on Philip Pullman, part deux

I feel I must backtrack slightly on Mr. Pullman. Dr. Sexson's (and Frye's) explanation of the negative god has made me look at Pullman a little differently. They have enlightented me about the myth of a negative god which liberates people from ignorance. I believe the term "demiurge" was used, at least that's what I have in my notes. Much like a demiurge or Nobadaddy, Frye (confirming my earlier suspicions of his being a devil of sorts) has liberated me from my ignorance and shown me that Philip Pullman isn't quite the hack I took him for. Apparently he has actually done some sort of mythical studies and based his works on those, even going so far as to use daemone in his books. Clever. I mistook his poor writing for lack of knowledge. My bad. This kind of takes the wind of my "uninformed about Christian myth" sails because he was writing about a different myth apparently, so I am left with only the quality of his writing as a reason to dislike him. There is still our obvious theological disagreement, but, much like my demiurge Frye, I don't believe that should be used as a basis for determining the quality of a book. My apologies to Mr. Pullman