Prejudices

[davemarc]

At 07:34 PM 11/25/96 -0500, Joe wrote:
>On Mon, 25 Nov 1996, davemarc wrote:
>
>> [snip much of Andrew & davemarc argument about the inherent prejudices
>> of language]
>
>> Hey, the difference between perceptions of hack writers and "artistic" ones
>> is one of the most familiar examples of prejudices at work.
>
>So, in other words, if someone says that, say, Stephen King is a "hack"
>and Pynchon is "artistic", this merely speaks to the prejudices hard-wired
>into the language, and says nothing about the quality of the writing of
>the respective authors?
>
>If so, we may as well just give up and go back to grunting and pointing.
>
Today's hacks may be tomorrow's artists; today's artists may be tomorrow's
hacks.  Mass-produced Warner Bros. cartoons, for example, are fundamentally
hack work that are increasingly perceived as artwork.  Who knows what may
lie ahead?  What's gonna become of those Andy Warhol soup cans?

Anyway, there's nothing wrong with identifying Pynchon as an artist and King
as a hack.  One prejudice defines both of them as writers; another
discriminates between them--to you and me both, Pynchon is the one who fits
the definition of an artist, while King is much more of a hack.  

Perhaps it's the word "prejudice" that's making this concept confusing.
Maybe "prejudice" comes with too much of the wrong prejudice.  Any suggestions?

davemarc