<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?><!-- generator=Zoho Sites --><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"><channel><atom:link href="https://www.jamesallenwrites.com/blogs/tag/author-blog/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><title>James Allen, Author - Blog #author blog</title><description>James Allen, Author - Blog #author blog</description><link>https://www.jamesallenwrites.com/blogs/tag/author-blog</link><lastBuildDate>Wed, 29 Apr 2026 06:26:02 -0700</lastBuildDate><generator>http://zoho.com/sites/</generator><item><title><![CDATA[Beer Foam]]></title><link>https://www.jamesallenwrites.com/blogs/post/beer-foam</link><description><![CDATA[<img align="left" hspace="5" src="https://www.jamesallenwrites.com/1ff211d7-0c3b-4736-93ba-23f033c707fe.png"/>Beer Foam uses a beer-glass metaphor to question trickle-down economics, arguing that prosperity concentrated at the top may look impressive but often fails to reach the workers, families, retirees, and small businesses expected to wait for it.]]></description><content:encoded><![CDATA[<div class="zpcontent-container blogpost-container "><div data-element-id="elm_h_C0RdJuQIez6ZOk4rhEKw" data-element-type="section" class="zpsection "><style type="text/css"></style><div class="zpcontainer-fluid zpcontainer"><div data-element-id="elm_VbBJw8YsRiKTg_M2Cp9QrQ" data-element-type="row" class="zprow zprow-container zpalign-items- zpjustify-content- " data-equal-column=""><style type="text/css"></style><div data-element-id="elm_g1qXHzoEQZeCEvTshpoYsg" data-element-type="column" class="zpelem-col zpcol-12 zpcol-md-12 zpcol-sm-12 zpalign-self- "><style type="text/css"></style><div data-element-id="elm_raKtSHc9T9KwSOUvsNfYsg" data-element-type="heading" class="zpelement zpelem-heading "><style></style><h2
 class="zpheading zpheading-align-center zpheading-align-mobile-center zpheading-align-tablet-center " data-editor="true"><span>And Other Promises That Never Reached the Glass</span></h2></div>
<div data-element-id="elm_b1IiHGJ7WqtMtamM1pilgQ" data-element-type="text" class="zpelement zpelem-text "><style></style><div class="zptext zptext-align-left zptext-align-mobile-left zptext-align-tablet-left " data-editor="true"><p></p><div><p><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;"><span>cross-posted https://sitebuilder-906246231.zohositescontent.com/zcms/editor/blogs/post/Beer-Foam 04/28/2026.<br/></span><br/>Some people wait to be told what to believe.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">I tend to start with a simpler question:</span></p><p><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">Who benefits if I believe this?</span></p><p><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">That question works surprisingly well. It does not solve everything, but it clears a lot of fog. Whenever a policy, slogan, or economic theory gets wrapped in polished language, I like to take it out to the porch, set it in plain daylight, and ask what it actually does.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">Trickle-down economics is one of those ideas that sounds reasonable if you say it fast enough.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">The theory goes something like this: if you give enough benefits to the people and companies at the top, they will invest more, build more, hire more, and eventually the prosperity will work its way down to everyone else.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">In theory, that sounds almost neighborly.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">In practice, it often looks more like pouring a beer, ending up with a glass full of foam, and telling everyone at the table to be patient because the good stuff is technically underneath.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">The problem is not that investment is bad. Businesses do need capital. Expansion can create jobs. Healthy companies do matter to a healthy economy. Nobody with sense should pretend otherwise.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">The problem is the assumption that money given to the top naturally becomes shared prosperity.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">It does not have to.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">A corporation can use tax savings to raise wages. It can also use them for stock buybacks, executive bonuses, automation, acquisitions, or simply holding more cash. A wealthy investor can put money into a business that creates local jobs. They can also park it in assets that inflate wealth without doing much for the working person trying to pay rent, buy groceries, or take a kid to the doctor.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">Money does not trickle down by magic.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">It goes where incentives send it.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">And for the last several decades, too many incentives have rewarded accumulation more than circulation.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">That is where the theory starts to fail the smell test.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">If working people are told to wait patiently because prosperity will eventually reach them, but the cost of housing, food, healthcare, insurance, transportation, and education keeps rising faster than wages, then the promise is not functioning as advertised.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">At some point, “just wait” stops being economic theory and starts sounding like a customer service recording.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">Your prosperity is very important to us. Please remain on the line.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">Meanwhile, the people at the top are not waiting. They are optimizing.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">They have accountants, lobbyists, tax strategies, market leverage, and pricing power. They have access to tools ordinary households do not. When costs rise, they often pass them along. When profits rise, they are under no natural obligation to pass those along with equal enthusiasm.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">That is not a moral accusation against every wealthy person or every business owner. It is just how systems behave when they are designed to protect returns at the top first.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">The part that bothers me most is how often the burden of patience is assigned downward.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">Workers are told higher wages will hurt the economy.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">Families are told affordable healthcare is too expensive.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">Students are told education is an investment, even if it starts them in debt.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">Retirees are told benefits are unsustainable.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">Small businesses are told to compete in a market where the giants get the better tax treatment, better financing, better pricing power, and better political access.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">And then, after all that, the people struggling at the bottom are told the real problem is that they lack discipline.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">That is convenient.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">Pain at the bottom becomes a character flaw. Hoarding at the top becomes strategy.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">I am not against wealth. I am not against business. I run a small business. I understand risk, cost, inventory, cash flow, and the joy of wondering why the thing you thought would sell like hotcakes is sitting there like a decorative brick.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">But that is exactly why I do not buy the fairy tale version of economics.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">At the small-business level, money has to move. If someone buys a cutting board, that money may help pay booth fees, materials, gas, packaging, website costs, or the next batch of product. It may go to another local vendor, a print shop, a lumber supplier, or groceries. That dollar keeps changing hands.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">That is circulation.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">Circulation is what keeps communities alive.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">When ordinary people have money, they spend much of it close to home. They buy groceries. They fix cars. They pay rent. They take the family out for dinner once in a while. They buy school shoes, birthday gifts, prescriptions, gas, lumber, coffee, haircuts, and maybe something handmade at a vendor show because it made them smile.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">That money does not sit still for long.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">It moves through neighborhoods, stores, tradespeople, service workers, suppliers, and local tax bases. It creates demand. Demand supports jobs. Jobs support families. Families support communities.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">That is not complicated.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">It is just less flattering to the people who prefer to believe the economy begins and ends with them.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">When money concentrates too heavily at the top, it does not automatically circulate with the same force. It can sit. It can be shielded. It can be converted into ownership of more assets, which then generate more wealth for the people who already had enough money to buy them.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">That is not rain.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">That is a reservoir with a very expensive fence.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">And that is where the beer foam comes in.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">Foam looks impressive. It fills the glass. It rises above the rim. It gives the appearance of abundance.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">But nobody orders a beer for the foam.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">The foam is what you wait through to get to the part you actually came for. And if the bartender keeps handing you glass after glass of foam while insisting there is plenty of beer in there somewhere, eventually you stop calling it service.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">You call it a con.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">Trickle-down economics has always had a beer-foam problem. The people at the top point to a full glass and say, “Look how much prosperity there is.” The people lower down are still waiting for something they can actually drink.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">Plenty at the top.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">Very little reaching the table.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">And somehow, the people still thirsty are accused of not appreciating the foam.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">The old argument was that helping the top would eventually help everyone else. But after decades of watching wages stagnate, pensions disappear, healthcare become a maze, housing become a crisis, and retirement savings become a luxury for many working people, it seems fair to ask:</span></p><p><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">How long exactly is “eventually”?</span></p><p><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">Because eventually does not pay the light bill.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">Eventually does not refill a prescription.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">Eventually does not fix the transmission.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">Eventually does not help a sixty-year-old worker who did everything mostly right and still has little to show for it because the rules kept changing while the people writing them kept cashing checks.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">A healthy economy should not depend on waiting for generosity from the top. It should be built so prosperity circulates through the middle and bottom as part of the design.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">Good wages circulate.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">Affordable healthcare circulates.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">Stable housing circulates.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">Local jobs circulate.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">Small-business spending circulates.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">Retirement security circulates.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">When ordinary people are financially stable, they do not bury that stability in a vault. They use it. They repair things. They replace things. They support local businesses. They participate in their communities. They take modest risks because disaster is not always one bad month away.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">That is not laziness.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">That is the foundation of a functioning country.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">The mistake of trickle-down thinking is that it treats working people as the final recipients of prosperity instead of the engine that keeps prosperity alive.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">It imagines the economy as something that begins in boardrooms and descends, eventually and reluctantly, to everyone else.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">But most of real life does not work from the penthouse down.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">It works from the grocery cart up.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">It works from the rent check up.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">It works from the lunch counter, the daycare bill, the tire shop, the school fundraiser, the farmer’s market, the utility payment, and the person deciding whether they can afford both medicine and meat this week.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">That is where the economy is felt.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">That is where theory either becomes real or exposes itself as foam.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">So when someone tells me that more benefits for the top will eventually help everyone, I still ask the same porch question:</span></p><p><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">Who benefits if I believe this?</span></p><p><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">Because if the same people keep benefiting first, most, and always, maybe the theory is not broken.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">Maybe it is doing exactly what it was designed to do.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">Maybe the foam was never a mistake.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">Maybe it was the sales pitch.</span></p></div>
<p></p></div></div><div data-element-id="elm_RHabBYzgT-GsHJpQKB0eTw" data-element-type="text" class="zpelement zpelem-text "><style></style><div class="zptext zptext-align-center zptext-align-mobile-center zptext-align-tablet-center " data-editor="true"><p><a href="https://sitebuilder-906246231.zohositescontent.com/zcms/editor/blogs/post/Beer-Foam">Cross posted to</a></p></div>
</div></div></div></div></div></div> ]]></content:encoded><pubDate>Tue, 28 Apr 2026 12:33:33 -0500</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Full Disclosure: AI Is a Tool of Economic Choice]]></title><link>https://www.jamesallenwrites.com/blogs/post/Full-Disclosure</link><description><![CDATA[<img align="left" hspace="5" src="https://www.jamesallenwrites.com/d2a21369-f5bd-4a2f-b067-6e1ad02858d6.png"/>AI does not eliminate creativity; it changes where some of the creative labor lives. For independent creators working within real budgets, AI can be less a purity test than a practical tool that makes books, visuals, and other projects economically possible at all.]]></description><content:encoded><![CDATA[<div class="zpcontent-container blogpost-container "><div data-element-id="elm_NguTi1k2RRyYTjcyJS7DFw" data-element-type="section" class="zpsection "><style type="text/css"></style><div class="zpcontainer-fluid zpcontainer"><div data-element-id="elm_rkxoLDFtSWm97GDbg_5UJg" data-element-type="row" class="zprow zprow-container zpalign-items- zpjustify-content- " data-equal-column=""><style type="text/css"></style><div data-element-id="elm_Qj662nmTSr2WesQRFMLffw" data-element-type="column" class="zpelem-col zpcol-12 zpcol-md-12 zpcol-sm-12 zpalign-self- "><style type="text/css"></style><div data-element-id="elm_oyo6NnPZQku5IcaubqxW0w" data-element-type="heading" class="zpelement zpelem-heading "><style></style><h2
 class="zpheading zpheading-align-center zpheading-align-mobile-center zpheading-align-tablet-center " data-editor="true"><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">It's not about the individual artist</span></h2></div>
<div data-element-id="elm_qEscFd4qStqWL58ZJl7IIQ" data-element-type="text" class="zpelement zpelem-text "><style></style><div class="zptext zptext-align-center zptext-align-mobile-center zptext-align-tablet-center " data-editor="true"><p></p><div><p style="text-align:left;"><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;"></span></p><div><p style="text-align:left;"><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;"></span></p></div><div><p style="text-align:left;"><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">At the vendor market today, my wife was speaking with two women about one of my Seamus Ailin books for children. At some point, one of them told the other, in a rather elevated tone, “I avoid anything AI. I’m an artist.” </span></p><p></p><div style="text-align:left;"><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;"><br/></span></div><div style="text-align:left;"><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">Her mother seemed a little taken aback. My wife was stunned into silence. And I, overhearing it, had two immediate thoughts.</span></div><p></p><p></p><div style="text-align:left;"><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;"><br/></span></div><div style="text-align:left;"></div><p></p><div style="text-align:left;"><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">The first was simple enough: &quot;where can I see <strong style="font-style:italic;">your</strong> work&quot;?</span></div>
<p></p><div style="text-align:left;"><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;"><br/></span></div><div style="text-align:left;"><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">The second was more practical: if I were to hire a traditional illustrator at standard rates, I would likely have to charge two or three times what I currently charge for my books. As things stand, I only make a modest royalty per copy. The economics are not mysterious. They are simply unforgiving. Unless I found an illustrator willing to work on a royalty split rather than an up-front fee, the math would collapse the project before the first copy ever reached a reader.</span></div><p></p><p></p><div style="text-align:left;"><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;"><br/></span></div><div style="text-align:left;"><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">That is not bitterness. It is arithmetic.</span></div><p></p><p></p><div style="text-align:left;"><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;"><br/></span></div><div style="text-align:left;"><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">When my wife later asked what she could have said in response, I told her the truth. I come to this work not only as a writer, but as someone whose professional life was rooted in technology. I spent decades in IT and project management, and my academic work touched Human Computer Interaction, an area closely related to the larger history of digital systems people now loosely group under “AI.” So for me, using these tools is not some strange detour away from my background. In many ways, it is an extension of it.</span></div><p></p><p></p><div style="text-align:left;"><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;"><br/></span></div><div style="text-align:left;"><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">And I am perfectly candid about my limitations.</span></div><p></p><p></p><div style="text-align:left;"><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;"><br/></span></div><div style="text-align:left;"></div><p></p></div></div><p></p><div style="text-align:left;"><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;"><span style="font-weight:bold;font-style:italic;">I cannot draw well</span>. Visually, I am not a hand illustrator, and I do not pretend to be one. <strong style="font-style:italic;">What I can do is write.</strong> I can describe a scene, a mood, a posture, a season, an expression, a color temperature, a piece of emotional atmosphere. I can tell you what I want the image to feel like. That is my actual craft. So when someone asks <strong style="font-style:italic;">who does my illustrations</strong>, I answer plainly: I create the visual direction, and I use an AI tool to render it.</span></div><p></p><div><div><div style="text-align:left;"></div>
<p></p><div style="text-align:left;"><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;"><br/></span></div><div style="text-align:left;"><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">That strikes me as more honest than pretending the image emerged from skills I do not have. It also fits the broader way the U.S. Copyright Office now talks about AI-assisted work: the use of technology in producing works of authorship is not new, and copyright questions turn on the degree of human contribution that remains perceptible in the final work. The Office has also said that people may claim copyright in their own original contributions to works containing AI-generated material. In other words, the presence of a tool does not erase authorship by itself. The real question is what the human being actually contributed.</span></div><p></p><p></p><div style="text-align:left;"><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;"><br/></span></div><div style="text-align:left;"><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">To me, that is not conceptually different from programming a CNC router to cut a pattern, using a laser to engrave a design, or setting up a 3-D printer to produce an object from a digital model. The creativity lies in the concept, the instruction, the refinement, and the judgment. The machine performs part of the execution. That does not eliminate human creativity. It relocates part of it.</span></div><p></p><p></p><div style="text-align:left;"><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;"><br/></span></div><div style="text-align:left;"><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">In that sense, AI is less a replacement for vision than a translation mechanism for people whose ideas exceed their manual drawing ability.</span></div><p></p><p></p><div style="text-align:left;"><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;"><br/></span></div><div style="text-align:left;"><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">And history is full of examples of artists’ tools changing over time.</span></div><p></p><p></p><div style="text-align:left;"><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;"><br/></span></div><div style="text-align:left;"><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">Portable metal paint tubes made oil paint far easier to transport and helped painters work outdoors more freely; art historians routinely connect that change to the working habits associated with Impressionism. Photography, too, was long treated by many as artistically suspect before becoming an accepted medium in its own right. The pattern is old: new tools arrive, purists complain, standards wobble for a while, and then the creative world absorbs the tool and keeps moving. Art did not die when paint tubes became portable. It did not die when cameras appeared. It did not die when digital tools arrived. It is not dying because writers and publishers now use AI.</span></div><p></p><p></p><div style="text-align:left;"><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;"><br/></span></div><div style="text-align:left;"><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">The same basic dynamic has repeated over and over. The Copyright Office’s 2025 report explicitly says that the use of technology in producing works of authorship is not new. That matters. AI may be controversial, uneven, overhyped, or misused in some cases, but it did not invent the relationship between creativity and tools. It simply pushed that old relationship into a new and highly visible form.</span></div><p></p><p></p><div style="text-align:left;"><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;"><br/></span></div><div style="text-align:left;"><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">None of this should be mistaken for hostility toward traditional artists. In fact, just yesterday, our wedding anniversary as it happens, I bought my wife a pair of hand-painted earrings from a fellow vendor whose work I genuinely admire. When I can support working artists directly, I do. Gladly.</span></div><p></p><p></p><div style="text-align:left;"><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;"><br/></span></div><div style="text-align:left;"><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">The issue is not whether human-made art has value. Of course it does.</span></div><p></p><p></p><div style="text-align:left;"><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;"><br/></span></div><div style="text-align:left;"><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">The issue is whether every independent creator can afford custom commissioned work at professional rates for every project they wish to bring into the world.</span></div><p></p><p></p><div style="text-align:left;"><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;"><br/></span></div><div style="text-align:left;"><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">Most cannot.</span></div><p></p><p></p><div style="text-align:left;"><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;"><br/></span></div><div style="text-align:left;"><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">Self-publishing sounds romantic until the spreadsheet shows up. On Amazon KDP paperbacks sold through Amazon marketplaces, the stated royalty is 60% of list price minus printing cost, while KDP Expanded Distribution pays 40% minus printing cost and applicable taxes or withholding. Barnes &amp; Noble Press states a 55% royalty rate on print books minus per-book printing cost. So the author is not simply pocketing cover price minus a little pocket change. The platform takes its share, printing comes off the top, and what remains still has to absorb editing, cover work, formatting, proof copies, advertising, samples, and the long list of production costs that never look small when you are the one paying them. For illustrated self-published books, custom art is often not a matter of taste. It is a matter of whether the book can be priced low enough to sell at all.</span></div><p></p><p></p><div style="text-align:left;"><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;"><br/></span></div><div style="text-align:left;"><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">Now, to be clear, if I knew a gifted illustrator who loved the work, understood the audience, and was willing to collaborate on a royalty-sharing basis that made business sense, I would gladly explore that. I have nothing against human illustrators. I have something against making a financially irrational decision that guarantees a project will lose money from the outset.</span></div><p></p><p></p><div style="text-align:left;"><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;"><br/></span></div><div style="text-align:left;"><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">There is a difference between rejecting artists and recognizing constraints.</span></div><p></p><p></p><div style="text-align:left;"><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;"><br/></span></div><div style="text-align:left;"><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">That is why lines like “I avoid anything AI. I’m an artist” strike me less as a defense of craft than as a declaration of social positioning. It draws a line between the supposedly legitimate and the supposedly impure, between “real creators” and those deemed lesser for using tools someone else dislikes. Sometimes that line is philosophical. Sometimes it is aesthetic. Sometimes it is economic without admitting that it is economic.</span></div><p></p><p></p><div style="text-align:left;"><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;"><br/></span></div><div style="text-align:left;"><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">Because, bluntly, refusal can be easier when you can afford refusal.</span></div><p></p><p></p><div style="text-align:left;"><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;"><br/></span></div><div style="text-align:left;"><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">That does not make every critic of AI a snob. It does mean that opposition to AI can function as a luxury position for some creators whose finances, training, business model, or clientele give them options many independents simply do not have. Independent creators often live in the world of margins, affordability, experimentation, and practical compromise. They live in the world where a book still has to be priced low enough for an actual parent or grandparent to take a chance on it at a market table.</span></div><p></p><p></p><div style="text-align:left;"><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;"><br/></span></div><div style="text-align:left;"><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">And that world has its own kind of honesty.</span></div><p></p><p></p><div style="text-align:left;"><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;"><br/></span></div><div style="text-align:left;"><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">I am not trying to pass myself off as something I am not. I am not pretending to be a brush-and-ink illustrator. I am a writer with a technology background, using available tools to bring visual accompaniment to written work in a way that is economically possible.</span></div><p></p><p></p><div style="text-align:left;"><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;"><br/></span></div><div style="text-align:left;"><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">That is the truth of it.</span></div><p></p><p></p><div style="text-align:left;"><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;"><br/></span></div><div style="text-align:left;"><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">If someone else chooses different tools, that is their business. But I have little patience for the assumption that using modern tools somehow disqualifies a person from the larger act of making.</span></div><p></p><p></p><div style="text-align:left;"><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;"><br/></span></div><div style="text-align:left;"><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">Creativity has always involved tools.</span></div><p></p><p></p><div style="text-align:left;"><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;"><br/></span></div><div style="text-align:left;"><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">Pens are tools.</span></div><div style="text-align:left;"><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">Brushes are tools.</span></div><div style="text-align:left;"><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">Cameras are tools.</span></div><div style="text-align:left;"><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">Word processors are tools.</span></div><div style="text-align:left;"><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">Photoshop is a tool.</span></div><div style="text-align:left;"><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">A lathe is a tool.</span></div><div style="text-align:left;"><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">A CNC machine is a tool.</span></div><div style="text-align:left;"><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">AI is a tool.</span></div><p></p><p></p><div style="text-align:left;"><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;"><br/></span></div><div style="text-align:left;"><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">And for many working creators, AI is a tool of economic choice.</span></div><p></p><p></p><div style="text-align:left;"><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;"><br/></span></div><div style="text-align:left;"><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">Not because they despise artists.</span></div><div style="text-align:left;"><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">Not because they want to cheat the process.</span></div><div style="text-align:left;"><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">Not because they are trying to cut human beings out of the picture.</span></div><p></p><p></p><div style="text-align:left;"><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;"><br/></span></div><div style="text-align:left;"></div><p></p><div style="text-align:left;"><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">But because <strong style="font-style:italic;">they are trying to make the picture possible</strong> at all.</span></div>
<p></p><div style="text-align:left;"><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;"><br/></span></div><div style="text-align:left;"><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">That seems to me a far more honest position than elitism dressed up as principle.</span></div><p></p><p></p><div style="text-align:left;"><br/></div><p></p></div></div>
</div></div></div></div></div></div></div> ]]></content:encoded><pubDate>Sun, 12 Apr 2026 12:50:47 -0500</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Privacy for the People, Transparency for the Government]]></title><link>https://www.jamesallenwrites.com/blogs/post/privacy-for-the-people</link><description><![CDATA[<img align="left" hspace="5" src="https://www.jamesallenwrites.com/private.png"/>Government power should be transparent by default; private citizens should not. This essay argues that liberty depends on keeping those roles straight: openness should run upward toward institutions that exercise public power, while privacy should protect the people.]]></description><content:encoded><![CDATA[<div class="zpcontent-container blogpost-container "><div data-element-id="elm_jLPMWPYoQguKhzQ0PC85uQ" data-element-type="section" class="zpsection "><style type="text/css"></style><div class="zpcontainer-fluid zpcontainer"><div data-element-id="elm_rFvN6Ld_TYmaT68hVeJIJg" data-element-type="row" class="zprow zprow-container zpalign-items- zpjustify-content- " data-equal-column=""><style type="text/css"></style><div data-element-id="elm_Lr2cxql3TR-rcw_nEVmifg" data-element-type="column" class="zpelem-col zpcol-12 zpcol-md-12 zpcol-sm-12 zpalign-self- "><style type="text/css"></style><div data-element-id="elm_ZtqHMJ03Qx200Bly3uXzxg" data-element-type="heading" class="zpelement zpelem-heading "><style></style><h1
 class="zpheading zpheading-align-center zpheading-align-mobile-center zpheading-align-tablet-center " data-editor="true"><span>“A public institution should therefore be transparent by default.&quot;</span></h1></div>
<div data-element-id="elm_tIdSxO9FSyqD3lGHdmn0kg" data-element-type="text" class="zpelement zpelem-text "><style></style><div class="zptext zptext-align-center zptext-align-mobile-center zptext-align-tablet-center " data-editor="true"><p></p><div><p style="text-align:left;">There is a basic inversion in how we talk about privacy in this country, and it has been upside down for so long that many people no longer notice it. </p><p></p><div style="text-align:left;"><br/></div><div style="text-align:left;">Our government is a public institution. It exists because we allow it to exist. It operates with money we provide, authority we delegate, and power we loan out with the understanding that it will be used on our behalf. In the American tradition, government is not the source of sovereignty in its own right. It is the instrument of a sovereign people. That is not merely modern rhetoric. It is woven into the founding language itself. The Declaration of Independence says governments derive “their just powers from the consent of the governed,” and the Constitution begins not with “We the Government,” but with “We the People.”</div><p></p><p></p><div style="text-align:left;"><br/></div><div style="text-align:left;">If that principle means anything, it means public power should lean toward visibility. Not absolute visibility. Not reckless exposure of every legitimate secret. But a strong presumption that the public should be able to see what is done in its name, with its money, under authority borrowed from it. American law reflects that idea imperfectly. The Freedom of Information Act is built around disclosure, even while it also recognizes nine exemptions and other withholding rules for things like national security, personal privacy, privileged materials, and law-enforcement interests. So the principle is not that everything must always be public. The principle is that secrecy should need a reason.</div><p></p><p></p><div style="text-align:left;"><br/></div><div style="text-align:left;">There are obvious exceptions, of course: military planning, intelligence sources and methods, active investigations where disclosure would cause real harm, and the narrow range of information whose secrecy genuinely protects the country rather than merely protecting someone’s convenience, reputation, or bureaucracy. But outside those kinds of cases, records generated in the conduct of public business should be understood as belonging, in a meaningful civic sense, to the public. If government produces them in our name, then absent a compelling reason otherwise, the people should be able to inspect them. That is not radical. That is accountability.</div><p></p><p></p><div style="text-align:left;"><br/></div><div style="text-align:left;">Even the Founders understood that concentrated power requires sunlight. James Madison warned that “A popular Government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy.” The wording survives because the insight does: secrecy is often the natural ally of unaccountable power. Liberty does not require that the state know everything. It requires that the people be able to judge what the state is doing.</div><p></p><p></p><div style="text-align:left;"><br/></div><div style="text-align:left;">Meanwhile, we the people are private citizens. We are not public property. We are not public data. We are not entries in a file cabinet to be cataloged, cross-referenced, and retained forever simply because technology now makes that easy. A government may need certain information to function: taxes, benefits administration, lawful criminal records, licensing, and the ordinary records necessary to keep basic systems operating. But in a free society, the burden should remain on the state to justify why it needs information about the individual, not on the individual to explain why he deserves privacy.</div><p></p><p></p><div style="text-align:left;"><br/></div><div style="text-align:left;">That principle is embedded in the Bill of Rights. The Fourth Amendment does not begin from the assumption that authorities may inspect first and justify later. It secures the people in their “persons, houses, papers, and effects” against unreasonable searches and seizures, and then places conditions on warrants. In other words, the constitutional starting point is not governmental entitlement to personal information. It is personal security against unjustified intrusion. The amendment exists because the generation that wrote it knew exactly what happens when authorities treat private life as open territory. They regarded that habit not as efficiency, but as a danger to liberty.</div><p></p><p></p><div style="text-align:left;"><br/></div><div style="text-align:left;">That same basic logic should guide modern institutions. Census collection is a useful example. The Census Bureau states that responses are protected by federal law, kept confidential, and used to produce statistics. That is the right direction: the state may collect what is necessary for representation, apportionment, and planning, but the information should be tightly protected and published in aggregated form rather than treated as a casual reservoir of identifiable personal detail. The point of census-taking is public knowledge at the population level, not intimate exposure at the household level.</div><p></p><p></p><div style="text-align:left;"><br/></div><div style="text-align:left;">Voting presents a similar distinction. Election administration may require records of registration, eligibility, and participation, but ballot secrecy remains fundamental. The Election Assistance Commission describes voting rights in part as the right to vote privately and independently. That matters because secret ballots are not a mere courtesy. They are a protection against coercion, retaliation, intimidation, and social pressure. A republic may need to know that lawful procedures were followed. It does not need to turn the citizen’s actual vote into publicly exposed personal data.</div><p></p><p></p><div style="text-align:left;"><br/></div><div style="text-align:left;">The same presumption should extend more broadly. Private association should remain private. Private belief should remain private. Private reading, private lawful speech, and private lawful conduct should remain private absent lawful cause for intrusion. That is not the same thing as secrecy in the pejorative sense. It is liberty in the constitutional sense. A decent government does not treat every citizen as a potential file to be built out in case the data someday proves useful. It recognizes that freedom includes a zone of ordinary, lawful, unmonitored life.</div><p></p><p></p><div style="text-align:left;"><br/></div><div style="text-align:left;">Somewhere along the way, however, the lines blurred. Government often became more opaque even as citizens became more exposed. Agencies learned to collect more in the name of efficiency while withholding more in the name of sensitivity. Bureaucracies discovered how easily embarrassment can be dressed up as confidentiality. And technology made the temptation of surveillance stronger simply because it made surveillance easier. The public institution became increasingly private. The private citizen became increasingly legible. And because the change came gradually, many people learned to accept inversion as normal.</div><p></p><p></p><div style="text-align:left;"><br/></div><div style="text-align:left;">But normal and familiar are not the same thing.</div><p></p><p></p><div style="text-align:left;"><br/></div><div style="text-align:left;">A healthy republic depends on a cleaner arrangement.</div><p></p><p></p><div style="text-align:left;"><br/></div><div style="text-align:left;">The government should be visible because it exercises power.</div><p></p><p></p><div style="text-align:left;"><br/></div><div style="text-align:left;">The citizen should be private because he does not.</div><p></p><p></p><div style="text-align:left;"><br/></div><div style="text-align:left;">The institution should be open because it acts in the public’s name.</div><p></p><p></p><div style="text-align:left;"><br/></div><div style="text-align:left;">The citizen should be shielded because he is not a public institution.</div><p></p><p></p><div style="text-align:left;"><br/></div><div style="text-align:left;">The institution should be accountable.</div><p></p><p></p><div style="text-align:left;"><br/></div><div style="text-align:left;">The citizen should be protected.</div><p></p><p></p><div style="text-align:left;"><br/></div><div style="text-align:left;">When those roles reverse, trust erodes. Participation declines. Suspicion rises. And the distance between the governed and the governing widens into something much harder to repair. None of this requires chaos. None of it requires that every legitimate secret be thrown open to the wind. It requires only that we recover a principle that ought to be obvious in a constitutional republic: transparency should run upward toward power, not downward toward the people.</div><p></p><p></p><div style="text-align:left;"><br/></div><div style="text-align:left;">A government powerful enough to know everything about its citizens while revealing as little as possible about itself is not the architecture of liberty. It is the architecture of inversion.</div><p></p><p></p><div style="text-align:left;"><br/></div><div style="text-align:left;">The proper arrangement is simpler than that.</div><p></p><p></p><div style="text-align:left;"><br/></div><div style="text-align:left;">Privacy for the people.</div><p></p><p></p><div style="text-align:left;"><br/></div><div style="text-align:left;">Transparency for the government.</div><p></p><p></p><div style="text-align:left;"><br/></div><div style="text-align:left;">That is the arrangement liberty requires.&nbsp;</div><p></p></div><p></p></div>
</div></div></div></div></div></div> ]]></content:encoded><pubDate>Sun, 12 Apr 2026 11:34:39 -0500</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Why I Don’t Participate in Book Clubs or BookTok]]></title><link>https://www.jamesallenwrites.com/blogs/post/book-clubs-booktok-policy</link><description><![CDATA[<img align="left" hspace="5" src="https://www.jamesallenwrites.com/86E7537A-3FC0-4951-9275-E5A22E8092F5.png"/>A brief policy note explaining why James Allen does not participate in book clubs, BookTok promotions, or unpaid author events, and how occasional paid speaking requests may be considered.]]></description><content:encoded><![CDATA[<div class="zpcontent-container blogpost-container "><div data-element-id="elm_SUd5QsPwQpGeJuKOXcmIcQ" data-element-type="section" class="zpsection "><style type="text/css"></style><div class="zpcontainer-fluid zpcontainer"><div data-element-id="elm_3cK4F1n3RBqBLarzmzdn9A" data-element-type="row" class="zprow zprow-container zpalign-items- zpjustify-content- " data-equal-column=""><style type="text/css"></style><div data-element-id="elm_yD7qTOEwSsu8gSNGNKciog" data-element-type="column" class="zpelem-col zpcol-12 zpcol-md-12 zpcol-sm-12 zpalign-self- "><style type="text/css"></style><div data-element-id="elm_lMAahw5eTjiYAVbjwNiavg" data-element-type="heading" class="zpelement zpelem-heading "><style></style><h2
 class="zpheading zpheading-align-center zpheading-align-mobile-center zpheading-align-tablet-center " data-editor="true"><span><b>A Small Note on Book Clubs, BookTok, and Other Invitations</b></span></h2></div>
<div data-element-id="elm_GRSiIbW2RyS52eWxRHOLbA" data-element-type="text" class="zpelement zpelem-text "><style></style><div class="zptext zptext-align-center zptext-align-mobile-center zptext-align-tablet-center " data-editor="true"><p></p><div><h1 style="text-align:left;"></h1><div><p style="text-align:left;"><br/></p><p style="text-align:left;">From time to time I receive messages from well-meaning readers, organizers, and online groups asking if I would like to participate in a book club discussion, appear in a virtual event, join a BookTok promotion, or otherwise take part in organized reader activities.</p><p></p><div style="text-align:left;"><br/></div><div style="text-align:left;">I appreciate the interest. Truly.</div><p></p><p></p><div style="text-align:left;"><br/></div><div style="text-align:left;">But it’s probably easiest if I state this clearly in one place:</div><p></p><p style="text-align:center;"><b style="color:rgb(209, 71, 71);font-style:italic;"><span style="font-size:24px;">I do not participate in book clubs, discussion groups, BookTok promotions, organized reader events, or similar activities.</span></b></p><p></p><div style="text-align:left;"><span style="font-weight:700;"><br/></span></div><div style="text-align:left;">This isn’t a temporary decision or a scheduling issue. It’s simply how I’ve chosen to approach writing and publishing.</div><p></p><p></p><div style="text-align:left;"><br/></div><div style="text-align:left;">I write the work, release it into the world, and then step back. What readers take from it—whether they agree, disagree, laugh, argue, or ignore it entirely—is part of the natural life of a book. I prefer to let that happen without my involvement.</div><p></p><p></p><div style="text-align:left;"><br/></div><div style="text-align:left;">In the same way, I’m not interested in participating in BookTok promotion, social media reading campaigns, or coordinated publicity efforts. I’m glad those things work well for many authors and readers. They’re simply not part of how I choose to operate.</div><p></p><p></p><div style="text-align:left;"><br/></div><div style="text-align:left;">Occasionally organizers explain that they run large groups or have significant followings, and they kindly offer to help expand my readership. I appreciate the intent, but the answer remains the same.</div><p></p><p></p><div style="text-align:left;"><br/></div><div style="text-align:left;">If your group would like to read or discuss one of the books, you are absolutely welcome to do so. Books belong to readers once they’re published.</div><p></p><p></p><div style="text-align:left;"><br/></div><div style="text-align:left;">I simply won’t be participating in the discussion.</div><p></p><p></p><div style="text-align:left;"><br/></div><div style="text-align:left;">If you’re curious about why I take this approach, it relates to something I’ve written about before: the modern impulse to organize, amplify, and comment on everything. I touched on that idea in an earlier post about what I called <b>the fading of the blue line</b>—the quiet boundary that once separated a person’s work from the constant expectation of public engagement around it.</div><p></p><p></p><div style="text-align:left;"><br/></div><div style="text-align:left;">I’m comfortable keeping that boundary.</div><p></p><p style="text-align:left;">The books are the conversation.</p><p style="text-align:left;">Readers are free to have whatever discussion they like.</p><p style="text-align:left;">I just won’t be in the room for it.</p><p></p><div style="text-align:left;"><br/></div><span><div style="text-align:left;">You can find my Author Participation Policy here:</div></span><div style="text-align:left;"></div><p></p><div style="text-align:left;"><a href="/author-participation-policy" title="https://jamesallenwrites.com/author-participation-policy" rel="">https://jamesallenwrites.com/author-participation-policy</a></div>
<p></p><div style="text-align:left;"><br/></div><span><div style="text-align:left;">Thank you</div></span><div style="text-align:left;">— James Allen</div><p></p><p style="text-align:left;">&nbsp;</p></div>
<p style="text-align:left;"></p></div><p></p></div></div><div data-element-id="elm_1AuML4FHQueUOUhpwukzhQ" data-element-type="button" class="zpelement zpelem-button "><style></style><div class="zpbutton-container zpbutton-align-center zpbutton-align-mobile-center zpbutton-align-tablet-center"><style type="text/css"></style><a class="zpbutton-wrapper zpbutton zpbutton-type-primary zpbutton-size-md " href="javascript:;" target="_blank"><span class="zpbutton-content">Get Started Now</span></a></div>
</div></div></div></div></div></div> ]]></content:encoded><pubDate>Wed, 11 Mar 2026 10:29:43 -0500</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Four Books, One Grain Line]]></title><link>https://www.jamesallenwrites.com/blogs/post/four-books-one-grain</link><description><![CDATA[<img align="left" hspace="5" src="https://www.jamesallenwrites.com/sawdust sage logo.png"/>A reflective look at four books by James Allen, The Sawdust Sage™, and the steady grain that connects them — from Sawdust to Stardust through Unstable Conditions. A quiet tour of how the writing voice formed, evolved, and continues to move forward.]]></description><content:encoded><![CDATA[<div class="zpcontent-container blogpost-container "><div data-element-id="elm_OW3QPO5YQkicc2tfigvpAw" data-element-type="section" class="zpsection "><style type="text/css"></style><div class="zpcontainer-fluid zpcontainer"><div data-element-id="elm_9y_dW9RQRuKOB9A6Sv_ldQ" data-element-type="row" class="zprow zprow-container zpalign-items- zpjustify-content- " data-equal-column=""><style type="text/css"></style><div data-element-id="elm_EWnPR-Q4SNmFPKjqOI0ISQ" data-element-type="column" class="zpelem-col zpcol-12 zpcol-md-12 zpcol-sm-12 zpalign-self- "><style type="text/css"></style><div data-element-id="elm_hSHuz_uwQrSO0zENL5fb2Q" data-element-type="heading" class="zpelement zpelem-heading "><style></style><h2
 class="zpheading zpheading-align-center zpheading-align-mobile-center zpheading-align-tablet-center " data-editor="true"><span>Every writer has a starting point.</span></h2></div>
<div data-element-id="elm_xdpjPLnxSiesnVV48aPPFA" data-element-type="text" class="zpelement zpelem-text "><style></style><div class="zptext zptext-align-center zptext-align-mobile-center zptext-align-tablet-center " data-editor="true"><p></p><div><div style="text-align:left;"><div><h1 style="font-weight:400;"><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">Four Books, One Grain Line<br/><span style="font-size:16px;">by James Allen</span></span></h1></div><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;"><br/>Mine began with Sawdust to Stardust — the first place where the voice that would become The Sawdust Sage™ really started to take shape. Looking back, I can see the themes forming: work, reflection, the quiet philosophy that tends to show up when you spend enough time in a shop or at a kitchen table.</span></div><div style="text-align:left;"><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;"><br/></span></div><div style="text-align:left;"><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">Over time, the writing settled into a more comfortable rhythm. Of all the books I’ve written, Coffee-Fueled Sunday Mornings is probably the one that feels most like home to me. It lives in that familiar space between humor and reflection — the place where most of my better thoughts tend to wander in from.</span></div><div style="text-align:left;"><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;"><br/></span></div><div style="text-align:left;"><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">Interestingly, the book that has connected most strongly with readers so far has been Unrequested Advice about Love, Relationships, and Other Topics. When people ask me about that one, I usually tell them:</span></div><div style="text-align:left;"><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;"><br/></span></div><div style="text-align:left;"><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">It’s the stuff I wish I’d known at 20…</span></div><div style="text-align:left;"><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">that took me the next 40 years to figure out.</span></div><div style="text-align:left;"><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;"><br/></span></div><div style="text-align:left;"><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">There’s something about that collection that seems to meet people where they are. Maybe it’s the mix of plainspoken honesty and dry humor. Maybe it’s just good timing. Either way, readers have clearly made it their own.</span></div><div style="text-align:left;"><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;"><br/></span></div><div style="text-align:left;"><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">&nbsp;</span></div></div><p></p></div>
</div></div></div></div></div></div> ]]></content:encoded><pubDate>Thu, 26 Feb 2026 08:16:37 -0600</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Welcome to JamesAllenWrites.com — Stories, Sawdust & Everyday Wisdom]]></title><link>https://www.jamesallenwrites.com/blogs/post/welcome-to-jamesallenwrites.com-—-stories-sawdust-everyday-wisdom</link><description><![CDATA[A welcome note from James Allen introducing The Sawdust Sage™, Seamus Ailin™, and the stories behind JamesAllenWrites.com.]]></description><content:encoded><![CDATA[<div class="zpcontent-container blogpost-container "><div data-element-id="elm_FNP0DeZ_SxGOklhF8XJAYg" data-element-type="section" class="zpsection "><style type="text/css"></style><div class="zpcontainer-fluid zpcontainer"><div data-element-id="elm_Us8ZzCFBTdqeEeTAXVFc9w" data-element-type="row" class="zprow zprow-container zpalign-items- zpjustify-content- " data-equal-column=""><style type="text/css"></style><div data-element-id="elm_sT-bAetCTimyJoGAcXIE-g" data-element-type="column" class="zpelem-col zpcol-12 zpcol-md-12 zpcol-sm-12 zpalign-self- "><style type="text/css"></style><div data-element-id="elm_fXloh9gYRBCs9oA_juIblw" data-element-type="text" class="zpelement zpelem-text "><style></style><div class="zptext zptext-align-center zptext-align-mobile-center zptext-align-tablet-center " data-editor="true"><p></p><div><p><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">If you’ve found your way here, welcome — you’re in the right place.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">JamesAllenWrites.com is home to the written side of my work, gathered under one roof but spoken in a few different voices.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">Some readers know me as <strong>The Sawdust Sage™</strong>, where everyday moments, workshop reflections, and the occasional sideways observation tend to turn into poetry and essays. The Sawdust Sage™ writes poetry, essays, and stories for thoughtful readers ages 12 and up.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">Others arrive through <strong>Seamus Ailin™</strong>, where wonder, curiosity, and a slightly more whiskered perspective guide stories for younger readers — and the grown-ups who read with them. <em>Seamus</em> is the Gaelic form of <em>James</em>, and these works aim to express wonder and awe for the kid in all of us.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">And sometimes, it’s simply <strong>James Allen</strong>, telling stories (and occasionally rendering opinions in something other than poetry) shaped by a Midwestern upbringing, a few decades of lived experience, and the firm belief that ordinary life is rarely as ordinary as it looks from the outside.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">This site exists as a quiet home base — a place to browse the books, see where we’ll be set up at local markets, and occasionally read something new hot off the mental workbench.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">If you happen to stop by a market table in person, don’t be shy. I’m always happy to personalize a copy or talk shop — literary or otherwise. And if you already own one of the books, you’re absolutely welcome to bring it along.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">Thanks for being here.</span></p><p><span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">— <strong>James Allen</strong><br/><em>The Sawdust Sage™</em></span></p></div><p></p></div>
</div></div></div></div></div></div> ]]></content:encoded><pubDate>Fri, 13 Feb 2026 11:24:40 -0600</pubDate></item></channel></rss>