To the editors:

I understand that as a critic, Mr. Wyman may say things I disagree with. Being an adult with my own opinions, I respect that. However, when he oversteps his bounds of criticism, I feel this must be addressed.

In the February 19 issue, Mr. Wyman felt it necessary to make note of Michael Jackson’s facial features [Hitsville]. This in itself might have just been considered immature, but then he went on to describe Michael Jackson as looking “like that guy on the el with his face burned off.” It was an obvious attempt to show how abnormal Michael Jackson looks by comparing him to a serious burn victim. I find it repulsive to use this man as a gauge for “normalcy.” It’s inexcusable. I don’t know who he thinks he is (although being a critic, perhaps he naturally thinks he’s above everyone), but no one has a right to treat people that way.

I’m very disappointed that part of the article went to press. While I’m in favor of free speech, it seems someone on the editing staff could have been equally in favor of good taste (it’s obvious we couldn’t count on Mr. Wyman for that). I think nothing short of a public apology in Mr. Wyman’s article should be considered a very minimal show of reform.

Daniel Sheinis

W. Surf

PS: Does Mr. Wyman even know the gentleman on the train?