The term prolific is usually applied to someone who does a lot of something. The Lone Ranger was a prolific rider. Wilt Chamberlain, for example, was a prolific scorer, in more ways than one. A prolific writer is someone who writes a lot. But is that the only thing that qualifies someone as a prolific writer?
I mean, is the Unabomber a prolific writer, just because of the sheer size of his manifesto? (And what a manifesto it is, or at least I am told by those who have seen it in person.) What about other crazies? Their writings may be voluminous, but they are not that coherent and in the end not that significant or meaningful. For me, having your writing be somewhat coherent and somewhat useful or meaningful is an important criterion for meriting the denotation of "prolific writing."
It is for this reason that, despite having written a whole bunch of stuff on this site (some stuff more useful than other stuff) and on GenerallyAwesome.com and other sites, I would not label myself a prolific writer. Don't get me wrong, I do aspire to one day be worthy of the title "Prolific Writer." But for now I think the title "amateurlific writer" is more fitting.
If you want to take the easy way to becoming "prolific" in your writings, you can try the same things that gays are trying to do with the word marriage, change the definition to suit your own political and social ends. For example, write a few articles that are pro-life, act like you shuffled a syllable here and there, and bang, you are now a "pro-life-ic" or "prolific" writer. Congratulations!
by Cameron Hatch
Chair Mat |
Humorous Writing | Awesome Video Links |
