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.
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.