Brooks’s Comment

I’m not sure if anyone ever read one of his AMA’s or if it was in an interview but I think he was mainly talking about the really young girls that were interested in Eric and Dylan but he said you’re not getting into their heads they’re getting into yours.

As researchers do you buy into that? I do sometimes think about it and I think when I was younger they definitely got into my head but now that I’m older and had took a long time off from researching I don’t think that happens anymore.

I do buy it in reference to the younger girls or boys who start learning about Columbine.
I think part of the reason kids who weren't even born when it happened get attracted to Columbine now are because of the feeling that Eric and Dylan were outcasts. A lot of these kids are feeling the same way and maybe looking for a connection of some sort (not that they're all looking to shoot up their schools). But I think anyone researching the case is probably susceptible to this to some extent.

I tend to think that most people, especially most younger people (god, I sound old!) are more inclined to look for what is good or redeeming about someone. They see all of the stuff with E & D and the bullying they experienced and if a kid has has had similar experiences themselves they can instantly identify with how E & D felt. When you can recognize how someone else felt and how those feelings are similar to your own, you either have to say to yourself, "well, then I must be capable of NBK, too because I'm like them" or you look for the humanity in those people (E & D) that you know you have in yourself.

When that kind of connection is then made and the kid reads more of Eric's rants or Dylan's melancholy, maybe that kid starts to feel like the world was being unfair to "their friends". That's when the justifications for things E & D did would start. At the beginning, the kid would have probably been thinking how awful Columbine was and how terrible E & D were, but the more they identify with E & D the more they move towards, "what they did was terrible, BUT" where the BUT then seems to try to lessen the carnage E & D caused. It's this rationalization that, to me, represents how E & D can get into people's heads.
I think when people reach a certain level of maturity they are more able to humanize Eric and Dylan, and even empathize with some of their experiences, but are still able to recognize just how horrible and unjustified their actions were.

Having just re-read this I have no idea if I've actually managed to get my point across

thelmar wrote:

I do buy it in reference to the younger girls or boys who start learning about Columbine.
I think part of the reason kids who weren't even born when it happened get attracted to Columbine now are because of the feeling that Eric and Dylan were outcasts. A lot of these kids are feeling the same way and maybe looking for a connection of some sort (not that they're all looking to shoot up their schools). But I think anyone researching the case is probably susceptible to this to some extent.

I tend to think that most people, especially most younger people (god, I sound old!) are more inclined to look for what is good or redeeming about someone. They see all of the stuff with E & D and the bullying they experienced and if a kid has has had similar experiences themselves they can instantly identify with how E & D felt. When you can recognize how someone else felt and how those feelings are similar to your own, you either have to say to yourself, "well, then I must be capable of NBK, too because I'm like them" or you look for the humanity in those people (E & D) that you know you have in yourself.

When that kind of connection is then made and the kid reads more of Eric's rants or Dylan's melancholy, maybe that kid starts to feel like the world was being unfair to "their friends". That's when the justifications for things E & D did would start. At the beginning, the kid would have probably been thinking how awful Columbine was and how terrible E & D were, but the more they identify with E & D the more they move towards, "what they did was terrible, BUT" where the BUT then seems to try to lessen the carnage E & D caused. It's this rationalization that, to me, represents how E & D can get into people's heads.
I think when people reach a certain level of maturity they are more able to humanize Eric and Dylan, and even empathize with some of their experiences, but are still able to recognize just how horrible and unjustified their actions were.

Having just re-read this I have no idea if I've actually managed to get my point across

I think you did.

I was 17 when it happened and empathized with them almost immediately. I thought Eric was hot and I was just all about “oh my god they bullied these kids so badly they shot up their school!!!”

I’ve been on a long journey and now it’s far more nuanced.

I am one of the people who have empathy for them up until about 11:18 when the bombs didn’t go off and they still decided to kill and torment.

Hes basically saying that they get the whole idea of Dylan wrong. From what Ive read, Dylan was extremely introverted.

Screamingophelia wrote:

thelmar wrote:

I do buy it in reference to the younger girls or boys who start learning about Columbine.
I think part of the reason kids who weren't even born when it happened get attracted to Columbine now are because of the feeling that Eric and Dylan were outcasts. A lot of these kids are feeling the same way and maybe looking for a connection of some sort (not that they're all looking to shoot up their schools). But I think anyone researching the case is probably susceptible to this to some extent.

I tend to think that most people, especially most younger people (god, I sound old!) are more inclined to look for what is good or redeeming about someone. They see all of the stuff with E & D and the bullying they experienced and if a kid has has had similar experiences themselves they can instantly identify with how E & D felt. When you can recognize how someone else felt and how those feelings are similar to your own, you either have to say to yourself, "well, then I must be capable of NBK, too because I'm like them" or you look for the humanity in those people (E & D) that you know you have in yourself.

When that kind of connection is then made and the kid reads more of Eric's rants or Dylan's melancholy, maybe that kid starts to feel like the world was being unfair to "their friends". That's when the justifications for things E & D did would start. At the beginning, the kid would have probably been thinking how awful Columbine was and how terrible E & D were, but the more they identify with E & D the more they move towards, "what they did was terrible, BUT" where the BUT then seems to try to lessen the carnage E & D caused. It's this rationalization that, to me, represents how E & D can get into people's heads.
I think when people reach a certain level of maturity they are more able to humanize Eric and Dylan, and even empathize with some of their experiences, but are still able to recognize just how horrible and unjustified their actions were.

Having just re-read this I have no idea if I've actually managed to get my point across

I think you did.

I was 17 when it happened and empathized with them almost immediately. I thought Eric was hot and I was just all about “oh my god they bullied these kids so badly they shot up their  school!!!”

I’ve been on a long journey and now it’s far more nuanced.

I am one of the people who have empathy for them up until about 11:18 when the bombs didn’t go off and they still decided to kill and torment.

Most of the students probably did not know them. I think that one of the myths that sort of slipped through, was they targeted specific groups. Even to this day people believe that they targeted the jocks or were part of the TCM.

On top of that I think some people desperately want to believe myths about school shootings and that popular culture isnt exactly doing much help, because they popularize our perspective. 'The outcasts striking back' is tempting, but its far too simplistic. Anyone, myself included, that was bullied way back Could probably identify with this image...

Its way more complicated. For example, how do we know that conflicts with teachers and admin doesnt play a role? How do we know that the perpetrators doesnt blame the whole faculty for their own setbacks? How many of them have severe problems with empathy? Why are men more likely to go on a mass shooting instead of women? How many of them are adolescent?

How much is environmental, how much is neurological, etc. I think that once we aknowledge this and look past the stereotype, we can aknowledge that theres no simple answer to this question.