Dave Cullens Columbine

Norwegian wrote:

The last message was addressed to the one suggesting that Cullen 'lies and lies and lies'. I can tell you right now, that that is obviously_not_the case. Neither are everything that he says opinions. Pretty much many things that he says are backed up by other reseachers. Also, its possible to find sources which supports hes views quite clearly. You find these statements and resources on Peter Langmans webside and on aColumbinesite. In other words its downright wrong to say that he does nothing more but lie, but hes interpretations differ from that of Kass on some points. I decided to read it, because Ive done reseach for a little while, so far Ive read up on Brooks Browns book. But reading bits here and there and watching different interviews I though it was high time to start digging deeper. And therefore Im now going through Dave Cullens book. I honestly would say that it gave me more to for, and much material to reseach. In other words I wouldnt advice People not to read it, Even though I gather that for some People hes highly controversial.

I would never discourage anyone from reading Cullen's book. Whether people like it or hate it, it's a huge part of what is out there about the case and you can't have a complete picture of things unless you see it from all sides.
But I would caution people to learn as much as they can, directly from the police reports, witness statements, etc. before reading his book. Starting with a good foundation will help the reader recognize what might not be accurate and what they may want to look into for themselves. I remember back when I first started getting interested in true crime stuff and I'd read a book and think that everything in the book was true to exactly how something had happened; looking back now I see how naive that was but I think a lot of people do that. It was only after I started getting more interested in specific cases, learning more from other sources, that I realized that sometimes the book that is supposed to be the best representation of the case actually blurs the lines between fact and fiction.

If there is anything I've said about what is in Cullen's book that you can't find or want to confirm, please let me know and I'll help you track it down. I try very hard not to pick out parts of his book that I disagree with unless I can cite something that supports why I think he's wrong. I'm not a Columbiner, I don't fetishize Eric and Dylan, I don't think bullying was the sole cause of Columbine, and I don't hate Cullen (although sometimes the things he says drive me to distraction and I do find him to be dishonest). I've just learned enough about the case that I don't think that his book deserves the amount of praise it has gotten. I think there are far better, more informative, more accurate books and other writings on the case. I think it's important that people know that.

thelmar wrote:

Norwegian wrote:

The last message was addressed to the one suggesting that Cullen 'lies and lies and lies'. I can tell you right now, that that is obviously_not_the case. Neither are everything that he says opinions. Pretty much many things that he says are backed up by other reseachers. Also, its possible to find sources which supports hes views quite clearly. You find these statements and resources on Peter Langmans webside and on aColumbinesite. In other words its downright wrong to say that he does nothing more but lie, but hes interpretations differ from that of Kass on some points. I decided to read it, because Ive done reseach for a little while, so far Ive read up on Brooks Browns book. But reading bits here and there and watching different interviews I though it was high time to start digging deeper. And therefore Im now going through Dave Cullens book. I honestly would say that it gave me more to for, and much material to reseach. In other words I wouldnt advice People not to read it, Even though I gather that for some People hes highly controversial.

I would never discourage anyone from reading Cullen's book. Whether people like it or hate it, it's a huge part of what is out there about the case and you can't have a complete picture of things unless you see it from all sides.
But I would caution people to learn as much as they can, directly from the police reports, witness statements, etc. before reading his book. Starting with a good foundation will help the reader recognize what might not be accurate and what they may want to look into for themselves. I remember back when I first started getting interested in true crime stuff and I'd read a book and think that everything in the book was true to exactly how something had happened; looking back now I see how naive that was but I think a lot of people do that. It was only after I started getting more interested in specific cases, learning more from other sources, that I realized that sometimes the book that is supposed to be the best representation of the case actually blurs the lines between fact and fiction.

If there is anything I've said about what is in Cullen's book that you can't find or want to confirm, please let me know and I'll help you track it down. I try very hard not to pick out parts of his book that I disagree with unless I can cite something that supports why I think he's wrong. I'm not a Columbiner, I don't fetishize Eric and Dylan, I don't think bullying was the sole cause of Columbine, and I don't hate Cullen (although sometimes the things he says drive me to distraction and I do find him to be dishonest). I've just learned enough about the case that I don't think that his book deserves the amount of praise it has gotten. I think there are far better, more informative, more accurate books and other writings on the case. I think it's important that people know that.

I agree, I don’t know if it’s because I’m exhausted. However you seem to be saying what  I want to say much better than me.


And I don’t know many people on this board that think bullying was the sole cause. I certainly don’t.

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



Oh I absolutely agree on that. That was my point, too. I hope People Will read it in order to get a more complete picture of what happened. And hopefully there are other books out there too, which can help be informative

Something a little different than bullying. Devon mention something really interesting in an article and I can definitely empathize with these feelings. She had said that when Dylan would walk into a room, even if he was just wearing jeans and a T-shirt people would ostracize him, people would say oh he doesn’t belong here. a lot of people didn’t understand him. I’ve gone through that a lot in my life. I am no different than everyone else. I am an educated woman, I dress normally, I actually feel quite vanilla sometimes yet some people think I’m weird. It’s odd

I am more annoyed at Cullen in his press interviews. The man puts on an air of superiority and he never takes it off. When asked esp about Dylan he talks as if he knew him. Almost as if he raised him and they were friends. He knows exactly how Dylan felt and what he thought. And he presents that all as factual. The man is full of cognitive distortions and he places a lot of them onto Dylan and I just dislike it.

I kind of feel like Ive learned a lot by reading the book. Even though Ive allready reseached Columbine to a certain degree, beforehand I found hes book to be informative. Its the second book I have delved into on Columbine. I tried Comprehending Columbine but I allready started to question it after a while, when the author described EH as goth. I though that was thoroughly debunked, allready. The whole idea that they were nazis etc.

How do you know? Ive read the journals of both Klebold and Harris, and therefore Im inclined to say that I know Dave Cullen didnt fabricate their feelings, generally speaking. A lot of what he says is confirmed in Dylans diary. That he was constantly sad and depressed and that he had a hard time getting into a relationship with a girl. And Erics rage and lack of regard for human kind. Ive read their journals. This isnt something that Cullen or any other author made up. Of course, I do believe that hes wrong on certain things. I believe that its pretty obvious that they felt like outsiders. Dylan clearly mentions this in hes journal. IDK to what extend he actually was, but of course Im not sure that he ever saw it himself. So I believe that he May be wrong right there. Im more willing to accept what Kass has to say, right there.

Other than that you find so many different sources for the attack that I believe that its possible to Come up with different interpretations. Getting into the mind of a mass murderer def is easier said than done. When I said that Ive learned a lot it means that Ive found New information to dig into.

What Ive been stating here is that hes right on many things, but probably wrong on other things. It May not be the best book to dig into, but it certainly isnt bad generally speaking and based on stuff that Ive allready digged into.

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

Lizpuff wrote:

I am more annoyed at Cullen in his press interviews.  The man puts on an air of superiority and he never takes it off.  When asked esp about Dylan he talks as if he knew him.  Almost as if he raised him and they were friends.  He knows exactly how Dylan felt and what he thought.  And he presents that all as factual.   The man is full of cognitive distortions and he places a lot of them onto Dylan and I just dislike it.

I do too, Lizpuff. In fact, I didn't enjoy reading Cullen's book because I felt he doesn't understand basic psychology (spoiler alert: He's not a psychologist). He doesn't mention evidence that contradicts his conclusion, or try to refute it with sound logic. Also, he doesn't delve into much into brain chemistry. Psychopaths, who are on the extreme end of the antisocial spectrum, are wired to seek rewards no matter the costs. So, therefore, psychopathy manifests itself childhood. Yet, all we have that supports Cullen's conclusion is Eric's propensity to light fires (pyromania is a common psychopathic trait) and steal (Jeff Kass states that in New York, Eric and his childhood friend stole some lighters for fireworks). Above all else, there's not much evidence to support common traits that all psychopaths have: a vainglorious self-image. Jeff Kass, I think, is correct when he states that Eric's ego comes from a place of inferiority, although I must admit this is unusual. Usually, self-loathing leads to depression and suicidal behavior, not Napoleon-like complexes. That's not to say I've never come across this behavior; it's just unusual. Klebold's profile is typical, Eric atypical.

It's a known fact that Cullenbine was a mashup of made up facts, overblown theories and just straight up falsehoods. I believe it was [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] who created a thread going chapter by chapter showing everything that was wrong in that book.

I enjoyed it the first time I read it because I didn't really know much about Columbine.
Once I researched the massacre, I started seeing very quickly that his book was just plain wrong about many things.

If you want an accurate book, check out Jeff Kass's book.

Probably because when you write a book at about 200 pages you cant cover absolutely everything. Hes book isnt centered around other authors, but mainly the two boys, the massacre and so on

@Slippy is it? I cant find any evidence of that other than the fact that corrected some of the errors he had made in hes book. Only People Ive seen trying to refute the book is Randy Brown and Jeff Kass, and Jeff Kass doesnt actually go against the book itself, but rather some interpretations of it and the whole thing about Erics dating habits. And that he believes that Dylan was not so much a follower of Eric. Other than that, Ive Only seen Ralph Larkin and the community of Columbiners and Ralph Larkin, for what its Worth comes up with some pretty bizarre conclusions himself. For instance that Eric was a goth, and I though this was heavily debunked. It gets me thinking that he seems to be bying into the myth.

And of course, Columbiners: If you lived with this notion that this was some kind of revenge for bullying, of course you wont be happy if someone comes along and tell you otherwise. In that case it makes perfect sense that some People Will get pissed at Cullen.

Yeah, the book has a few flaws, but fairytale book? Far from it. Ive done reseach before getting into the book and calling it a mythology. Im sorry, thats Just nonsense

I can Only speculate,but sometimes I tend to think that exaggerates a bit at hes own Will. I know I do, as I get easily annoyed with People that are too convinced that they are right. Stuff like that can be exhausting. I share your views that Columbiners are for the most part more empathetic with the bullying narrative rather than sympathetic to the Crime itself. Even though IDK how much of the bullying is accurate and how much of it is false. This article suggests that he was bullied, but that the bullying was exaggareted by the media(this is not very unlikely, given that many withness accounts propably confused the two boys with the TCM)
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

slippy123 wrote:

I believe it was [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] who created a thread going chapter by chapter showing everything that was wrong in that book.

I actually made the thread so that people more knowledgeable than I could compile the errors Cullen made, creating a handy dandy guide for any newfriends that want to know just where Cullen got it wrong and how. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] is a frequent contributor to the thread and has been greatly helpful.

Why not Just look at the whole perspective of where he got it right and where he got it wrong?

Cullen's Columbine is a good book to get people interested in the case and really nothing more. Hopefully, they do their own research and learn everything he wrote falsely about.