The one thing I liked about Cullen's book

There were a couple of things, actually.

I thought he did a decent job on his description of the actual shooting itself. He made the sequence of events fairly comprehensible. (Of course, he ruined it by adding bullshit speculation about what Eric and Dylan were thinking, but I'll avoid talking about that while I'm in a rare charitable mood.)

Cullen is not a terrible writer. Parts of his book are so ludicrous that I don't know whether to burst out laughing or throw the thing at the nearest wall in disgust. But it's clear that he has some facility with the English language.

The only part of the book for which I can express unreserved, unqualified admiration is his description of the struggle of Patrick Ireland. Patrick seems like a really cool guy and I'm glad he was able to overcome his trauma. His dream of becoming an architect was almost derailed by Eric and Dylan - architectural students need to work their asses off and he lost so much valuable time recuperating after 4/20. But he rebounded and was able to succeed.

So, after 13 years, I'm finally throwing Dave Cullen a bone.

You didn't fuck up *completely*, Dave. You have *something* to show for the ten years you spent writing your book. So there.

Oh, shit - he didn't become an architect. I misremembered. Jesus Christ, I am getting old.

See, Dave, I liked your book so much that I can't even remember what you wrote.

But, anyway, Patrick Ireland is still a cool guy and Dave Cullen is still semi-cool for writing a nice little summary of his life. So there.

LPorter101 wrote:

You didn't fuck up *completely*, Dave. You have *something* to show for the ten years you spent writing your book. So there.

I think it's funny that as time goes on I garner a more and more negative view of Cullen and his book. Not necessarily because of the numerous factual errors and mischaracterizations - although those are bad enough on their own - but because these are not "errors". They're lies. And these are not just any lies but outright propaganda. This sounds a little loony I'll admit, so I'll go into greater detail.

Eric, who came from a military family and aspired to be a Marine, loved guns and going outdoors, made edgy comments about the Nazis and women, is demonized as an irredeemable psychopath who had a single-minded thirst for blood and led a good boy astray.

Dylan, who came from a family of Jews and strong liberal beliefs (including being anti-gun) and whose journal writings constituted a proto-incel pity party, is portrayed as a hopeless romantic who was, in Cullen's words, "conscripted" into the attack and a seemingly reluctant participant.

There's also the whole "they were never picked on" narrative, which fulfils two purposes: The first being that people who actually care about the case will be too distracted by this claim to focus on the obvious narrative pushing, the second that those NPCs who gobble up all this shit are further accepting the narrative of Eric - and by extension the culture and people who raised him - are the scum of the earth that are always abusers, never victims, never deserving of sympathy or understanding or compromise.

Cullen's book was never about proving anything or setting the record straight. It was always about cooking up another weapon in the never ending culture war.

Interesting analysis. Cullen is a cog in the media machine, no doubt about it.

Cullen did a stint in the Army. Presumably he was in the closet at the time. I don’t know his motivations for joining the service but he certainly doesn’t seem like a traditional pro-military kind of guy. Last time I checked, his Twitter feed was just a compilation of the standard leftist talking points.

Maybe he had a bad experience with a guy like Eric while he was in the military. Or maybe he just had a bad experience in the military overall and he projected his dislike onto Eric.

People have speculated that Cullen has a thing for Dylan. I don’t think so. Based on things he’s written, I’d say he’s more into jock types.

When I contacted him way back when he seemed especially upset that I had insinuated that he was interested in teenage athletes. (I posted a picture of some Columbine football players on the old board and said something like, “Which one is your favorite, Dave? I’ll bet you like the big beefy guy in the middle.”) He didn’t want me to think he was a perv. I wasn’t even trying to suggest that he was into underage boys, per se, but that’s what he seemed to think.

Has anyone ever read his Parkland book? I have absolutely no interest in it.

His newest book is about gay soldiers. It might even be out by now - I haven’t kept up with his latest activities.

Yes his new book is out, I haven’t read it. I have read parkland though. It’s quite hopeful compared to the columbine one, as it mostly focuses on the fight for gun reform post tragedy. You can’t really compare them as they are really different books. It also uses no notoriety so you could read the whole book and have very little idea what actually happened and why, it’s not really touched upon, probably after the criticism of the columbine book.
I too try and take a bit of a balanced view. No columbine isn’t factually accurate in all areas but that doesn’t mean every word is contemptible. Most things aren’t all good or all bad, seeing nuance is important for critical thinking.

LPorter101 wrote:

Cullen did a stint in the Army. Presumably he was in the closet at the time. I don’t know his motivations for joining the service but he certainly doesn’t seem like a traditional pro-military kind of guy.

I would love to know what his MOS was. I would be amazed if he was doing anything combat related.

LPorter101 wrote:

When I contacted him way back when he seemed especially upset that I had insinuated that he was interested in teenage athletes. (I posted a picture of some Columbine football players on the old board and said something like, “Which one is your favorite, Dave? I’ll bet you like the big beefy guy in the middle.”) He didn’t want me to think he was a perv. I wasn’t even trying to suggest that he was into underage boys, per se, but that’s what he seemed to think.

Maybe you were on to something considering how much grooming is exposed nowadays.

LPorter101 wrote:

Has anyone ever read his Parkland book? I have absolutely no interest in it.

I was turned away by the subject matter, though I did read the prologue years ago. Where his book on Columbine is subtle in its messaging, his Parkland book is overt - "guns bad, gen z good, mmm soy tasty". On top of this the book is a regrettable example of No Notoriety in practice, declaring that Cruz was "forgettable" and demanding that we not pay any attention to him and only focus on the messaging of the victims (which again, is just a stale anti-gun effort). I think it's interesting to note that Cruz was a Trump supporter who loved guns and wanted to join the military, so yet again Cullen has a cudgel to beat his messaging into readers' heads. Or maybe it's a personal obsession of his.

Bookish wrote:

Yes his new book is out, I haven’t read it. I have read parkland though. It’s quite hopeful compared to the columbine one, as it mostly focuses on the fight for gun reform post tragedy. You can’t really compare them as they are really different books. It also uses no notoriety so you could read the whole book and have very little idea what actually happened and why, it’s not really touched upon, probably after the criticism of the columbine book.
I too try and take a bit of a balanced view. No columbine isn’t factually accurate in all areas but that doesn’t mean every word is contemptible. Most things aren’t all good or all bad, seeing nuance is important for critical thinking.

Thanks. I remember he wrote an article after Parkland talking about how he was literally stalking David Hogg. I think I even made a joke about it on the board at the time.

It's hard to believe Parkland was four years ago. It seems like four hours ago to me.

Virginia Tech seems like yesterday. 9/11 seems like a week ago. Columbine seems like ... two weeks ago.

Quote :

I would love to know what his MOS was. I would be amazed if he was doing anything combat related.

It was in the late '80s, I think. He got out before the Gulf War.

He wrote this a couple of years ago:

Quote :

Army Infantry (11B), 2 years. I was gay and military, but not at the same time. Wasn't out yet, even to myself. Too horrible to admit then.

Quote :

Maybe you were on to something considering how much grooming is exposed nowadays. cyclops

Maybe.

Quote :

I was turned away by the subject matter, though I did read the prologue years ago. Where his book on Columbine is subtle in its messaging, his Parkland book is overt - "guns bad, gen z good, mmm soy tasty". On top of this the book is a regrettable example of No Notoriety in practice, declaring that Cruz was "forgettable" and demanding that we not pay any attention to him and only focus on the messaging of the victims (which again, is just a stale anti-gun effort). I think it's interesting to note that Cruz was a Trump supporter who loved guns and wanted to join the military, so yet again Cullen has a cudgel to beat his messaging into readers' heads. Or maybe it's a personal obsession of his.

I've always had the sense that his "interest" in school shootings is purely financial.

On April 20, 1999, he was living in Denver and writing for an online magazine (Salon, I think). So he just kind of lucked into it. He showed up outside the school shortly after the shooting and did some reporting. IIRC one of his first articles discussed the rumors that Eric and Dylan were gay lovers.

He did score one legitimate scoop - he broke the news that Cassie Bernall did not say yes.

Jeffco was so angry about his story that they refused to allow him into the room where the basement tapes were being screened for reporters. Randy and Judy Brown shoved their way inside but Cullen never got in. So he's never even seen them.

OT: QuestionMark, check your PM box.

LPorter101 wrote:

He wrote this a couple of years ago:

Quote :

Army Infantry (11B), 2 years. I was gay and military, but not at the same time. Wasn't out yet, even to myself. Too horrible to admit then.

I'm astounded he was able to make it as an 11B, but I think with his term of service being only two years you might've been on to something when you wondered if he had a bad experience while in there. My guess is he did the bare minimum to earn the benefits and wasn't particularly devoted to it.

LPorter101 wrote:

I've always had the sense that his "interest" in school shootings is purely financial.

Could be. Maybe he tailored everything he wrote to sell better. It would also explain the quickness of cashing in on the Parkland killings. Still, the ideological aspect is too present to ignore.

QuestionMark wrote:

LPorter101 wrote:

You didn't fuck up *completely*, Dave. You have *something* to show for the ten years you spent writing your book. So there.

I think it's funny that as time goes on I garner a more and more negative view of Cullen and his book. Not necessarily because of the numerous factual errors and mischaracterizations - although those are bad enough on their own - but because these are not "errors". They're lies. And these are not just any lies but outright propaganda. This sounds a little loony I'll admit, so I'll go into greater detail.

Eric, who came from a military family and aspired to be a Marine, loved guns and going outdoors, made edgy comments about the Nazis and women, is demonized as an irredeemable psychopath who had a single-minded thirst for blood and led a good boy astray.

Dylan, who came from a family of Jews and strong liberal beliefs (including being anti-gun) and whose journal writings constituted a proto-incel pity party, is portrayed as a hopeless romantic who was, in Cullen's words, "conscripted" into the attack and a seemingly reluctant participant.

I don't think the point of his lies is "culture war". It's about making Dave Cullen famous by making him discover "The Truth". "The Truth" is lies because he's pursuing originality. His takes must be different from those who came before him.

From what I understand Eric was labelled as psychopath by FBI profiler. I think it's more that he was rejected by the very culture that created him. By his father, by official institutions. He wasn't a good robot, so he was a "psychopath". No deeper look, no empathy, no understanding, just cold rejection. Cullen only replicated the attitude of his father and of the institutions.

There was also zero empathy and understanding for Dylan. Because if they'd have empathy and understanding for him, they would realise he was the ring leader. Oh he wrote sad things, he was a "depressed follower" - it's a complete flattening of his character, the same thing they did to Eric. His mother was also blinded by the sad parts. So he probably also followed her view.

Cullen was following views of others when he should have been independent thinker and making shit up where he should have been a diligent scholar.