As for self-consciousness, I should explain what I meant. In particular, I was referring to the kind of self-consciousness that can develop when anyone pays to much attention to his or her critics. Whether it’s a blogger, publisher of a journal (and I do admire some of the things n+1 is doing), or fiction writer, paying too much attention to critics — or directly engaging them — can distract from the work itself. It can create the kind of self-consciousness wherein a writer, while in the act of writing, questions whether the critics (and again, I really mean antagonists here, rather than literary critics in general) attacking his work would approve or disapprove of what he or she is doing right then. For example, the last thing I think a fiction writer should be doing, when writing a story or working on a novel, is to be wondering, “Would that critic who I got in a public spat with like this story?” or “By writing X this way, am I really sticking it to so-and-so person?” Of course, there are more complex examples we could think up, but my point was that, in general, engaging so directly with one’s critics — and putting so much time into it — can distract from the real work of writing fiction/essays/genuinely creative work. It can alter one’s output in order to somehow perpetuate a feud that has little to say in the first place, or freeze up the creative process altogether, creating a kind of mental paralysis.

I hope that clears things up.

Best,
Jacob

‘And yes, by creating a kind of self-consciousness that stifles authentic creativity, they debase the artistic spirit. They invite invective and bitterness and envy.’

I challenge this view, firstly because ‘authentic creativity’ is one of those murky phrases which aren’t very useful, and secondly, because all human endeavour tends to invite invective and bitterness and envy, not just online activities. And perhaps you might try to describe the type of self-consciousness to which you refer, for without self-consciousness there isn’t much art of any sort.