Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Umm. Its a "series" about not believing in organized religion. 

True.

> Some of 
> the later bits did annoy me a lot, since it simply replaced one type of 
> mysticism with another, 

That's kind of what I was saying, yes.

> but the central premise was, in fact, "Don't 
> follow dogma from people who desperately want to control things they 
> can't comprehend at all, imagine are dangerous when they are the exact 
> opposite and who know absolutely nothing about what they claim to be 
> telling you about."

Except the scientists who understood exactly what they were doing were 
all evil as well. At least those from Laura's world.

> It wasn't evil leaking into the world, it was "life" leaking out.

I was referring the the monsters that only ate the adults that came in 
from between the worlds. The invisible shades monsters. Not the dust.

> I think you have misread some of it quite a bit,

No, I think I was trying not to fill a whole message full of spoilers, 
ya see. ;-)

> not the least getting what "dust" really was wrong. 

I know what dust was. I wasn't talking about dust.

> I wouldn't even call it anti-religious, save in the sense that its main 
> message was, "Don't limit yourself to the silly BS some church come up 
> with. They don't have a clue, just dogma, and they might be completely 
> wrong about *everything*."

Yeah. Except the *author* said it's anti-religious, and indeed that was 
his purpose in writing it. Just as the author of the Narnia stuff said 
he explicitly wrote it to make children more credulous so they'd more 
easily believe in the fantastic claims of religion without any proof.

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
  Helpful housekeeping hints:
   Check your feather pillows for holes
    before putting them in the washing machine.

Post a reply to this message