Jeff Kass' theory

Any thoughts?

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

He's right though. Most people would just pick up Dave Cullen's book because it's more popular and not do anymore research. So much misinformation has been spread or picked up because some people didn't look further than Dave Cullen

Pretty sure it's agreed somewhere on this forum that his book (Jeff Kass) is one of the best that have been released about Columbine

IDK about that. I had to actually read the book itself in order to get a clearer view. I did a lot of reseach before getting into Cullens book.

I for one really liked Kass' book. I found it to be one of the fastest easiest reads of the columbine books. I think he may have used his reporter skills a bit too much but overall a great book and I liked this article too

Not sure anyone can be 100% correct in this case. I think everyone Will portray it together differently, regardless how right or wrong they might be.

I like the fact that Dave Cullen is so blunt, because much of what he says he says regardless of wether people like it or not. On the hand, when I see him talk he does Come off as a bit off simplistic.

There are other books about Columbine. I hate the media fuelled myths and I have very little liking that journalists and researchers etc have perpepuated myths. Such as the whole goth thing or revenge against the jocks. Its complete bollocks, yet somehow Larkin and Katherine Newman perpetuated these myths in their books. There were no targets(Larkin also confirm this, yet, IDK where this 'Eric was a goth' - thing came from. I know that this isnt true, because I participate in, and have friends that are goth). I dont think it makes it right to dismiss Larkins entire book, However.

The bullying stuff, imo, is really hard to know Where to place. On the one hand, we have withness accounts that it did happen to Eric and Dylan.

What irks me a bit about Jeffs version is that he says that they were the lowest of the low. I think he relies too much on Brooks Browns accounts. The book is good, though, for a number of reasons. Because, much like Dave Cullen, he spent years investigating the massacre, and he also offers much of insight information

IMO, Kass's book is far closer to what should be the definitive tome on Columbine than Cullen's. It's not perfect, by any means, but it's far closer to the truth than Cullenbine.
I've never understood why it didn't get the credit it deserves. Was it simply because Cullen's publisher had more money and more influence? Was it because Kass's book was a little more straight forward or clinical and not the touchy feely nonsense that Cullen had throughout his? Was it because Cullen's a media whore?

thelmar wrote:

IMO, Kass's book is far closer to what should be the definitive tome on Columbine than Cullen's. It's not perfect, by any means, but it's far closer to the truth than Cullenbine.
I've never understood why it didn't get the credit it deserves. Was it simply because Cullen's publisher had more money and more influence? Was it because Kass's book was a little more straight forward or clinical and not the touchy feely nonsense that Cullen had throughout his? Was it because Cullen's a media whore?

IDK. But I tend to get the impression theres always underrated or overrated litterature out there. I have good and bad ideas in regards to both of them at this point, but I have Yet to do a book review because a few other e books are on the list.