> to publish anything new, you need social media presence, writing on something that appeals to a mass market, which passes sensitivity readers, and gets past gatekeepers who are essentially redditors
You really don't. I've been working with a new author about to publish recently and he's just a regular bloke and his work doesn't seem to hit any of your criteria. Are you sure your impression is grounded in reality?
Just some experience with publishing business as a writer several years ago, and knowing the people socially.
Maybe I'm missing who is challenging the established narratives and taking the risk as an iconoclast. Who is publishing right now whose ideas are challenging? Taibbi? He still compromises himself for access. Hirsi Ali? She still hedges, even though she's probably got more balls than anyone these days. Houellebecq is only tolerated because he's unthreatening to anyone. The Slate Star Codex guy writes like he still needs brunch invites. Substack is great, but it's not the discourse. The examples I'm thinking of stood on their own so well that they kept their subjects honest. Orwell, Mailer, HST, Mencken, Hitchens, Vidal, Hersh. Writers who traded on integrity to their craft so that their subjects were measured against it. Very best of luck to your writer, I hope you can serve his work honestly.
I don't think that's fair; it was clear from the post you challenged that the criticism was about lack of new ideas and commentary especially that countering safe narratives.
The poster responded with plenty of examples which you've dismissed with the unfortunate "goalposts" remark.
> it was clear from the post you challenged that the criticism was about lack of new ideas and commentary especially that countering safe narratives
Not sure what thread you were reading - the one I responded to said it was impossible in general to get anything new published. You can see hundreds (thousands) of new published works every year. They moved the goalposts by then saying that they only consider publishing to mean critical work.
Reread first two sentences of the post that started this thread. They clearly state that books are being published and what goes into getting those books published. This wasn't about what OP "considers publishing to mean", it's what OP considers to be worth being read.
There are tiers of what it means to "get published".
If you want your book to get a decent editor and maybe get a print run in the three or four digits, you don't have to deal with all the faddish bukkake (social media presence, trendy subject matter, performative wokery designed to signal virtue without actually changing anything or challenging capitalism, dodging cancel mobs). You can just write, and you may be able to find an audience organically if you put time and money into it. You probably won't, however, make enough money to write full time.
If your focus is on getting set up to make enough money to write full time, then you do have to worry about all that garbage, because there just aren't many good book deals to go around.
Yes, 'getting published' refers to people with a $0-$10000 advance from a small independent press through to the million dollar deals discussed in the article. And nobody can guarantee that you will sell enough to get past your advance, but being a social media personality is a huge boost. Fantastic reviews and most awards and prizes do not actually indicate good sales. To make a living, you need to get on the best seller lists. What we now call going viral.
You really don't. I've been working with a new author about to publish recently and he's just a regular bloke and his work doesn't seem to hit any of your criteria. Are you sure your impression is grounded in reality?