s if there weren’t enough polarizing discussions and events dominating news cycles in the United States and, frankly, the world these days, one literary journal entered 2025 with a bold plan that is sure to divide the room at the next literary dinner party.

Atticus Review is placing its bets on NFTs and blockchain, changing its publication format and entire mission to embrace the technology. The potential hurdle with this? The literary community, at least the way I perceive it, seems more than distrustful talking about creative art and complex technology in the same breath. [Cue AI fire-breathing dragon blast.]

I’ve been a marketing writer in the technology industry for 30 years, and I still get tangled up trying to grasp cryptocurrency, the difference between fungible and non-fungible tokens, blockchain, bitcoin, and other assorted terms that make me wish for the return of feathered quills and parchment. I’ve worked for tech giants that include Microsoft, IBM, and Cisco—but when it comes to my art as a creative nonfiction writer, I’m not sure what NFTs and blockchain mean for me and the work I love to create outside of my day job. 

And I know I’m not alone. That’s why we’re chatting with Atticus Review Publisher David Olimpio and Editor Boo Trundle, to ask them: Why blockchain? Why right now?

Before we dive in, here’s a list of common terms that will help. Hat tip goes out to Becky Tuch who included the following definitions in her Substack newsletter, Lit Mag News, back in January. Her handy roundup saved me time digging all these up, so cheers, Becky! (If you are a Lit Mag News subscriber, you can read Becky’s article here.)

• NFT: a non-fungible token (digital asset) that is the only one of its kind and is bought, sold, and traded online. 

• NFT marketplace: a space where transactions occur to sell, buy, and trade goods. 

• Minting: the process of creating a digital asset/NFT.

• Cryptocurrency: a type of digital dough. It uses cryptography (codes) to secure financial transactions. It’s important to note that cryptocurrency is not the same as NFTs and is not the same as blockchain, though people often clump all these things together.

• Blockchain: commonly referred to as a “decentralized ledger.” Crypto transactions are recorded here, everyone has access, and crypto users can verify asset ownership.

• Smart contracts: agreements that happen automatically on the blockchain when certain conditions are met. They are irreversible and cannot be altered.

• Digital ID: personal data about you. The use of blockchain does not require a digital ID. Instead, users have a Self-sovereign Identity (SSI) that allows you to manage and control what personal data is shared publicly.

• Tokenization: the conversion of tangible assets into digital ones. This also includes personal data, which may be tokenized on the blockchain.

Becky included a final definition: web3. She positioned web3—tongue-in-cheek, I’m guessing—as “… the looming hellscape we are all about to find ourselves in.” 

That seems like as good a jumping off point to me as any to bring David and Boo in, to help us get all this straight. Let’s get to it!

WOW: Hello, David and Boo! Thanks for joining us!

David: Hi! Thanks for inviting us to do this!

Boo: Hello. I loved your intro. I’m glad you included a link to the Becky Tuch Substack because I go back and reread the comments whenever I need a good laugh. It’s not that big a deal, people! We are a literary magazine, not an invading army. But seriously, the comments give a very good view into the thoughts and feelings many writers have about web 3.0. 

WOW:  First, a quick background on Atticus Review, though most of our readers are familiar with the publication. The website states that in your 14 years of existence, Atticus Review has evolved in format and flavor but your commitment to indie publishing, emerging authors, and great literature has remained steadfast. Your editors have curated, shaped, and posted the work of over 1,700 contributors but in 2024, the publication paused to consider questions around financial viability and creative vision, moving forward.

These questions paved the way for Atticus Review to explore what you call “… a very exciting, very risky, digital publishing arena: blockchain technology and smart contracts, better known as NFTs.”

In a nutshell, what’s an NFT and why should artists care? What do they get out of it?

David: Here’s how I think of an NFT: it is a digital marker that references a unique asset. The asset can be digital or “real-world.” It can be a JPEG file of a colorful cartoon ape or it can be a poem. Or it could theoretically even be a car or a piece of property. The NFT is not the object itself; rather it represents the object. The NFT serves as a kind of contract which outlines rules as to where and how funds are distributed when the asset is bought or sold or traded. 

There’s an abstract quality to this explanation and it’s admittedly hard to wrap your head around. So far, what people have associated with an “NFT” is a square digital image of some kind. Two cases in point: Bored Apes (mentioned above) and Crypto Punks. I honestly think the reason NFTs have started in this direction is that the technology was created by (and largely adopted by) technology people, not artists.

So why would anybody want to collect a JPEG of a Bored Ape? I mean, in a way I understand why, because I used to like to collect things as a kid. I liked to collect “Garbage Pail Kids” for example. I remember kids trading these for actual money in my junior high school. I think I probably paid as much as $5 to somebody (a lot of money for me, then) if I found a card I didn’t have that I really wanted. But if you were outside the culture of collecting Garbage Pail Kids, paying money for these seemed ridiculous.

Fast forward to the 2010s, when adult kids began figuring out what to do with NFTs and smart contracts; it kind of makes sense they would gravitate to a “trading card” type of scenario. Unfortunately, I think it alienated people because it seemed ridiculous to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for a square image of an ape looking bored. And it kind of is.

But the underlying technology behind an NFT has a true application, particularly for artists. In my opinion, artists of all kinds should care very much about NFTs because they represent a new way for people to buy, sell, and trade their art. It’s as simple as that. The thing that has been missing from digital publishing is a way to create value in the online writing artifact, the same way you would with a physical object like a book. As well as a way to exchange it. NFTs fill that gaping hole. 

Boo: My first response is: don’t worry about what an NFT is or isn’t. Do you know exactly how email servers work? Or WhatsApp or Venmo? I don’t. But I still appreciate the benefits when I use them. So, I’m not trying to completely master the science of the blockchain. At Atticus Review, an NFT is a time-stamped certificate that points to a PDF that contains a curated poem, piece of nonfiction or fiction, an illustration, our logo, and the author’s bio. 

As for “why bother,” I recommend The Story of NFTs: Artists, Technology, and Democracy by Amy Whitaker and Nora Burnett Abrams (Rizzoli). The authors are “art people,” as well as idealists, as you can tell from the subtitle. They see the potential of NFTs to democratize the “taste-making structures of the arts.” They also point out that NFTs can give artists direct, lasting rights to their royalties. They even go so far as to suggest that NFTs can be part of a decolonial practice. A lot to look forward to!

WOW: I appreciate your point, Boo: do any of us know exactly how apps like Venmo work? Nope, but we’ve experienced how Venmo is convenient, quick, and safe. This tells me a lot of apprehension around technology can be allayed when we take the leap and try it. We need to experience it before we can figure out if it’s going to work into our lives and deliver what we need.

So, how do you see this blockchain model setting Atticus Review up for success and positioning yourselves as a forward-thinking publication? Why publish on the blockchain, and not just continue publishing on your website as you have these last 14 years?

David: I think there has never really been a business model behind online literary magazines. Most writers balk at the idea of something like a “business model” to begin with.

Here’s how I think online lit mags have survived thus far:

1. Submission fees
2. Having a benefactor in the form of an institution, college, organization, and so forth
3. Having editors and publishers who are passionate about writing and have other jobs, or are independently wealthy
4. Selling something else other than the writing. Examples: contests, workshops, conferences, clever merchandise

What all the above forms of generating revenue have in common is this: they are insular. The community feeds itself. The organizations making a business out of writing are therefore people who cater to writers wanting to be writers.

I’m not sure if the blockchain model will set Atticus Review up for success or not. For it to work, there needs to be a use case that makes blockchain something everybody uses, and that use case won’t be buying/selling creative writing. But when people become comfortable with using wallets to make other kinds of transactions online, I think this is when people will see the merit and value in collecting/owning writing. When friends and family can come to Atticus Review and buy a poem written by their friend or family member and, in doing so, show their support for that person and at the same time see it turn up in their wallet as a thing they “own.” I think this will help break the current insularity circle magazines are caught in now.

Boo:  I agree that there is a very clear need for online publishing to explore different monetization technologies. Think about the current situation with news outlets. Personally, I pay for a subscription to The New York Times and New York Magazine, but I sure would love the option to read one-offs from other sources. The Atlantic teases me with salacious headlines, but I stubbornly remain on my side of the paywall. I don’t want to be bogged down by another subscription. 

What if there was a way to use NFTs as keys that unlock the paywall and allow access to articles I’m interested in, without having to subscribe? That NFT publishing technology doesn’t exist yet, but you did ask about “forward-thinking.” Future tripping is one of my favorite pastimes.

WOW: Excellent points! I love the ideas and enthusiasm you bring, and hot damn, I’m learning and getting excited. OK, on the flip side, had you not considered moving in this direction with NFTs and blockchain, how might that have affected Atticus Review’s existence?

David: I never would run an online magazine again without moving in this direction. This is because I want to do something new and interesting with regard to digital publishing and frankly I think the old model is DOA. Atticus Review probably would have continued to exist the same way other online magazines exist until whoever was running it decided they couldn’t foot the bill anymore. But it wouldn’t have been me running it. 

I think there is a perception among many editors that the magazine is the “product” and that they are selling this product to a “reader.” But that isn’t it. The “product” is the writer. At the same time, the “reader” is the writer. What this leads to is that, for a magazine to be “successful,” it has to attract writers by being liked and well-regarded by the community of writers. Not only does this not generate revenue, it is a terrible model for publishing good work.

I ran Atticus Review for five years in the “traditional” way. It paid for itself through submission fees and contests. I enjoyed doing it, but it took an enormous amount of personal time. At that point in my life, I had the free time (and money) to invest personally in it. But today, I don’t have the time and that’s directly related to the fact that I no longer have the money. I felt like the traditional model was never going to break out of the insularity of selling a product of “writing success” to other writers (either explicitly or implicitly), and that wasn’t a product I wanted to sell. Because ironically, in analyzing our web traffic I discovered most visitors to our site were other writers who wanted to be published in Atticus Review. The most heavily trafficked page was our “submit” page, ranking even higher than our home page. 

Here is the reality: nobody is leisurely browsing online thinking, “you know, I’d like to read a literary magazine today. Let me find one and then spend an hour reading a piece of fiction and then read the rest of the stories in that issue and then subscribe to it.” That is not how we use the internet. It harkens back to a different time of paper magazines that simply doesn’t exist anymore. I think many magazine editors still harbor the illusion that the magazine is the “product.” I wanted to build something where the writer (and the writing) could be the product. If I couldn’t do that, I no longer wanted to do it. 

I know there is a market for a writer’s work. The market exists within their vast social media community. For the online literary magazine to be “successful” to a broader audience (“consumer”) of non-writers (and break out of the insular circle of writers) it needs to serve as more of a marketplace, facilitating the way those consumers can collect the writing of those writers they care about.

Boo: We are also hoping that NFTs can offer authors an alternative to the subscription model. Nothing against Substack and Patreon, but as a reader, I hesitate to commit to author-controlled content streams because I feel so guilty about unsubscribing. And yet, how will I know if I like it unless I get behind the paywall? I will send someone’s Substack to my junk folder for years rather than hit unsubscribe, in case I hurt their feelings! (As irrational as that might be). And not for nothing, the subscription model straps the author to the structure of regular content creation. (aka, The Rack). 

With the one-off NFT concept, a reader could theoretically go to an author’s NFT marketplace and purchase a newsletter à la carte. Additionally, a reader could collect written works in a wallet for others to peruse, the same way guests might stand and look at what you have on your bookshelf. Your collected NFTs could open the door to other wallets. As in, people who bought this also liked this, which could maybe introduce you to people with the same items in their collection. NFT collectors can function as curators or collectors, even as they are still just passionate and/or loyal readers.

WOW: “The product is the writer, not the publication.” Love your point, David, and thank you for resurfacing it. I know I’ve lost sight of that important distinction at times. OK, and what does ownership of an NFT really mean? 

David: It means the purchaser holds the NFT in their crypto wallet.

Boo: And that NFT is a certificate of sole ownership. It lives on the blockchain and points, with permanence, to the wallet of the person who owns it. It means you can also sell it. And the value of it will go up and down with the value of whatever cryptocurrency it is attached to.

WOW:  How will Atticus Review actually “make” an NFT?

David:  We are making NFTs using a service called NMKR.io. While I have web development experience and know how to code sites from scratch if I needed to (nobody needs to anymore), I don’t have the skillset necessary to make NFTs from scratch. NMKR is an early service helping artists and creatives of all kinds do this with relatively little tech know-how. The service makes use of the Cardano blockchain.

WOW: So, it sounds like artists can make money independently, outside of traditional publishing norms. Someone could mint her own literary NFT from work published through Atticus Review—whether a fiction piece, an essay, a poem, or a multimedia art piece—and she can make money on each sale, while also preventing copying. Do I understand this right?

David: You have that mostly right. Creatives can make an NFT to represent their work and sell it on a marketplace. The NFT will in a sense represent an “edition” of a piece of art or writing. There will only ever be one of those editions. There’s a little nuance to your “copying” question. The point of the NFT is not to prevent copying. If anything, it almost encourages people to copy the piece as much as possible. It can go viral. It can be published and republished. But there will always just be one owner of the “original” piece.

Boo: And don’t forget, every now and then, poems and stories do go viral. Think “Cat Person” by Kristen Roupenian or Maggie Smith’s “Good Bones.” This is also a good time to bemoan the fact that writers don’t get paid a penny for any content they add to a social media platform like Instagram, Facebook, Threads, or X. Writers give it away for free every day on these platforms and line the pockets of you-know-who. Wouldn’t it be better to line our own?

WOW: And, Atticus Review will enable each artist (and you, as publisher) to make money from a piece indefinitely, with the potential for that piece to increase in value. Is that right? 

David: Yes, this is correct. We will do the legwork of creating the NFT and the writer and magazine will split the revenue from that. 

Boo: But don’t plan to use the money for a down payment on your new home. There was a time (not that long ago!) in the beginning of NFT mayhem, when an NFT might sell for astronomical prices. The artist Beeple’s “Everydays: The First 5000 Days” sold at Christie’s in 2021 for more than $69 million. We are pricing our first batch of NFTs at 30 ADA, which is about $25.

WOW: That’s mind-blowing; the valuation for Beeple’s work, not your starting price. [wink] I had to find out more and went to his website. I highly recommend our readers watch the video of his artist’s statement on that page, where Beeple explains his process and how his Everydays project went into the stratosphere on blockchain. 

OK, artists love metaphors. If I position blockchain as a romantic matchmaking service between artists and readers/buyers, is that fair? Something along the lines of: blockchain technology brings wayward potential mates together, so that they see each other and make a love connection?

David: I like it. 

Here’s what I like to say. It’s more of a simile, I guess? I didn’t come up with it, though I honestly can’t remember where I first saw it, otherwise I would happily reference it: If the internet revolutionized the way information is transferred, then blockchain will revolutionize the way value is transferred.

Boo: And Atticus was never really a matchmaking platform between writers and readers. It was more of an open mic for writers. What it is now is an experiment, a laboratory. We see it as a chance to educate ourselves, as well as the writing community about blockchain publishing. It’s also a place to create and play. A sandbox? A place where readers, writers, artists, and the family members, friends, fans, and followers of these creatives can explore what a crypto platform feels like in a low stakes, trusting environment. And also, traditional Atticus isn’t going anywhere. We are still going to be publishing fiction, nonfiction, and poetry on our website. The writing will also be offered as NFTs, that’s the difference.

WOW: You’ve boiled the ocean for me, David! “If the internet revolutionized the way information is transferred, then blockchain will revolutionize the way value is transferred.”

Yet, I’m still parsing (pun intended): in the physical world, only one person can buy an original oil, acrylic, or watercolor painting and hang it on their wall—though prints are sometimes made of the piece and sold more cheaply. Does this mean the value of the original NFT of a poem, short story, essay, or digital multimedia piece is the most valuable—and that any copies sold after that get cheaper and/or are less valuable than the original? Aka: Oil painting vs. mass-sold print? 

Or, is it more like books? Each book sold—while new, right after publication—is a set price, whether one copy is sold, or 500.

Boo: The art market and the book market are different in this key way. In visual art, the original is the only thing with real value. And that original, let’s say Van Gogh’s “Starry Night” to name a random masterpiece, gains value exponentially as the market continues to bestow value on it. Of course, Vincent is long dead and probably traded the painting for a sandwich back in the day. 

On the other hand, book publishing is a volume game. A book only brings revenue to the publisher if it sells thousands and preferably millions of copies. In my opinion, that revenue model has a corrupting influence on literary artists who, after all, also need a sandwich once in a while. If you can only make money as a writer by selling enormous quantities of your work, then you are obviously motivated to write for as wide, large, and undiscriminating an audience as possible. 

I personally want to support and help develop a literary platform/community/publishing collective that encourages wild, difficult, unique, unpredictable, inventive, revolutionary writing. Soul work. This kind of writing is non-mainstream, and might sell very few copies. But could it influence, attract, or resonate with a discerning collector with the same values and dreams? I think yes. And passionate and well-written literary work, offered as NFTS for purchase, can draw revenue to support the platforms that display it.

WOW: Love this, Boo. So many of us wrestle with this, the push and pull of writing what feels true to us but may be too literary for mainstream appetite and success, or chucking our sensibilities to try chasing that big dream of a mainstream contract with writing that is, to borrow your word, “undiscriminating.” Meantime, as yet complete unknowns—like me—sit, my memoir draft languishing in a dark, cold, locked drawer because so far, I can interest no agent or small press in taking a chance on my literary writing. [sigh]

You both admit this model will be a learning process; that you will need to educate yourselves and your collaborators (authors, readers, collectors) as you explore this new digital frontier. How does your mission differ from literary publications not currently exploring this blockchain model? Are you suggesting that Atticus Review may have more of a vested interest than other publications in seeing artists get paid?

David: Hmm… I’m not sure if I was suggesting that, but I do agree with it. My two main goals are:

1. I want to put “value” back on the map for digital writing and art, and I want online citizens to begin thinking of online content as an asset and something that holds value, rather than a commodity. We are so awash in media, it’s crazy. I think part of the problem is there is unlimited storage and anybody can set up a website and begin putting writing online. It’s a different thing to infuse value into it with the NFT. I think both publishers and writers/readers need to put their money where their mouths are. 
2. I want digital writing to have an existence and life outside of the magazine it is published in. If the magazine folds, the art shouldn’t go with it.

WOW: You pointed out in one of your blogs, soon after announcing your plans: “We realize some people associate NFTs with bro culture, scams, and environmental disaster. To us, it’s a powerful, emerging technology. We’re trying to learn it, keep up with it, and include the literary community.”

Can you expand on this because it does sound—from reader feedback you may have received—that the literary community may distrust NFTs. Why, in your opinion, do artists ascribe a scammy vibe to this whole thing?

Boo: My friends who are professional visual artists tell me that they get approached daily by NFT sales reps on Instagram: cold callers in their inbox that come across as greedy vultures. I get those scammy offers myself sometimes. If it’s not art NFTs, it’s book-promotion pyramid schemes that feel just as predatory and sketch. 

This is why before we even mint anything at Atticus, we are trying to develop a mutual understanding with our audience and community online. Over the last few months, we’ve published a series of letters that explain what we are doing, why we are doing it, and what the hell it is. 

The value of a piece of visual art has traditionally been fluid, subjective, and heavily influenced by the artist’s clout with critics, galleries, the art world, etc. Visual artists are conditioned to guard their work and protect themselves from untrustworthy “hawkers.” Poets and writers also have to tend to their “brand.” Writers naturally want to publish their work with established, well-respected journals. Writers who submit work are well aware of the lit mag hierarchy, with heavy hitters like The New Yorker at the top, and on down the ladder into the shadowy realm of brand new digital indies. Literary work gains perceived value from association with prestigious publications. We hope that Atticus Review has built up some goodwill and respect with all the work we have done in the past. In other words, trust us. 

David: And taking a wider view, crypto and NFTs are about the exchange of value. There is going to be greed and there are going to be scams around it. That’s just the reality of anything involving money. There is greed and scams with fiat currency, but nobody is calling to eliminate the US dollar. 

Cryptocurrencies need regulation. The same way we regulate the financial markets. But politicians have not understood this technology and I think they have thought it might eventually disappear. 

I have a slightly more conspiracy-theory take on why regulations have not been passed and why so many politicians have come out against it, which is that the banking industry does not want to see cryptocurrency become stronger because it puts their entire business at risk. Pay attention to which politicians are against cryptocurrencies and who their banking friends are. 

The other thing I’ll add is that while our current “president” paints himself as “pro-crypto,” and that’s part of how he won the election, he is actually an example of somebody using it to scam people. And if you were to candidly ask reputable people in the industry if they think what he is doing is “good” for the cryptocurrency, you would get some negative responses. This shouldn’t be surprising to anybody. He is our scammer-in-chief, after all. 

Crypto needs regulation. It’s that simple. Until that happens, there’s going to be a little bit of the “Wild West” to it.

WOW: You assert that NFTs can benefit readers, too. How?

David: I see NFT publishing benefiting readers in that it enables them to become “collectors” and possibly even “curators.” Imagine if there was a social site, sort of like Facebook, that allowed you to connect your wallet to it and allowed you to display your art or literary collection publicly? I know this might seem cynical, but the vast majority of people don’t really read anymore. But they love knowing who they should be reading. And they love showing other people that they know about who they should be reading. A “curator” app like this doesn’t exist yet. But I think it should. (If you’d like to invest in such an app, hit me up.)

WOW: What do you see as potential drawbacks to this literary blockchain model, if any?

David: I don’t know about drawbacks, but I see many obstacles, the biggest of which is adoption. It is very difficult at this time for the normal internet user to enter the world of web3, where they connect a wallet to a website and based on that connection, they may see or have access to different content. There really needs to be a killer app for regular people to begin mass-adopting cryptocurrencies. (See question above). That hasn’t happened yet. But trust me, I’m sure there are people working on it. It seems like only a matter of time. 

Boo: Atticus is not trying to replace anything that currently works for people. (Not even our own online publication process.) I try to think about web3 publishing as completely different from what we know now as digital publishing. Comparing the two is like comparing apples to oranges, or maybe the new model is not fruit at all. 

When I buy an Atticus NFT, I buy a certificate that records my financial investment in a creative idea. It demonstrates what kind of creative ideas I value. It also puts a little crypto currency into the wallet of an artist or writer who’s doing work I admire. And there is no middleman like Amazon, Instagram, X, or Facebook.

WOW: Again, love this. “An NFT records [one’s] financial investment in a creative idea.” That’s support of the literary community, at its best right there. 

You’re launching your new model with poems previously published on your website, as well as a call for new poems. How’s it going, thus far? How many poems have you curated, and when might readers expect to see them and buy them?

Boo: We did open our submissions to “greatest hits” from Atticus past and we received some beautiful suggestions. We chose a poem called “Smoke,” by Melody Wilson. It was nominated by Arvilla Fee, another poet in the Atticus community, when the fires were swallowing neighborhoods in Los Angeles in January. I love the poem’s spare power and unpretentious spiral from outer to inner reference points. Melody has been great to work with. She gamely set up a Lace wallet, and the NFTs will be launched by the time this article posts. You can see them here.

Also, as a reminder, Atticus publishes poetry, creative nonfiction, and short fiction, as well as multimedia pieces. We started with a poem because of the long tradition of broadsides, and we could typeset it onto one page. But we are definitely going to mint NFTs in other genres.

WOW: For poets, fiction and CNF writers, and multimedia artists seeking publication with Atticus Review, how will the submission process change?

Boo: That remains to be seen. We’ve had submissions closed while we work up this first NFT launch. When we re-open, we might be asking for submissions related to a theme. We might also continue to relaunch work that was previously published on Atticus. I have a few writers in mind whose work I think will help light the way for the direction we want to take, editorially. And we have also talked about publishing works from the public domain, excerpts from philosophers for example. Maybe starting with Ralph Waldo Emerson. He needs an NFT! (He has plenty of coffee mugs and pithy tee shirts already.)

WOW: Is there anything I didn’t ask that you’d like our readers to know?

Boo: We’d love to make room for our own bios as writers here at the end. I published my first novel in 2023 and I still want to get the word out about it.

Boo Trundle is a writer, artist, and performer. In 2023, Pantheon Books published her novel, The Daughter Ship. She released three albums of original music with Big Deal Records; this music can be found on Spotify and Soundcloud. She is a mother to two young adults. She lives in New Jersey.

David Olimpio is a web developer, writer, trader, digital media publisher, and musician. He is the author of This Is Not a Confession (Awst Press, 2016), a memoir which is entirely a confession. His website is davidolimpio.com.

My thanks to Atticus Review Publisher David Olimpio and Editor Boo Trundle for chatting with me about how they’re tackling the exciting world of blockchain technology for the literary crowd. It’s exciting to think about an intersection where technology and art can coexist in a positive and lasting way that benefits artists. This quote in particular, from the many great points David and Boo made, stays with me (from David): “I want digital writing to have an existence and life outside of the magazine it is published in. If the magazine folds, the art shouldn’t go with it.”

Amen. I’ve lost several essays and poems along the way, from literary journals that folded in the dark of night. There’s no trace now of the work I submitted to them. And I know our readership can say the same, hundreds of times over. That’s why I think we owe it to ourselves to explore additional options, like NFTs.

Ready to dive in and experience it for yourselves? More information can be found at the Atticus Review website. Signing up for their newsletter will also keep you in the loop regarding submissions.

Until next time!

***

 

Ann Kathryn Kelly is a memoirist and essayist living in New Hampshire’s Seacoast region. Her prize-winning writing has been published in dozens of literary journals and anthologies, and she has been awarded writing residencies around the world. Ann is a columnist with WOW! Women on Writing, she works in the technology sector, and she volunteers as a writing workshop leader.