Martha’s Biscuits

Martha has done this a million times before. Flour, water, whisk. Eggs, butter, whisk again. Martha Slipped into a familiar tradition, one that was almost second nature to her at this point. 

Set the oven, put them in and wait till her flakey biscuits were baked to perfection. Martha was hoping she’d have everything done by 9. She had a busy day tomorrow. It was the first day of classes at her new job. Lenox Heights Pre-School for the gifted and Talented. It sure was a mouthful but Martha could not care less. She had moved out to Utah from New York because this was the opportunity of a life time. No way she was going to let a name that didn’t exactly roll off the tongue stop her. Not a chance!

Soon the kitchen began to fill with that familiar smell. Her grandmother had passed this recipe down, just as her grandmother before had passed it to her, and as she hoped to eventually pass to her granddaughter.

Another few seconds passed and Martha began to get lost in her thoughts.

“What will my students call me? Maybe they’ll call me Ms. Garner.” She thought. Not even a few seconds after that thought another one sprung into her mind. “Maybe I should have them call me Ms. Martha”

Martha began to get nervous that the first sentence her students would hear would not be a sentence at all, but her stumbling over her words. Then she realized that she was teaching preschoolers and decided it would probably be best to not worry about it.

Martha then sat down at the TV and turned on the news. She had about 10 minutes before the biscuits would be ready so she decided this would be the prefect time to catch some news. 

“And tonight, it is reported that another person has been killed outside of Salt Lake City. We have no suspects but we know that the Killer seems to be going after people in that area. Please be cautious and remember to lock your doors.”

“Well now I regret turning on the news!” Martha thought. 

*Knock Knock Knock* 

“Who could that be? I’m not expecting anyone this late.”



Kamikaze, Eminem (AoTW)

Hello Everyone and welcome to this weeks album review!

This week I had a special guest (Fish) give his thoughts on the new Eminem album, Kamikaze. I was originally going to add some of my own thoughts but Fish so perfectly executed this review that I did not want to interrupt with any of his thoughts!

Anyway hope you all enjoy and look out for my picks to listen to at the end!




Eminem is back, and he brought Slim Shady. 

They’re different, and a bit more distant from fans. I can’t listen to Kamikaze and get pissed off at the world with Eminem. He’s not rapping about struggling to get by while constantly getting his feet swept out from underneath him. There was an internal rage in Slim that everyone responded to, I mean there is a Slim Shady in all of us. And you don’t want to mess with Shady, cause Shady will fucking kill you (MGK must not have heard that one). Sometimes you do just want to let loose and unleash on a balls-out rampage cussin’ out everybody who ever wronged you and that’s powerful. Instead of doing that, we could hear Shady do it, and it always felt great. 

But guess who’s back? Shady’s back. It’s glorious, it’s witty, it’s prideful, and it’s downright petty and spiteful at times (I wouldn’t want it any other way). It is Slim Shady, and he is just as savage and aggressive as before. Shady stops at nothing to diss anyone who had it coming. Slim destroys mumble rappers, and hopefully people will wake up and realize that Hip-Hop needs to take a few steps back and get back on course to meaningful, substantial music. Regardless, the Slim Shady disses were on point, and it was incredible to be reminded of what Eminem is capable of. 

Eminem, and Slim Shady, have matured. Instead of vibing to Eminem’s Fuck the World attitude, we are given a Fuck the Industry attitude. Eminem has directed his anger towards the struggles that he has recently endured in the industry. He copes with himself (previously) fading out of the spotlight, and he recognized his “flop” (in Eminem standards) of an album last year. He addresses the downfall of D12, and officially marked their disbandment. He also tears apart the current state of the industry, which seems to be populated with  mumble rappers. This are big issues that Eminem is tackling, and it is more personal to himself than it is to fans. It’s all just a new theme to Eminem’s music that is a distinct, but welcome change. So, it just took a little more time to open up and relate to the lyrics this time around. 

The production and vocals for the album are top-notch. By know we all know Dr. Dre and Eminem are an incredible duo, but I really don’t know how Dre manages to keep his production quality so top-notch. I really can’t knock a beat on any track. Straight from the beginning, “The Ringer” made me feel like I was listening to an old Eminem track. It was familiar, and it felt right. The credited features were mainly amazing (let’s just ignore Jessie Reyez on “Nice Guy”). Joyner Lucas really delivered, and I instantly became a fan from his performance in “Lucky You”. I checked his stuff out after I heard it, and this guy is seriously talented. We’ve been sleeping on him for too long. 

Overall, the album was a return to glory for Marshall Mathers. He proved that he is not done, he is relevant, and anyone who ever has anything to say against him (Or his daughter) will never be safe. 

This album gets a 8.9/10. For reference, I can only think of maybe 3 albums I would ever want to give a 10/10, which makes a 9 near perfect. So this is almost near perfect (blame it on “Nice Guy”). In my opinion, it has earned itself a spot in the top 3 albums of the year. 

PS. Em called MGK a goof and I lost it. MGK thinks he’s sly but on God he a goof. Eminem has recorded music with Hailey before (when she was young) and I think it is time for that to happen again. If MGK wants to talk about Hailey then let her talk back. A diss track where both Eminem and his daughter destroy this goof would be remarkable. 


Fish’s picks:

Best tracks- “The Ringer”, “Lucky You” (personal favorite), “Not Alike”

Worst track- “Nice Guy” (I still don’t get it)

Rich’s picks:

Best Tracks- “The Ringer”, “Venom (Music From The Motion Picture)”, “Good Guy”, “Not Alike”

Worst track- Also “Nice Guy”


Listen to “Lucky You” here!

The Great Book Race of 2018


Editor’s note: This e-mail exchange took place between 3/31 and 4/5. Since then Andrew has finished one more book and Maggie has finished two, because she’s a tryhard.

Andrew Nichols: Alright Magz. I got beef with you. My New Year’s resolution this year was to read a book a month. By no means a lofty goal, but one that I felt I could accomplish and feel good about.

Then I log onto instagram on Jan 6th and see this crap:


(Go follow @magzreadz on instagram if you don’t already).

So now I gotta double my book goal, and I have an instagram account telling me how far behind I am. I’ve done four books thus far and just started number five. Meanwhile you just finished book 5, right?

@Magzreadz (Maggie Cavanaugh): Yeah, that’s right, and you know me, I can get competitive too, so knowing I’ve got you not too far behind me is a great motivator. A book a month is a great goal, but isn’t this more fun?!

I’m reading books of all genres, whatever I’m feeling like picking up next. Do you have a certain genre you’re sticking with, or are you in the same boat? And what have you read so far?

Andrew: Same for me. Personally I tend toward nonfiction but the book I’m reading right now if my first fiction book of the year.

Thus far I’ve read Chain of Title by David Dayen, American Cinema: Directors and Directions by Andrew Sarris, Backwards and in Heels by Alicia Malone, and The Horror Genre:From Beelzebub to Blair Witch by Paul Wells.

What about you? I know you already gave out ratings on your instagram, so how about we do some superlatives?

I’m thinking BEST BOOK, MOST ADDICTING, WORST BOOK, and finally the ones we recommend vs. those we don’t?

Maggie: So far I’ve read Wild by Cheryl Strayed, Into the Wild by Jon Kraukauer, Bad Monkey by Carl Hiaasen, Talking as Fast as I Can by Lauren Graham, and Eat, Pray, Love by Elizabeth Gilbert.

That plan sounds good! I’ll make up some superlatives for the books we don’t cover with those categories.

Andrew: Good looks. Without further adieu…


Maggie: So far this award goes to Wild by Cheryl Strayed. Strayed is real and raw in her tellings, and she encounters a fair amount of entertaining situations. I struggled to put it down, when I needed to.

Andrew: I haven’t read it yet but I’m definitely gonna keep it in mind now. I just remember walking out of the movie adaptation thinking that the homie Reese Witherspoon was dope.

For me this goes to Chain of Title by David Dayen. This is the book that’s hardest to explain, hardest to read, but is also one of the most vital books in a while. It’s about how banks used shady, often illegal practices to skirt around regulations during the height of the subprime mortgage bubble. Essentially, banks were selling off people’s mortgages at such a fast rate that they ignored many of the centuries-old property laws that govern home ownership. When the bubble burst, millions were foreclosed on, oftentimes by banks that were not the initial owner of their mortgage (so like, if you got a loan from Citi, and they sold it, then Chase tried foreclosing on you even though you’ve never interacted with them). The book tells this story via three people who noticed the skirting of laws, fought their foreclosures in court, and ended up becoming activists during the financial crisis. There’s hella jargon, it can be confusing, but I’ve also never encountered more “Wait, hang on , they did WHAT?!”, or “holy shit that’s bad” moments in a book before.


Maggie: Bad Monkey by Carl Hiaasen. I hate giving this book this particular  superlative, because I LIKE Carl Hiaasen, but so far, this book is at the bottom of my list. I just couldn’t get into it, the story took forever to develop, actually, I never felt like it REALLY did.

Andrew: Adolescent Andrew loved Hoot so hearing that Hiaasen wrote a shitter of a book is disappointing.

Maggie: Don’t be too upset, one of my favorite books is by him (Skinny Dip). It’s hilarious and captivating, if you ever feel the desire to read a fiction book, I would definitely recommend it.

Andrew: I at least somewhat enjoyed all of the books I read so this is a tad unfair. But alas, this has to go to The Horror Genre by Paul Wells. It’s interesting, and goes in all sorts of directions you wouldn’t get from a mainstream book. But Wells is so clearly writing for grad students and other academics that it can be frustrating. He falls into the trap of thinking that he needs to use the thesaurus on every word. This book reminded me of the most painful readings from my film courses in college. It’s brief (just over 100 pages) and opens your mind up (Marxist and Darwinist tendencies of Horror, anyone?) but still a slog.

Maggie: Sounds like an enticing one; it’s always a disappointment when the topic of a book is interesting, but the language feels so broken up and unnatural when the author tries too hard.


MaggieInto the Wild by Jon Krakauer. I read this book in a day, basically refused to put it down, it was beyond fascinating to me, and left me inspired to rough it out in the Alaskan wilderness, because anyone can do it according to Chris McCandless, it’s why we were put on this earth. Adventure awaits… until you get hungry… and die. I finished this book and started Wild right away, thinking I’d encounter another adventure that inspired me so much that I’d convince myself to ACTUALLY go on a hike (mind you, I was on crutches while reading both books… perhaps I had a small case of cabin fever…) but Strayed told the whole, more true, truth about ditching civilization and living in the wilderness, bringing me back down to earth.

Andrew: Krakauer is interesting to me—I read Into Thin Air way back because a ton of people recommended it. It was solid, definitely a slow starter that picked up momentum. Krakauer got his start as a writer for the magazine Outside and I never felt like he ever fully transitioned into being comfortable writing books. He can hook you in, sure, but it feels very sectioned, divided—almost like it’s one of those Dickens books where chapters were released as they’re written. I think it’s fitting that Wild felt more real; it was written from the perspective of a person finding themselves rather than a journalist preaching to the outdoorsy choir.

Maggie: I never really thought of Into the Wild as sectioned when I read it, but you bring up a good point. Thinking back, the chapters were all very distinct, as if each one was it’s own short story, each one being related to the other, but separated nonetheless.

Andrew: For me this superlative goes to Backwards and in Heels by Alicia Malone. Malone is one of my favorite film critics/writers/content-creators going right now, and she did an awesome job with this book. Basically it details the history of women in Hollywood filmmaking, via a series of biographical essays on women in periods ranging from the late 1800s to the present (people like Ava DuVernay, Viola Davis, etc.). Malone writes in the intro that you can hop around to whatever you find most interesting, and that’s exactly how I read it. It’s awesome to be able to jump to whatever catches your eye, and I ended up reading all of it in one jumbled 4-hour session. Malone’s at her best when she can expand on a known figure (Marylin Monroe, Gina Davis) and make larger observations on their work and reception. But even when she’s just doing an information dump it’s really entertaining and informative. I wish it wasn’t just Hollywood-centric, because I’d love to be able to read about the influential feminist European directors from Malone’s perspective (and also because Chantal Akerman and Věra Chytilová are two personal favorites of mine).

Maggie: Sounds amazing! I’m all for reading about strong women in history. Women in Hollywood tend to captivate the public eye more than any other group of ladies, so they set the scene for the times, kind of like the #metoo movement going on now. I don’t know if any social issues were brought up in that book, but I’m sure it was interesting to see how times changed along the timeline of the book. I’d love to read it!

As for my other two superlatives, they are:


Maggie: Which goes to Talking as Fast as I Can by Lauren Graham. I grew up rushing home from school to watch Gilmore Girls, so I read this out of not only interest, but also for the nostalgia factor, the 13 year old inside me was ecstatic.

And the other is…


Maggie: Which goes to Eat, Pray, Love by Elizabeth Gilbert. I almost quit reading this book multiple times because Gilbert was so irritating, I found her beliefs ignorant, and her stubbornness in some situations was outrageous.

Andrew: I have no clue how Eat, Pray, Love became such a hit. Everyone I know who has read it has absolutely hated it. It’s pretty easy to find happiness when you’re given a $200K publisher’s advance to fuck about all over the world.

At any rate, my superlative is:


Andrew: Which goes to American Cinema: Directors and Directions 1929-1968. I’m a sucker for rankings. I’m a sucker for auteurist film criticism. I’m a sucker for authoritative works that clearly come from a wide knowledge base. Sarris’s style is not for everyone. Hell it’s probably not for most people. But I absolutely love it. This book inspires the closest thing to bar arguments that film scholar have, and I adore it. It helps that I agree with Sarris on most things (though Nicholas Ray and Douglas Sirk are underrated, while Robert Flaherty is criminally overrated) but I think if you disagree with him it can still be a fun hate read. Lots of jokes and stray observations keep it lighter than a purely academic piece.

Maggie: Sounds like it was written for you to read. Humor in more academic texts is so important, otherwise its so easy to lose your reader, unless theyre being forced to read it for class, but even so, a successful author will not make their reader roll their eyes at the thought of their name.

Andrew: Well thanks for doing this Magz! We’ll check back in at the next milestone (ten), whichever one of us reaches it first. And you better watch your back, I’m comin’ for the lead.


  • Into the Wild by Jon Krakauer
  • Wild by Cheryl Strayed
  • Talking as Fast as I Can by Lauren Graham


  • Backwards and in Heels by Alicia Malone
  • Chain of Title by David Dayen
  • American Cinema by Andrew Sarris


Mining Film in a Digital Age: Art in its Context

“The more you look, the more you see.”

–Multiple Authors


In Fritz Lang’s 1931 film “M”, a serial killer (Peter Lorre) wanders around Berlin, stalking, kidnapping, and murdering children one by one. He is hunted by both the police (using the highest technology of the time) and the criminals of Berlin (who want to get the suddenly zealous police off their backs). Eventually, the killer is identified by a blind man who recognized the tune that he had constantly been whistling: “In the Hall of the Mountain King” by Edvard Grieg.

Have you heard “In the Hall of the Mountain King”? It’s a trick question; I already know that you have:

“In the Hall of the Mountain King” is one of those songs that everyone knows, they just don’t know that they know it (that sentence makes sense, I swear). You’ve heard it countless times in your life. It’s been  in countless commercials, movies, and TV shows. It’s come to be associated with slapstick situations, and overall, when used, it is to invoke a comedic tone. When you hear it, you probably think of one of these over-the-top scenes. Or maybe you don’t think about it at all, and it’s been relegated to“background music that I’m already pissed is stuck in my head for the next 4 hours”.

And that’s the problem. Because, for Fritz Lang’s M, “In the Hall Of the Mountain King” (from now on referred to as “Hall”) holds a great deal of meaning. “Hall” was written by Edvard Greig as an accompaniment to act 2 scene six of the play Peer Gynt by Henrik Ibsen. The song carries great significance in the play, as it scores the scene when the titular central protagonist is about to meet with the Troll king, in the King’s great hall (as far as I know, Henrik Ibsen did not have access to hallucinogenic drugs. He was just an interesting dude). The Troll King and Peer discuss the phrase central to the play, which represents an attitude that is the subject of criticism in Gynt: “To thyself, be enough”. It is a phrase which characterizes pure selfishness, but is one embraced by Peer and the King.

Grieg tried to encapsulate this with his music, writing:

“For the Hall of the Mountain King I have written something that so reeks of ‘to-thyself-be-enough-ness’ that I can’t bear to hear it, though I hope that the irony will make itself felt.”[Santon, Tim. Ibsen’s Peer Gynt.]

Indeed, the idea of only doing enough to satisfy yourself, without regard for others, is one that fits nicely on a child-murderer. It adds depth and significance to Lang’s decision to make “Hall” the murderer’s theme.

When I first saw M, I had no idea of Lang’s intentions in that song choice. For me, the song carried the connotation of slapstick, of silliness– so that when I encountered it in an older film, it seemed innocuous. I imagine only a tiny fraction of 21st century viewers had a reaction far from mine, or looked into any potential symbolic meaning behind the whistled theme. As a result, at least one part of M’s brilliance was missed.

As art ages, the connotations associated with certain aspects of it change, for a variety of reasons. More media is accessible now than ever, and sometimes the meaning of works of art can change without us realizing it (such as with M and “Hall”). In this media environment, it has become vital for viewers to have a heightened awareness when considering older films, and to try to understand artistic decisions as they were intended, to supplement the way we initially receive them. Because if we don’t, we might miss a stroke of pure brilliance.