Tom Mauser: Some victims families feel anger and resentment about book

Any money she makes from the book tour (people buying the book and having her autograph it) is going towards Mental Illness research. So she isn't exactly 'banking' anything.

They complain if she doesn't speak out, they complain if she does. Either way, she can't win. No one complained when Cullen wrote a book full of lies.

Granted, Sue may still be in denial about some of the things her son did, but that is to be expected. Sometimes the only way people survive and can move on is by being in denial. I mean, this is her son we're talking about. But at least she's doing her best to try and be as honest as she can. Can't say the same for the story Cullen told. I mean if he wanted to believe the whole Eric was a psychopath and Dylan a suicidal depressive, then fine. But he didn't have to make up flat out lies.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.],
I figured this reaction from some of the families' would come up.I'm only surprised they aren't being louder in their dissent.
I totally agree that the families can't win, no matter what they do or say or don't do or say.
People complain about Eric's parents not speaking out but if they did, they'd come down on them like a ton of bricks.
I'm sure Eric's parents realize this and that's one of the reasons they don't speak.

I honestly applaud Sue Klebold's courage for doing the book & interviews lately. It was good to hear directly from her.

Byron's drug problems keep getting brought up in the comments section of that article. I didn't finish Sue's book yet so maybe it talks about it, but what was the extent of his addiction? Weed, prescription pills?

I asked Tom Mauser four months ago if he would be reading it. He said...

"Not sure if I'll read it - but that's because I'm not much of a book reader. I think it's good she's coming to terms with it all. When I wrote to her in 2007, I complained about their lack of openness, so now it's good to see something being said....."

Seems Sue can't win either way.

I think the radar headline was inaccurate. He's not "slamming" her for writing a book, just explain feelings the victims families have had for a long time.

slippy123 wrote:

Byron's drug problems keep getting brought up in the comments section of that article. I didn't finish Sue's book yet so maybe it talks about it, but what was the extent of his addiction? Weed, prescription pills?

Marijuana

sororityalpha wrote:

slippy123 wrote:

Byron's drug problems keep getting brought up in the comments section of that article. I didn't finish Sue's book yet so maybe it talks about it, but what was the extent of his addiction? Weed, prescription pills?

Marijuana

Eh, they always made it seem like it was much worse.

Radioactive_Clothing wrote:

I asked Tom Mauser four months ago if he would be reading it. He said...

"Not sure if I'll read it - but that's because I'm not much of a book reader. I think it's good she's coming to terms with it all. When I wrote to her in 2007, I complained about their lack of openness, so now it's good to see something being said....."

Seems Sue can't win either way.

What I don't understand (and I never will of course) is why they're bashing a book that's profits will go towards mental health. This book is raising awareness and could potentially stop other families from experiencing the kind of loss they did. I could understand it if Sue was raking in the cash for herself, but this woman genuinely wants to do something good with her guilt and pain. Their children's deaths aren't described in detail, nor is Dylan made out to be a saint. Sure there's a little bit of bias because its his mother writing the book, but that's to be expected. Hell the Scott family makes more profit off the attack than Sue ever will. Like I said I just don't understand it, but then again I wasnt effected by the attack like they were.

Only place I've seen "understanding" when the parents speak out is in Finland (Pekkas parents, Saaris Mum and the Myyrmanni bombers Dad) and that was only from the general public and not victims families.

It's probably Mrs Klebolds last chance at some kind of closure and it's taken alot of guts for her to come forward. As hard as it might sound, victims families have had their chance to say their bit, give Mrs Klebold hers now and let her find her bit of peace.

[quote="slippy123"]

sororityalpha wrote:

slippy123 wrote:

Byron's drug problems keep getting brought up in the comments section of that article. I didn't finish Sue's book yet so maybe it talks about it, but what was the extent of his addiction? Weed, prescription pills?

Marijuana

LOL at Marijuana being addictive.

Nirvana, I think it comes down to the grieveing process. Some people feel that forgiveness is what will let them be at ease. Others will feel hatred and won't forgive until they die.

I think when it comes down to it, I feel there is a lot of misinterpretation of the book. Where as Sue is very intelligent, she isn't a very experienced writer, and don't think she understands how some of the things she says could be construed to be cold or unsympathetic, as well as the expectations that people had out of it. She's still a mother, and will have a mothers love, to expect her to demonize is just unrealistic (as well as she claims it's against her grieving process many times).
It seems a lot of people came to this looking for information on the subject, but in reality it's just supplemental information regarding to family life for the most part.
In the end, the tragedy is tragedy, but she lost someone as well.

I read her book. I think it was very well written. I also think it is good to finally hear from one of the parents. Until now, we hadn't had that opportunity to do it. I think she is incredibly brave for writing this book, and I am so glad to see that she is donating the money to mental health research. Reading her book, had me going back to reading Brooks Brown book. I while he says that he wrote it for closure for him, (and that may well be true) I also think it was for profit for him. I understand that he and his family had reported Eric a whole year plus before and that when all the stuff was coming to light after the massacre, he was always in the spot light. I also understand how the families of the victims may feel about Sue writing a book, but I really think it was time. I am also proud of her for opening herself up and letting the world know what was going on. I also think that by reading her book, maybe parents of kids will be able to spot signs a lot quicker and be able to intervene so that another tragedy doesn't happen

slippy123 wrote:

Nirvana,  I think it comes down to the grieveing process. Some people feel that forgiveness is what will let them be at ease. Others will feel hatred and won't forgive until they die.

Of course and its only natural. What irritates me is how this BOOK is getting negative responses, yet the Im Not Ashamed MOVIE goes so far as to reenact the BT and the attack itself. I don't mean to offend anyone by saying this, but that movie is Christian propaganda that is based on a long disproven myth. Its as exploitative as can be but its unlikely the media will scrutinize it in any significant manner. Mass shootings have become an epidemic here in America and we need to make the parents and family of shooters feel comfortable enough to talk about the subject. The more profiles of individual shooters we get the better chance we have of preventing further tragedies like Columbine. What we don't need is another exploitative "come-to-Jesus" film that depicts the MENTALLY ILL as evil monsters. That depiction of shooters alone is enough to inspire copycats.

I think a lot of it comes down to misunderstanding and fear. From most of the negative comments I've read, those readers had only one expectation (although unrealistic), that Sue was a neglectful mother who completely disowned her son. The fact that she felt so much compassion still probably ruffled their feathers due to not being able to put themselves in her situation. With I'm Not Ashamed, it's Christian propaganda to root for the victims cause. It's easier to digest for people to sympathize with a random stranger who was a victim by being a bystander, than someone who happened to be a parent of a child who committed a violent crime, without taking into consideration the impact it had on them personally.