Cullen's lies of omission

What are the most important things that Cullen *omits* from his narrative?

In another thread, I've just identified two - Dylan Klebold's sparing of John Savage's life; and Dylan Klebold's encounter with Lance Kirklin.

John Savage asked Dylan what he was doing. Dylan shrugged his shoulders and said, "Oh, just killing people."

That's a great little scene - it illustrates the depraved banality of evil. But Cullen omits it from his book. Why?

Because it undermines his characterization of Dylan as a cowering little emo pussy who was an extremely reluctant follower of Eric Harris. Cullen wants us to believe that Dylan really didn't want to be there, that he was intimidated by Eric into taking part.

If you were intimidated by someone into taking part in a massacre, would you react casually if someone asked what you were doing?

I suppose you could argue that Dylan coped with his fear by disassociating himself from his actions. But consider this:

Lance Kirklin had already been shot in the leg and chest when he saw Dylan standing over him.

"Help me," Lance said.

"Sure, I'll help you," Dylan said - and shot him in the face.

That's another really juicy anecdote, the kind that a tabloid journalist might splash on the front page. It makes great copy.

So why does Cullen neglect to mention it?

Because it makes Dylan look like (dare I say it?) a conscience-less psychopath.

Because he has a big hard on for Dylan.   

Bump.

lol wrote:

Bump.

And grind.

Cullen takes little bits of truth, mixes in copious amounts of bullshit, and grinds the whole unholy mix into the big, fat wiener of a "non-fiction" book called Cullenbine.

LPorter101 wrote:

lol wrote:

Bump.

And grind.

Cullen takes little bits of truth, mixes in copious amounts of bullshit, and grinds the whole unholy mix into the big, fat wiener of a "non-fiction" book called Cullenbine.

jesus christ you are killing me

I agree with the "basic findings" of Cullen - Dylan being depressed, Eric having psychopathic traits. That's true and substantiated - I imagine Cullen got this off some psychologist workign the case.

I strongly disagree with many of Cullen's specifics - Dylan being a follower, Eric being more popular than Dylan etc.

Sabratha wrote:

I agree with the "basic findings" of Cullen - Dylan being depressed, Eric having psychopathic traits. That's true and substantiated - I imagine Cullen got this off some psychologist workign the case.

I strongly disagree with many of Cullen's specifics - Dylan being a follower, Eric being more popular than Dylan etc.

It is way more than Dylan just being depressed.

I agree with LPorter said. His writings are very bizarre, and can be plain creepy at times. He was as mentally ill as Eric was, and was just as good as a manipulator than Eric.

lol wrote:

Sabratha wrote:

I agree with the "basic findings" of Cullen - Dylan being depressed, Eric having psychopathic traits. That's true and substantiated - I imagine Cullen got this off some psychologist workign the case.

I strongly disagree with many of Cullen's specifics - Dylan being a follower, Eric being more popular than Dylan etc.

It is way more than Dylan just being depressed.

I agree with LPorter said. His writings are very bizarre, and can be plain creepy at times. He was as mentally ill as Eric was, and was just as good as a manipulator than Eric.

I think Dylan might have had schizotypal personality disorder to boot, but its not in any way certain. He migth have written his witings under the effects of alcochol, ganja or other stuff.

However, Langman agrees with me on the schizotypal personality disorder hypothesis, so it seems I'm not just talking out of my ass. Perhaps great minds think aline? Or are just wrng the same way?

I'm not 100% certain Dylan had schizotypal PD, although it certianly looks that way. I am 100% certian he was depressed though. comorbidity is always possible in this case.

This is the truth about Dave Cullen!

I don't agree with Cullen. But I don't really know why he gets as much hate as he does.

Larkin and Brooks (despite some usefull information the do give in their books) are both obviously wrong or superficial in their analysis of the killers, but neither gets even 5% of the negative attention Cullen does.

Sabratha wrote:

I don't agree with Cullen. But I don't really know why he gets as much hate as he does.

Larkin and Brooks (despite some usefull information the do give in their books) are both obviously wrong or superficial in their analysis of the killers, but neither gets even 5% of the negative attention Cullen does.

Neither spends even five percent of the time that Cullen does on promoting himself and his book as The Only Columbine Book Worth Reading(TM).

Because Eric Harris was a pussy pounding ladies man. Dylan was obviously just the sidekick, and had no idea what was going on!

What a complete idiot.

LPorter101 wrote:

Sabratha wrote:

I don't agree with Cullen. But I don't really know why he gets as much hate as he does.

Larkin and Brooks (despite some usefull information the do give in their books) are both obviously wrong or superficial in their analysis of the killers, but neither gets even 5% of the negative attention Cullen does.

Neither spends even five percent of the time that Cullen does on promoting himself and his book as The Only Columbine Book Worth Reading(TM).

I dunno, I was always suspicious of Brown in this regard. Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to me like is is trying to overplay his links to E&D and overlal make a name for himself standing on the tombstones of the victims so to speak.

Quote :

Because Eric Harris was a pussy pounding ladies man. Dylan was obviously just the sidekick, and had no idea what was going on!

Well Larkin, despite all the usefull datat (interviews with CHS students) he has in his book, also makes some absurd statements like "and the psychopathology of the shooters had obviously nothing to do with the shooting and can't explain anything". That's frankly one of the dumbest statements about the shooting, I was really surprised seeing it come from someone who made what seems to have been usefull research.

As what LP said the difference is Larkin and Brooks aren't cocky pricks like Cullen. It is one thing to be wrong about a few things, but it is another to be completely wrong and act as his "10 years of research" were suppose to wow us when it wasn't worth a damn...

Brenda Parker? I was stunned he used Brenda Parker's story as truth. The guy is a complete hack. IMO Jeff Kass book is the bestbook of Columbine, but thats debatable. Cullen is one of the worst.

Sabratha wrote:

I dunno, I was always suspicious of Brown in this regard. Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to me like is is trying to overplay his links to E&D and overlal make a name for himself standing on the tombstones of the victims so to speak.

Brooks is a pretty shameless self-promoter, 'tis true. But he's never claimed that his work was the be-all and end-all of Columbine. Even the title of his book is No Easy Answers.

And he knew Eric and Dylan personally. He's not an objective source, but he doesn't pretend to be, and he doesn't really need to be - he's telling his own story.

Quote :

Well Larkin, despite all the usefull datat (interviews with CHS students) he has in his book, also makes some absurd statements like "and the psychopathology of the shooters had obviously nothing to do with the shooting and can't explain anything". That's frankly one of the dumbest statements about the shooting, I was really surprised seeing it come from someone who made what seems to have been usefull research.

Larkin is a sociologist, not a psychologist. But his sociological stuff is very interesting.

I need to look into Kass.

I liked Larkin's book as long as he was writing about Littleton, or CHS as a chool, or the sociology of the whole place. I think he got that right.

One he started writing specificlaly about the shooters, I decided that the guy doesn't have the first idea what he is writing about, or taht he has some agenda in trying to portray them as "perfectly normal nice kids gone wrong through bad environment alone". I'll actually take Cullen's "depressive&psychopath" over Larkin's "its all nurture!" nonsense.

Brooks wise, simialr story - I like his chapert abotu how CHS was as a school. Everything else he wrote is really marginal as far as the shooring and the reasons for it goes, but he's trying hard to ake it seem like its relevant and taht he has insider info.

Brooks is also biased, himself being a well nown chistian-hater and religion bashing nut even before the shooting.

LPorter101 wrote:

Larkin is a sociologist, not a psychologist. But his sociological stuff is very interesting.

True, still to use a metaphore: but if you are a veterinartian and want to write about the influenza pandemic, then you'd better have a doctor specializing in human infectious diseases to help you write it.

If you want to write about columbine, you need to look at the psychology of the shooters, as in the end it was their actions as individuals (and let me stress: very rare sort of actions of two quite unique individuals) that led to the killings.

Sociology is all about large grups of normal people. E&D were neither normal, nor will spree killers ever be a large group. So trying to examine columbine through sociology only is a dead end. You need to make psychology yopur main science researchign columbine, otheriwise you'll get nowhere fast.

I agree with Cullen's conclusions and I recommend his book to people who ask.

These are not lies of omission--Cullen is under no responsibility to include something just because it's "juicy."

However, I actually agree with the original post that Cullen leaves these out because they would complicate his theory. I don't think these anecdotes disprove his theory--these are just two moments. that deviate from the larger pattern. But one flaw of Cullen's book is that he doesn't mention contradictory evidence.

You have to keep in mind that he is writing for people who want to read an account, not people who want to know every detail of what happened to every kid.

lasttrain wrote:

I agree with Cullen's conclusions and I recommend his book to people who ask.

These are not lies of omission--Cullen is under no responsibility to include something just because it's "juicy."

However, I actually agree with the original post that Cullen leaves these out because they would complicate his theory.  I don't think these anecdotes disprove his theory--these are just two moments. that deviate from the larger pattern.  But one flaw of Cullen's book is that he doesn't mention contradictory evidence.    

You have to keep in mind that he is writing for people who want to read an account, not people who want to know every detail of what happened to every kid.  

I never said that these anecdotes disprove his theory. But, like you admitted, Cullen has a habit of neglecting to mention contradictory evidence.

lasttrain wrote:

I agree with Cullen's conclusions and I recommend his book to people who ask.

These are not lies of omission--Cullen is under no responsibility to include something just because it's "juicy."

However, I actually agree with the original post that Cullen leaves these out because they would complicate his theory.  I don't think these anecdotes disprove his theory--these are just two moments. that deviate from the larger pattern.  But one flaw of Cullen's book is that he doesn't mention contradictory evidence.    

You have to keep in mind that he is writing for people who want to read an account, not people who want to know every detail of what happened to every kid.  

How much does Cullen pay you?