>According to the National Endowment for the Arts, "fewer than 3% of
>all books published in the U.S. . . . were translations," writes John
>O'Brien ("A Simple Question," Context, No. 14, 2003, at
><<http://www.centerforbookculture.org/context/no14/simpleQ.html>http://www.centerforbookculture.org/context/no14/simpleQ.html>).
>In
>contrast, says O'Brien, "In Western European countries, the percentage
>of translations is about 40-50% each year. Many of these are from the
>United States, but a significant number are from a wide range of other
>countries." I submit that American intellectuals are not cosmopolitan
>at all.
I just looked at the article you cited. It also says:
>Thirty years ago, almost all commercial houses had distinguished
>lines of translations (Avon, Dutton, Vintage, Penguin, McGraw-Hill,
>and a large number of smaller houses that no longer exist). The
>books sold better in those days, the reviewers covered more of them,
>and perhaps people read more; or everybody just embraced the idea
>that translations mattered and therefore paid attention. But those
>days are long gone in commercial publishing.