Cullen the herd

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

Quote :

“The Library” centers on a teen-ager named Caitlin Gabriel (Chloë Grace Moretz, making her stage début), who survives a Columbine-like shooting in her high school. How Caitlin manages to do that is a story she tells various authorities—law officials and the like—in various ways. What is one to believe of Caitlin’s tale, let alone anyone else’s in this age of refracted reality? Soderbergh asked a rhetorical question of his own: “At what point does your take on the world become destructive to yourself, and other people? We all have a blind spot towards ourselves, and other people.”

Burns’s interest in telling this particular story—the story, he said, of “how trauma doesn’t make us any better”—started four years back, after he’d read Dave Cullen’s book “Columbine.” “No one,” Burns recalls, “wanted to do it in Hollywood—too dark.” Still, Soderbergh and Burns would not let the story go. Meeting, sometimes, in Los Angeles or New York, they’d walk and talk about future projects. They’d been excited about working on their adaptation of “The Man from U.N.C.L.E.,” but after their star, George Clooney, suffered a physical setback, the studio opted out. The last project they made together, before Soderbergh retired from making films, was the 2013 movie “Side Effects.”

“The Library” is as much about Soderbergh and Burns finding new ways to work together as it is a story about deception and youth. Burns said that one of the big adjustments to working onstage is the lack of closeups; as a screenwriter, he had to learn to convey what a face did on film without overwriting. Also, his characters are everyday folk, and he had to learn how to make big ideas fit into small language. He said that he had to watch out for what the stage could, unintentionally, promote: too much talk. Soderbergh was quiet as Burns discussed the technical challenges of theatre. Then, Soderbergh inserted a flashback: “I was fortunate that in my formative years at Louisiana State University”—his father, Peter, is a former dean of education there—“that I saw pretty active and adventurous theatre productions. That was a real revelation—no one has the cornerstone on great stuff. It helped me to ignore the odds that I could make a living as an artist.” He paused. Theatre, like any art, could be made anywhere. In any case, Soderbergh considered it his job to bring closeups to the work. Extending his arm as though touching something we couldn’t see, he said, “That’s what I have to do, make the audience feel they’re looking at someone that closely, but on the stage.”

Die bibliothek ist kaputt.

Oh well....just another one of many stuff inspired on Columbine, but the difference with this one is that, they got inspire on Cullen's book (first mistake if you want to make a serious job) and in my opinion that book is for everything except to get inspired for something and this say it all. So in conclusion, yes Die bibliothek ist kaputt ;)

I thought Cullen's book was very good. He got it 95% right, which is very hard to do with such a difficult and complex topic.

lasttrain wrote:

I thought Cullen's book was very good.  He got it 95% right, which is very hard to do with such a difficult and complex topic.

What did he get right? All I've heard about the book is how horribly inaccurate it is.

lasttrain wrote:

I thought Cullen's book was very good.  He got it 95% right, which is very hard to do with such a difficult and complex topic.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Yeah, 95% right. Not even the survivors think his book is accurate. In Anne Marie Hochhalter's words, it's "inaccurate and sensationalized."

Lananas wrote:

lasttrain wrote:

I thought Cullen's book was very good.  He got it 95% right, which is very hard to do with such a difficult and complex topic.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Yeah, 95% right. Not even the survivors think his book is accurate. In Anne Marie Hochhalter's words, it's "inaccurate and sensationalized."

And let us not forget Brenda.

Wideawake wrote:

Lananas wrote:

lasttrain wrote:

I thought Cullen's book was very good.  He got it 95% right, which is very hard to do with such a difficult and complex topic.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Yeah, 95% right. Not even the survivors think his book is accurate. In Anne Marie Hochhalter's words, it's "inaccurate and sensationalized."

And let us not forget Brenda.

Ahh, Brenda. I wonder if she ever succeeded in breaking into the library and absorbing Eric's energy.   

Wideawake wrote:

Lananas wrote:

lasttrain wrote:

I thought Cullen's book was very good.  He got it 95% right, which is very hard to do with such a difficult and complex topic.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Yeah, 95% right. Not even the survivors think his book is accurate. In Anne Marie Hochhalter's words, it's "inaccurate and sensationalized."

And let us not forget Brenda.

Maybe that was the 5% he got wrong? I would still love to know how Cullen knew what Dylan and Eric were thinking and feeling on the day of the massacre?!

I remember reading a book by Charles Cross on Kurt Cobain that also told me what Kurt was thinking just before he killed himself. Strange authors include this sort of stuff.

Quote :

Maybe that was the 5% he got wrong?

The nicest thing I can say about the accuracy level of his book is that he spelled everyone's names correctly.

Quote :

I would still love to know how Cullen knew what Dylan and Eric were thinking and feeling on the day of the massacre?!

Edward Cullen is psychic ... maybe that trait runs in the family.

Lananas wrote:

lasttrain wrote:

I thought Cullen's book was very good.  He got it 95% right, which is very hard to do with such a difficult and complex topic.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Yeah, 95% right. Not even the survivors think his book is accurate. In Anne Marie Hochhalter's words, it's "inaccurate and sensationalized."

Cullen took his account of Ann Marie Hochhalter directly from the 11k testimony of Hochhalter and Jason Authenrieth.  As you'll see, his account reflects their testimony with a high degree of accuracy.  If Cullen's account is wrong, it is only because their testimony is wrong, either because they remembered incorrectly or were too confused at the time to give an accurate account.  But it isn't Cullen's fault if they told law enforcement the wrong story.  

Hochhalter (216):

Hochhalter said she saw these gunmen standing at the top of the stairs, at the south/west comer by the library. Hochhalter said she observed both individuals shooting towards the west and towards the parking lot, at first she bought was a joke, but almost immediately realized that it was for real when she saw students getting shot in the legs. Hochhalter said at about this time they began to run to the cafeteria when gunman two shot her. Hochhalter said she believed she was shot with a shotgun due to the noise of the blast. Hochhalter said she was unable to walk after being shot and that Jason Authenrieth drug her to an area by the wall, directly in front of the cafeteria.

Authenrieth (671):

Autenrieth stated that he, Kim Blair, and Hochhalder starting running towards the commons lower level doors, at which time Hochhalder
got shot in the back and collapsed. Autenrieth stated he and his girlfriend Kim Blair ran inside the commons and left Hochhalder on the concrete area in front of the commons area doors. Autenrieth stated he and Blair stayed in the commons area for approximately thirty seconds at which time two other girls, names unknown, were looking for his direction to which he told them to leave the commons area and run home. Autenrieth stated about that time he and Blair left the commons area and went to the aid of Hochhalder, at which time
they drug her away from the gunfire, towards the south commons area doors. Autenrieth stated that while he was dragging Hochhalder* s body towards the school the suspects were shooting in his direction and also he observed a pipe bomb being thrown in the area of where Hochhalder had been lying. Autenrieth said he also observed the pipe bomb explode. Autenrieth stated that after putting Hochhalder near the building, face down, to protect her body from further explosions he and Blair ran towards the parking lot to hide behind a vehicle.

areyoulistening wrote:

lasttrain wrote:

I thought Cullen's book was very good.  He got it 95% right, which is very hard to do with such a difficult and complex topic.

What did he get right? All I've heard about the book is how horribly inaccurate it is.

He got 95% of it right. Really, all he miffed on was the Brenda Parker thing, which is a small thing when you consider how complex the case is.

lasttrain wrote:

areyoulistening wrote:

lasttrain wrote:

I thought Cullen's book was very good.  He got it 95% right, which is very hard to do with such a difficult and complex topic.

What did he get right? All I've heard about the book is how horribly inaccurate it is.

He got 95% of it right.  Really, all he miffed on was the Brenda Parker thing, which is a small thing when you consider how complex the case is.

Eric was a confident, swaggering ladies' man?

Dylan was a cowering emo?

Cullen claims that Eric Harris was a swaggering ladies’ man and confident social king. This assertion is ludicrous.

Cullen writes that Eric “got lots of girls” and had sex with a 24-year-old woman named Brenda Parker. He even quotes Parker in his book. The truth is that Parker had no connection to Harris or the tragedy; she was a “fangirl” who sought attention by making up stories. She has *zero* credibility.

Eric tried to get a date to the prom; he failed. He asked several girls, all of whom turned him down. He finally convinced a girl he met at the pizza place where he worked to spend a couple of hours at his house on the night of the prom; they watched a movie. She declined to attend the after-prom party with him, so he went alone.

Harris was fairly short (5’8″) and very skinny, with a deformed chest due to his pelvus excavatum. As his body language in the following video (recorded in a hallway at Columbine and shown in a documentary about the massacre) demonstrates, he was no match for the larger boys he encountered on a daily basis:

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

In his final journal entry, Eric wrote:

“I hate you people for leaving me out of so many fun things. And no don’t — say, “well thats your fault” because it isnt, you people had my phone #, and I asked and all, but no. no no no dont let the weird looking Eric KID come along, ohh — nooo.”

Does that sound like someone who was confident and socially successful?

…

Cullen perpetuates the long-standing myth that Dylan was a sad little emo follower who was totally led by Harris.

The truth is that Dylan was the one who wrote about going on a killing spree before Eric; he even wanted to do it with someone else.

(Keep in mind that Eric and Dylan intended the massacre to be a bombing event with a shooting element. Their plans went awry.)

…

On Monday, November 3, 1997, Dylan wrote in his journal:

“[edited] will get me a gun, ill go on my killing spree against anyone I want. more crazy…deeper in the spiral, lost highway repeating, dwelling on the beautiful past, ([edited] & [edited] gettin drunk) w. me, everyone moves up i always stayed. Abandonment. this room sux. wanna die.”

He wrote “*my* killing spree”, not “*our* killing spree”.

…

Those who have seen the basement tapes have said that, on them, Dylan appears far more eager and enthusiastic than Eric.

On the tapes, Eric apologizes to his family; Dylan does not.

On one tape, Eric is seen alone, tearing up when he thinks about his friends back in Michigan. He even turns the tape off so he will not be captured crying on camera.

If he truly was a pure psychopath, as Cullen claims, is it likely that he would have cried while thinking about old friends?

Lporter,

First, I want to say that in my post I acknowledged that he got Parker wrong. That's why I say he was 95% rather than 100% accurate.

Second, I want to point out that you are engaging in a straw man argument. You are attributing extreme versions of particular positions to Cullen, and then refuting those extreme versions, which do not reflect anything Cullen actually wrote.

It might be a slight overstatement to say that Eric "got lots of chicks," but it is fairly accurate. He went to homecoming freshman year with Tiffany Typher. Susan DeWitt in her letter wrote of his long flirtation with her. The 11K interviews with associates are full of his interactions with girls, and some are flirtatious. And Bill Briggs and Jason Blevins, who interviewed huge numbers of students in the week after the shooting, concur with Cullen's portrait.

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

He told girls they looked nice . . . His computer talents also landed Harris a girlfriend. Through an on-line chat last summer, he met a local teenager and began dating her around July or August.


That said, Cullen's actual portrait of Eric is much more nuanced than you give him credit for. He says that Eric was successful with girls (which is true), but he doesn't say that Eric was all swagger and confidence:

"Eric looked striking head-on . . . the profile presented a bit of a problem, however."

"Eric wasn't thrilled with his looks . . . but he rarely let it show."

"Sometimes Eric was playful, speaking in funny voices and flirting with girls. Most of the girls who knew Eric described him as cute. He was aware of the consensus but didn't quite accept it."

As far as Dylan is concerned, Cullen has him dead-on, and gives tons of evidence for it from Dylan's own writings and the comments of those who knew him. If you want to refute it, you'll need some contrary evidence equal to Cullen's. But you should go with what Cullen actually writes, rather than a straw man summary.

LPorter101 wrote:

Those who have seen the basement tapes have said that, on them, Dylan appears far more eager and enthusiastic than Eric.

On the tapes, Eric apologizes to his family; Dylan does not.

On one tape, Eric is seen alone, tearing up when he thinks about his friends back in Michigan. He even turns the tape off so he will not be captured crying on camera.

If he truly was a pure psychopath, as Cullen claims, is it likely that he would have cried while thinking about old friends?

I am going to address this part of your post separately, since it's a separate issue from the girls thing.

I don't see Cullen in my edition saying that Eric was entirely psychopathic in all of his interactions. Nor do I see Hare, Fuselier, Cullen or anyone else claiming that psychopathy precludes all other affects in all situations.

In his very poignant account of Eric's childhood, Cullen describes "A sports enthusiast hanging out with minorities" (p. 112), who is "painfully shy," "timid but popular," (p. 113), "treasured his own tranquility" and "serenity" (p. 114) and "loved the water" (p. 115). He is not "thrilled with his looks" but "attended football games, , dances, and variety shows" and is a "big time fan" of sports." Cullen argues that "two months into high school" Eric begins "breaking through his shell" (p. 134) and while "Sophomore year, the changes began to show" (p. 146), even in the days before the massacre he is "nice" to Susan (p. 118) and shows other good traits, apologizing to the Black Jack crew and lamenting how much me will miss Bob, his boss (p. 332).

Of course, none of these things preclude psychopathy, not according to Hare, Fuselier, or anyone else.

"Researchers often compare psychopaths to robots or rogue computers...That's the closest approximation of their behavior, but the metaphor lacks nuance. Psychopaths feel something; Eric seemed to show sadness when his dog was sick, and he occasionally felt twinges of regret toward humans." (p. 242-243).

Cullen says (and I agree) that Eric was a psychopath. You are saying he wasn't because you think he had feelings.  My response is that it's not all or nothing. Cullen's definition of psychopathy allows a certain amount of affect. Hare says that "genuine emotion is short-lived and ego-centric," and Cullen throughout notes many of Harris's fleeting and egocentric feelings.

Now, you could point to various testimonies and say "These are genuine emotions from Harris." But I say: remember the context.

For example, Eric says "Yea... Everyone I love, I'm really sorry about all this. I know my mom and dad will be just like.. just fucking shocked beyond belief."

That clearly looks like genuine emotion doesn't it?  If I saw this attributed to an unnamed teenager, I would clearly believe that this person had real feelings.  There are many statements like this from Harris.  But here's the thing. Eric said this before he attempted to kill most of his classmates and condemn his parents to the worst agony they could know. Sorry means you wish you hadn't done it. You can't truly say you are sorry for something this enormous while still fully intending to do it. That short-lived, ego-centric sorry, not real sorry.

Truthfully, I believe the "Harris is a psychopath" thesis would less strong if Harris didn't show these fleeting emotions.  Then you might argue that he kept the emotion inside.

But he does show his emotions, and reveals them to be shallow, fleeting, and ego-centric.  He says, "I wish I was a fucking psychopath so I didn't feel any remorse but I do." You might look at this and say, "See! He has feelings." But true remorse means that you wish you didn't do it.  He said this before he did it while still fully intending to do it. That's not a real feeling.  It's a shallow, fleeting, ego-centric psychopathic affect.

To me, the few statements of feeling you do get from him actually prove his psychopathy, because they are all so fleeting and absurdly weak given the enormity of what he fully intended to do.

The following is adapted from some posts I made a few years ago on the old board.

Quote :

What is it with you people and your fascination with dave cullen? jesus christ, get over him and that book!

For thousands of people, "that book" is their sole source of information about Eric, Dylan, and 4/20.

Dave Cullen has been described as the "nation's leading authority" on the Columbine massacre.

You might remember the publicity barrage that greeted Columbine's publication in 2009. It was the top story on CNN.com on the morning of the tenth anniversary.

It received glowing reviews from numerous publications, including my hometown paper.

Many, if not most, people are intellectually lazy. They'll read one book on a subject and think they know everything there is to know. Such people are ill-served by Cullen's work.

...

This month, we mark the fifteenth anniversary of the Columbine massacre ... and the fifth anniversary of the publication of Dave Cullen's Columbine.

Dave Cullen seeks to co-opt Columbine - to make it his own. He wants his interpretation of the massacre to be yours, and mine, and Harry's, and Sally's, and Grandpa Cal's.

I think that's why I react so viscerally to him, but not to Brooks Brown, Jeff Kass, Ralph Larkin, or any of the other would-be chroniclers of 4/20.

In his book, Brown comes right out and says that he doesn't have an easy answer, or a simple formula. In their books, Kass and Larkin imply certain causes of the massacre, but they don't arrogantly assert that theirs are the last words.

But humility and ambiguity don't sell.

Cullen says, "Only I know the truth - the whole truth, and nothing but the truth - and if you read my book, you'll know it, too." That sales pitch is effective on a distressingly large number of people.

Over time, I've come to feel that the real problem is not with Dave Cullen, but with his fans.

Many readers treat the book almost as a religious tract. They swallow it whole; then, they lash out at anyone who challenges Cullen's assertions. They defend his ideas as vociferously as creationists defend the notion that God created the universe in seven days. No evidence to the contrary can persuade them to consider the possibility that Cullen might not have all the answers.

The primary reason why I joined the SCMRPG board in October 2009 was to voice my opposition to Cullen's book.

Yes, I wanted to say that I found his characterization of the killers ludicrous, and his conclusions about their psychology dubious ... but I also wanted to say that, insofar as we reduce such a complex event as Columbine to "psycho + emo = massacre," we trivialize all fields of intellectual endeavor. We trivialize not only psychology and criminology, but epistemology itself.

When we close our minds, and rely on a flawed book to draw definitive conclusions about an event as poorly documented as the 4/20 massacre ... we cheapen man's eternal quest for knowledge and truth. We reduce it to a parlor game - "Oh, let's just cherry-pick a set of facts and call it a day."

Eric and Dylan deserve neither sympathy nor respect ... but they do deserve to be understood for who they really were.

Cullen's book does a great disservice to our collective attempt to gain such an understanding. It creates and reinforces at least as many myths as it claims to debunk.

The work is not totally without merit, but it must be seen as highly flawed, at best.

lasttrain wrote:

LPorter101 wrote:

Those who have seen the basement tapes have said that, on them, Dylan appears far more eager and enthusiastic than Eric.

On the tapes, Eric apologizes to his family; Dylan does not.

On one tape, Eric is seen alone, tearing up when he thinks about his friends back in Michigan. He even turns the tape off so he will not be captured crying on camera.

If he truly was a pure psychopath, as Cullen claims, is it likely that he would have cried while thinking about old friends?

I am going to address this part of your post separately, since it's a separate issue from the girls thing.

I don't see Cullen in my edition saying that Eric was entirely psychopathic in all of his interactions. Nor do I see Hare, Fuselier, Cullen or anyone else claiming that psychopathy precludes all other affects in all situations.

In his very poignant account of Eric's childhood, Cullen describes "A sports enthusiast hanging out with minorities" (p. 112), who is "painfully shy," "timid but popular," (p. 113), "treasured his own tranquility" and "serenity" (p. 114) and "loved the water" (p. 115). He is not "thrilled with his looks" but "attended football games, , dances, and variety shows" and is a "big time fan" of sports." Cullen argues that "two months into high school" Eric begins "breaking through his shell" (p. 134) and while "Sophomore year, the changes began to show" (p. 146), even in the days before the massacre he is "nice" to Susan (p. 118) and shows other good traits, apologizing to the Black Jack crew and lamenting how much me will miss Bob, his boss (p. 332).

Of course, none of these things preclude psychopathy, not according to Hare, Fuselier, or anyone else.

"Researchers often compare psychopaths to robots or rogue computers...That's the closest approximation of their behavior, but the metaphor lacks nuance. Psychopaths feel something; Eric seemed to show sadness when his dog was sick, and he occasionally felt twinges of regret toward humans." (p. 242-243).

Cullen says (and I agree) that Eric was a psychopath. You are saying he wasn't because you think he had feelings.  My response is that it's not all or nothing. Cullen's definition of psychopathy allows a certain amount of affect. Hare says that "genuine emotion is short-lived and ego-centric," and Cullen throughout notes many of Harris's fleeting and egocentric feelings.

Now, you could point to various testimonies and say "These are genuine emotions from Harris." But I say: remember the context.

For example, Eric says "Yea... Everyone I love, I'm really sorry about all this. I know my mom and dad will be just like.. just fucking shocked beyond belief."

That clearly looks like genuine emotion doesn't it?  If I saw this attributed to an unnamed teenager, I would clearly believe that this person had real feelings.  There are many statements like this from Harris.  But here's the thing. Eric said this before he attempted to kill most of his classmates and condemn his parents to the worst agony they could know. Sorry means you wish you hadn't done it. You can't truly say you are sorry for something this enormous while still fully intending to do it. That short-lived, ego-centric sorry, not real sorry.

Truthfully, I believe the "Harris is a psychopath" thesis would less strong if Harris didn't show these fleeting emotions.  Then you might argue that he kept the emotion inside.

But he does show his emotions, and reveals them to be shallow, fleeting, and ego-centric.  He says, "I wish I was a fucking psychopath so I didn't feel any remorse but I do." You might look at this and say, "See! He has feelings." But true remorse means that you wish you didn't do it.  He said this before he did it while still fully intending to do it. That's not a real feeling.  It's a shallow, fleeting, ego-centric psychopathic affect.

To me, the few statements of feeling you do get from him actually prove his psychopathy, because they are all so fleeting and absurdly weak given the enormity of what he fully intended to do.

catslynn (a poster on the old board) did a pretty good job of breaking the "Was Eric a psychopath?" question into manageable chunks. I'll refer you to her thread:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

How many of these apply to Eric?

Characteristic 1: GLIB and SUPERFICIAL CHARM
The tendency to be smooth, engaging, charming, slick, and verbally facile. Psychopathic charm is not in the least shy, self-conscious, or afraid to say anything. A psychopath never gets tongue-tied. They have freed themselves from the social conventions about taking turns in talking, for example.

Characteristic 2: GRANDIOSE SELF-WORTH
A grossly inflated view of one's abilities and self-worth, self-assured, opinionated, cocky, a braggart. Psychopaths are arrogant people who believe they are superior human beings.

Characteristic 4: PATHOLOGICAL LYING
Can be moderate or high; in moderate form, they will be shrewd, crafty, cunning, sly, and clever; in extreme form, they will be deceptive, deceitful, underhanded, unscrupulous, manipulative, and dishonest.

Characteristic 6: SHALLOW AFFECT
Emotional poverty or a limited range or depth of feelings; interpersonal coldness in spite of signs of open gregariousness

Characteristic 7: CALLOUSNESS and LACK OF EMPATHY
A lack of feelings toward people in general; cold, contemptuous, inconsiderate, and tactless.

Characteristic 8: LACK OF REMORSE OR GUILT
A lack of feelings or concern for the losses, pain, and suffering of victims; a tendency to be unconcerned, dispassionate, coldhearted, and unempathic. This item is usually demonstrated by a disdain for one's victims.

Characteristic 10: POOR BEHAVIORAL CONTROLS
Expressions of irritability, annoyance, impatience, threats, aggression, and verbal abuse; inadequate control of anger and temper; acting hastily.

Characteristic 11: PROMISCUOUS SEXUAL BEHAVIOR
A variety of brief, superficial relations, numerous affairs, and an indiscriminate selection of sexual partners; the maintenance of several relationships at the same time; a history of attempts to sexually coerce others into sexual activity or taking great pride at discussing sexual exploits or conquests.

Characteristic 12: EARLY BEHAVIOR PROBLEMS
A variety of behaviors prior to age 13, including lying, theft, cheating, vandalism, bullying, sexual activity, fire-setting, glue-sniffing, alcohol use, and running away from home.

Characteristic 13: JUVENILE DELINQUENCY
Behavior problems between the ages of 13-18; mostly behaviors that are crimes or clearly involve aspects of antagonism, exploitation, aggression, manipulation, or a callous, ruthless tough-mindedness.

Characteristic 17: FAILURE TO ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY FOR OWN ACTIONS
A failure to accept responsibility for one's actions reflected in low conscientiousness, an absence of dutifulness, antagonistic manipulation, denial of responsibility, and an effort to manipulate others through this denial.

Characteristic 18: MANY SHORT-TERM MARITAL RELATIONSHIPS
A lack of commitment to a long-term relationship reflected in inconsistent, undependable, and unreliable commitments in life, including marital.

Quote :

As far as Dylan is concerned, Cullen has him dead-on, and gives tons of evidence for it from Dylan's own writings and the comments of those who knew him.

"[Cullen] reveals two radically different killers: Eric Harris, the callously brutal mastermind, and Dylan Klebold, the quivering depressive who journaled obsessively about love and attended the Columbine prom three days before opening fire."
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

The following are quotes from the basement tapes, as recorded by reporters for the Rocky Mountain News and the Denver Post.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

...

"It's humanity," Dylan Klebold says, flipping an obscene gesture toward the camera. "Look at what you made," he tells the world.

"You're fucking shit, you humans, and you need to die," he says.

...

"When you find a body of one," Klebold says, looking straight into the camera, "he's a sophomore ... Look for his jaw. It won't be on his body."

...

"I just know I want to kill the fuckers who fucked with me," Klebold says.

...

"If you're going to go fucking psycho and kill a bunch of people like us ... do it right," Klebold says.

They expect tougher gun laws to be discussed because of them. Don't do it, they say; it will only create a black market in guns. "Putting more laws on won't change that," Klebold says.

...

Then Harris says, "Let's talk about our parents for a minute."

Klebold begins coldly. "It's my life," he says. "They gave it to me, I can do with it what I want. ... If they don't like it, I'm sorry, but that's too bad."

Harris is gentler. "They might have made some mistakes that they weren't really aware of in their life with me, but they couldn't have helped it."

Both boys say again and again that their parents are great.

The Klebolds saw this tape last fall. They cried. The Harris parents know the tape exists but haven't seen it.

"It sucks to do this to them," Harris says. "They're going to go through hell once we're finished. They're never going to see the end of it."

Klebold promises his parents there was nothing they could have done to stop what will happen.

"You can't understand what we feel; you can't understand no matter how much you think you can," he says.

Harris plays with a pair of scissors, rapidly snapping the blades together and apart, together and apart. They laugh at the noise.

He explains why he didn't spend more time with his family.

"I didn't want to do any more bonding with them. It will be a lot easier on them if I haven't been around as much."

Klebold addresses all his relatives. "I'm sorry I have so much rage," he says.

He samples a mouthful of candy with a mouthful of whiskey.

Harris speaks lovingly of his mother then adds, "I really am sorry about all of this.

"But war's war."

...

The two teens appear to hate everyone but themselves, hoping to kill 250 people, "the most deaths in U.S. history," Klebold said.

...

"It's humans that I hate," Klebold says.

...

Contrary to popular opinion in the Columbine community, Harris comes off in the videos as the more sympathetic character of the two. Portrayed in the days after the attack as angry and weird, he is apologetic and somewhat remorseful in the tapes. He's careful to absolve his parents of any blame and shows sympathy to his mother, Kathy, for what he is about to do, trying not to "bond" with her because he will soon die.

"It's not their fault. They had no f---ing clue," Harris says. "It would not solve anything to arrest them."

But Harris shows some anger toward his father, Wayne, a military man who moved his family across the country several times. Harris talks of always being the new, "white, scrawny" kid.

"I had to go through all that s--- so many times," Harris says.

Klebold is monstrous on the videotapes, openly raging about his lifelong hidden anger and all the slights he suffered at the hands of students, teachers and his family. He smiles ghoulishly into the camera, lovingly handles weapons and constantly combs his fingers through his shoulder-length red hair. He shows no contrition, only deadly aggression.

"This goes to all my family: I'm sorry I have so much rage," Klebold says. "You made me what I am. Actually, you just added to what I am."

...


"That'll take out whoever can f---ing get close to it," Klebold says as he shows off a stash of three pipe bombs.

...

During Klebold 's dress rehearsal on April 17, in the only piece of the tapes made at the Klebold residence, he worries that his gun is making his black trench coat bulky. As he looks for the backpack he will use during the rampage, Klebold goes to his closet where he finds his prom tuxedo hanging.

"Robyn," Klebold says, addressing his prom date and gun buyer Robyn Anderson, "I didn't really want to go to prom. But since I'm going to be dying, I thought I might do something cool."

In the last of their video farewells, the two appear anxious, telling their future audience that it's about a half-hour before "our little judgment day." They will everything in their bedrooms to their friends Chris Morris and Nate Dykeman and quickly say goodbye as they strap on their weapons.

"Just know I'm going to a better place," Klebold says. "I didn't like life too much."

"That's it. Sorry. Goodbye," Harris says.

"Goodbye," Klebold says up close, and the tape ends.

...

After insulting blacks, Christians, women, Jews, athletes, police, and others, Harris is heard to exclaim on one tape, "I hate the (expletive) humans."

Klebold concurs. "It's humans that I hate."

...

They laughed about haunting those left behind after their deaths. "I don't give a (expletive) about anybody. Otherwise I'd be more remorseful," said Harris.

"God doesn't exist," said Klebold at one point.

...

Klebold said the pair would have sorted out their problems with their fists, as students had done for generations, "but if you touch anyone you are suspended."

Each spoke of their anger. "I'm sorry I have so much rage but you put it in me," said Klebold.

lasttrain wrote:

As far as Dylan is concerned, Cullen has him dead-on

Dave Cullen wrote:

"Dylan took to referring to humans as zombies. That was a rare similarity to Eric. But pitiful as we zombies were, Dylan didn't want to harm us.

"You're fucking shit, you humans, and you need to die," he says.

Dave Cullen wrote:

He found us interesting, like new toys.

"When you find a body of one," Klebold says, looking straight into the camera, "he's a sophomore ... Look for his jaw. It won't be on his body."

Dave Cullen wrote:

He was a profoundly religious young man. His family was not active in any congregration, yet Dylan's belief was unwavering. He believed in God without question, but constantly challenged His choices.

"God doesn't exist," said Klebold at one point.

Dave Cullen wrote:

Dylan believed in morality, ethics, and an afterlife.

(Well, maybe.)

"Just know I'm going to a better place," Klebold says. "I didn't like life too much."

Dave Cullen wrote:

Dylan's anger would flare, then fizzle quickly into self-disgust. Dylan wasn't planning to kill anyone, except, God willing, himself.

"I just know I want to kill the fuckers who fucked with me," Klebold says.

Dave Cullen wrote:

Eric and Dylan would eventually share the same hobbies, classes, job, friends, clothing choices, and clubs. But they had remarkably different interior lives. Dylan always saw himself as inferior.

And Eric always saw himself as superior.

Consider the following quotes from Dylan's journal:

"Everyone is always making fun of me because of how I look, how fucking weak I am and shit, well I will get you all back: ultimate fucking revenge here. you people could have shown more respect, treated me better, asked for my knowledge or guidence more, treated me more like senior, and maybe I wouldn't have been as ready to tear your fucking heads off. then again, I have always hated how I looked, I make fun of people who look like me, sometimes without even thinking sometimes just because I want to rip on myself. Thats where a lot of my hate grows from, the fact that I have practically no selfesteem, especially concerning girls and looks and such. therefore people make fun of me... constantly... therefore I get no respect and therefore I get fucking PISSED."

"I hate you people for leaving me out of so many fun things. And no don't fucking say, "well thats your fault" because it isnt, you people had my phone #, and I asked and all, but no. no no no dont let the weird looking Eric KID come along, ohh fucking nooo."

Oh, wait ... those are excerpts from *Eric*'s journal.

Were there times when he saw himself as inferior? Maybe. But that can't be - Dave Cullen has proved beyond all doubt that Eric always saw himself as superior!

The mind reels.

LPorter,

You've made so many posts about so many topics that it is hard for me to know how to respond. I guess I'll try to go through them in order.

1) Your first post is a complaint that people give Cullen too much credit. Did you want him to write a book that contains things that aren't persuasive? Of course he thinks the book is right--otherwise he wouldn't have written it.

2) Fuselier, a professional profiler, and Peter Langman, a PhD, found that Eric checked off on the vast majority of traits on the checklist, easily enough to profile him as a psychopath. Langman's research into Harris was published in a peer-reviewed journal. So, it's not just Cullen here, he's just following the science.

3) One of your posts is just a transcript of the basement tapes...not sure what I'm supposed to do with that. You think depressed people never get angry?

4) Your next post details quotes from Cullen and then statements from Dylan that seem to contradict them, but you are taking Cullen out of context. In these statements, he is summarizing what Dylan was saying or thinking at particular times in his journals. He is not saying that Dylan believed these things at all times. He is just trying to show the drift of Dylan's thinking.

5) There is ample evidence quoted by Cullen that Dylan saw himself as inferior. And Cullen also gives ample quotations (which I quoted above) that show Eric's reservations about his appearance.

Cullen's account is a nuanced one. Stop turning it into black and white.

Quote :

Cullen's account is a nuanced one. Stop turning it into black and white.

Nuanced, you say?

Cullen offers a monochromatic, simplistic assessment of the killers' mental states - "Eric was the swaggering villain, a homicidal psychopath who wanted to kill; Dylan was the cowering victim, a suicidal depressive who merely wanted to end his miserable life." He wraps a sappy narrative around his thesis. This narrative includes only those facts that support his argument, and excludes facts that suggest other possibilities. At points where facts fail him, he inserts unfounded speculation.

Then he runs around the country shouting, "I solved the mystery! I found the formula! There's no more room for ambiguity! It's an open-and-shut case!"

Critics unleash torrents of praise. Readers venerate a staggering work of breathtaking genius. And people who have more than a passing acquaintance with the actual details of the case bang their heads against the wall.

Is that an actual quote from Cullen?

What is your motivation, lasttrain? Why do you need to convince us that Cullen is "right" and that we're "wrong"?

Every time anyone criticizes any aspect of Cullen's book, you rush to provide "conclusive evidence" that the criticism is "wrong". Why?

It's the religious impulse at work, I guess. Your truth is better than my truth.

lasttrain wrote:

I thought Cullen's book was very good. He got it 95% right, which is very hard to do with such a difficult and complex topic.

It's patently absurd to claim that any work is 95% right. What is "right", anyway? Who makes the determination between the "right" conclusion and the "wrong" one? God? The Oracle of Truth? You?

Is there a Definitive Encyclopedia somewhere, where the "correct" interpretations of all historical events are recorded for posterity? Is Cullen's work excerpted in that mighty tome?

lasttrain wrote:

He got 95% of it right. Really, all he miffed on was the Brenda Parker thing, which is a small thing when you consider how complex the case is.

Why are you so hung up on that 95% figure?

If you were to ask me, "Why did Eric and Dylan plot to blow up their high school? Why did they kill 13 people and then themselves?", I would not be able to give you a succinct answer. I don't know why. I have formed some educated opinions as to their motivations, but I'm not arrogant enough to proclaim that I have all - or most, or some, or even any - of the answers.

That being said, I find that many if not most of Cullen's assertions are demonstrably at variance with the facts. I cannot reconcile the evidence that I have seen with the picture that he draws. It is as if he is looking at a totally different landscape.

Tell me something, lasttrain:

It's not enough for you to say that Cullen got *a lot* right, or even *most* of his assertions right. You cling vociferously to that 95% figure.

Why? Why do you need Dave Cullen to be 95% right? Why can't he be 92% right, or 89% right, or 84% right? Why does he have to be 95% right?

If you're not Dave Cullen, then you're one of his most ardent fanboys.

Before I answer your questions, first, I want to ask you, can you give me a source for the quotation, ""Eric was the swaggering villain, a homicidal psychopath who wanted to kill; Dylan was the cowering victim, a suicidal depressive who merely wanted to end his miserable life."

Where does Cullen say that? You put it in quotation marks.

lasttrain wrote:

Before I answer your questions, first, I want to ask you, can you give me a source for the quotation, ""Eric was the swaggering villain, a homicidal psychopath who wanted to kill; Dylan was the cowering victim, a suicidal depressive who merely wanted to end his miserable life."

Where does Cullen say that?  You put it in quotation marks.

It's a paraphrase.

In 2004, Cullen wrote an article for Salon entitled:

Dave Cullen wrote:

The Depressive and the Psychopath

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

To date, Cullen has not repudiated this article. Certainly his book does not contradict any of the ideas expressed in it.

Key quotes:

Dave Cullen wrote:

Klebold is easier to comprehend, a more familiar type. He was hotheaded, but depressive and suicidal. He blamed himself for his problems.

Harris is the challenge. He was sweet-faced and well-spoken. Adults, and even some other kids, described him as "nice." But Harris was cold, calculating, and homicidal. "Klebold was hurting inside while Harris wanted to hurt people," Fuselier says. Harris was not merely a troubled kid, the psychiatrists say, he was a psychopath.

Dave Cullen wrote:

The psychiatrists can't help speculating what might have happened if Columbine had never happened. Klebold, they agree, would never have pulled off Columbine without Harris. He might have gotten caught for some petty crime, gotten help in the process, and conceivably could have gone on to live a normal life.

Their view of Harris is more reassuring, in a certain way. Harris was not a wayward boy who could have been rescued. Harris, they believe, was irretrievable. He was a brilliant killer without a conscience, searching for the most diabolical scheme imaginable. If he had lived to adulthood and developed his murderous skills for many more years, there is no telling what he could have done. His death at Columbine may have stopped him from doing something even worse.

If I have misrepresented Cullen's views, then please tell me how I have done so.

See LPorter, the fact that it is a paraphrase of Cullen is a problem.

Because Cullen never puts things into those extreme terms. Yes, he says psychopath and depressive, but there is a lot of nuance there. Look at my post from 3/31 5:30 and 5:41 PM. There are lots of quotations I pulled directly from Cullen where he says that Eric had lots of problems with his own looks, and that Eric was capable of some kinds of feelings, just not a lot.

So Cullen has nuance there.

To answer your original question about my motivation and the 95%.

1) My motivation is that I found Dave Cullen's book to be a very accurate account. If the topic of his book comes up, I defend it for that reason.

2) The 95% is just a figure of speech. I only mean that I find Cullen to be mostly accurate, with some flaws.

Here's an article about the girl appearing in the play "inspired by" Cullen's magnum opus:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Her name has an umlaut in it. Umlauts are sehr kewl. But aren't English-speaking parents who give a child an umlauted name basically saying "Screw you" to anyone who ever has to type that name?

"Oh, shit. Her name has an umlaut in it. Now I have to open up the Insert Symbol dialog box and hunt around for the 'e' with a umlaut, copy it, and paste it into my article. Why couldn't her parents have given her a normal name? Are they pretentious douches, or are they autistic?"

LPorter101 wrote:

Here's an article about the girl appearing in the play "inspired by" Cullen's magnum opus:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Her name has an umlaut in it. Umlauts are sehr kewl. But aren't English-speaking parents who give a child an umlauted name basically saying "Screw you" to anyone who ever has to type that name?

"Oh, shit. Her name has an umlaut in it. Now I have to open up the Insert Symbol dialog box and hunt around for the 'e' with a umlaut, copy it, and paste it into my article. Why couldn't her parents have given her a normal name? Are they pretentious douches, or are they autistic?"

Not a comment on the actress herself, but I love this part of the article.

Quote :

In an entertainment industry populated by wild Mileys, run-amok Justins and forsaken Lindsays, where the arrival of one’s 18th birthday means it’s time to lose your inhibitions, your clothes or your relevance, Ms. Moretz may be able to break this dispiritingly familiar pattern.