Hacker News Reader

Comment by toyg | Hacker News Reader

"Prolific" is a bit demeaning. He took soundtracks into mainstream consciousness in the '60s, and "The Good The Bad and The Ugly" is still an absolute masterpiece.

View on HN

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

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.

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.

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.

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

You really think people choose company names based on not triggering outmoded critical snobbery?

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?

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.

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!

You may be misunderstanding that word.

No I'm not. It indicates quantity, with little indication of quality. In artistic fields that's often used to describe people whose production was abundant but not necessarily remarkable in qualitative terms. People making jingles for tv ads are prolific. Morricone was more than prolific; he was a genius who changed his field and left a massive legacy.

> It indicates quantity, with little indication of quality.

So you agree that it's not an indication of quality, but claim that it's pejorative. Why?

> Morricone was more than prolific;

But he was prolific.

It's also used to describe artists like Picasso and Rubens.

Contra examples from simply googling "prolific + NAME":

Wikipedia on Mozart:

Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart[a] (27 January 1756 – 5 December 1791), baptised as Johannes Chrysostomus Wolfgangus Theophilus Mozart,[b] was a prolific and influential composer of the Classical period.

British Library on Beethoven:

Ludwig van Beethoven was a very prolific composer, producing many symphonies, concertos, piano sonatas, violin sonatas, an opera, masses and several overtures.

NY Times on Bach:

If any measure of quality is applied to such a comparison, as it must be, Bach was one of the most prolific composers who ever lived; that meager output from Cöthen, for example, includes the “Brandenburg” Concertos, the orchestral suites, other concertos and the astounding solo works for violin and for cello.

The day to day and dictionary definitions of prolific contain no indication of quality. Mozart is probably the best known prolific composer. In all the artistic fields I'm aware, prolific is a complement, and orthogonal to quality. There are both prolific geniuses and prolific hacks.

You do not even take the time to look at a dictionary. Prolific means producing a lot. No mention of quality.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com