Larkinbine

Ok, decided to make a followup to the "cullenbine" threads. I'll be posting quotes from Larkin where he states all sorts of crazy nonsense about CHS and the shooting:

Lartkin wrote:

Clearly, Eric
Harris adulated Adolf Hitler, a person who ranks high in the American pantheon of
evildoers. His racism extends beyond mere denigration of blacks to Asians, Hispanics,
and southern Italians. He is virulently anti-Semitic, adhering to the counterfactual
claim that the Holocaust never occurred. (page 183)

Eric never stated the holocaust was not real. He even went to some lenghts to write aschool paper where he explicitly stated and described how the holocaust was real. If Eric was a holocaust denier, he could have written that in the paper, or pick a different topic to write about for shcool if he wanted to avoid controversy.

He also mentions the "final solution" in his journal and doesn't make it seem like he denies it being real at all.

There are some groaners in Larkin's book, but he did go to great lengths to document the bullying and the repressive social atmosphere at the school. He interviewed a lot of students.

So, yeah, a lot of what he says doesn't wash, but his book is still worth a read.

Larkin also notoriously refers to the hoax TCM website in his book many times.

More Larkinbine:

Larkin wrote:

They did not hate adults, but they
hated their peers for the humiliations they heaped upon them. They hated minorities;
however, they were not overtly sexist.

Eric not being sexist? That's a new one for me. Let me quote his journal:

"Women you will always be under men. its been seen throughout nature, males are almost always doing the dangerous shit while the women stay back. its your animal instincts, deal with it or commit suicide, just do it quick."

Also they did not hate adults? Really? Dylan rants about his relatives. They both rant about Walsh. Eric rants about lots of other people. True, most are about his peers but that's numbers for you - you have far less adults in CHS than kids.

Sabratha wrote:

Larkin also notoriously refers to the hoax TCM website in his book many times.

Yes, he got a lot wrong.

But, as I said, he interviewed many kids who went to the school. So the parts of the book where he talks about what things were like at the school are solid.

I say: read the interviews, throw the rest into the rubbish bin where it belongs. And interpret the interviews yourself.

With the interviews it needs to be notied that while these qare views by rela CHS students, the kids don't agree with one another on many issues and its not certian if Eric or Dylan would agree with them on any given issue.

Bottom line: Youse your own brain, don't let Larkin think for you. Don't buy the nonsense he's attempting to feed you.

Sabratha wrote:

I say: read the interviews, throw the rest into the rubbish bin where it belongs. And interpret the interviews yourself.

With the interviews it needs to be notied that while these qare views by rela CHS students, the kids don't agree with one another on many issues and its not certian if Eric or Dylan would agree with them on any given issue.

Bottom line: Youse your own brain, don't let Larkin think for you. Don't buy the nonsense he's attempting to feed you.

That's sound advice at any time.

I've always said that you should read everybody. Read Cullen, read Larkin, read Kass, read Brown. Read the 11k. Read everything you can. Make up your own mind.

LPorter101 wrote:

Sabratha wrote:

I say: read the interviews, throw the rest into the rubbish bin where it belongs. And interpret the interviews yourself.

With the interviews it needs to be notied that while these qare views by rela CHS students, the kids don't agree with one another on many issues and its not certian if Eric or Dylan would agree with them on any given issue.

Bottom line: Youse your own brain, don't let Larkin think for you. Don't buy the nonsense he's attempting to feed you.

That's sound advice at any time.

I've always said that you should read everybody. Read Cullen, read Larkin, read Kass, read Brown. Read the 11k. Read everything you can. Make up your own mind.

Good enough. Personally, I'd advise people to read Langman and Krabbe most of all. Kass isn't bad, but he's being inconclusive and too much of his book is about his own actions after columbine.


More Larkinbine:

Larkin wrote:

Eric was apparently a Naziophile and planned the
attack on Columbine to coincide with Hitler’s birthday on April 20 in celebration of
his “ contributions to white culture”

Eric making references to Hitler's contributions to white culture? Not in an of Eric's writings that I've seen, unless you count teh "Kill mankind noone should surviuve" rant. But taht's abotu everyone, not whites.

Eric as "fitting the masculine prototype:

Larkin wrote:

Eric fit the masculine prototype: he was bright, athletic, and gave the appearance of
self-assurance.

Well, he does mention the chest deformity later on I guess, but all the other "Eric the macho man" stuff? Cullen called, he wants his act back ;)

Sabratha, your characterization of Larkin's book is facile. Comprehending Columbine is a scholarly work with scores of references, scientific data, interviews, and statistics. Larkin's reasoning is sound. I disagree with a great many of his conclusions, but I detect nothing wrong with his general method, his data sets, or his application of sociological theories. He, unlike Cullen, provides documentation and peer-reviewed (and pertinent) references for virtually every assertion he makes.

What edition of Larkin's book are you using? I cannot find the Holocaust quote you pulled upstream.

Let's grant that the quote is accurate and not taken out of context; it still doesn't mean anything in regard to the value of Larkin's book as a whole. Anyone can refer to Eric Harris's journal to find evidence of whatever PoV they choose to find. He was a tremendously contradictory personality. Almost borderline -- or at the very least profoundly dissociative -- since we're engaging in armchair psychology.

Eric Harris also said he hated racists, people who smoked, and people who hated America. He was racist, smoked, and hated America.

Gustopoet2 wrote:

Sabratha, your characterization of Larkin's book is facile. Comprehending Columbine is a scholarly work with scores of references, scientific data, interviews, and statistics. Larkin's reasoning is sound.

I respect your opinion, however I certainly do not share it. It needs to be stressed that Larkin is making conclusions based often on misinformation and hearsay. What is worse, his basic reasoning is flawed, his conclusions fail to make sense even in light of the data he is using. He's quick to brush off psychological explanations for the event, as well as luvox influences without giving a good reason for these.

He's just as bad as Cullen is.

Larkin's book is full of stuff like that: "Eric didn't display sexism" and "he fit the masculine prototype".

Gustopoet2 wrote:

What edition of Larkin's book are you using? I cannot find the Holocaust quote you pulled upstream.

2007 Temple University  Press, pdf.


More Larkinbine:

Larkin wrote:

Although Eric and Dylan were decent athletes, they did not have the quality of athletic prowess that would gain them entry into the elite group.

Decent athletes? Dylan? Eric was an average soccer player. Everyone I recall always said Dylan had pooor coordination, was goofy and sucked at sports.

Sabratha wrote:

Gustopoet2 wrote:

Sabratha, your characterization of Larkin's book is facile. Comprehending Columbine is a scholarly work with scores of references, scientific data, interviews, and statistics. Larkin's reasoning is sound.

I respect your opinion, however I certainly do not share it. It needs to be stressed that Larkin is making conclusions based often on misinformation and hearsay. What is worse, his basic reasoning is flawed, his conclusions fail to make sense even in light of the data he is using. He's quick to brush off psychological explanations for the event, as well as luvox influences without giving a good reason for these.

He's just as bad as Cullen is.

Larkin's book is full of stuff like that: "Eric didn't display sexism" and "he fit the masculine prototype".

Gustopoet2 wrote:

What edition of Larkin's book are you using? I cannot find the Holocaust quote you pulled upstream.

2007 Temple University  Press, pdf.


More Larkinbine:

Larkin wrote:

Although Eric and Dylan were decent athletes, they did not have the quality of athletic prowess that would gain them entry into the elite group.

Decent athletes? Dylan? Eric was an average soccer player. Everyone I recall always said Dylan had pooor coordination, was goofy and sucked at sports.

You're nitpicking. If you don't like Larkin that is fine but you are characterizing him in an unfair way. These are not profound "mistakes" they are innocent misconceptions that are present in any scholarly work.

However, since we are now arguing across multiple threads, I think I will bow out of your "Larkinbine" conversation. I hope your mis-characterization of his work doesn't put anyone off of reading him. So far he is the only source on Columbine I've come across who has any kind of cohesive method, argument, or any scholarly chops whatsoever. I would agree that he is stronger on sociology than biography. I disagree wholeheartedly with your insinuation that he is a hack like Cullen or that he, like Cullen, intentionally misrepresents facts.

Cullen is writing fiction; Brooks Brown was well-intended and his book is important but he was just a boy when it was written. Kass i have not finished yet. Krabbe is not yet translated into English.

Larkin is writing fiction if you ask me. He's basing much of his writing on a hoax website and goes to the same level of error as Cullen saying Eric fit "the masculine prototype" and was a "decent athlete".

Larkin can put in as many references as he wants, but these are all useless if he makes assumptions based on false evidence and draws conclusions not grounded in what we know about E&D. That's what he's doing.


I started this thread, because I felt Larkin and Cullen's fallacies need to be compared and that Larkin and his conclusions should be laughed at in much the same way as Cullens, due to the errors he makes.

Also I contest your claim that I'm mis-characterizing Larkin - I've been quoting him directly with some of the more absurd statements he makes. Peopel can read these and judge for themselves.

I'm a fan of Larkin's book because whatever his flaws he is the only one I've seen yet that I feel accurately portrays the environment of the school and the general attitude of most of it's population.

Lots of good information in the book but the thesis is not true.

Jocks bully nerds thing is just like a movie. Simplistic explanation. Hollywood.

Unfortunately the truth is much more horrifying (lunatics killing helpless kids) and has none of the moral certainty of revenge of the nerds.

Didn't Larkin say Dylan was a member of the LGBT+ community or was worried he might be?

WendlaBergman wrote:

Didn't Larkin say Dylan was a member of the LGBT+ community or was worried he might be?

I don't think he went that far. But he did pose questions about Dylan's sexuality.