Is Comprehending Columbine by Ralph Larkin worth to read?

It is rated poor, but again these reviewers have praised that hack Cullen, while also having Jeff Kass book rated poor.

This book came out in 07. For those who have read it, what do you think? Good book?

There are some egregious errors in the book (he repeats the rumor about Dylan's being bisexual), but Larkin did go to some lengths to document the social atmosphere at the school. He interviewed quite a few students who testified as to the prevalence of bullying at Columbine.

It's worth a read.

Yes, it is worth your time. His book leaves Cullen's in the dust.

Larkin's book is imho quite sociology-oiented, btu as a result a bit "all over the place". He makes a very thorough analysis of the population and demographics of the area.

What I like about him, is that he goes around and makes interviews with actual CHS students askign them what was CHS like, what was the peer strucuture etc. He geta a lot of views from very different students - jocks, preps, tcm, "average joes".

So if you as me, his books gives a very good look at columbine HS from a lot of angles and viewpoints, in contrst to Brooks's book where its all from his own (admittedly somewhat extreme and biased) view.


I would suggest readign the book, particularly the interviws and analysis of CHS itself. His grasp on the killers themselves however is lacking.

Ok, I decvided to write more about this.

My view that the part about Littleton and CHS as communities is good, well this part stands.



However I'd like to stress that his view on the killers minds and motives is entirely bogus.
He states that the mental conditions ("psychopathology" as he clals it) of E&D were irrelevant for the most part.

He states that it was the social norms that created columbine. Larkin says that Eric was a nazi paramilitary (I'm not making this up!) and Dylan was just Eric's meek follower who had nothing to say and basiclaly just parroted Eric and did what Eric told him to.

Larkin gets a lot of specific details wrong (he writes that NBK teh film was about Manson iirc) and overall his grasp on specific youth culture of the period is poor. He states that there's no specific music style associated with goth culture for example.

So - read the first few chapters of Larkin, the ones about Littleton, the district they lived in  and CHS, especially the interviews with CHS former students (which are the highlight of the book really).


You can safely skip the rest of the book though, cause its mostly nonsense.

Krabbe's book, while it has a fewminor issues, is overlal a much better book on the subject. If you have to choose 1 book - read Krabbe. Treat Larkin's first few chapters as an addendum.

Thanks Sab. Usually I disagree with you on Eric being a psychopath, but I will take your word on this. I received the book yesterday. I'll probably read it in the upcoming week.

lol wrote:

Thanks Sab. Usually I disagree with you on Eric being a psychopath, but I will take your word on this. I received the book yesterday. I'll probably read it in the upcoming week.

Well, Larkin is a sociologist. So it is natural for him to try to seek a cause that would be explained with society, social values and the culture of clarge groups and their influence on people.

However, he's trying to do it with Eric, who himself repeatedly dismissed any sort of group-think and overall consistently stated how he dislikes society and wants nothing to do with it or how it functions.

So Larkin decided to look at two social movements - US right-wing style paramilitaries (Oklahoma bombings and whatnot) and nazi skinhead culture and then he just basically says: "Well that's what influenced Harris obviously." Then he states taht Dylan was confused and allowed Harris to brainwash him and just followed Eric to his doom.

I'm not impressed. Larkin may be a good researcher, but as far as theory goes he's a dogmatic. "Everthing is caused by environmental cultural factors and social group values, so columbine must be the same way" is how he goes about it.

I feel it is necessary to share some old posts of mine in this thread to forewarn anyone who has not yet read this book, and to let others who have already read it know about this gargantuan error.

These posts originate from [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] thread.

tfsa47090 wrote:

I want to add something about Ralph Larkin's Comprehending Columbine:

He ACTUALLY QUOTES THIS WEBSITE in his book!!!!

If that doesn't say enough about this man's researching skills, I don't know what will.

Does the book have interesting points and interviews? Yes, in my opinion it does. That doesn't change the fact that he repeatedly quoted and SOURCED a phony website!!

Seriously, that's as horrendously irresponsible as Cullen including Brenda Parker's "story" in his book as fact.

tfsa47090 wrote:

queenfarooq wrote:

tfsa47090 wrote:

I want to add something about Ralph Larkin's Comprehending Columbine:

He ACTUALLY QUOTES THIS WEBSITE in his book!!!!

If that doesn't say enough about this man's researching skills, I don't know what will.

Does the book have interesting points and interviews? Yes, in my opinion it does. That doesn't change the fact that he repeatedly quoted and SOURCED a phony website!!

Seriously, that's as horrendously irresponsible as Cullen including Brenda Parker's "story" in his book as fact.

I agree.
I feel like if someone is desperate to find a source for a quote or a source to back up their research no matter how questionable the source is they can find one and are happy to use it. Sometimes i wonder if researchers just think that nobody else will bother to check their sources or don't actually check the sources properly themselves. I think it's highly unlikely Larkin saw this website and thought 'wow what a fantastically credible website for me to use for my book.'

I have not read Comprehending Columbine for a while and i don't own a copy but was intending to read it again soon.

I read Comprehending Columbine when it was released, which was in 2007, I believe. I'd seen that ridiculous website a few years prior, but didn't connect it immediately while reading the book. I just knew that when I read the multiple references to it in the book, something was inherently wrong with them.

I read it again about a year and a half ago to two years ago, and once again, the quotes from "Eric Harris' 'Trenchcoat Mafia' website" (Larkin's literal description when referencing it) just made me nauseous.

A few months ago, I was looking on conspiracy-esque forums and saw that site linked. I clicked on it, and said "THERE'S that utterly STUPID site! THAT'S the one referenced in Larkin's book!" (I do that now and again---going on weird conspiracy theory websites/forums. Believe it or not, you can find little snippets of information that you can research further on your own that you won't find otherwise. Usually names and dates. Of course, the majority of this type of information is fruitless and nonsensical, but there'd been a few times I found some interesting information through my own searches with a name, date, or location referenced through such mediums. In short, it's a good idea to look everywhere, no matter how deranged the sites may be overall, and then research further on your own).

There's no excuse for this whatsoever. This was written and published eight years after it happened. He is also one of the people who says that it's Dylan filming Eric, Mike V., and Brandi and her friend walking, when we all know it was Erik Veik. He says it right in this book.

Despite all of this, I don't discourage anyone from reading it. I think that when you're researching something, you actually need to and should read everything that you can, from all sides. However, this desperate need (from some people) to find and "officially" name ONE source as the "holy grail", especially in a complicated situation such as this, is never going to be satiated with one single book. It just isn't. They're all flawed; all unreliable in one way or another. One needs to read them all, among other things, and piece everything together themselves. Even then, the whole story is not ever going to be entirely clear.

Yeah forgot to mention that part specifically. In general all he writes about E&D makes no sense.

Id say if you want to get first hand Interviews from students, Larkins book is worth it. But be very critical, because some very inaccurate conclusions.

One is the stereotype that Eric was a goth and that they were part of the TCM. I had major issues with this, because generally speaking, if they were goths, you will oftentimes be able to identify with their music taste, clothes etc. Just because you like to wear black, like the two did, that doesnt make them goths. Lots of people dress in black without being goth. And I believe that this was one misconception That the general public have gotten wrong

And also that they targeted specific groups. Thats another claim that he brings up. I dont think they truly cared. Very rarely in mass shootings like these are they targeting specific individuals. But other than that its worth a trie. But as with Cullens book and any other book on the subject that I can come up with regarding the issue Id take with a grain of salt. I think you may find that some is probably accurate, some less accurate, etc.

tfsa47090 wrote:

He is also one of the people who says that it's Dylan filming Eric, Mike V., and Brandi and her friend walking, when we all know it was Erik Veik. He says it right in this book.

It's because of this that Sue writes in her book that it was Dylan.

[quote="Reznor"]

tfsa47090 wrote:

He is also one of the people who says that it's Dylan filming Eric, Mike V., and Brandi and her friend walking, when we all know it was Erik Veik. He says it right in this book.

It's because of this that Sue writes in her book that it was Dylan.[/quote
]

Not sure if its actually Dylan holdning the camera or if its someone else

Norwegian wrote:

Not sure if its actually Dylan holdning the camera or if its someone else

[/quote]

It's 100% Erik Veik; there is even a part in it when they are talking to Brandi and they start talking about names. Vendegnia asks her what kind of stereotypes she has about guys named Eric and she's says, "Eric's are cool." Harris says "thanks" and she asks, "oh, are you an Eric?" and he says yes and then points to the cameraman and says, "So is he."

lol wrote:

It is rated poor, but again these reviewers have praised that hack Cullen, while also having Jeff Kass book rated poor.

This book came out in 07. For those who have read it, what do you think?  Good book?

I am not too happy with Dr. Larkin's book because he's spends too much time delving into the sociology angle.  I think place is important when you want to set up the crime scene for your readers, but it's evident that for Dylan, and especially Eric, place wasn't an important motive. Columbine, it seems, was an appropriate symbol of everything Eric hated, and so blowing up innocent children accounted for little in his calculations. Eric and Timothy McVeigh are very similar criminals in that they were prepared to destroy symbols that represented their resented place in society. However, Dr. Larkin writes about Littleton's snobbish, clannish culture, which doesn't explain why Eric and Dylan wanted to deviate from this culture if that's what drove them to murder.

Another problem that I have with Dr. Larkin's book is on psychopathy. The science is swinging the ball away from nurture and towards nature, but Dr. Larkin (who must have known about the latest in the psychological research) states that it's all nurture.

jada887 wrote:

lol wrote:

It is rated poor, but again these reviewers have praised that hack Cullen, while also having Jeff Kass book rated poor.

This book came out in 07. For those who have read it, what do you think?  Good book?

I am not too happy with Dr. Larkin's book because he's spends too much time delving into the sociology angle.  I think place is an important when you want to set up the crime scene for your readers, but it's evident that Dylan, and especially Eric, that place wasn't an important motive. Columbine, it seems, was an appropriate symbol of everything Eric hated, and so blowing up innocent children accounted for little in his calculations. Eric and Timothy McVeigh are very similar in that they were prepared to destroy symbols that represented their resented place in society. However, Dr. Larkin writes about Littleton's snobbish, clannish culture, which doesn't explain why Eric and Dylan wanted to deviate from this culture if that's what drove them to murder.

Another problem that I have with Dr. Larkin's book is on psychopathy. The science is swinging the ball away from nurture and towards nature, but Dr. Larkin (who must have known about the latest in the psychological research) states that it's all nurture.

.

Langman supports this view, and I think it's pretty obvious. If we take Langmans view, which I believe is shared by other experts as well:

Eric sees himselves as the law. The school, life, people, etc challenged hes view of natural selection. It represented order. And a type of order which Eric despised. The setback: He got into trouble, he was bullied/ teased, and all of this contributed to a number of setbacks. Because it challenged hes image as superior. The motive didnt have a lot to do with bullying, as far as I can see, but a need to show people who is God. Bullying or teasing may have been a factor, much like the run in with police authority. But its not an explanation,nor a cause, and as far as I know some experts have now denied that they were really bullied(Im not talking about Cullen, but more prominent experts), atleast to the extent previously though. But they also argue, however, that bullying is a significant factor in many other school shootings.

Especially not true that they were goths or anything like that. Å typical explanation of the gothic subculure:

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

This is not to spoil the thread, but I think it's important so that people know what the gothic subculure is about. Im not saying this to bash Larkin, as I believe that he had genuinely good intentions and wasnt trying to tarnish the image of the gothic subculture. Im just trying to point out that those two were not goths, which is a fact. Other than that, he offered some interesting points of view and in depth Interviews.

And also, Im trying to keep in mind what Sabratha says, that hes a sociologist. Whereas Jeff Kass and Dave Cullen are journalists and Langman is a child psychologist. One probably should take note of the different professions they work with.