David Mamet did translations of some Chekhov plays that utterly kick ass

Vanya on 42nd Street for instance.

David Mamet did translations of some Chekhov plays that utterly kick ass (I think someone else did the literal translation from Russian, and then he took that and "theatrified" it, but damn they're good). Sadly, as juliana notes, despite the kick-assness of them, even these have to fight like mad for any audiences.

Both Mamet's and Landford Wilson's adaptation/translation of Three Sisters are absolutely, utterly gorgeous and are like night and day in terms of the language. And I would kill to direct any Chekov, but only the Guthrie can do it here and make any money off it.

A 2002 Census Bureau study shows that only 56.6 of all American adults surveyed read a book of any kind in the previous year, and only 46.7 read literature, defined for the purpose of this study as a novel, short story, or play read without the impetus of a school or work assignment.

Yikes! How can you do that? I can't even get to sleep without reading.

I read that this morning, and it surprises me not at all. My in-laws are people who went to college, and they read very little 'literature' - my FIL and MIL maybe a book or two a year (FIL more, now that he's retired). SIL reads mostly how-to books and stuff like that.

Yikes! How can you do that? I can't even get to sleep without reading.

I know! I mean, I know that I read way more than most people, but I just can't wrap my brain around the idea of going a whole year without reading for pleasure AT ALL.

I've gone through phases where I'll read nothing but magazines (usually happens after I've finished a really dense book and need a mental break), but I don't think I've ever been reading nothing.

[eta: Well, if we're talking about reading for pleasure, I had very little time for that in college. Between the film, theatre, English, philosophy, and history departments, I was still enjoying a lot of what I read, but if it wasn't on a syllabus, I didn't have time for it.]

Well, some people just aren't readers -- that's not how they work. You know the thing about "multiple intelligences"? Some people just don't tend to absorb data from words on a page as easily as they do listening to words, or seeing pictures, or whatever. They're not clods, just not book-oriented.

And although I work with that idea alla time, I can still remember my own sense of tragedy (and having to keep it private) the first time I understood that there really are people like that, who get nothing from something I find so wonderfully useful.

That doesn't account for the entire percentage of non-readers, of course. I think another factor is that you can watch a movie in 2 hours, but I can't read a book that fast most of the time. I know plenty of people who find it difficult to stop a story and then start it up again later (book or movie); and considering the workday and all of life's daily distractions, the shorter item could easily win out over the longer one.

I always think it's very sad when someone comes to my house, beholds the mighty Wall of Books, realizes there's more bookshelves everywhere, and says, as if it's a bad thing, "Do you really read all these books?"

Well, some people just aren't readers -- that's not how they work. You know the thing about "multiple intelligences"? Some people just don't tend to absorb data from words on a page as easily as they do listening to words, or seeing pictures, or whatever. They're not clods, just not book-oriented.

True, but IMO the stunning thing about that article is the precipitous decline over the last decade or two--it's not that you'd ever expect everyone, or even every reasonably intelligent person, to be a book lover, but the decline part is especially depressing.

There's an Eco humorous essay about people asking him that very question.