4 ms·

> Maybe I'm missing who is challenging the established narratives and taking the risk as an iconoclast. I think you're possibly moving the goalposts from simpl

> Maybe I'm missing who is challenging the established narratives and taking the risk as an iconoclast. I think you're possibly moving the goalposts from simply 'publish' to 'be internationally recognised and lauded for major critical thinking'.

motohagiography 4y ago
If you aren't recognized for major critical thinking, I'd say you're an entertainer who should be writing sitcoms, not books.
- chrisseaton 4y ago
  You’ve gone from lamenting the difficulty of publishing to advocating that we shouldn’t publish most books. You’re on a wild roller coaster of opinions there!
- manuelmoreale 4y ago
  What an odd take. So if something is not internationally acclaimed and you’re recognized as a major critical thinker then you shouldn’t write books? How do you get to that point without taking the risk in the first place? Writers have to start somewhere and they have to publish something in order to have the chance to become recognized. And even if they fail at that they can still have an impact on someone else’s life in one way or another and to me that’s already valuable enough.
jkeat 4y ago
Being unconventional means value for sure https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueAnon/comments/wzjewu/taibbi_remains_very_normal/ https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueAnon/comments/wzjewu/taibbi_rem...
mellosouls 4y ago
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.
- chrisseaton 4y ago
  > 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.
  - 5560675260 4y ago
    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.
    - yywwbbn 4y ago
      If any newly published book is by definition not worthy enough to be read, according to OP. It’s really possible to prove he’s wrong. Is it?
- gene_takavic 4y ago
  - dang 4y ago
    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32642620 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32642620

motohagiography 4y ago

If you aren't recognized for major critical thinking, I'd say you're an entertainer who should be writing sitcoms, not books.

chrisseaton 4y ago
You’ve gone from lamenting the difficulty of publishing to advocating that we shouldn’t publish most books. You’re on a wild roller coaster of opinions there!
manuelmoreale 4y ago
What an odd take. So if something is not internationally acclaimed and you’re recognized as a major critical thinker then you shouldn’t write books? How do you get to that point without taking the risk in the first place? Writers have to start somewhere and they have to publish something in order to have the chance to become recognized. And even if they fail at that they can still have an impact on someone else’s life in one way or another and to me that’s already valuable enough.

jkeat 4y ago

Being unconventional means value for sure https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueAnon/comments/wzjewu/taibbi_remains_very_normal/ https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueAnon/comments/wzjewu/taibbi_rem...

mellosouls 4y ago

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.

chrisseaton 4y ago
> 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.
- 5560675260 4y ago
  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.
  - yywwbbn 4y ago
    If any newly published book is by definition not worthy enough to be read, according to OP. It’s really possible to prove he’s wrong. Is it?
gene_takavic 4y ago
- dang 4y ago
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32642620 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32642620