Dave Cullen's hypocrisy

Dave Cullen thinks that the media should avoid turning mass shooters into celebrities.

Uh, Dave ... you wrote an entire book about two mass shooters. You've spent the past five years whoring yourself out to the media - anything to get you in front of a camera so you can promote yourself and your magnum opus. You've lobbied school districts to make Cullenbine required reading. You once even Tweeted that people should buy it as a Christmas present.

And now you complain that the media makes shooters into celebrities?

Dave, do you know what the word irony means? (Hint: It's not something you do to clothes to keep them from getting wrinkled.)

...

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

Martinez said he had spoken with Dave Cullen, journalist and author of Columbine, a book about the Columbine High School shootings, who has also said that the media need to take a look at their role in covering these types of rampage killings.

“Performances require an audience and demand a star. The media provides the audience and we cast the lead role,” Cullen wrote in a 2013 column for BuzzFeed.

“The killing will get covered, but we can and should deprive the shooter of name recognition.”

Cullen has said the media should try to use the gunman's name sparingly in the first several hours after a shooting and then drop it altogether, and instead refer to him as the gunman or killer. That, he said, takes away the stage and attention the killer seeks.

He also said that the media should drastically scale back the use of the gunman's image on television.

"I think it really sucks a lot of the joy and the goal out of it [for the killers]," Cullen told CBC News in a phone interview.

"What they are after, which is to be heard and to feel a sense of power, is never going to happen if there's nothing in place to give them that," Cullen said. "So it would never make sense for them to do it in the first place."

"Of course there were murders before Columbine, but when it turned into made-for-television events, that's when we get these huge body counts," Cullen said. "I have no proposal to end murder, I have a proposal to end mass murder."

Cullen said that the YouTube video produced by Elliot Rodger does provide some value and offer an insight into the killer. But he suggested the video should be relegated to the internet and not given the television stage.

Quote :

"Of course there were murders before Columbine, but when it turned into made-for-television events, that's when we get these huge body counts," Cullen said. "I have no proposal to end murder, I have a proposal to end mass murder."

Not too long ago, there was talk about making Cullenbine into a Lifetime movie. I can't imagine that ol' Davey Boy opposed that particular project.

Has anyone ever asked Dave Cullen whether or not he feels that he, himself, is responsible for adding to Eric and Dylan's mystique?

I realize that Dave couched his remarks as a mea culpa - "Oh, my! We in the media are turning murderers into celebrities! We must change our ways!"

Well, gee, Dave, I guess you've seen the light. You've repented for your crime of pandering to the public's fascination with bloodthirsty killers. But, hey, you had a nice run, right? And I'm sure you made at least a few bucks along the way.

To prove your sincerity, perhaps you could donate the proceeds from your book to, say, the victims' families. That way, you could get rid of your ill-begotten gains, and bask in the warm light of atonement.

You see, Dave, I'm not like you. If I were in your position, I'd ... oh, hell, I'd probably do the same thing you're doing. I like money, too.

But I wouldn't say, "Oh, the media should stop turning criminals into celebrities." I'd say, "People have been killing each other for thousands of years. They'll be killing each other for thousands more. If you don't like seeing coverage of mass murderers on CNN, go watch old episodes of I Love Lucy."

I never actually read Dave Cullen's book, but I'm rather curious as to why his book is consider the accurate truth. What about the other books about Columbine? Like Kass, Larkin, what are they consider to be then?

perpetual state wrote:

I never actually read Dave Cullen's book, but I'm rather curious as to why his book is consider the accurate truth. What about the other books about Columbine? Like Kass, Larkin, what are they consider to be then?

The success of Cullenbine is a triumph of marketing and public relations. Cullen's a hack, but he's a hell of a self-promoter. The man knows how to hustle.

I don't know if you were paying attention when the tenth anniversary rolled around, but Cullen was everywhere. His book was the top story on CNN.com that morning. Nearly every single major newspaper hailed Cb as a masterpiece. More than one reviewer said that Cullen was the 21st-century Capote.

Oprah wanted to put him on her show, but last-minute protests from the victims' families prompted her to cancel his appearance. (Thank God - if she had raved about his book on the air, it would have sold even more copies than it did.)

I see, I heard that his book is rather sensationalize in some ways. I'm wondering if dramatize or exaggerating some things is a way to entertain the readers. Does anybody feel like they actually learn some things in his book or they feel entertain by his book?

perpetual state wrote:

I see, I heard that his book is rather sensationalize in some ways. I'm wondering if dramatize or exaggerating some things is a way to entertain the readers. Does anybody feel like they actually learn some things in his book or they feel entertain by his book?

I use Cullen's book to assist me in my efforts to lose weight. Every time I read it, I hurl.

Dave Cullen wrote:

Eric Harris wanted a prom date. Eric was a senior, about to leave Columbine High School forever. He was not about to be left out of the prime social event of his life. He really wanted a date.

Dates were not generally a problem. Eric was a brain, but an uncommon subcategory: cool brain.... And he got chicks. Lots and lots of chicks.

On the ultimate high school scorecard, Eric outscored much of the football team. He was a little charmer. He walked right up to hotties at the mall. He won them over with quick wit, dazzling dimples, and a disarming smile.

Eric Harris wrote:

NBK came quick. Why the fuck can't I get any? I mean, I'm nice and considerate and all that shit, but nooooo...The amount of dramatic irony and foreshadowing is fucking amazing. Everything I see and hear I incorporate into NBK somehow...feels like a goddamn movie sometimes...

"I hate you people for leaving me out of so many fun things. And no, don't fucking say, 'Well, that's your fault' because it isn't, you people had my phone #, and I asked and all, but no no no no no don't let the weird looking Eric kid come along, oooh fucking nooo.

LPorter101 wrote:

Cullen has said the media should try to use the gunman's name sparingly in the first several hours after a shooting and then drop it altogether, and instead refer to him as the gunman or killer. That, he said, takes away the stage and attention the killer seeks.

He also said that the media should drastically scale back the use of the gunman's image on television.

"I think it really sucks a lot of the joy and the goal out of it [for the killers]," Cullen told CBC News in a phone interview.

This is absurd. Media's job is inform people and the people obviously would wonder and want the name of the perpetrator, with a picture of him, till their curiosity is over. Thats not make celebrities. I agree that the media is part responsable about make these guys in something of everyday till attracted some people attention and fascination but who end up that job is people like him with their poorly written and researched books not the media.

Some of the things I heard about his book, like Eric and Dylan were rather popular, there was no bullying, the principal gave them hugs and kisses, Jeffco did a great job or something, Cullen knows what the killers were thinking, Eric was a born psychopath, Dylan was sweet, innocent boy who never did wrong, etc. It seems rather one-dimensional, but I never read the book so I don't know.

perpetual state wrote:

Some of the things I heard about his book, like Eric and Dylan were rather popular, there was no bullying, the principal gave them hugs and kisses, Jeffco did a great job or something, Cullen knows what the killers were thinking, Eric was a born psychopath, Dylan was sweet, innocent boy who never did wrong, etc. It seems rather one-dimensional, but I never read the book so I don't know.

Here, start reading. Keep a bucket handy:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I can't take it seriously as when he says "chicks and hotties".

perpetual state wrote:

I can't take it seriously as when he says "chicks and hotties".

Cullen thinks it makes him sound hip, I guess.

Apparently Linkin Park was one of Dylan's favourite bands....

But they didn't release their first album until 2000, nearly a year after he died.   

So, does Cullen have some sort of agenda when releasing his book? I mean, what is he gaining besides money? If his book has a lot of misinformation on it, did he do it on purpose? Why would he do that? I heard about him cozying up to Dwayne Fuselier a lot. Does Fuselier have some thing to with it?Does he something to hide? Yea, I'm asking a lot of questions.

Maybe Dave Cullen got the information for his book from "The Nobodies: A Columbine Love Story".   

Lananas wrote:

Maybe Dave Cullen got the information for his book from "The Nobodies: A Columbine Love Story".   

 

LPorter101 wrote:

Dave Cullen thinks that the media should avoid turning mass shooters into celebrities.

Uh, Dave ... you wrote an entire book about two mass shooters. You've spent the past five years whoring yourself out to the media - anything to get you in front of a camera so you can promote yourself and your magnum opus. You've lobbied school districts to make Cullenbine required reading. You once even Tweeted that people should buy it as a Christmas present.

And now you complain that the media makes shooters into celebrities?

Cullen's words are not hypocritical.

Cullen is saying the media should avoid constantly replaying the shooter's name and image.  He is not saying that the media should never cover such events, or that journalists should not write books about them.

Cullen wrote a serious book about the subject (which included no pictures of the perpetrators), and none of his media appearances have sensationalized their images.  There is a distinction between news reporting and the constant replay of an image.

(Also, it is inaccurate to state Cullen has "whored" himself out to the media--CNN and other networks do not pay occasional guests for appearances).

perpetual state wrote:

So, does Cullen have some sort of agenda when releasing his book? I mean, what is he gaining besides money? If his book has a lot of misinformation on it, did he do it on purpose? Why would he do that? I heard about him cozying up to Dwayne Fuselier a lot. Does Fuselier have some thing to with it?Does he something to hide? Yea, I'm asking a lot of questions.

I have read all of the books about Columbine, and read the 11K twice.

Cullen's is the most compelling and factual account of the shooting. His agenda was to produce a well-researched and well-written book about this tragedy, and he succeeded in doing that.

There are a lot of people on this board who for some reason hate Dave Cullen, and I won't claim to speak for them or their agendas.

But I will tell you that if you look at a lot of my past posts, you'll see I've refuted most their arguments against him. One or two of the criticisms of him I agree with, but I believe his book to be almost entirely accurate, which is quite an achievement given how complex this event was.

Quote :

Cullen's words are not hypocritical.

Cullen is saying the media should avoid constantly replaying the shooter's name and image.  He is not saying that the media should never cover such events, or that journalists should not write books about them.

Cullen wrote a serious book

About as serious as a book that refers to "chicks" and "hotties" can be, I suppose.

Quote :

about the subject (which included no pictures of the perpetrators), and none of his media appearances have sensationalized their images.  There is a distinction between news reporting and the constant replay of an image.

Ah, I see. Television networks can talk about the shooters, but they shouldn't show their pictures.

I find it interesting that Cullen came to this conclusion many years *after* he wrote a book about the most heavily-publicized school shooting in the history of the world.

Let us examine the sequence of events:

1) Eric and Dylan kill 13 people and then themselves.
2) The media sensationalize the Columbine massacre to an obscene degree. Eric and Dylan become household names. Their pictures are splashed on television newscasts, newspaper front pages, and magazine covers.
3) Ten years later, Dave Cullen comes along and says, "You think you know the real story, but you don't. Read my book and ye shall know the truth." He and his publisher promote the wazoo out of Cullenbine and it sells a shitload of copies.
4) Five years later, Dave Cullen says, "Oh, by the way, it's a bad idea to turn these loser murderers into celebrities."

Are you going to tell me with a straight face that Cullen did not seek to capitalize on the notoriety of the crime - notoriety created by the type of sensationalistic news coverage that he now deplores? He (or his publisher) even timed the release of the book to the tenth anniversary. Were they not seeking to cash in on the public's morbid interest?

Next year is the 20th anniversary of the O.J. Simpson trial. If, at that time, I release a mass-market book promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth about O.J., and then turn around and say, "Murder trials should not be televised," am I not a hypocrite? The televising of the trial magnified the public's interest in the case by a thousandfold. My book seeks to capitalize on that interest.

Look, I have no problem with Cullen's attempt to cash in on a notorious crime. That's the American way, isn't it? But I find it disgusting that he now claims some kind of moral high ground. He's in no position to lecture anyone about ethics. A hustler is a hustler, but a hypocritical hustler is just too much.

Quote :

(Also, it is inaccurate to state Cullen has "whored" himself out to the media--CNN and other networks do not pay occasional guests for appearances).

Publicity sells books.

Cullen appears on television as a public service? Hardly. By granting Cullen its imprimatur (such as it is), CNN and other infotainment outlets reinforce his reputation as the (self-proclaimed) World's Premiere Expert on Mass Shootings.

lasttrain wrote:

There are a lot of people on this board who for some reason hate Dave Cullen, and I won't claim to speak for them or their agendas.

I don't hate him, and I don't have an axe to grind.

There are two personality characteristics that I do hate: ignorance and arrogance. I know people who display both of those odious traits, and I can't stand to be around them.

Dave Cullen is not ignorant, but he is awfully arrogant. "My book is the only one worth reading. My conclusions are the only valid ones."

His fans - the Cullenistas - are both ignorant and arrogant. "Dave Cullen's book is the only one worth reading. Having read his book, I know everything there is to know about Columbine."

Over time, I have come to accept that, for a large number of people, Cullen's word on the massacre will be the last. But I am determined to do what I can to get people to realize that Cullenbine isn't the breathtaking work of staggering genius it purports to be.

Yeah, maybe I'm overly critical of the book as a whole. Believe it or not, certain parts of it really grabbed me - it was interesting to read about Patrick Ireland's struggles, for example. But you are never going to convince me that Cullen's thesis (Eric the swaggering psycho, Dylan the cowering emo) is anything but overly simplistic at best, flat-out wrong at worst.

Your denials notwithstanding, lasttrain, I continue to suspect that you are Dave Cullen, or one of his friends or associates. But it really doesn't matter.

perpetual state wrote:

So, does Cullen have some sort of agenda when releasing his book? I mean, what is he gaining besides money? If his book has a lot of misinformation on it, did he do it on purpose? Why would he do that? I heard about him cozying up to Dwayne Fuselier a lot. Does Fuselier have some thing to with it?Does he something to hide? Yea, I'm asking a lot of questions.

Generally speaking, all human motivations can be placed into the following categories:

* Sex
* Ego (need for validation of one's self-worth)
* Wealth
* Power
* Prestige (social status)
* Boredom (need for mental/physical stimulation)

I am not qualified to discuss Cullen's motivations for doing anything ... but that's never stopped me before.

Here's an article about Cullen's high-school reunion:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Quote :

Cullen, 48, is openly gay now but was in the closet at the time he went to Elk Grove High School. He said he felt like a misfit then and contemplated killing himself.

He felt like a misfit ... that indicates that he lacked Prestige, and that he needed to boost his Ego.

Quote :

What Cullen didn't expect to find when he started delving into their lives and minds was similarities between theirs' and his own high school experience.

"The Columbine suburbia and the Northwest suburbs of Chicago are really similar in a lot of ways," Cullen said. "It definitely helped me writing the book having gone to a similar kind of high school."

Ego.

Quote :

"But I think a lot of suburban kids feel a sort of emptiness out there," Cullen said. "Part of it was suburbia, and part of it was just adolescent angst."

Cullen said his two main goals with the book are to clear away the cloud of myths about Columbine and shine a light on teenage depression.

He wants to "clear away the cloud of myths" and "shine a light" ... like a god? Ascribing godlike qualities to oneself is, generally speaking, an Egotistical act.

Quote :

"One of the biggest impediments to us understanding why Columbine happened is the way we pose the question, 'why did they do it?'" Cullen said. "That 'they' is a huge problem because these are two different boys."

Who are "we," Dave?

See, he presumes to speak for everyone. There have always been different viewpoints about Columbine, but he creates this strawman argument that, before he chimed in, everyone believed Eric and Dylan were bullied outcasts who wanted to kill jocks.

Quote :

"Part way through the book, about eight years into the process, I realized I was making a big mistake," Cullen said. "I'm still looking down on these killers and being contemptuous. If I want readers to understand why these kids did this, I need to quit judging them."

Okay, fair enough.

Quote :

Pouring over the roughly 1,000 pages of manic musings of Harris and Klebold, Cullen saw parallels between Klebold and himself as teenagers who felt like fishes out of water.

Lonely and depressive, Klebold saw the world through dark-colored glasses and viewed his life as miserable. He was mostly angry at himself and highly suicidal.

"When I was a kid, I had really low self esteem and had trouble fitting in," said Cullen. "In high school, for me, it felt like no matter what I did I was still going to be that total dork. Very much like Klebold, I mostly blamed myself."

So Cullen sees a lot of himself in Klebold. That would tend to color his judgments, wouldn't it? He wants to make excuses for poor little Dylan and pin everything on big bad Eric.

I'm not going to lie and say that I, myself, look at the killers through an objective lens. I see parts of myself in both of them. But I am somewhat biased against Dylan - I look at his journal entries and say, "Whew, that kid was nuttier than a 20-pound fruitcake." I look at Eric's entries and I say, "That kid was small and weak, and he wanted to feel big and strong. His anger stemmed from the fact that he was a scrawny nobody who couldn't get any respect." I'm not small and weak, at least not physically, but I know what it's like to *feel* small and weak. I know what it's like to have people look at me with disdain, as if I'm not even worthy of their consideration.

Cullen apparently decided early on that Klebold was Eric's victim. I don't see either boy as a victim. And I don't buy the argument that Dylan was afraid of Eric.

Quote :

Ultimately, Harris was the catalyst that led Klebold down the path to murder, Cullen said.

"Eric's cause is very easy to understand; it's hard to accept," Cullen said. "He really had two goals: self aggrandizement, (and) he was sadistic and planned to enjoy killing people brutally."

Dylan wrote about being a god in a world of zombies. That's not self-aggrandizement?

And Dylan wasn't sadistic? He didn't plan to enjoy killing people brutally?

Consider these quotes from the basement tapes:

"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.

...

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."

...

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.

Quote :

Despite noting some parallels, Cullen said in writing the book he was careful not to project his own high school experiences onto either of the two boys.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

You're a Klebold supporter, Cullen. Hell, you're practically a Klebold fanboy. You make excuses for him at every turn.

I would never dream of making excuses for either one of them.

Quote :

The biggest lesson Cullen hopes readers, and particularly parents, take away from his book is recognizing the patterns of teenage depression and treating it.

"The good news on teen depression is most angry teen depressives are not going to murder people in their high school," Cullen said. "By attacking the epidemic of teen depression we can dramatically reduce the number of mass murders in high school, but reap a much greater benefit of saving the depressed kids from themselves."

See, this is where Cullen tries to position his book as An Important Work. He's going for Prestige here - "It's not just a tacky true-crime book! It's an important sociological document."

Cullen doesn't talk about the money, of course, but we can assume that he wanted to increase his Wealth, at least somewhat.

Although I don't agree with all of the conclusions of LPorter about E &D ,I have endless amounts of appreciation for any anti Cullen thread or sentiment. One thing that can't be mentioned about Cullen enough is what a immense liar he is.Cullen fans will never convince me that he is not a liar so to debate about it would be a waste of your time and mine.

PaintItBlack wrote:

Although I don't agree with  all of the conclusions of LPorter about E &D ,I have endless amounts of appreciation for any anti Cullen thread or sentiment. One thing that can't be mentioned about Cullen enough is what a immense liar he is.Cullen fans will never convince me that he is not a liar so to debate about it would be a waste of your time and mine.

I like to think that I'm more pro-truth than anti-Cullen, but thanks for the moral support.

I realized a few minutes ago that my list of human motivations is missing one important item:

* Survival (food, water, air, protection from the elements, and so on)

Our survival instinct is pretty strong ... you've got to be in a bad place to take a gun, put it in your mouth, and excavate your cranial vault. No matter how much you might hate others, you've got to hate yourself at a deep level in order to do something like that.

LPorter101 wrote:

PaintItBlack wrote:

Although I don't agree with  all of the conclusions of LPorter about E &D ,I have endless amounts of appreciation for any anti Cullen thread or sentiment. One thing that can't be mentioned about Cullen enough is what a immense liar he is.Cullen fans will never convince me that he is not a liar so to debate about it would be a waste of your time and mine.

I like to think that I'm more pro-truth than anti-Cullen, but thanks for the moral support.

I realized a few minutes ago that my list of human motivations is missing one important item:

* Survival (food, water, air, protection from the elements, and so on)

Our survival instinct is pretty strong ... you've got to be in a bad place to take a gun, put it in your mouth, and excavate your cranial vault. No matter how much you might hate others, you've got to hate yourself at a deep level in order to do something like that.

Agreed about Eric.I hate how Cullen makes him out to be some kind of Sadaam Hussein type mastermind when he was a troubled ,angry, lonely, sad kid. To me, it doesn't matter what a person's motivations are in being anti Cullen. You can hate E &D but if you realize what a liar Cullen is and what a disgrace his book is that's good enough for me.

LPorter, you mention Cullen was like Capote, who's that?

perpetual state wrote:

LPorter, you mention Cullen was like Capote, who's that?

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

In Cold Blood is a non-fiction book first published in 1966 by American author Truman Capote; it details the 1959 murders of Herbert Clutter, a farmer from Holcomb, Kansas, his wife, and two of their four children. When Capote learned of the quadruple murder, before the killers were captured, he decided to travel to Kansas and write about the crime. He was accompanied by his childhood friend and fellow author Harper Lee, and together they interviewed local residents and investigators assigned to the case and took thousands of pages of notes. The killers, Richard "Dick" Hickock and Perry Smith, were arrested six weeks after the murders, and Capote ultimately spent six years working on the book. The book became the greatest crime seller at the time and is almost universally acknowledged as one of the best books of its type ever written.

Some critics consider Capote's work the original non-fiction novel, although other writers had already explored the genre, such as Rodolfo Walsh in Operación Masacre (1957). The book examines the complex psychological relationship between two parolees who together commit a mass murder. Capote's book also explores the lives of the victims and the effect of the crime on the community in which they lived. In Cold Blood is regarded by critics as a pioneering work of the true-crime genre, though Capote was disappointed that the book failed to win the Pulitzer Prize.

Parts of the book, including important details, differ from the real events.

LPorter, for someone who objects to Cullen's attempt to analyze Eric and Dylan, you sure think you know a lot about Cullen himself.

The fact of the matter is this: Cullen has written a book that is substantially accurate.  He is wrong about the Brenda Parker thing, but he got everything else right.  He also did an enormous job describing the victims, especially the Sanders family, and no one ever mentions this part of the book.  No amount of armchair psychology about his motives will change his achievement, and there is a big difference between 24/7 images and writing a book.

And to perpetual state: do not allow people with an agenda to influence the way you approach Cullen's work or this case.  Read the book for yourself.  Read the 11k.  Read the other outstanding journalism, such as the articles that appeared in the Denver Post and the Rocky Mountain News.  Read Peter Langmann's work on Columbine.  You'll have a substantially accurate picture after you do that.

lasttrain wrote:

LPorter, for someone who objects to Cullen's attempt to analyze Eric and Dylan, you sure think you know a lot about Cullen himself.

People reveal themselves all the time. No doubt someone could write a fairly accurate analysis of my mental state, based on the things I've written.

Quote :

The fact of the matter is this: Cullen has written a book that is substantially accurate.  He is wrong about the Brenda Parker thing, but he got everything else right.

Eric was a short, scrawny little nerd who couldn't get laid to save 15 lives. Girls said he gave off a vaguely creepy vibe - that's why the vast majority of the girls he asked out turned him down. He bore little resemblance to the popular, confident ladies' man Cullen describes in his book.

Quote :

He also did an enormous job describing the victims, especially the Sanders family, and no one ever mentions this part of the book.

Yes, he did. I'll grant him that.

Quote :

No amount of armchair psychology about his motives will change his achievement, and there is a big difference between 24/7 images and writing a book.

Yes, I suppose there is. But you're not going to convince me that someone who writes a mass-market popular book about a notorious crime is not, to some extent, attempting to capitalize on the notoriety of said crime.

As I said, I have no problem with an author's attempting to cash in on the public's morbid fascination with a horrific crime. But I do object to that author's attempting to promote himself as some higher moral authority, fit to judge the journalistic hacks whose coverage creates the type of notoriety he feeds on.

Quote :

And to perpetual state: do not allow people with an agenda to influence the way you approach Cullen's work or this case.  Read the book for yourself.  Read the 11k.  Read the other outstanding journalism, such as the articles that appeared in the Denver Post and the Rocky Mountain News.  Read Peter Langmann's work on Columbine.  You'll have a substantially accurate picture after you do that.

I have said the same thing many times - read as many works as you can.

I have never advised people not to read Cullen's work.

LPorter101 wrote:

As I said, I have no problem with an author's attempting to cash in on the public's morbid fascination with a horrific crime. But I do object to that author's attempting to promote himself as some higher moral authority, fit to judge the journalistic hacks whose coverage creates the type of notoriety he feeds on.

Read what he wrote:

Dave Cullen wrote:

To avoid injecting myself into the story, I generally refer to the press in the third person.  But in the great media blunders during the initial coverage of this story, where nearly everyone got the central factors wrong, I was among the guilty parties

This is a man claiming moral authority, or viewing others as hacks?  Sounds to me like a man owning up to his past mistakes and trying to correct them.

lasttrain wrote:

LPorter101 wrote:

As I said, I have no problem with an author's attempting to cash in on the public's morbid fascination with a horrific crime. But I do object to that author's attempting to promote himself as some higher moral authority, fit to judge the journalistic hacks whose coverage creates the type of notoriety he feeds on.

Read what he wrote:

Dave Cullen wrote:

To avoid injecting myself into the story, I generally refer to the press in the third person.  But in the great media blunders during the initial coverage of this story, where nearly everyone got the central factors wrong, I was among the guilty parties

This is a man claiming moral authority, or viewing others as hacks?  Sounds to me like a man owning up to his past mistakes and trying to correct them.

So he wrote the book to correct the public record, and to atone for his journalistic sins? How noble of him! And how convenient that his method of atonement happens to be somewhat lucrative!

"Oh, yes, I was part of the ignorant media horde, and I contributed to the creation of a false narrative about Columbine. But I repent! I have seen the light, and I am ready to bring you the story of what really happened!

"And, for the incredibly low price of $9.99, you can read the true story on your Kindle! For $16.00, you can get a paperback copy of my truth-telling tome shipped to your house! And for just $26.99, you can own a handsomely-bound hardcover copy! And don't forget that, if you're too lazy to read, you can purchase my book on Audible for $17.95! And, if you're still living in the late '90s, you can buy my book in MP3 CD format for $23.67! But, remember, these prices only apply if you have Amazon Prime, so be sure you sign up! And don't forget to like me on Facebook!"

Sounds to me like a man trying to sell a book. Again, there's nothing wrong with wanting to sell a book. It's marketing, people.

You know, it's funny ... I once corresponded with an author who was deeply passionate about a book he had written. I did want to read his book, but things kept coming up and I wasn't able to buy it and read it as quickly as he would have preferred. He kept bugging me about it, and I kept stringing him along - not on purpose, really, but because I had a lot on my plate and his book wasn't a priority.

Finally, he said, essentially, "You know what? Fuck you. I went into debt writing that book, and you don't even have the decency to buy it to help me out."

(We later reconciled, to an extent.)

I can't say I blame him for being angry, but I thought it was funny that, as time went along, he went from talking about his high-minded reasons for writing the book ("I want to reach people at a deep level") to saying, "Fuck you. I need the money."

Maybe I'm being too hard on ol' Davey Boy here ... after all, he has to eat, doesn't he? But I still think it's funny how he feels the need to do all of this posturing and feather-fluffing to disguise the fact that he's just another hustler in a cruel, uncaring world, peddling his product. And does he ever peddle!

I'm always flattered when people tell me I should write a book, but, honestly, I wouldn't want to write a book unless a) I honestly felt that I had something truly meaningful to say and/or b) I believed I could make some serious money by selling my ideas to the reading public.

If I had to choose between a) and b), I'd choose b) in a heartbeat. I prefer having money to not having it. But I would like to think that I wouldn't try to come up with a laundry list of justifications and rationalizations to convince people of the purity of my motives.

I'd say, more or less, "I've written a book about such-and-such a topic. If you find the topic interesting, then go ahead and buy my book. I hope you find the book interesting, entertaining, and/or informative. If you do, I'm glad. If you don't, too bad."

And I doubt I could find an editor who would want to publish me after I used the word "funny" three times in one piece...

I also used "honestly" twice in the same sentence. See, I don't proofread.

It's fun to string words together in the hopes of making a semi-coherent statement; it's tedious to go back over them and check for careless mistakes.

I also heard that his book is being read in high schools. Why is that exactly? What exactly are kids learning from his book?

perpetual state wrote:

I also heard that his book is being read in high schools. Why is that exactly? What exactly are kids learning from his book?

From the book they are learning that Eric got a lot of girls. Dylan was innocent and forced into doing it and they are also learning that Cullen is able to tell us exactly what Dylan and Eric were thinking. Isn't that amazing?

Jenn wrote:

perpetual state wrote:

I also heard that his book is being read in high schools. Why is that exactly? What exactly are kids learning from his book?

From the book they are learning that Eric got a lot of girls. Dylan was innocent and forced into doing it and they are also learning that Cullen is able to tell us exactly what Dylan and Eric were thinking. Isn't that amazing?

  

If they ever do make Cullenbine: The Movie, I'll be the first in line to see it.

And then, during the scene where the smooth, suave Eric boinks Brenda Parker, I'll stand up in the middle of the crowded theater and scream at the top of my lungs:

"This isn't what happened! Have you all got amnesia? They just cheated us! This isn't fair!

"HE DIDN'T GET INTO HER COCK-A-DOODIE CUNT!"

And then they'll take me away.

Being on these forums has saved me a ton of time.  Cullen's story is fan fiction at best.  I cannot stand assessments made by writers, even with Sudden Terror (EARONS) it was really hard to swallow how much was written for the sake of selling books.  I'd rather read a boring book that is 100% factual than try to swallow 80% bs for the sake of invoking media attention.

Garbage at best is what this is, same as Brooks book (which I honestly did enjoy) What is the point of having "the real story" when all it is is pure and incessant speculation?  If you are not qualified to assess the psychological aspect of people, why not just quote someone who is?  Honestly.

Maybe I should write a story where Daniel Köllen, a famous non-fiction author, wrecks his car during a nasty blizzard in the Colorado wilderness.

He is rescued by Caitlin Kuku, an Eric fangirl. She drags him to her house and nurses him back to health.

But when Caitlin realizes that Daniel has written an account of the massacre that profanes the memory of her beloved Eric, she goes batshit crazy and finds ingenious ways to punish him.

CAITLIN
You ... you dirty bird! How could you?

DANIEL
Uh ... is there a problem?

CAITLIN
Eric Harris cannot be a psychopath! He's my hero!

DANIEL
Caitlin, every novel needs a hero and a villain. And that's what my book is - a non-fiction novel. Eric is the villain - he's a bad-ass pussy-pounding psychopathic ladies' man. But Dylan is far more sympathetic. He can be the hero.

CAITLIN
I DON'T WANT DYLAN TO BE THE HERO! I WANT ERIC! AND YOU SLANDERED HIM!

DANIEL
No ... I didn't.

CAITLIN
WHO DID?

DANIEL
No one! I ... I developed my thesis in consultation with an FBI agent named Wayne Dussier. It's a collaborative effort!

CAITLIN
COLLABORATIVE EFFORT! COLLABORATIVE EFFORT? IT'S NOT A COLLABORATIVE EFFORT! YOU WROTE THE BOOK! YOU WROTE IT! YOU WROTE IT! YOU WROTE IT! YOU SLANDERED MY ERIC!

DANIEL
Caitlin...

CAITLIN
I thought you were good, Daniel. But you're not good. You're just another lying old birty dirdie.

DANIEL
Birty dirdie?

CAITLIN
Dirty birdie! I misspoke!

DANIEL
It's okay. I misspeak all the time.

CAITLIN
I don't think I'd better be around you for a while. And don't even think about anybody coming in you.

DANIEL
Uh ... don't you mean, "coming *for* me?"

CAITLIN
No, I don't.

DANIEL
I see.

CAITLIN
Nobody knows you're here. And you better hope nothing happens to me. Because if I die ... you die.

haha creepy crazy. She had planned on sleeping with him before he misspoke.

brewcrew86 wrote:

haha creepy crazy.  She had planned on sleeping with him before he misspoke.

This conversation took place earlier that day:

DANIEL
Uh, Caitlin...

CAITLIN
Yes, my darling?

DANIEL
I don't mean to pry ... I mean, I know I'm a guest in your home, so I know I should...

CAITLIN
Daniel, you can ask me anything.

DANIEL
Caitlin, are you a womon-born-womon?

An awkward pause.

CAITLIN
No.

Another awkward pause.

CAITLIN
Why do you ask?

DANIEL
Well, for one thing, you're at least 6'5" and very well-built. Also, sometimes, when you bend over to clean the floor, I can see...

CAITLIN
...that I don't wear underwear?

DANIEL
Yes. I can see your low-hanging balls.

Another awkward pause.

DANIEL
You have big balls.

CAITLIN
Yes. I'm big all over. The girls used to call me "Big-Dick Charlie." I was the captain of the football team. Me and the guys had cheerleader foursomes every single weekend. It was great. But, through it all, I always dreamed of raping scrawny nerds.

DANIEL
Interesting.

Another awkward pause.

DANIEL
You know, you're like a light-brown-haired, green-eyed female version of Joe Manganiello - the hunk from True Blood. Have you seen Magic Mike?

CAITLIN
Yes. But that was a prosthetic.

DANIEL
Yeah. And Mark Wahlberg...

CAITLIN
Yeah, Boogie Nights. Another fake big schlong. Mine's real.

Another awkward pause.

DANIEL
Are you pre-op?

CAITLIN
No. God made me a woman, but He wants me to keep my lady penis. He told me so.

DANIEL
Ah.

Another awkward pause.

CAITLIN
Well, I'd better do the laundry.

DANIEL
Yeah.

CAITLIN
Talk to you later.

DANIEL
Later.

I wish i hadn't read that.

I wish i hadn't read that.

brewcrew86 wrote:

I wish i hadn't read that.

Misery is a *horror* story, remember.

Yeah, that Kathy Bates chick is crazy.

After recovering from her temper tantrum, Caitlin forces Daniel to burn his latest unpublished manuscript - a searing, moving examination of the discrimination faced by some of America's brave military heroes.

Then she forces Daniel to write a new novel - a romance, featuring a love triangle between two teenaged lovers - Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold - and Charlie Kuku, a 6'5", 250-pound football player. Charlie is the most popular boy in his school, wanted by the females and respected by the males for his firm muscles and ample manhood, but he is miserable. God made him a woman with an Adam's apple and a lady penis, but gave him a fundie father who believes that men are men, women and women, and fags are fags.

Charlie lusts after Eric. He is furious that Eric prefers Dylan, "that rangy, stinky little emo bitch." So he hatches a plan to massacre a bunch of students at his high school, then pin the crime on Dylan. He will make it look as if Dylan intends to kill Eric, and will "rescue" Eric by shooting Dylan in the head. Charlie expects that Eric will be so grateful that he will agree to become Charlie's husband. Eric and the rechristened Caitlin will spend the rest of their lives together, locked in hot, steamy, lady-penis love.

DANIEL
That's an ... interesting proposal, Caitlin.

CAITLIN
It'll be a best-seller!

DANIEL
Well, I'm not entirely certain the book would be commercially viable. Then again, my book portrayed Dylan as a rangy, stinky little emo bitch, and it sold thousands of copies. So maybe you've got a point.

CAITLIN
So start writing!

DANIEL
Yes, but there is one problem: I have no incentive to write this novel for you. You're a crazy psycho bitch.

CAITLIN
Would you like me to rape you? Do you want to know how it feels?

DANIEL
Caitlin, do you know how many guys...

CAITLIN
Okay, so you're not afraid of the lady penis. Then maybe I'll grab a knife and make you into a lady - without a penis!

DANIEL
Get my laptop. I'll start writing right away.

CAITLIN
Oh, your laptop ... I forgot to mention this, but I smashed it with a baseball bat. I wanted to make sure that you didn't have a digital copy of your manuscript.

DANIEL
Uh, Caitlin, you know that I e-mailed it...

CAITLIN
Don't say it! I'll get the knife!

DANIEL
Yes, my only copy was on the laptop. Do you have another computer in the house?

CAITLIN
No, but I have a really old typewriter.

DANIEL
A typewriter? What year is this?

CAITLIN
Write my novel on the cock-a-doodie typewriter or your cock will end up being flushed down the toilet with my doodie!

DANIEL
You're the boss.

This has got to be one of the funniest threads. "You lying dirty bird". Ha ha! I loved "Misery", BTW.

does this not sound like a semi-plot used version of misery?

brewcrew86 wrote:

does this not sound like a semi-plot used version of misery?

It is.

Then i'd like to un-read what I just witnessed, please.