“The Guys Who Spied for China,” is being published by Minstrel’s Alley, an independent publishing and media group.   This is the company’s first effort.   The book was also released as a trade paperback and is available through Amazon, Baker and Taylor and is available in bookstores around the country.

“We are very excited about the publication of “The Guys Who Spied for China,” said M.J. Hammond, publisher and president of Minstrel’s Alley.    We are excited to see the book listed on Kindle as we believe E-Publishing is the wave of the future.”

“The Guys Who Spied for China,” is our first published offering, so we naturally wish to oversee every stage of our marketing effort.  The novel should draw not only from spy freaks but from a wider, more literary readership as well.

“This roman a clef is a most unusual spy book as it breaks the mold for this genre.  It tells the story of what it is like to be suddenly thrust into the world of espionage.”

Hammond describes the book as quirky and authentic with touches of dark humor that will engage the reader.   “If you are looking for more than the basic mainstream spy book , you are in for a pleasant surprise.   This tells a much richer story.  This is a timely book, given the ongoing headlines about Chinese Espionage and the growing tensions again between the United States and China.”

Gordon Basichis is the author of two previous books, “The Constant Travellers,” and “Beautiful Bad Girl, The Vicki Morgan Story.”   He is the co-founder of Corra Group, a Los Angeles based company that conducts employment background checks and corporate research for companies throughout the United States and around the world.

M.J. Hammond is a former entertainment industry executive who founded Minstrel’s Alley to publish popular books not found in mainstream publishing.

“Mainstream publishing has its purpose,” said Hammond.  But the industry’s focus on celebrity and genre based books has left readers wanting.  We hope to help bring a sense of adventure back to books and publishing.”

Background: Minstrel’s Alley is a Los Angeles based independent publisher that seeks to bring adventure back into the publishing industry by publishing books that have popular appeal but with more complexity than the standard mainstream fare.   The new publishing group distributes its books through Amazon, Kindle, and assorted Internet outlets as well as through bookstores around the country.    You can view Minstrel’s Alley at www.minstrelsalley.com

Artist Cut of Tron starring Cheech and Chong.

Common long time fodder for comedians and pundits alike is the threadbare cliche about how men don’t understand women.   Unless you have been hiding under a rock for the last century, you  have been treated to a surfeit of sketches, the articles, and the stand up routines depicting women as mysterious creatures we simply can’t understand.   Funny?  Sometimes.

But the fact remains that what we really haven’t a clue about is woman’s actual role in history and culture.   I am not talking about the kitchen queen of the fifties or the Woman’s Lib activists of the 60′s and 70′s.    Despite the fact we have a dog’s sense of history and fifty years ago appear like ancient times, there are patterns of acculturation and the roll out of historical events that have gone on for centuries.   And for what we know of those decades, we know so little about the female role in society and civilization.

It is fair to say a great deal of woman’s history has been suppressed.  Hence lecturer, author and vaunted historian, Max Dashu, has compiled over decades boundless information about woman’s role in society.   That is in societies around the world.    Dashu’s website, Suppressed Histories Archives is a daunting work, revealing boundless information about woman’s role in society, almost since time began.

Dashu has compiled images of all sorts and created lectures or presentations oriented toward myriad issues and cases in history.    There are some 15,000 slides and 100 different shows.  Dashu has lectured at colleges and universities as well as to a variety of organizations both in the United States and around the world.  She has created a fascinating DVD, and is currently working on a book series.

For history buffs and for those who think they have an understanding of womens culture, well here is an eye opener.   And for those women who are curious about their universal culture and societal heritage, this is a treasure for the mind.    This is complex subject matter, not some simplistic jargon in the latest fashion magazine.   And Dashu offers detailed analysis of some of the more complex issues of the past and how they affect our culture today.

This is a class act.   And there is no two drink minimum.

Our best critics are dying.   And with it a form of writing and assessment of our cultural has been downgraded to a lower form.   Where critics once served to educate their readers and point to new directions in our arts and culture, most criticism today is either boosterism or narcissism.   It is a shame, really, because it appears that with the decline in cultural criticism we experience a decline in the quality of the arts.

Within the past couple of years, Hollis Alpert, founder of the National Society of Film Critics, has passed away.   John Leonard, esteemed literary critic, has also moved on to another world.   Clive Barnes, dance and drama critic, died not too long ago.   Pauline Kael, perhaps the most influential of film critics, died a few years back.   Vincent Canby.  The list goes on.

Others still hang in there, writing quality reviews.  Stanley Kauffman remains the literary critic for the New Republic.  Erudite and sometime curmudgeonly octogenarian,  John Simon, still writes theater and film reviews.  Fellow film critic and octogenarian, Judith Crist, still writes and teaches at Columbia University.   Likewise, Andrew Sarris.

While a few have inherited the love, concern and at times the erudition of this older set of critics, Rodger Ebert and Manohla Dargis, come immediately to mind, most critics today are interchangeable faces with paste on smiles and clunky writing styles.   Where the others had a deep passion for the arts, most critics today are merely hired hands, flogging product and searching for the next rung on the ladder.   It is not the passion and involvement that seems to drive them, but career advancement.   Most will not and cannot take chances.

Time was art and cultural critics would take the lead in defining a movement or style.   They would go out on a limb.   They would push the unpopular because they believed it was good.   They would denounce works and fight with their creators.  Feuds between artist and critic were renowned.   For the most part, both gained from the conflict.

Their reviews would be imbued with wit and style, erudite, in fact, which today, sadly, goes unappreciated.   You would sense their anger or appreciation for what they were reviewing.   You could sense the love and the displeasure.  You would not only better understand the art piece itself, but the art form in general.  You would come away from a review with a better sense of the complexity of the human experience.

It is unimaginable that critics of the past would deign to even review much of the art that our current cluster of critics tend to praise.   Good writing is almost a thing of the past.   It is fashionable to laud the middle brow and to deem the wretched acceptable if not great works or art or entertainment.  Sad as it may be, it is understandable.   Like other media people, there is little knowledge of the history of their subjects.   Therefore, there are few reference points.   Their analysis, overall is pathetic and short sighted.  Writing styles hand out language that is impenetrable.   Rather than serve as true critics who in turn advance the quality of the arts, driving their creators to do better,  their task is mainly to talk about celebrity.

The presentations are as mediocre on a good day and do little or nothing to raise the quality of the art form.   I start reading reviews and   midway through I start wondering what the hell the writer is trying to say.   There is no real point of view, and if there is a point of view quite often it is singular and simplistic.   There is no guts to it.

As for the reviews on television or radio, they come off like promotion pieces designed to send you to the theater, or out to buy the book.   There is a tie in between the entertainment industry, the media and the lucky slob who issues forth his McReview.   Whether some are rewarded for writing favorably is a point of conjecture.   But with so much else on the take, it is difficult to imagine that ambitious souls with questionable talent wouldn’t be susceptible to a material pat on the back.

As I noted earlier, there are still a fair amount of quality books, films, dance, and theater.   But given the sheer quantity of what is produced for the market in a  single year, the good art represents a slim minority.  As for projecting and developing the complexity of human experience, with few exceptions you can forget about that.  You would like to think that the torch is passed from one generation to another.  You would like to believe that the arts endure and with the changes in society there are advances in the arts.   Not in the technology of the arts, but in the arts themselves.

You would like to think that.   But then you would be dreaming.

Known simply as The Theater, the playhouse was built in 1576.   The theater had angled walls in keeping with the times,  and most believe it is the Theater.   One has to wonder what the excavators felt when they first uncovered the ruins.   Did the sense the spirit that will often accompany even modest structures that enjoy a remarkable history?  What is the feeling?

For the more skeptical, they will often claim there is no real feeling.   The site is just an old site, and it is devoid of any vibe or feeling.   Not that we are talking ghosts here, but just a sense of something when you come upon a buried site with a rich history.   I guess this controversial attribute to the senses will always be debated.  Me, I do believe there is a vibe, and despite the fact it was buried under an old garage, that vibe is still evident.  What say you?

In any event, this is a great discovery, bringing to three the old theaters that once showcased Shakespeare’s efforts.   And it does go to show that not everything lost is lost forever.