You make a good observation, to a point, but regarding boundaries, centuries of history are missing here. Perhaps the Joes need to think more broadly about the limits of ghost travel.

"Thor and Bjorn's separation raises questions about what defines the ghost boundary since it predates property lines." Indigenous people did have boundaries to their territory and at least some also owned land personally. Though Thor's crew doesn't seem to have established a settlement with boundaries, other Viking groups did. These might not be "property lines" in the modern sense, but do correspond to political, cultural, and istrative lines. These lines do change over time, but if that is the conceit of ghost boundaries, it needs to be established.

That could make for some interesting stories. Perhaps there was a time when Sasappis could still see Shiki. What would that be like? Would he try to her, only to find his area diminished when Woodstone was built? Maybe Ben Franklin or Alexander Hamilton crossed the area at some point. Maybe Thor and Bjorn just missed each other repeatedly.

A lot of speculation in this article. Lin Manual Miranda is an excellent actor, but he's also a writer and composer, so he's pretty busy. He also might overshadow the ensemble cast or jar the viewers out of the conceit of the "Ghosts" world by inserting a real-life celebrity into a fanciful situation.

Re racism, in general and the Calormenes specifically, in our post-civil rights movement, I see that. But for Lewis, it wasn't about culture or color, it was about following a false god and doing his bidding. I don't think Tash is analogous to Allah. I think Tash is analogous to ha-Satan, the acc, the adversary.

Tolkien and Lewis were good friends, but different people with different theology. The books were written in the same era with tenuously similar themes, but they should not be expected to` meet the same criteria.

Comparing Narnia and LOTR is not really an egalitarian comparison. Tolkien set out to give England a mythic history that it did not have, that Germanic peoples have with "Nibelungenlid." It was necessary to have the LOTR universe pretty fully developed before the tales were told. His stories and style are complicated and adult. The biblical themes he presented were often cryptic and muted.

"The Hobbit" was written for children and thus the world less developed, more simplistic, at that time.

Lewis wrote one book for children to bring them into a world where right (Christianity) defeated error (religions outside of Christianity). The parallels are plainly evident. The book was popular, so he created worlds around that, and plotholes weren't as important as in LOTR.

Regarding the sexism, I grew up in the '50s and '60s. One of my earliest school memories was being told as a kindergartener that girls couldn't play on the glorious jungle gym because the boys might look up their skirts (pants were not allowed). Simply, that's the way it was, a terribly sexist time. Lewis even wrote in "Mere Christianity" that God is so masculine that all else appears feminine. He was a British man of his time; I think if he lived in this time, he would know better. I don't like it, but it's an opportunity for parents educate their children about sexism.

I certainly was not happy with Susan's ending, nor were other Christians (at least Protestants) who believe in the doctrine of "eternal security." I thought Lewis was unnecessarily hard on her, and in being so, robbed older girls of a role model.

Absolutely! BBC1 is not available in America and not everyone as an iPlayer. Probably most people don't. Due to my proximity to mountains, I can't get any free broadcast TV. Have to have satellite or cable. Since I'm already paying, I've refused to pay for any streaming channels--until Doctor Who went to Disney+ and Good Omens went to Prime. At least with Prime, I get free shipping from Amazon, but I currently don't watch Disney for anything but the Doctor. These fees can be out of reach for many folks.

My 12-year-old grandson and "Doctor Who" companion liked the ending, or at least was neutral about it. I was angry for all the reasons the article states, and because the ending could have said so much more. The ending of "Dot and Bubble," for example, is logical but shocking. Implicit rather than explicit, it revealed the true character of Finetime.

The writer is correct about all the dangling mysteries. One more is "Ascension of the Cybermen" (S.12 Ep.9), which never answers the question of who Brenden is, why and by whom he was zapped in the end, and what eventually happened to him. It was an engrossing story that ended up being meaningless.

I call this the "Lost" syndrome--setting up questions and mysteries and false importance in a drawn-out storyline, and then dropping it. (I watched "La Brea" because the Tar Pits are a favorite place of mine, but after two seasons of "Lost in the Pleistocene," as I called it, I gave up. So did my young companion.)

On another note, the Christolgy was jarring and inexplicable. Why would an agnostic/atheist pull out references from the Bible and apply them to the Doctor. "Death of death", #15 claiming to be the savior, resurrection makes them not just a Time Lord, but (a) god. It's too muddled to be offensive, but as Lindy would say, just styoo-pid.