The Devil's Due?

Eric and Dylan wanted to make a social and political statement with NBK as well as using the massacre to achieve infamy and revenge. Without commenting on the morality of what the boys did, what do you think are the things that people might consider valuable in NBK? If there is any underlying social message, what do you feel it is?

Here's a list of things that I feel are associated with NBK for some people:

1) The boys wanted to send a message about conformity and "self-awareness." They wanted to shock the sheeple.

2) They wanted to send a message about bullying.

3) They wanted to send a message about police brutality.

4) They wanted to make a statement about religion, particularly the Christian conception of god.

5) They wanted to send a message about the shallowness of materialism and elitist society.


The following are things I think that can be read into NBK as a social statement:

1) The boys appeared to have an enduring friendship built on love. Not erotic or sexual love, but a very eccentric, lethal love that nonetheless in itself attracts people to the story of Columbine. They lived closer and died closer than most people could ever imagine. They were therefore either inadvertently or consciously making a statement about the shallow nature of most relationships. Even the way they died in a secluded corner with a Molotov cocktail set to hopefully burn their bodies suggests that they didn't want their friendship/bond tainted by "human filth."  

2) They were very careful to test the system in almost every conceivable way to see if "help" was there. They were smart enough to see it wasn't. They then set about to cloak their intentions and attack the system. This appears to be a genuine act of rational political protest.

3) Their ability to follow through on NBK and their mutual suicide might appear courageous to some observers. At the very least it is a statement of existential choice, which is, again, a political and religious statement.

This post is not meant to condone anything. The statements above are just musings, doesn't mean I've fully determined whether I personally believe or disbelieve them.

I've always wondered, there's never ever actually been a double murder-suicide before or after this event, right? I can't remember one, this is what makes Columbine more unique than the latter shootings, it is very rare to find two people who are join at the hip (so to speak) and will trust each other enough to carry out such murderous rampage.

Moseley wrote:

I've always wondered, there's never ever actually been a double murder-suicide before or after this event, right? I can't remember one, this is what makes Columbine more unique than the latter shootings, it is very rare to find two people who are join at the hip (so to speak) and will trust each other enough to carry out such murderous rampage.

Yes, the relationship between the two boys fascinates people.

I am inclined to say that they wanted to send a message about the sorry state of humanity.. Styled an attack on the existing system that 'failed' them, really. They had the wits to see what was going on, but not the maturity to be able to handle it in a non-destructive manner. The phrase 'kickstart a revolution' comes to mind in an instant when I think about the system-attacking side of this case.

What really does set Columbine apart from events similar to it is the bond the two boys had with one another. It takes a lot for people to come together, work together, and die together.. Not many people can say that they have someone in their life they trust so much. The connection between them, and the differences between them, is what has made this case so fascinating to me personally.

thedragonrampant wrote:

The connection between them, and the differences between them, is what has made this case so fascinating to me personally.

Agreed.

thedragonrampant wrote:

What really does set Columbine apart from events similar to it is the bond the two boys had with one another. It takes a lot for people to come together, work together, and die together.. Not many people can say that they have someone in their life they trust so much. The connection between them, and the differences between them, is what has made this case so fascinating to me personally.

Likewise.

gustopoet wrote:

1) The boys appeared to have an enduring friendship built on love. Not erotic or sexual love, but a very eccentric, lethal love that nonetheless in itself attracts people to the story of Columbine. They lived closer and died closer than most people could ever imagine. They were therefore either inadvertently or consciously making a statement about the shallow nature of most relationships. Even the way they died in a secluded corner with a Molotov cocktail set to hopefully burn their bodies suggests that they didn't want their friendship/bond tainted by "human filth."  

The first thing I thought of when I read this statement was Eric's IM conversations where he asks the girl "What do you think about when you look at the stars?" And Dylan's desperate longing for a soulmate and his abstract musings have a similar feel to me. Whether that was an intentional statement, I think they definitely made one.

I have seen people, and I don't have any references handy, saying that Eric viewed Dylan as his best friend but Dylan didn't reciprocate. Although I can't communicate with the dead and know the answer to this, I don't understand how Dylan could have done this with Eric if he didn't reciprocate.

And yes, like several others have already stated, the relationship between Eric and Dylan is a big part of why I continue to be interested in Columbine.