1 result for (book:tps5 AND heading:"delet session decemb 1 1980" AND stemmed:world)
[... 15 paragraphs ...]
(Long pause.) Because the book met criticism at Prentice does not mean that you or it were not protected. (Pause.) The word “protection” in this context is interesting, of course, since the disclaimer is supposed to protect Prentice from any court action. It is in its fashion an attempt at protection at that level. The level is one where every bit of preventative protection is needed in a world where people constantly need insurance, preventative medicine, and so forth – again, all issues dealt with in the book.
[... 1 paragraph ...]
(9:26.) Lawyers deal in a world of limited, fairly well-established facts. Those facts may be imaginatively assembled at times, but they are very slow to accept the inclusion of any new data, and they must be backers of the establishment from which, of course, they obtain their position.
[... 6 paragraphs ...]
To the extent that he questions his own natural protection. Give us a moment.... You are dealing with two issues also. The natural person—the creator, the artist—in Ruburt, wants the book out without any interruptions, and cares little about other issues. The socially knowledgeable person does not want to be taken for a fool, be insulted, and wants to be treated with respect. To some extent that is a simplification, of course. Nothing is that simple, but the explanation does serve to clarify contradictory issues. Certainly the entire affair is to be used creatively. Art, including writing, of course—creativity itself—is bound to be, as per the Cézanne passage (I’d called to Jane’s attention a couple of weeks ago) sometimes disruptive. It brings into being that which was not there before. It rearranges some aspects of the world, and it is in its fashion as brilliant as a child’s clear eye. It sees truth clearly. Because it does, art can often make disclosures that offend the pious, the well-mannered.
Ruburt’s own passages (in God of Jane) about the television preacher are a case in point. They upset him to some extent—not for himself, but because he did not want to hurt other people who so believed in the dogma that he was disclosing to the world. It is very important, then, that you learn to trust your own creativity and your own vision, and allow it its expression, for it will always lead to a more fulfilling vision. End of session. Unless you have another question.
[... 3 paragraphs ...]