Columbine

[Dave Cullen]

This might seem like a silly question - but I was wondering, several times in the first couple chapters, girls are referred to as "chicks" - is this choice of word because it might better put us in the frame of mind of the boys (Dylan and Eric) or is the choice of "chick" just Dave's choice of word?

I used a modified third-person narrator to tell the story. The entire book shared the same narrator, but there were ten major storylines and for each one, I tried to assume the point of view of the lead characters to some extent, and to infuse some of the lingo and diction of those characters into the telling.

This is an example of that: meaning this is how the characters in question viewed them, spoke of them, as chicks.

[Jenny]

I agree, Cora, that Dave has a point of view about the killers (I wouldn't call it an agenda, because I don't see it that way), and that it is that Eric was a sadistic psychopath and Dylan was a depressed kid with an explosive temper who became Eric's friend and follower. That view seems to be based on ten years of careful examination of enormous amounts of evidence, repeated interviews with several of the investigators, (including Mr. Fuselier and others who did a psychological autopsy and came to these conclusions about the killers), friends and parents of friends of Eric's and Dylan's, witnesses, family members of victims (including Mr. Rohrbough) and many students.

I have not read all of the source material from the investigation or the Eric's journals (though I have read some.) I have read the review Ms. Kester posted, the reviews Brian Rohrbough has posted (he is the father of Danny Rohrbough, one of the students killed at Columbine), and some of Mr. Kass's book. I've also worked with bullied and abused kids. Here are some thoughts.

1) There was certainly bullying at Columbine, as Dave acknowledges. People who dress differently or stick out in some way are often targets of bullying in high school, and jocks often bully smaller and weaker boys (though not all jocks, of course.) There had been troubling incidents of bullying in the previous year, and Mr. D was not aware of the scope of the problem. One of the things that came out of the Columbine massacre was much more attention to the problem of bullying and programs to address it in high schools across the U.S. There is also much more security and plans to deal with shooters in schools, including locking down and sending police and medical services in immediately.

2) The Klebolds, did give an interview in response to the summary of FBI analyses that was published on the fifth anniversary of the massacre, to David Brooks of the New York Times. They were convinced that jocks and bullies were behind the rampage.

3) Mr. Rohrbough, father of Danny Rohrbough, blames the school system and the authorities for not preventing the crime or being timely, truthful and responsible in communicating to parents and taking their share of the blame. He sees the analyses of the FBI experts as worthless, even part of a cover-up. He believes that Columbine High School ignored festering problems, and that the Jeffco Sheriff's office deliberately ignored evidence that Eric and Dylan were dangerous delinquents, evidence they had available long before April 19th, 1999. He is convinced that the massacre was preventable and that the fact that it and other school shootings  happened indicates that the U.S. is in a state of moral decay, brought on by the legalization of abortion and the acceptance of suicide, "a culture of death." He also rejects Mr. Kass's book, because Mr. Kass got many things wrong and didn't correct them when Mr. Rohrbough pointed them out to him.

4) Mr. Kass is a fine journalist, and had also covered Columbine and pored over the evidence for 10 years. He takes a sociological view: school shootings occur primarily in the South and West, where people are taught to avenge their honor with a gun. You're taught to take charge of solving your own problems. School shooters are at the bottom rung of the social ladder, and they feel like losers. They are not accepted, and they become angrier and angrier, until their anger erupts into violent revenge. He also feels that violence in films, video games and television play a role. He advocates specifically training students to reject using guns to solve problems and training them to accept and even celebrate diversity. He also suggests that school nurses and teachers should get training to spot problems. He seems much more interested in Dylan Klebold, who he feels fits the "profile" of the school shooter, than Eric Harris. He covers the parents, particularly Susan Klebold, looking for links from their pasts to how their sons developed into school shooters. His book spotlights him as an activist, investigative journalist who was responsible for finding and reporting much information that has not previously been covered.

Bullying is cruel and can completely destroy self-confidence and self-respect. It can exacerbate depression and fuel rage at the bullies in their targets. I think that anything that targets high school bullying and helps stop it is a good idea. But bullying alone doesn't cause high school boys to build bombs and turn guns on their classmates, though it may well cause them to think about it. Violence in various media doesn't, either. Abusive parents (or others) provoke depression and, often, substance abuse and suicidal thoughts. When violence occurs, it's usually turned towards weaker victims or family members or a particular target, like a teacher or principal or social worker/psychologist who didn't intervene or sanctioned the student in some way that brought further abuse from the parents.

I think that we can cut down on the incidence of school shootings and reduce the number of victims by intervening to increase security, stop bullying and help bullies and their victims. It's very important to train kids to report threats and worrisome things they've seen or heard to someone who can evaluate the information and take action to investigate the situation. But it's not clear to me from the evidence that bullying or rejection were specific triggers for the Columbine shooters, or that their parents were abusive or neglectful. I don't think that most shooters make detailed plans over a year before acting to kill large numbers of people, many of whom they didn't know and go to the lengths Eric Harris did to rehearse the crime and reconnoiter so that he would know when the cafeteria would be most crowded and where to place his bombs for maximum effect. That is truly unusual.

   

[Dave Cullen]

Michael: thanks for moderating so well, and keeping us to the ground rules. (For those of you new to the book club threads, this is a recurring issue from time to time.) We chose, a few years back, to discuss each book in sections, to give people time to read one chunk at a time, and also to discuss ideas in manageable chunks. It's not a perfect solution, but works pretty well. Many people here have only read Part 1, so it's not fair to plunge ahead in the discussion and leave them out.

So we can discuss the arguments CBY brought up at the appropriate time, and perhaps she and I will discuss more in private.

I do want to address a few general points she brought up here, as they relate to the entire book:

1) my process
2) how I employed quotes from the killers


1)

I thought you had a particular agenda and sought to prove it: that Eric Harris wasn't just a deeply disturbed kid but a psychopath, probably born that way, and that neither the school environment nor his upbringing had much if anything to do with what he did -- that he would have done it anyway, regardless. . . . Someone supplied you a framework that seemed to provide a nice, neat, easy answer -- a tidy little box to work in -- and you stayed within that box and omitted anything that didn't fit.

I began the research with no agenda, except to understand what happened, and why. For most of the first year, I have innumerable explanations, none of which explained it at all. And indeed, there was widespread consensus among most people covering the story and close to the events that none of those theories explained it well.

Eventually, I got to the psychologists and psychiatrists brought in by the FBI, and for the first time, I began hearing analysis that made sense. I did not buy into that over night, but discussed it with many of them over a period of months, which turned into years. Over that time, I did a tremendous amount of reading and research, talked to leaders in the field, asked countless questions and debated with them strenously on points that didn't seem to fit or make sense.

I did, in the end, come to conclusions. I think that's my job. I don't think it's fair to say that reaching conclusions equates to having an agenda. I certainly had no bias for or against concepts like psychopathy going into it, had nothing to gain from reaching one conclusion or another.

When we get to the section on psychopathy, I look forward to a vigorous debate about whether or not my conclusions were/are sound. But that was certainly not my process, to start with an agenda and adhere to it. And I definitely did not omit anything that didn't adhere to the analysis. I tried to present a vivid and multi-faceted picture of each killer.
 
2)

I thought that you blatantly ignored whatever didn't fit your theory, including Eric and Dylan's own words in their journals. What amazed me most was your claim that Eric never mentioned being bullied. This is just a lie, going by his own words in the journals that have been posted online.

Jeffco released nearly a thousand pages written mostly by Eric and Dylan, and my entire book was 358 pages (before backmatter), and it covered a lot more ground than just those two, much less their writings. (And of course there were also videos, police reports, counselors' notes, etc.) I also chose to approach this as a story, a narrative, which would keep the reader engaged. I had to be highly selective about what I quoted, and how much.

I spent years with the journals and other material and made all sorts of charts and spreadsheets about the different topics they covered, and especially the predominant themes. One of the first things you realize when you look it their writing is that they are kids, and their moods change and often contradict (particularly Dylan). And because Eric complains about just about every type of person known to mankind, it's easy to cherry-pick quotes to fit just about any idea. (Eg, he complained about jocks occasionally, as well as niggers, spics and fags, and slow drivers in the fast lane. But there is no sustained focus on any of them, and no indication that any of those in particular were of primary concern to Eric.)


But they come back to their main ideas over and over and over again. Some of Dylan's recurring themes were: his life being miserable, seeking some greater sense of destiny, the everlasting contrast between good and evil, etc. Eric's biggest themes were hating everyone imaginable, wanting to hurt/kill/destroy, everyone, the entire species, the planet, etc. That's not close to an exhaustive list--and I'm actually doing it off the top of my head, just to give you a sense.

I made it a point to focus on these primary themes, and also to focus on other revealing/interesting passages: eg, it was stunning to see how Eric would address the very same topic both publicly and privately at the same time. I think that is incredibly revealing, so I used several examples. And I also used passages to show the evolution of their thinking, the sequencing of how the plan progresses, etc. And I looked for what might be called teachable moments: places where the writings illustrated the larger psychological conditions of the two boys: pyschopathy and depression. (This may be where the concern is coming from.) This was one of many ways I used the journal passages, and I think it's highly appropriate. The fact is that I did study the case for years, I did consult with experts and reached conclusions. Once I had those, I had to find a way of conveying those to a lay reader, who was probably unfamiliar with the actual meaning of psychopathy. (It was obviously much less of an issue with depression, where most people begin with much more understanding.) I couldn't just tell the reader that I concluded that psychopathy was important, and direct them to some books on that--I needed to work that into the narrative, and illustrate it with Eric's writing and behavior.

Of course, for people who feel that psychopathy is misapplied to Eric--or overapplied--you're going to have a problem with my book, and we can discuss that in the psychopathy section. But I want to be clear on how I chose the passages. Yes, illustrating the conclusions with journal passages was one of my objectives there. One of many. From time to time, I included passages which contradict--or seem to contradict psychopathy and depression and addressed those contradictions--but both killers were such stunning fits for those conditions, that contradictions were the exception, rather than the rule. I tried to keep the balance, and not focus on exceptions.

I'm not sure when the best time to address bullying is--Michael can direct us on that--but again, I am happy to have a vigorous debate at that time, and to discover what you consider examples of the boys writing about being bullied, and seeing how those fit into the wider context of what they wrote.

[michaelflanagansf]

I'm not sure when the best time to address bullying is--Michael can direct us on that--but again, I am happy to have a vigorous debate at that time, and to discover what you consider examples of the boys writing about being bullied, and seeing how those fit into the wider context of what they wrote.

The best time to address bullying would be next week as this this is first covered in the chapter 'Media Crime', which is in the next section.

[Dave Cullen]

If you read Eric's and Dylan's journal entries posted online, as well as statements by other students, you will see that they were indeed bullied. They in turn bullied others.

CBY, you mention a couple times of source writing in the journals that suggest a conclusion other than those that Dave makes in the books.  The journals are indeed online, in fact they are also on Dave's website.

http://www.davecullen.com/columbine/columbine-guide/journals-eric-harris-dylan-klebold.htm

Can you clarify with sections of the journals to which you refer?  I freely admit, I have not read them in their entirety -- the handwriting is frequently difficult to decipher so I haven't taken that effort.

I would greatly appreciate that as well, though again, when we get to that section of the book. (Luckily, that's just a few days away. But please let's all respect the people who are still reading that section.)

And Monica, I hear you on the handwriting. God, they drove me crazy, just trying to read what they said. After while, I got pretty fluent in Dylanscript and Ericscript, but it came slowly.

[Dave Cullen]

This is probably a good time to direct any interested readers to much of the source material. I tried to gather a great deal of it here, with the help of some wonderful volunteers around here. It's not complete by any means, but there's a great deal there:

http://davecullen.com/columbine/columbine-guide.htm

I tried to break it into logical sections, since there is so much. You can read Eric and Dylan's journals in their entirely here (the two are at the top of the page):
 
http://davecullen.com/columbine/columbine-guide/journals-eric-harris-dylan-klebold.htm

I encourage everyone to do read for yourself if you find yourself conflicted about who/what to believe.

And please keep one major caution in mind when you do, which I hopefully make clear in the book: These are teen age boys, and sometimes they feel angry on a Monday, happy on a Tuesday, and lethargic on a Wednesday. Dylan can shift moods 180 degrees in a paragraph. And you will find Eric insult/attack just about anyone you can imagine.

So be careful not to put undue weight on any one sentence or passage. Look for patterns and recurring themes.

[dejavu]

5.)  We begin the book in the assembly on the weekend before the attack.  What strikes you about Frank DeAngelis' (Mr. D) relationship with the kids at Columbine?  Do you believe that there would have been a different outcome if he hadn't been principal?

I am not sure about the second point in this question. If the question is would Eric and Dylan still have done what they did, if Mr. D had not been principal, then I think the answer is yes. It would not have mattered who was principal, they would have done the same thing.

The fact that Mr. D was around was a positive factor for all the students. Plus, Mr. D was the one behind putting the video cameras in the cafeteria, so that allowed many questions to be answered by them being there.

Linda, I didn't address the second part of this question, either, in my previous answer.  Partly, I wasn't sure exactly sure what the question meant, and then I overlooked it.  But I agree with you that Eric and Dylan would have done the same thing even if Mr. D hadn't been principal.  If anyone could have been the "loving principal" who would have gotten enough respect from them to cause them not to take this action, it would have been Mr. D -- but they didn't care what he thought.  There have been suggestions elsewhere that perhaps he was too trusting of his students and ignored warning signs (this may tie in with the bullying theory), but I find it hard to see how he could have prevented what happened.

I do agree that Mr. D's presence was comforting for the surviving students afterwards.  And what you say about the video cameras is very interesting.  He put those in because he was worried about people leaving trash in the cafeteria.  That sounds so innocent, he must have been truly shocked to find out what sort of video those cameras would eventually capture -- something he would never have predicted.  But, just by coincidence or fluke, those cameras did capture some helpful information about the crime.

[dejavu]

I really like the short chapters and the short, pointed, direct sentences/statements when describing the ambush. That style really worked - very powerful for this reader.

Yes, I really liked the writing style, too, Dawn.  Especially the short chapters.  That was probably one of the reasons I didn't put the book down, except when it was time to eat or sleep or some other distraction in my personal life.  I could always make it to the end of the present chapter.

[dejavu]

One thing that kept coming to my mind while reading though, was how much "bigger" Columbine was than Dunblane (three years earlier) - it's the name everybody associates with a school shooting (although I know it wasn't intended to be a school shooting).     When I went to look for pictures of the school and the people in the book, there were lots of websites, including personal ones for the victims.      I didn't come across anything near that for Dunblane, on a quick search.   And yet there more children killed at Dunblane than Columbine.

Columbine maybe just captured the public imagination in a way that Dunblane didn't, and I'm not sure why.   Was it because the shooters were pupils themselves?   Because the pupils were teenagers rather than little children?  Because it was in the US?   Was it just because Columbine came right at the start of internet age, when internet access was becoming commonplace, whereas Dunblane was a couple of years earlier?

Hi, Desecra.  Dunblane is one I'm not familiar with.  I would be interested if you could tell us a few more details about it, including your impressions.

[dejavu]

Dylan could have been identified and treated, because there are many effective treatments for depression, but Eric?
There is no treatment for Psycopathy.
People like him could be anywhere. Smiling, pleasant, normal seeming, and yet ready to commit murder at a moments notice. It is vey chilling.

Jess, you just reminded me of a place where I did have to put the book down.  It's not in this section so I won't go there, but it had to do with the notion of Eric being a psycopath.  "Smiling, pleasant, normal seeming, and yet ready to commit murder at a moment's notice," as you say.  That is indeed chilling.

Those characteristics reminded me of someone I knew many years ago (an adult) and I don't know whether he ever could have or would have or did commit a murder, but he could be so smiling on the one hand and then enjoy making threats on the other hand.  A cruel teaser and a manipulator.  Reading certain passages about Eric's personality brought up a lot of memories I'd "forgotten," and I had to put the book down then.

[michaelflanagansf]

I just came across this readers' review on www.goodreads.com.

A note about reviews - they tend to summarize the book and deal with it as a whole by their nature.  As such I ask that everyone wait until the last week of the discussion when we are summing up to post them so that we can stay on schedule with the book.  We can deal with all of the reviews available at that time.  Thanks!

[dejavu]

It did make me think of how much privacy "children" should be allowed.   If his parents had known more, maybe they could have done something.   But Dylan was an adult, with a job and a car, and at that age you wouldn't expect the parents to know too much about what's going on.

Regarding the Klebolds' reaction, they may have been clued in to a potential problem by some of Dylan's previous behavior.  Just wanted to say now that as for privacy, I think it varies from home to home.  Dylan was 18 and technically an "adult" (although in some ways, with drinking hard liquor for example, adult status comes at age 21).  But he was still in high school and living at home.  I can think of examples of parents saying, "As long as you're living in my house, I want to know where you're going and who you're going with."   

[michaelflanagansf]

Regarding the Klebolds' reaction, they may have been clued in to a potential problem by some of Dylan's previous behavior.  Just wanted to say now that as for privacy, I think it varies from home to home.  Dylan was 18 and technically an "adult" (although in some ways, with drinking hard liquor for example, adult status comes at age 21).  But he was still in high school and living at home.  I can think of examples of parents saying, "As long as you're living in my house, I want to know where you're going and who you're going with."   

Yes Debbie, and their reaction is particularly strange considering that Dylan had a sibling whom they had already laid down the law on (Dylan's brother, who was kicked out of the house for using drugs).

I have to wonder that they may have felt Dylan was a special or more fragile case since he had been in 'special' classes for the gifted when he was growing up.

[michaelflanagansf]

Columbine maybe just captured the public imagination in a way that Dunblane didn't, and I'm not sure why.   Was it because the shooters were pupils themselves?   Because the pupils were teenagers rather than little children?  Because it was in the US?   Was it just because Columbine came right at the start of internet age, when internet access was becoming commonplace, whereas Dunblane was a couple of years earlier?

Hi, Desecra.  Dunblane is one I'm not familiar with.  I would be interested if you could tell us a few more details about it, including your impressions.

Debbie - here is the wiki on Dunblane:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunblane_massacre

Des, I was actually aware of Dunblane as well - but I tend not to think of it in the same light as Columbine for the same reason I don't think of the shooting of the Amish children in Nickle Mines in the same category - it was an adult shooter from outside of the school who comes into the school.  In that way it reminded me more of cases like the shooting in the Capitol in 1998 when Russell Watson entered the building and shot and killed two officers.

I tend to think that three things separate Columbine from these other shootings - students were killing students, there were two shooters and the shooters were right on the cusp of becoming adults legally.

Certainly Dunblane was horrifying - in much the same way that the Amish shooting was - and it certainly caused a huge outpouring of grief at the time of the event.  I remember it well.  But you may, unfortunately, be right about it not capturing the imagination of the public in the way that Columbine did because it was in Scotland (and in a small village too - not near a large city like Columbine).

There may also be a mediating influence of history too - Dunblane had existed as a town since around the 11th century.  It has a much longer history to draw on and so the actions of a lone gunman could appear to be the actions of a lone crazy person when compared with all of the history there.

[michaelflanagansf]

5.)  We begin the book in the assembly on the weekend before the attack.  What strikes you about Frank DeAngelis' (Mr. D) relationship with the kids at Columbine?  Do you believe that there would have been a different outcome if he hadn't been principal?

I am not sure about the second point in this question. If the question is would Eric and Dylan still have done what they did, if Mr. D had not been principal, then I think the answer is yes. It would not have mattered who was principal, they would have done the same thing.

The fact that Mr. D was around was a positive factor for all the students. Plus, Mr. D was the one behind putting the video cameras in the cafeteria, so that allowed many questions to be answered by them being there.

Linda, I didn't address the second part of this question, either, in my previous answer.  Partly, I wasn't sure exactly sure what the question meant, and then I overlooked it.  But I agree with you that Eric and Dylan would done the same thing even if Mr. D hadn't been principal.  If anyone could have been the "loving principal" who would have gotten enough respect from them to cause them not to take this action, it would have been Mr. D -- but they didn't care what he thought.  There have been suggestions elsewhere that perhaps he was too trusting of his students and ignored warning signs (this may tie in with the bullying theory), but I find it hard to see how he could have prevented what happened.

I do agree that Mr. D's presence was comforting for the surviving students afterwards.  And what you say about the video cameras is very interesting.  He put those in because he was worried about people leaving trash in the cafeteria.  That sounds so innocent, he must have been truly shocked to find out what sort of video those cameras would eventually capture -- something he would never have predicted.  But, just by coincidence or fluke, those cameras did capture some helpful information about the crime.

Sorry about the confusion on the question Linda and Debbie, but you're exactly spot on regarding what I was asking about.  I was wondering if you believed that any sort of administrator could have made any difference in preventing the shooting (and, for the record, I don't think so) and I was also wondering if you believed Mr. D was the type of man who facilitated healing after the attack.