I've been called "prolific" in the past, mainly used in a derogatory manner, as if to say that if I write a lot, it must automatically be of poor quality. It seems I am in good company.
I came across this essay in the NYT
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/22/books/review/Nicholson-t.html
One quote in particular caught my eye.
"The truly prolific author, as distinct from the merely respectably productive one, is either a genre writer or a relic."
Well I'm getting on a bit, but I'm not a relic yet. However it seems that genre writers, if prolific, are destined to always be damned with faint praise.
But for me, I know, It's only rock n' roll, but I like it.
I came across this essay in the NYT
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/22/books/review/Nicholson-t.html
One quote in particular caught my eye.
"The truly prolific author, as distinct from the merely respectably productive one, is either a genre writer or a relic."
Well I'm getting on a bit, but I'm not a relic yet. However it seems that genre writers, if prolific, are destined to always be damned with faint praise.
But for me, I know, It's only rock n' roll, but I like it.