This is interesting. Also I don't think "prolific" captures sufficiently what the article is about. It's not just prolific-ness. It's being prodigious relative

This is interesting. Also I don't think "prolific" captures sufficiently what the article is about. It's not just prolific-ness. It's being prodigious relative to volume AND quality of work (prolific implies simply volume). Soderbergh might be considered to be prodigious quanti- and qualitatively with regard to the article. Franzen, simply quantitatively. Conversely I wish I could be prodigious quantitatively. I have a bunch of projects that are basically total crap, just exercises in learning stuff. I'd trade them all for one really awesome, world-changing project. I kind of suck at ideas though.