“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

(A fourth category—publishing/advertising—developed shortly before the session began. I happened to discover a full-page ad of Prentice-Hall’s in the New York Times book section for April 27, 1975. Four books were featured, but none of Jane’s. I showed it to her, and it got as negative a reaction from her as it did me. Such instances always make me angry, almost at once.

(“I won’t,” I said. “There’s nothing to say. I’m in favor of taking drastic action [to get action from Prentice-Hall re ads], but I know you’re not.”

Tam instantly saw the quality in our work, and Ruburt’s. In the beginning only his enthusiasm sold our first book. Prentice would have taken it had you allowed another writer to report the experience. Tam’s boss did go along with him, however. It was Tam who saw in Ruburt’s original manuscript the importance of his work, and the way in which Ruburt was trying to hide it by playing down his relationship with me.

(Pause at 9:49.) It would have been highly impractical, then, to expect Prentice to advertise the book. Times are changing. There is a so-called occult climate, yet we do not fall precisely into that category for them, the publishers, either; and Ruburt refuses to take advantage of “the trappings.” At least then they could say they had an occult personality who played the new part. It might be farce, from the publisher’s viewpoint, but they could sell it, and they would know how to advertise it.

Publishers deal with the culture that you know, with people who follow it. Prentice does not understand why the books have sold. Castaneda does not become Don Juan. He holds himself clearly apart from the reality he explores. If our material was not excellent it might have found its way to some spooky underground publisher.

Now Tam can write some good ads. (Long pause.) There will be some good advertisements. In the meantime, Prentice has given a framework—a reputable one—in which the books could find their growth and audience.

Bantam is helping—but no one there would have had the guts to make any initial investment. What I have said however applies now to Bantam, as it did to Prentice in the beginning. You give them no handle of a recognizable nature in your culture, upon which their kind of advertisement can be written.

(Pause at 10:11.) You would not necessarily want to handle those results. You would not want to handle the phone calls, the interviews, so do not blame Prentice for not giving you what you do not want. If that was what you really wanted, you would have had it yesterday.

You are correct (to me): Prentice does follow your beliefs. But these are not as negative as you often suppose. They have not taken advantage of you as a “highly fired” firm might, and they have actually tried to protect your privacy.

(Jane, as Seth, paused. As I commented after the session, it seems that we’ll have to pull in our horns as far as our feelings about advertising and Prentice are concerned; it may be a relief to do just that. But I think that Seth’s material here is the best we could possibly come across on our publisher, Castaneda, etc., and I’m sure that Jane will agree.