(Regarding Rich P's letter on Marilyn Manson, Dec. 2 issue)

I have to disagree; (writer Janet) Herman's review of Antichrist_Superstar was not nearly as flawed or tainted as we are led to believe. I would say that it was no more tainted, possibly less tainted, than Rich's response. It seems to me that it may well have been motivated by Rich taking offense because he likes the album more than Herman.

My reading of the review in question had less emotional investment, and I certainly have to agree that there are many people who like this album and Marilyn Manson quite a bit. There is a place however for those who do not. Is it somehow a wrong match because Herman didn't give a sparkling review? What makes a bad match between this album and Herman? Using Rich's argument on his own response yields the same questions.

The review by Herman was informative, it was respectful, and it was honest. That is more than enough to warrant a thank you to the writer: it is a difficult job to put an opinion out and not to cave in to the majority of reviewer's opinions or to waffle and not take a stand. As for the specific issue of mentioning the Eurythmics cover, I expect such useless and insignificant banter from "print-based, mass media marketing efforts." - Steven Lewis