“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

You have made rather sharp definitive divisions between the artistic world and the business world. Such divisions of course do exist. You have perhaps delineated them with a rather thorough determination, so that the contrasts are brilliantly apparent. I am trying to separate these strands, so bear with me.

I am in no way putting the business world down. People in it have their own abilities and drives. As a rule, however, it is foolhardy to expect them to have a sense of the artist’s values, whatever the art may be, and then to become upset when they do not live up to that picture.

Now, of course they think of books as products, so it seems to you that they should think in terms of the best products, in the same way that you might think of a best painting—but when you think that way, you are still projecting artistic characteristics where they do not fit.

(9:47.) The idea of a simple job attracts you because it separates your ideas of art from money—but in order to content you it could not involve money at all, for even commercial art brings you to the matter of the artistic ideal and its practical presentation.

The male as breadwinner and the male as artist, or the title of the saga is “Bill Crowder may have been stupid, but he fit in with the crowd.”

It would be nice if you learned to appreciate your own abilities both as an artist and as a writer (louder). It would be nice if you learned to appreciate your comparative financial freedom, instead of arguing with yourself as to whether or not you deserve it, or whether or not you are a good male if you accept it.

A good artist, of course, who was free of such nonsense, would accept it gladly without a qualm.

That area has also suffered because of your joint ideas of what artists should be like, and what men and women who happen to be artists should be like. Think that one over. That emotional flow is important.