The Great Swami

Obviously everyone is going to say Stephanie Meyer for Twilight. In this case, please only answer Stephanie Meyer if you actually read all of the books.

I have two authors that make me look back and wonder why I read a number of their books.

Dean Koontz: Happy endings in a horror book. He's had some winners, but I've been fooled too many times by him.

Matthew Reilly: The man uses so many cliffhangers I fall off my seat right onto the floor.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/childrens-books-site/201...

I'll sum it up. JK considered killing off Ron Weasley. I personally wish she had, as I've mentioned a number of times before. This feels like vindication.

Just finished reading Neuromancer and discussing it for class, and I was wondering what the B&A community had to say about it. Apparently it was 'the' book that really revolutionized the sci-fi genre, even coining such terms as 'The Matrix' and 'cyberspace.' No joke. My only real complaint is that my professor didn't go over the book that extensively, at least in terms of things other than plot. Oddly enough, I was able to understand the plot reasonably well just from reading the book, imagine that.

Bottom line, anyone have any thoughts on the book that they'd care to share, some insights they got from it, what some things could potentially be symbolism in there or representative of something, etc?

I don't want to break the thing by wrenching it open by brute force, so is there any easier way to accomplish taking it apart? One of the fans is making quite a bit of noise, so I'm trying to fix it.

Just began writing, and I am debating between use of First person and third person limited omniscient. What would be some pros/cons/limitations of the two forms for writing a story that could be most accurately described as a narrative?

First off, I am a Christian. Just throwing that out there. So I'm not some atheist trying to bash away at Christian ideals and ideas.

When God was creating the heavens and the earth and all that is and was, then wouldn't he have known from the very get go that his creation was going to be flawed to a degree? By that I mean that the humans that he would place upon the earth would 'soon,' (whatever amount of time that is) disobey him and fall from grace. From there sin would enter into the world and then we would get to where we are today and in order to correct this problem he would have to sacrifice his only son for our salvation.

However, since God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent, wouldn't have be able to know the future and see that there was going to be that problem? It seems to me that it was irresponsible of God to continue on his way and make the world, even though there was going to be flaws in it. Along with every other artist, would not God want his creation to be perfect? The Lord even took the 7th day to rest, after pronouncing that 'It was good.' Would he not have wanted it to stay good?

Technically any correction would not have infringed upon the whole free will thing because God would have been able to make the changes before our free will or even humanity itself came into existence.

Like a mathematical proof.