The theater issued a news release Monday that declared the festival "a success!" It noted that ticket holders for three productions, seminars, classes and workshops totaled 90,000 -- from 50 states, Europe and Japan. The shows themselves drew more than 85,000 attendees, which the theater said "exceeded [its] box office goals."

Local theatre critics were ambivalent about the result. Both daily newspapers had qualified praise but the Star Tribune said it seemed "unfinished and uncertain of its purpose" and the St. Paul Pioneer press called it "mushy, melodramatic." The alternative weekly City Pages was more generous, pronouncing it "immensely entertaining."

Both daily papers also noted in stories that the Guthrie, on Kushner's behalf, asked national theatre critics not to review the show. Kushner and Guthrie artistic director Joe Dowling bristled at suggestions that Minnesota audiences were subjected to an unfinished play.

"I don't feel we asked anyone to sit through an unfinished or unready piece of work," Kushner said. "We used previews the way they were meant to be used."

But he also admitted that weak reviews from national critics could have been "crippling to me" as he continued to work on the play. "The trick is going to be figuring out the things that didn't work narratively," he said.

Second, I remain concerned about the fact that your study relies on a proxy (show type) to approximate profitability of Broadway shows, rather than actual hard data on that profitability. This bothers me particularly because in your NY presentation, despite the use of the show-type proxy in your tables, you nevertheless titled a key slide, "Female-written shows on Broadway are 18% more profitable than male-written shows," [slide reproduced above] while another slide title referenced "higher weekly profits for female-written shows," statements which could reasonably lead the casual reader to assume that you actually have hard data on those profits (when you don't).

There are only 2 musicals on this list that are still running and have a shot at cracking into the top 10: Mamma Mia needs another 2 years, and Wicked needs 4. I expect both to make it, which will give the 2000s (or the "aughts") 2 spots in the top 10.

If you keep going down the list, there are 3 more musicals that are still running that could conceivably have a shot: Jersey Boys (#54), Mary Poppins (#89), and Billy Elliot (too far down to count). Jersey Boys has probably got a chance, thanks to its low overhead, but I doubt the other two will go the distance.


If those falsetto-singing boys from Jersey make the cut (and they still need another (gulp) 7 years), then that will give the aughts a 30% representation in the top 10 longest running shows. Not so bad.


But if they don't, and if the Mamma Mia movie madness wears off and that show doesn't make the cut, we could be looking at only one show from this decade to be in the Top 10.

Edmund Wilson, the famous American literary critic, used to answer requests with a postcard that read:

"Edmund Wilson regrets that it is impossible for him to: Read manuscripts, Write articles or books to order, Make statements for publicity purposes, Do any kind of editorial work, Judge literary contests, Give interviews, Conduct educational courses, Deliver lectures, Give talks or make speeches, Take part in writers congresses, Answer questionnaires, Contribute or take part in symposiums or "panels" of any kind, Contribute manuscripts for sale, Donate copies of his books to Libraries, Autograph books for strangers, Allow his name to be used on letterheads, Supply personal information about himself, Supply photographs of himself, Supply opinions on literary or other subjects."

A fairly impressive list, I'd say. When I was young, Edmund Wilson supplied for me the model of how a literary man ought to carry himself. One of the things I personally found most impressive about his list is that everything Edmund Wilson clearly states he will not do, Joseph Epstein has now done, and more than once, and, like the young woman in the Häagen-Dazs commercial sitting on her couch with an empty carton of ice cream, is likely to do again and again.

I tell myself that I do these various things in the effort to acquire more readers. After all, one of the reasons I write, apart from pleasure in working out the aesthetic problems and moral questions presented by my subjects and in my stories, is to find the best readers. I also want to sell books, to make a few shekels, to please my publisher, to continue to be published in the future in a proper way. Having a high threshold for praise, I also don't in the least mind meeting strangers who tell me that they take some delight in my writing. But, more than all this, I have now come to think that writing away quietly, producing (the hope is) good work, isn't any longer quite sufficient in a culture dominated by the boisterous spirit of celebrity. In an increasingly noisy cultural scene, with many voices and media competing for attention, one feels--perhaps incorrectly but nonetheless insistently--the need to make one's own small stir, however pathetic. So, on occasion, I have gone about tooting my own little paper horn, doing book tours, submitting to the comically pompous self-importance of interviews, and doing so many of the other things that Edmund Wilson didn't think twice about refusing to do.

"July marks the 30th year of my time here in Cambridge as well as my 40th with the organization going back to the Yale years. Thanks to the quality of the Board, staff, Diane's vision, and Harvard's increased commitment and interest in all the arts, the A.R.T.'s future is in excellent hands," Orchard said in a letter to the A.R.T. board.

In a statement, Paulus commented, "Rob has been an esteemed and extremely valued colleague of mine since my arrival. He and I have been in close contact about his decision to retire early, and I am very grateful that he has agreed to stay on as a Special Advisor to me in launching my first season."