- Cartoons. I love Tom Tomorrow and Ted Rall, in particular.
- Snarky side comments. Editor-in-chief/Punchline vet Peter Humes has a nice way with the funny aside and will stick one just about anywhere. Tucked at the bottom of last week’s banner: “Once you are finished reading Brick, you may choose to create funny hats or origami swans.”
- Interesting interviews. In last week’s edition, I enjoyed the interview with VCU History Prof. Emilie Raymond on Charton Heston, a fave of mine since “Bowling for Columbine.”
- Bashing of Style (and all other weeklies). I know I write for Style but even so, I am very well aware of some of Style’s limitations and problems. So I welcome a new free weekly as much as the next guy. But Brick printing a letter that fawns all over the new mag (after only one issue) and says, “finally a REAL weekly publication for Richmond” is a slam against all sorts of people, not to mention people who could actually end up big Brick fans. Is it really necessary to “go negative” so early in the game?
- Disingenuousness at who they are. “Richmond’s PLUCKY weekly”? How plucky are they going to be with a $900 million corporation behind them?
- No website. Yet? Ever?
- Not quite as funny as they think they are. I laugh out loud at Jon Stewart and The Onion and this particularly hilarious post from Eliza Skinner. I chuckled a couple of times reading through Brick.
And of course, my biggest peeve about Brick is NO THEATER! What’s up with that? Granted, I haven’t seen this week’s issue so maybe this point is already moot, but in the two issues I’ve seen there’s no mention of live theater, no calendar of shows, nada. Instead, we get articles on Zach Branff and “The Wire.” That’s plucky?
Theater is an integral part of this town from Theatre-VCU to Theatre IV’s kid’s shows to Bifocals Theater Company. You aren’t covering Richmond, Brick, if you aren’t covering theater.