3 ms·

"Prolific" doesn't sound demeaning to me. It just means his oeuvre is large.

bryanrasmussen 6y ago
In criticism the word prolific is often used in a demeaning manner to imply that the artist under question has not put as much thought and care into their pieces as they might or should have, but instead went for quantity over quality. I think though this usage has fallen out of favor and at any rate was probably more common among poor critics, I think nowadays it is understood that quantity of output might be necessary for some creators to achieve their best work (by producing some that is not as great as their best) on edit: so the word is sometimes sort of a snob-whistle, ooh prolific, well they're saying he's not that good then. But I doubt that is the way it is being used here.
- simonh 6y ago
  It is also very often used of outstanding creators who are incredibly productive. I have seen it used that way many times. If anybody is using it pejoratively they need to stop. I think it would be a terrible shame if we had to tip-toe round our use of language because of misuse by others. I'm firmly against letting a small minority who are abusing language set the linguistic agenda in that way, although I have to say I don't remember seeing that usage myself.
  - Anthony-G 6y ago
    I fully agree. As a lover of both music and cinema, I’ve (thankfully) never come across this linguistic abuse of “prolific”. If I did encounter it, the writer would immediately lose my respect and I’d probably stop reading.
- squarefoot 6y ago
  I've never seen the word prolific being used as a demeaning adjective; the term derives from latin "proles" and "facere", as in creating children, in other words being productive. It's completely neutral wrt quality. Also, I think nobody would use it as their company name if that word was even remotely related to low quality:) http://www.prolific.com.tw/US/index.aspx http://www.prolific.com.tw/US/index.aspx
  - bryanrasmussen 6y ago
    You really think people choose company names based on not triggering outmoded critical snobbery?
    - mercer 6y ago
      It's fascinating to me how you consistently produce shitty comments that cause other, possibly good people to waste time. I don't understand what you get out of it, but maybe I'm assuming too much in thinking that you're doing it on purpose?
      - bryanrasmussen 6y ago
        ok, thanks, person whom I'm not familiar with but evidently has had a negative experience with me. I just thought it was unlikely that anyone would consider the kind of snobbish attitude that I described as a deterrent to picking their name, or that they would even be necessarily familiar with it, as that would mean spending a lot of time reading somewhat antiquated literary theory. but I guess I caused good people to waste their time, thereby.
        mercer 6y ago
        Sorry. I was in a bad mood. While I do often disagree with your comments, that's no reason for being mean about it. So again, my apologies!

In criticism the word prolific is often used in a demeaning manner to imply that the artist under question has not put as much thought and care into their pieces as they might or should have, but instead went for quantity over quality. I think though this usage has fallen out of favor and at any rate was probably more common among poor critics, I think nowadays it is understood that quantity of output might be necessary for some creators to achieve their best work (by producing some that is not as great as their best) on edit: so the word is sometimes sort of a snob-whistle, ooh prolific, well they're saying he's not that good then. But I doubt that is the way it is being used here.

simonh 6y ago
It is also very often used of outstanding creators who are incredibly productive. I have seen it used that way many times. If anybody is using it pejoratively they need to stop. I think it would be a terrible shame if we had to tip-toe round our use of language because of misuse by others. I'm firmly against letting a small minority who are abusing language set the linguistic agenda in that way, although I have to say I don't remember seeing that usage myself.
- Anthony-G 6y ago
  I fully agree. As a lover of both music and cinema, I’ve (thankfully) never come across this linguistic abuse of “prolific”. If I did encounter it, the writer would immediately lose my respect and I’d probably stop reading.
squarefoot 6y ago
I've never seen the word prolific being used as a demeaning adjective; the term derives from latin "proles" and "facere", as in creating children, in other words being productive. It's completely neutral wrt quality. Also, I think nobody would use it as their company name if that word was even remotely related to low quality:) http://www.prolific.com.tw/US/index.aspx http://www.prolific.com.tw/US/index.aspx
- bryanrasmussen 6y ago
  You really think people choose company names based on not triggering outmoded critical snobbery?
  - mercer 6y ago
    It's fascinating to me how you consistently produce shitty comments that cause other, possibly good people to waste time. I don't understand what you get out of it, but maybe I'm assuming too much in thinking that you're doing it on purpose?
    - bryanrasmussen 6y ago
      ok, thanks, person whom I'm not familiar with but evidently has had a negative experience with me. I just thought it was unlikely that anyone would consider the kind of snobbish attitude that I described as a deterrent to picking their name, or that they would even be necessarily familiar with it, as that would mean spending a lot of time reading somewhat antiquated literary theory. but I guess I caused good people to waste their time, thereby.
      - mercer 6y ago
        Sorry. I was in a bad mood. While I do often disagree with your comments, that's no reason for being mean about it. So again, my apologies!