understanding of morality is not the predominant vice of this age.
Anyhow, for the first thing that bothered me, it did at least give the idea that God had a sense of humor, even if the angels didn't. Still, I side with Chesterton on this: it is angels, not demons, who should have a sense of humor. Indeed, part of the fall of Satan should be his giving up of his sense of humor. A sense of humor is, after all, just a well-grounded sense of reality despite temptations (usually given in to) to mistake it for something else. There is, I guess, a sense in which angels couldn't have a sense of humor — living should not, for them, deaden their sense of the magnificense of creation, so it should not be possible to so suddenly remind them of it that they can't help but laugh. Still, if one is going to try to express that, one should try to give the notion that angels never laugh because they never stopped getting the joke, and so they can't be startled by suddenly getting it now.
As for the other, I really wish that people would stop with all this two-faces-of-the-coin nonsense that without evil you can't appreciate good, as if it's necessary to enjoy a pretty flower that it be stomped into the ground during the middle of your enjoyment. It's true, of course, that without the possibility of evil, goodness lacks something because is is not done by a moral agent, but that's not a (closely) related concept. There's all the difference in the world between the existence of evil, and the possibility of evil. It's the difference between giving a stranger food and a place to sleep for the night and slitting his throat.
To take a simple example, clothing the naked doesn't require the existence of thieves, only of babies.