Title and Release Date of Susan Klebold's Book Announced Today

It will be very interesting to see her interview with Diane Sawyer as well.

I'm very interested in it, not to just gain new insights into Dylan, I don't expect she has much to offer apart from seemingly normal childhood experiences. But just to read her thoughts about it as someone who was so close to him and has tried so hard to understand him.

The picture of Sue on the book jacket

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

This could either be an enormous insight into the life of Dylan (and Eric), or it could be a whole lot of bias, opinions, and maybe even lies to (not disrespect to the woman but you gotta consider) protect Susan/put her in a better light. Either way it will be very interesting I'm sure.

eli27 wrote:

This could either be an enormous insight into the life of Dylan (and Eric), or it could be a whole lot of bias, opinions, and maybe even lies to (not disrespect to the woman but you gotta consider) protect Susan/put her in a better light. Either way it will be very interesting I'm sure.

1/3 about Dylan and 2/3 about life after the shooting imo.

Wow, can't believe how fast time flies. Only 37 days left now until release.

I haven't ordered it yet though. I think I might buy it as an E-book or wait for a few people to read it first so I know if it is just bullshit or if it actually is informative.

If you look at the Amazon listing of the book, Susan Klebold is listed as the reader on the audiobook version too. That must have taken a lot of emotional strength not to just break down constantly and even be able to get through it. My goodness.

Is the TV interview scheduled yet?

1891 wrote:

Is the TV interview scheduled yet?

Here is an article about that. It says that the interview with Diane Sawyer will coincide with the release of the book which is February 16th. I'm not sure if the interview is on the same day or within a few days following the book release, but this article implies that it will definitely be around the same time. Once there is a definite date and time, I'll post it in the thread or if anyone else has that information, please let us know.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Cool. Thanks

I preordered this last July. I'll let you guys know how it is. I'm sure I'll read it in nearly one seating

The new cover looks a lot better than the old one.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Her interview is going to be shown on 20/20 next Friday, February 12!

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Juicy Jazzy wrote:

The new cover looks a lot better than the old one.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

still awful tho lol

I actually liked the first one! This one seems too generic and evokes a young-adult novel feel or something. Even though it's an original picture I feel like I've seen the cover before. I thought the old one was a good juxtaposition with the dark background and kind of bleak font behind the framed photo like you'd see in someone's living room. It seemed to give a glimpse at what the novel would delve into, which I assume will be the struggle of knowing your son's awful crime while grieving as any mother would for her son.

Mean:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

PaintItBlack wrote:

Mean:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

that's horrible journalism.

Clearly the author of this article has never had or has even BEEN a teeneager. All teenagers hide things from their parents. I don't believe E&D's parents were to blame. Those boys fooled the hell out of them - Eric with his responsible, reliable nature, and Dylan with his gentle, laid back nature. Occasionally they got into mischief, but very few teenagers don't, and none of their actions would have tipped their parents off to something as extreme as a school shooting. Sounds like the author forgot that mass shootings weren't common in 1999.

I read it. Did not like what I read. All the mistaken informations and blaming. Again.

I wonder what the author wanted to communicate by this article? Something like this:
"Dear kids, do not wear dark trench coats. Do not get involved into any suspicious subcultures, dear kids, otherwise you will become school shooters.
Dear parents, do not allow your kids play death video games (oh my, what a great expression!). Dear parents, do control everything your teenage kids do. Dear parents, do read your kids' journals. Dear parents, decide whom your kids should be friends with. Do have hard, cold conversations if your kids commit something bad. Hard, cold conversations do solve the problem.
Dear parents, do not let your kids earn their own money (this journalist seems to not know that the boys had part-time jobs) and do not let them drive their own cars, not even if you can afford it. Otherwise you'll be guilty at raising school shooters."

I really disliked the sarcastic and ignorant judging in this article. And why would this person want Mrs.Harris be there on the book signing? One scapegoat is not enough for them, probably.

Agreed. The article made me a little angry and was full of inaccuracies and is obvious the author didn't really do their research.

Since they're so keen on blaming the parents, then while they're at it they might as well blame E&D's siblings, friends, acquaintances, teachers, and anyone who was ever in contact with those boys, had been in their houses, or overheard/been involved in any suspicious conversations with them. And go ahead and include anyone who ever got a weird vibe from them too. No one saw the massacre coming. And those who did hear suspicious conversations didn't take them seriously, and why would they? It was a different time. Mental health wasn't as relevant as it is now, and people weren't on their toes looking for signs of a potential walking timebomb or wondering when/where the next terrorist attack or mass shooting was going to take place.

The person that wrote that has obviously never raised a child let alone a teenager. I would even like to think that they never were a teen themselves lol jk

There are tons of teens that spend time in their rooms, watching violent movies, playing violent games and listening to dark music that do absolutely nothing. All of these "signs" mentioned are pathetic. It didn't mean anything.

PaintItBlack wrote:

Mean:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

That article is complete garbage.  And the author sounds like someone who knows absolutely nothing about raising a child, let alone a teenager.

[quote="LPorter101"]

lol wrote:

Both Wayne and Kathy Harris have pretty much written Eric off as a psychopath - they seem to feel that they tried their best, but the kid was mentally broken and hid his true nature from them.

Why do you think that that is writing off Eric? It is very, very difficult to acknowledge mental illness in the family because of the stigma associated with the disease. And why don't you think the Harrises really believed it? I read Cullen's article about the Harris/Mauser meeting and came to the conclusion that these parents loved Eric and felt betrayed by his lazy paychologist, who asdumed that Eric was normal and the parents had nothing to worry about. They knew Eric had mental issues. And we know this beause Eric told Angel at Blackjack that his father assumed he was doing LSD because of his erratic, provocative behavior. . .

Also Eric's parents searched his room and discovered all the weaponry he was collecting over the years.  He wrote about this incident in an essay about his arrest. I will never understand why his parents still feel the need to lie for their son.  They knew much, much more about Eric than they will ever admit

That might be the reason why they have not come forward. They have way more to hide because they have every reason to feel the most guilt.

aubre wrote:

Not Brooks of course, but he annoys me in his own way

Holy crap, I thought I was the only one not on the Brooks train

jada887 wrote:

LPorter101 wrote:

lol wrote:

Both Wayne and Kathy Harris have pretty much written Eric off as a psychopath - they seem to feel that they tried their best, but the kid was mentally broken and hid his true nature from them.

Why do you think that that is writing off Eric? It is very, very difficult to acknowledge mental illness in the family because of the stigma associated with the disease. And why don't you think the Harrises really believed it? I read Cullen's article about the Harris/Mauser meeting and came to the conclusion that these parents loved Eric and felt betrayed by his lazy paychologist, who asdumed that Eric was normal and the parents had nothing to worry about. They knew Eric had mental issues. And we know this beause Eric told Angel at Blackjack that his father assumed he was doing LSD because of his erratic, provocative behavior. . .

Also Eric's parents searched his room and discovered all the weaponry he was collecting over the years.  He wrote about this incident in an essay about his arrest. I will never understand why his parents still feel the need to lie for their son.  They knew much, much more about Eric than they will ever admit

That might be the reason why they have not come forward. They have way more to hide because they have every reason to feel the most guilt.

very good post. Regardless of what they did or didn't know and regardless of what they wanted to share the atty's obviously shut them down as they should... but there is evidence the Harris' had plenty of reasons to "hide".

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.],
It's a big leap from having a teenage son who has had some trouble in school,who has had one major run in with the law with a best friend of his, who you know is depressed and has anger issues, to believing he will kill his classmates and himself.I don't see why his parents would have made that leap.
They lost their child too.If they had any inkling of what was to come why wouldn't they have tried to stop it to save their son if nobody else?