“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

There are bound to be distortions—but the distortions themselves are meaningful. You have, again, a definite right to state your objections, and to change your contract accordingly in the future. You have every right to state your clear objections to Prentice about whatever issue you feel unfair. Regardless of all of that, however, and taking all of that for granted, if you will forgive me (whispering), I sometimes feel that you might perhaps both lack a certain trust (loudly) in the nature of your own intents, and in the activity of Framework 2 as far as it concerns you and that publishing house.

(Pause at 9:4l.) If, hypothetically, either of you believe that Prentice is trying to “screw you up,” and if you accept that statement, or belief, then invisibly you set out to prove it. The evidence comes in. In your society writers need publishing houses. Most publishers are businessmen. They rarely pretend to be themselves creative—yet all publishers, and people who work for them, are also intrigued by the products of creativity, and at least to some degree, being well reimbursed, they do indeed use their quite different abilities to distribute the creative products that they could not themselves initiate. To date, and in the long run, and despite quite legitimate gripes, considering the nature of our books, and your own joint characteristics, Prentice has been a good choice.

They have been conservative in many ways—but neither have they exploited Ruburt’s abilities, and neither have they made any attempt to tamper with the message, and some houses would have. They have not flooded the market, which in the long run could be quite detrimental, and in the main they have left you alone.

They have not forced interviews upon you, and many houses certainly would try it. They have even, at times, kept the books in print that were selling poorly for a period, though this did not obviously apply to Seven.