Is Cullen right or wrong? (June 2016)

We haven't done this for a while, and there seem to be a lot of new faces here, so let me ask:

Is Dave Cullen right? When he tells us that Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold were not bullied, that Eric was a psychopath and Dylan a depressive, and that the massacre was not caused in any way by the social atmosphere at the school, is he telling the truth?

Many folks 'round here already know, or can guess, where I stand on this issue. But if you don't know, then let me say:

DAVE CULLEN IS DEAD WRONG WHEN HE SAYS THAT THE BOYS WERE NOT BULLIED. BOTH BOYS WERE OUTCASTS AT OR NEAR THE BOTTOM OF THE SOCIAL TOTEM POLE, AND THAT THEY DEEPLY RESENTED THEIR LACK OF STATUS. THE EVIDENCE FOR ERIC'S PSYCHOPATHY ISN'T NEARLY AS CLEAR-CUT AS CULLEN MAKES IT OUT TO BE. DYLAN WAS NOT A SAD LITTLE EMO WHO COWERED IN FEAR OF THE BIG BAD PSYCHO ERIC. BOTH BOYS WANTED TO KILL, AND BOTH BOYS WANTED TO DIE.

(Sorry for shouting.)

I believe both boys were sociopaths (not psychopaths) in that their environment lead them to commit their massacre, along with other events. Basically the perfect storm.. and the fact they both had easy access to firearms.

Eric and Dylan could have been MANY other kids.. and in fact, they were. Look at most mass-shooters and they all have one or two things in common with each other.

And I believe Eric and Dylan were both virgins who did not get much attention from girls. I think Eric had a lot of friends that were girls (but would never be more than that) and much the same for Dylan.


People suggesting Dylan date Robyn Anderson need to ask themselves this: would YOU date her? This may seem pretty fickle but she's very unattractive, I highly doubt Dylan would have had any interest in her at all.

I don't believe the boys were any of the Paths at all; I think they're normal teenage guys who hated that they weren't top of the ladder. Of course, Eric's medication-intake compromised his mental stability along the way and Dylan was just a hopeless-romantic, I might believe he's depressed, but I won't really hop on the diagnosis-bandwagon.

Cullen is wrong. He's corny and fictional and [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] I agree with your shouting. I'm holding the megaphone up to your mouth for you.

Ivan wrote:

And I believe Eric and Dylan were both virgins who did not get much attention from girls. I think Eric had a lot of friends that were girls (but would never be more than that) and much the same for Dylan.


People suggesting Dylan date Robyn Anderson need to ask themselves this: would YOU date her? This may seem pretty fickle but she's very unattractive, I highly doubt Dylan would have had any interest in her at all.

Ditto. and No, only because Robyn seems....eh, weird. But I don't know her at all.

Dylan was as much as a killer as Eric was if not more. He just had the cowering sad lonely lovable thing going for him so he seemed more empathetic, and Eric was just loud and raw.

Robyn is not that pretty but I don't consider her ugly either. She is who she is. I would guess that Dylan was searching a super-model like kind of girl. Yet he feels it's too good to be true.

Wrong,wrong ,wrong.That book is a travesty.

I don't agree with Cullen at all. I agree they were bullied, but I also think they also did some bullying themselves.

I do not stand by the whole Eric as a leader and Dylan as a follower argument either. They both used what they could out of each other

Oh...and I still haven't read his book

I think his book is full of misinformation. Both boys were bullied, but also bullied others. Neither was the leader just that Eric was more a take charge and get things done type of guy and Dylan was lazy and not that motivated. But both fueled the rage and anger in each other into a deadly combination. I hate to admit that I bought his book several months ago after I had bought Sue's book and she thanked him for his help. At least,I bought it on IBooks so it was really cheap. It wasn't worth the discounted price.It was a quick but terrible read.

i pretty much agree with [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] and [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] and you [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] .its good you're back! i am a fan of your posts!

I'll admit Cullen's book is what drove me to delve deep into the research I've conducted. Sure, I found it entertaining but it read more like fiction than an actual account of the tragedy. There are much better, unbiased and more factual books available than that drivel.

And yes, I'm SOOOOOO tired of Eric the Psycopath and Dylan the Emo Follower I could puke.

Oh and I very much agree with lilith I have missed you LPorter101 Your insights, stories of your life and experiences, so glad you are back, you have been missed and I hope the universe has brought you gifts...

I would say, it pretty much depends on your sources of information. They werent the bottom of the food chain. Brooks made that claim, but I can't find any other students that confirms this. Not Even close friends of Harris and Klebold, at that. Except for Brooks Brown. Now, were they bullied? That question is tricky, but even if they were, they werent the outcasts that they were made out to be.

Obviously, hes right on a lot of things. Some things are more down to speculation imo. I E, the bullying stuff. Not entirely sure what happened there. But hes right that Eric dated. Just, like he says, Eric experienced a lot of dissapointment. I think it's almost impossible to get a fully accurate perspective, regardless. Especially when it comes to the bullying that they endured, its extremely complicated, because some experts have argued that they werent bullied or that this is impossible to verify. Im no expert, but Ive come to believe Sue Klebold when she argues that they were bullied. My take on this is that what she says seems convincing enough.

Yet, I understand that you can have a point of view in the opposite direction, also.

Philosopher Ran Prieur made a great observation when Cullen's book came out;

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

This revisionist theory of Columbine (Dave Cullen link above) stinks worse and worse the longer you leave it out. The article seems to be enlightening, when really it's closing doors, dismissing the whole social context and blaming it all on "Eric Harris, Supervillain." But I don't agree with their definition of "psychopath," or even that Harris was a psychopath. The "seminal book on the condition" is not the one they mention, but The Mask Of Sanity by Hervey Cleckley, in which psychopaths are not grandiose or contemptful, just charming people with no empathy who usually leave no mark on the world but a long chain of small crimes.

To do a big crime, you need a strong sense of right and wrong -- it's equally hard to find the north or south pole without a compass. I think the worst criminals are not people with too little empathy, but people with too much. In a meaningless world full of horrible suffering, a psychopath just wants to party! But a highly sensitive person wants to end the pain by any means. The hardest way is to heal the whole world. An easier way is to blow it up! Even easier is to invert your empathy, to learn to feel good about the pain -- and then you want to cause more. Where euthanasia and sadism overlap, that's where you get the big body counts.

Of course, the easiest and most common strategy is to numb yourself. I remember wanting to blow up the school as early as fourth grade. But gradually I discovered that most people have cut off their sense of the horror of this world so they can make it through the day.

Vepr wrote:

Philosopher Ran Prieur made a great observation when Cullen's book came out;

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

This revisionist theory of Columbine (Dave Cullen link above) stinks worse and worse the longer you leave it out. The article seems to be enlightening, when really it's closing doors, dismissing the whole social context and blaming it all on "Eric Harris, Supervillain." But I don't agree with their definition of "psychopath," or even that Harris was a psychopath. The "seminal book on the condition" is not the one they mention, but The Mask Of Sanity by Hervey Cleckley, in which psychopaths are not grandiose or contemptful, just charming people with no empathy who usually leave no mark on the world but a long chain of small crimes.

To do a big crime, you need a strong sense of right and wrong -- it's equally hard to find the north or south pole without a compass. I think the worst criminals are not people with too little empathy, but people with too much. In a meaningless world full of horrible suffering, a psychopath just wants to party! But a highly sensitive person wants to end the pain by any means. The hardest way is to heal the whole world. An easier way is to blow it up! Even easier is to invert your empathy, to learn to feel good about the pain -- and then you want to cause more. Where euthanasia and sadism overlap, that's where you get the big body counts.

Of course, the easiest and most common strategy is to numb yourself. I remember wanting to blow up the school as early as fourth grade. But gradually I discovered that most people have cut off their sense of the horror of this world so they can make it through the day.

Theres a huge difference the book that came out in 2009 and the re- published version. Of course, the 2009 versjon had some major errors, such as the Brenda Parker- story. And also, a lot of expertise use Cullen as reference. Not really sure wether a philosopher is the first thing I would listen to here, either way.

I feel likes hes a bit of both, much like any other writer on Columbine. Hes not as bad as hes haters likes to make out of it, and hes not as definite as the public sees him. He narrows a lot down to the psychopathology of the shooters and depression, and to me this seems a bit too simplistic. Dr Reid Meloy critisized Dave Cullen over this. Meloy has studied school shooters for many years, and given Ive read other sources on this, I kind of agree that this seems a bit simplistic. I dont believe for a Second thst Dylan was merely depressed, and therefore I think its not the only thing we should focus on in cases like these. Even though its part of it.

I tend to think that environmental factors;conflict or environment in schools, home environment etc, plays a role also. Not that I believe that Klebold came from a dysfunctional Family. But I get the impression that this very much is true with a lot of them. On top of this, when most people that are mentally ill are more likely to be victims of violence rather than perpetrators, I dont think you can focus too much on Just a mental disorder for someone that commits random acts of violence of this scale