Please welcome Dave Cullen, author of Columbine. Dave will be chatting on LibraryThing until June 12th.

Hi. Thanks for stopping by to my author chat. I'm excited to be here.

The best part of my author tour turned out to be the Q&A sessions, and the signing, where I got to meet the people reading my book and hear how you all felt about it and what was one your minds. It was refreshing and eye-opening. I'm eager to dive back in.

Since it's non-fiction, I imagine there will be lots of questions about the events and the individuals in the book (for purposes here, I think it's fine to refer to them as characters, understanding that they are also real human beings). I'm happy to discuss that.

I also hope we can dive into some of the artistic/literary considerations like pacing, structure, point of view, themes, etc. I'm also happy to talk about my writing process, if you're interesting.

Just about anything is fair game. Hmmmmmm. That may be a little risky. I may regret that, so let's say I'm open to considering anything as fair game, and I'll just let you know if I can't go there.

Thanks again for coming by. And thanks for all the wonderful things so many of you have written about my book on this site. You've made me feel very welcome.

d

Dave,

Thanks for coming on LT and for your wonderfully insightful book on Columbine. It's particularly important to have someone in these conversations who works to refute the many myths circulating about what happened there and why.

I wanted to start by asking you a question about the book's structure. The book touches as much on the social, political and religious evolution of the Columbine community after the shooting as on the question of why Harris and Kleibold did it. What drove you to consider the former to the extent that you did, and what was behind the decision to alternate that story in consecutive chapters with the discussion of the shooters?

David, I know you touch on this in your book, but I'd like to hear more: How did you manage to avoid letting disdain or even revulsion color your treatment of your two protagonists? (I'm amazed at the degree to which you accomplished this.) How do you handle that problem in your reporting in general?

Admiringly (as you know),
James Gavin
jamesgavin.com

Dave-

Thank you so much for writing this book. It is wonderful.

I'm curious about the above questions and also about what (if any) reaction the book and you have received from the families involved in the tragedy?

Thanks,
Bridget

l33tpolicywonk, you made my day by opening with a question on structure. That is the topic I most wanted to discuss. (I was afraid of overseeding the discussion that way by mentioning it in my intro, but I figured I included enough other things.)

The biggest intellectual challenge/struggle with the book, was understanding the killers, particularly Dylan. (For Eric, I read about five full books on psychopathy and related ideas, as well as a zillion medical journal pieces, and hashed it all out in endless phone conversations with shrinks, but in the end, he was pretty straightforward. Dylan was thornier.)

But as an artistic challenge, of how to make the book work, structure as the big challenge, leading all others by a country mile. It literally took me eight years to figure it out.

A little history of this book project might help:

I started the an earlier version of the book in July 2000, when Jonanthan Karp asked me to do an ebook for his new ebook imprint at Random House. That was my first attempt at laying it out as a book. The book wasn't ready at that point for a lot of reasons, and after more than a year on it, that project folded in 2001. (RH actually closed down the imprint a few weeks after the 9/11 attack.)

I then tried doing just the killers' story as a long magazine piece for the next few years, and finally took several months away from the project, which, in retrospect was the best thing that ever happened. I needed to recharge and get some distance. I had no idea I still had five years ahead of me.

For the fifth anniversary--April 20, 2004--I published a vastly slimmed-down version that magazine piece on the killers for Slate, "The Depressive & The Psychopath."

Doing that totally re-energized me, and showed me what I really wanted to convey about the killers, and how much space I needed to do it justice. I knew then, that I had to do this book. One way or another, I was going to do it. My agent, Betsy Lerner, felt exactly the same, and I agreed to plunge into writing a book proposal for her to review.

Luckily, the piece also got a lot of attention--(it's still the #2 result if you google "Columbine"). Then David Brooks devoted his entire NYT column to the piece, and Frank Rich also featured it in his. Betsy had already felt she could sell the book, but that really helped.

Betsy wanted the proposal ASAP, but I really needed time to think it through. I must have spent three months on it--including rewrites with Bestsy, who is a great editor (formerly #2 editor at Doubleday)--because I think I got the final draft to her at the end of July.

That period is when I first mapped out the basic structure of what came to be "Columbine." It actually changed a lot in the writing, but the basics are there. Most importantly, that's when I decided on all the major characters and storylines. I decided on ten storylines/protagonists, which seemed like a huge number (vs one or two in most novels or narrative nonfiction--which share the same structure). But I thought it was doable.

I had not figured out the order yet, really. I had A plan, with some semblance of what I got to, but not much. I knew I wanted it some form of chronological, but with lots of flashbacks. I knew early on that I didn't want the killing all in one place, because it was too much, too brutal. It would be more than a reader could take--or would want to--and it would also be too desensitizing. As for the killers' story, I was very conflicted on how to present that. I was thinking in terms of a detective story, told from Fuselier's POV trying to unravel the case, and perhaps using that as flashbacks to the killers. I couldn't decide whether to to present the killers' story chronologically, or in the order that Fuselier encountered episodes with them. I was leaning toward the latter (but ended up with the former). At the time of the proposal, I punted. I knew I just had to write it to figure it out.

I'm going to have to ponder a bit more--and search my memory--for your question as to why I decided to make the survivors so prominent. That decision was five years, ago, but I just knew they were a big part of it. To me, their story was at least as important as the killers. I actually planned for them to be about 70-80% of the book, with a much shorter passage on the killers. There were so many more of them, and I didn't know how much space it would take me to convey all I wanted on the killers. (Plus I had a lot less material at that time. The killers' journals would not be released for a few more years. I had seen just about all of Eric's through leaks, but never had my own copy to study or quote from at will. And I had not seen Dylan's.)

Just to wrap the chronology of the book development, I completed the proposal in late July 2004--it was nearly 100 pages--Betsy sent it by courier to the major publishers at the end of the day on a Wednesay, and Friday she called to tell me that several had already read it and were considering bids. It was in play.

By early next week, there was considerable interest, but a problem. Many editors were personally interested, but there was fierce debate inside the publishing houses over whether a book on this subject would sell. It looked dark. It seemed like a gamble. The auction was held about ten days after the proposal went out, and Betsy said it was really an odd case. She usually had a good idea of how many would bid, but this was such a controversial situation, it could be anything from zero to half a dozen houses. No one could decide whether this could sell. Three houses ended up bidding, with Mitch Hoffman at Dutton taking it. He was very enthusiastic, and he and I clicked quickly.

Believe it or not, the bidding process was quite helpful. Three editors interviewed me about it that week. They were all very interested, but trying to figure out whether the structure would work--especially juggling all those storylines--and hashing out possibilities with me. There were no firm conclusions on anything, but it really helped restart my thought process. These were all brilliant people, and they set my mind in motion.

(to be continued.)

(con't) Damn, I didn't expect to blab this long, but this information may help provide a context for many of the other questions, so I'll wrap it up.

I signed a contract with Dutton to deliver the book 18 months later, I believe Feb. 2006. (That didn't happen. LOL. It took me MUCH longer. LOL. Seriously, though, there were too big questions that came up at that point: 1) How long will it take you to write it, and 2) How many pages? My honest answers were I don't know, and I don't know. Eighteen months sounded maybe reasonable, and I think I guessed 350 pages. I had a sense that there was a lot to tell, but I could not deliver a doorstop, because with a subject this daunting, it would be too much to ask of a reader. I figured it would be tough for many people to pick up a book on Columbine: many would be conflicted by curiosity and fear. And a War & Peace length would tip the scales against. Plus, it was going to be an emotional book, you can only put a reader through so much without wearing them out. I think I had a pretty good instinct on the length.)

The structure was still the big bugaboo. Could I juggle ten plots--I couldn't find a book that had done that many--and how to fit them all together?

One of the first things I did was buy a stack of narrative nonfiction books. I had actually written much more fiction than nonfiction in my life and had mostly read novels (and watched/studied a ton of films. I think I get more ideas from film than books).

I figured I needed to read most of the classics of the narrative nonfiction form, which is luckily only about four decades old. The ones I recall gobbling up:

The Right Stuff (had read it; reskimmed)
In Cold Blood
Blackhawk Down
Devil and the White City
The Perfect Storm
Executioner's Song (I only read 100 pages--hated it)
The Electric Koolaid Acid test (had read it half of it; reskimmed, never finished again)
Helter Skelter (had read it; reskimmed)
Under the Banner of Heaven (hated it, didn't get far)
(two books by a mainstay of true crime--I hated the writing style, so I won't mention the author, but I didn't get far. BTW, I didn't consider myself to be working in that genre, but thought I should check it out.)

I'm forgetting a few. I was also reading Faulkner's "As I lay Dying" at the time, which had a tremendous impact on the book.

Aside from the ones I mentioned hating, I loved most of them, much more than I expected. I learned a lot from each, both about what I wanted to do, and what to avoid--and how to address some mistakes I thought they made.

One big thing they reinforced was where I wanted to start the story. My instinct from long before that was to start the book exactly where I did: With Mr. D telling the kids he loved them. It seemed like the perfect confluence. I wanted to start shortly before the murders--to introduce you to the characters and this world and get you involved/invested in them before the attack. Prom weekend also seemed like a natural. And I knew Mr. D would be a major character, and that was a crucial moment which would set up so much of how the survivors healed, that it seemed perfect.

Also, I really wanted to open with a scene that would put the reader on notice: This is not going to be the story you were expecting. Of course there would be a lot of violence and suffering in this book, and I expected readers to come to the story with that expectation. But there is also tremendous love, hope and redemption in the story I witnessed, and from the first line, I wanted the reader to see that oh, that was going to be in here, too.

Sometimes, the openings are just a gift. That one never wavered.

That left me, however, with what I have always thought of on this book as The "Saving Private Ryan" Problem: The first 25 minutes of that film were electrifying. The storming of (Omaha?) Beach at Normandy was violent, harrowing, terrifying--just riveting. Nothing in (90 minutes) that followed in that film came close, emotionally. Virtually every review of the film cited it as a flaw, but I was shocked at the reviews--the majority--which said it was a problem and moved on. To me it was a fatal problem. It completely undermined the film. There is a reason 99% of all films, novels, operas, symphonies, plays, etc climax near the end. Whether or not you resolve the plot at the end is not the most important issue. The timing of the reader/viewer's emotional climax needs to fall toward the end for it to be a powerful experience.

So if I began four days before the attack, and began it around page 50--which was my initial instinct (give the reader enough time to get invested, but not too long to grow frustrated), then the emotional intensity would peak from approx pp. 50-100--a variation on The Saving Private Ryan problem. Damn.

That argued, again, for flashbacks. I figured out pretty early that I could use some of the major characters to drive the flashbacks. I would develop some of the characters like Dave Sanders, Patrick Ireland and Cassie Bernall gradually, and at a natural point in their story, long after I'd introduced the murders, I would take you back with them, to the moment they faced the gun. This would also allow you to be much more emotionally invested in them when it happened, and to build suspense, knowing they had been attacked, but not knowing exactly how.

I had a sense of every hundred pages or so, taking you back inside to the attacks. I didn't know exactly what order or how it would work, that was just sort of the trealise I was building for the story to hang on. (And in fact, I moved things quite a bit. At one point, I had the chapter on Dave Sanders bleeding about 100 pages later, but I felt several things going on: there was TOO much on Dave before that, and I felt I had been trying the patience of the reader. I try to go back and read as surrogate reader, and I felt I would be frustrated that I did not yet know what had happened. I also felt that during that passage of the book, there was a lot of important information about the early aftermath going on, but some of it was frustrating and difficult in ways I had not foreseen, and just of a different emotional color. It needed something of a different pitch--I think of it sort of like music--and the Dave chapter seemed the notes required. So I moved it up 100 pages, and moved one of the other library scenes slightly further back, to maintain the distance. That was pretty late in the rewrites, maybe May 2008.

My initial plan on the attacks (which I think I developed writing the book proposal), was to set it up this way:

- I would show you the killers for the four days before the attack, and show WHAT they were planning, but leave the why a mystery. But you would see that that were planning it mainly as a bombing, etc.

- Then I would show the attack begin (around p. 50), but show just the gunfire outside--which was considerable, but not most of the killing. Then Eric and Dylan would enter the building, beyond the scope of the imaginary camera filming the story, and our gaze would not be able to follow them. I would then show the media coverage, bound by that same restriction: we could only see the event from the outside, not penetrate those walls. What would happen inside would be a mystery, and the reports back out would look NOTHING like what the killers' had planned. The reader would now know two truths: 1) What the killers actually intended to do in there, and 2) what we had all learned from TV and the media. And the two would be like two completely different events. So how the hell did that happen? I think that's one of the more interesting questions, and a good way to take the reader into it.

A lot of these ideas on structure came together after months and months of grappling with about six different structural problems, and eventually the plan I came up with seemed to solve them all, though also introduce lots of new ones. I took lots of long walks, and bike rides, always with paper in my pocket, and the answers tended to come then, while thinking of other things.

The chief new problem almost every solution introduced was this: complications. It was getting really complicated. Ten storylines, plus flashbacks to the murders, plus flashbacks to the killers developing the plans? Would it be a complete mess?

The answer in the first draft was yes. I sent 130 pages to my editor in Feb 2006--when the entire book was due, but we already knew that was completely out the window--and there was so much jumping around, it was incomprehensible.

It would take me 2.5 more years to make it work. And at that point, I threw out the entire 130 pages I had, and started over with a blank screen, on page one, with a different voice, and somewhat different approaches. About three weeks later, I had about 50 new pages and decided it still wasn't right.

I started fresh again. That time it worked. I took that start and kept going and never restarted again.

Writing it solved much of the structural problems. I finished the full draft Jan. 15, 2008. But I made crucial changes to the structure after that, in the editing.

Maybe that's enough of a start on structure, and we can come back to that.

(You'll notice I have a brevity issue. Hahaha. I do A LOT of cutting once I'm done.)

Thanks for all the questions so quickly.

I promise to come back to the alternating chapters.

Janet, the reactions from the families has been overwhelmingly positive, with a few glaring exceptions. Several of the family members actually showed up for my readings in the area, mainly just to support me. That gives you an idea what wonderful people they are. They were going through their own issues with the tenth anniversary and were thinking about me. Wonderful people.

The biggest reaction I've gotten from them is that they are relieved to hear so much of what really happened finally get out to a wide audience--and to themselves. Most of them had been briefed by the cops at the time, but early on, and much of this was news to them.

A key exception is Randy Brown, who feels that the attack was all a response to bullying, and has posted all over the web denouncing my book for drawing different conclusions. He also appears to be angry about the focus on psychopathy, as he feels that is writing Eric off as crazy. (Hopefully the book makes clear that psychopaths are NOT crazy. Regardless, though, Eric is a textbook case. It's hard to find anyone who knows much of anything about Eric and the condition who aren't convinced, and I don't think it's up to me to decide whether it's a good thing or bad thing for Eric to have been a psychopath. I just report the truth to the best I can determine it.)

There are a few other conversations I have agreed to keep private. One person is angry about not being mentioned.

Those were all painful for me to hear, but luckily, they have been exceptions.

MrForager,

Great questions on suppressing my disdain/revulsion for the killers. That's actually also one of the biggest things I hoped to discuss.

I'm been blabbing a whole lot, and that's a lengthy answer, so how about if I come back to that? I promise not to forget it, but don't want to dominate here. Thanks.

The short answer, is that I failed to realize how important it was until pretty late in the process, and had to go back and do quite a bit of rewriting on the killers. In retrospect, I guess I vented a lot of my disdain in the first draft, and realized it was getting in the way, so I took it out before the book got to you. And in Dylan's case, it was replaced by a lot more empathetic look inside him. That was not there on the first pass.

You know, for a whole lot of reasons, I'm glad this book took ten years. I certainly didn't plan it that way--and I endangered the chances of publication many times, and made life kind of hell for Betsy, my agent--but I needed that time for the distance. The killers were a particular area I needed distance. I needed time to let my own anger at the settle so I could step away from it. I found that I could bear anger at them, but I didn't need to FEEL that anger every day, and particularly not while I was working.

It's very much like the process I've gone through when I've gotten tangled in an angry dispute with family members, romantic partners and coworkers. (And I used to be a management consultant for Arthur Andersen, and we were often brought in when the company was completely dysfunctional, with departments at war with each other. I somehow settled into the role on my team as chief negotiator, in charge of bringing the warring parties to reconciliation.) I was also the middle child--4th of 9--so I played that role in my family sometimes.

What I've learned, as both participant, and moderator--is that you still HAVE anger but everyone has the ability to check it at the door, temporarily. You really feel like smacking the person sitting across from you, but you have to let those feelings go, and discuss what's really going on. You have to put yourself in their shoes and hear/feel what it's like to be them. Then you go, "Oh! THAT's why you got so mad. Now I get it." You do that over and over, and you start to understand them. And that helps some of your anger disappear. You still retain some of it, and you pick it back up on the way out the door, but unless you can check it temporarily, you're not getting anywhere. You'll never get understanding. Anger is very loud inside your head. It demands all the brainspace. You can't hear their POV with all angry racket going on.

I think I learned how to be a better writer--and investigator--by being a middle child, and by using that in my work as a management consultant. By actually going to counseling. I went to individual therapay, couples counseling, and I actually dragged my entire family (parents and sibs) to family counseling once. You learn a lot about shutting up there.

Uh oh. My rambling, endless essay concluding with the imporantce of my shutting up. Hahaha. Irony?

I will come back with more specifics on my process with Dylan.

Mensagem editada pelo seu autor, Jun 1, 2009, 3:31pm.

Dave-

I was actually just having a discussion with my boss about this book. She is the 4th of 7 children. As I was describing the book, she said, "It sounds like he is a middle child. We are always fighting for balance." So for what it's worth, your thoughtful energy really paid off.

I have appreciated your long responses. They have given me incredible context to the book, especially because I finished it this morning.

What's your next project?

Thanks again,
Bridget

Bridget,

How funny that your boss pegged me from that distance. Yes, middle children, we're definitely a separate breed. Especially from families that large, which are largely a relic of the past in this country.

Next project? You people seem to have ESP. When I said everything was fair game, that was actually the one thing in my head I was thinking I would not answer, but decided maybe it would never come up.

I'll hedge. I've got several mag pieces in my head that I want to get to, and a book I've already started, but not sure whether it will bear fruit, so I will hold off discussing it (probably for a few years).

In general, I want to devote most of my life to writing more books, with some time in there to do mag pieces. They get me out into the field, get me working for shorter bursts on shorter projects, and keep me going. I like longer projects, but it's hard to sustain yourself for ten years--mentally, financially, spiritually, etc.

Of course I could just try to work more quickly. hahaha.

Loved the book. Very similar style to Black Hawk Down. Are you eager to see what gets released in 2027? You think there's a lot more to be known about Columbine? I bet it was hard not to speculate on some of the happenings... how much did you hold back?

I'm loving the book so far. Do you have any idea why people who are so convinced that the primary motive behind the attack is bullying seem to be so quick to bash your conclusions? Also, Ralph Larkin wrote less than favorable a review on amazon entitled "dave cullen is dead wrong" hes the author of "Comprehending Columbine" I have also read his book. Has he ever expressed his sentiment towards your book in a more direct fashion? On a side note I'm not even done with your book and its heads and shoulders above "Comprehending Columbine".

Stats: God, yes, I'm eager to see what gets released in 2027. Of course I'd love to hear the parents' POV before then, and maybe that will happen, maybe not. I'd love to get their take on it all.

But overall, no I would bet against a whole lot more coming to light, relative to what we know now. There is always more out there, but I think we know a tremendous amount, and in the grand scheme, additions are likely to be small. But that's just my instinct. There could be bombshells out there that we know nothing about.

At the beginning of the writing process, I think I had a much greater urge to speculate. But the further I went, the more I realized that there was so much story there, the bigger problem was what to leave OUT of the book. Really, that was a huge issue: what to leave out, and then what to cut.

So in the end, it wasn't tough. I only speculated in a few cases, where I felt the reader would be deeply wondering, and I had to at least address the possibilities. (The two that come to mind are 1) how the killers responded when the bombs failed, and 2) their mental state prior to their suicides.) On both points, there was considerable evidence to draw on--including videotape of the killers prior to the suicides; and I got a lot of input from the psychologists--including how other killers who have lived to tell responded in similar situations.

---

I have to run, but will be back tonight to respond to ChrisD88 and others.

Oh, and thanks for the kind words and comparison to Black Hawk Down. I've got a few thoughts on that as well.

I've really enjoyed reading this thread today.

I am continually amazed at the ability of the Klebold and Harris families to remain completely out of the media spotlight - even into what, 2027? Any thoughts on how they were able to avoid even being photographed?

Also, I found reading the book to be very disturbing and reading these comments today brings back just how unnerving it was. As a writer spending so much time on such a difficult subject, how were you able to cope with it all?

Mensagem editada pelo seu autor, Jun 8, 2009, 11:14pm.

I read BHD almost 10 years ago and loved it. One of the things I remember is how it alternated between Somali and American perspectives so well. It really kept my attention. Before you mentioned you had used BHD, I didn't make the connection, but after reading that, I definitely see the similarities in style. Columbine is broken up very similar, alternating between the killers and victims/survivors. It made for a nice read to get a little of each at a time. I enjoyed the variety, as I did in BHD.

Somewhat off topic, but thats what I thought sucked about BHD, the movie. They barely hit on the Somali perspective... though it was still a great movie, that part of the book was very rich and was missed. Mark Bowden kicks serious &**, by the way, Killing Pablo and his other books are superb.

Please keep cranking out great nonfiction too, Dave!

Mensagem editada pelo seu autor, Jun 1, 2009, 11:27pm.

Chris,

The bullying situation is complex, because the anti-bullying campaigns that developed out of Columbine were one of the big silver linings. Bullying is a terrible problem in American high schools--and it went on at Columbine High, too. The last thing I want is for people to undo all that, and to say, "Oh, it wasn't to blame here after all, so let's pull back."

I think that would be an odd response, because all Columbine did was make people face an existing situation. It made us face something real, even if it wasn't at play in this situation, particularly with Eric. So I don't think that is really going to happen, but I think that is an underlying fear. There are also a lot of people invested in the idea that that happened.

I have not read Larkin's book, but I know that it was published long before the killers' journals came out. Randy Brown also communicated his theory years before those were out.

My take was to look at the evidence, and see what it showed, and to let go of preconceptions I had going in.

Stats, I thought Black Hawk showed a lot of brilliance, too, and I liked the way he showed different perspectives. I think I was actually influenced more by two other books on that, though: Devil and the White City, which intercut two stories, and kept me wanting to go back to the other, and As I Lay Dying, which really took the POVs thing to the limit, with each chapter switching to a different first person narrator. (Many narrators repeated, but I don't think two chaps in a row were ever by the same person.) That REALLY gave you different perspectives. I didn't want to go that far, but it demonstrated how far you could take it and still pull it off--or at least how someone as brilliant as Faulkner could.

I thought Bowden did an amazing job of putting your right inside the scene, too, making it vivid and real. I had one big problem with his intercutting though: there were several sets of GIs trapped in different parts of the city, with quite a few different characters, and I had trouble telling them apart pretty soon. The bulk of them fit a single description: young, gung-ho soldier, brilliant at his trade who had qualified for an elite unit, and ate, slept, breathed the ranger/green-beret/whatever lifestyle. They also seemed to look the same, dress the same, hair the same. They seemed to me, generally, to be variations on the same guy. I kept getting them confused.

I don't think it was a fatal flaw with the book, but something I wanted to avoid--especially with even more storylines in play: I had ten.

That was something that I kept in mind very consciously as I mapped it out, and wrote it, and reconsidered my list of central characters incessantly. I also made a point of trying to make each key character have a vivid/memorable introduction, so that you had them straight from the outset, with very distinguishable characteristics. I always try to do that anyway, but I was especially conscious of the importance here.

I was also lucky with the timing of the film "Little Miss Sunshine," which came out while I was in the writing stage. I thought that film was brilliant in many ways, particularly how it introduced its principals. It had quite a few--was it six or seven nearly co-protagonists--and if you go back and watch, each one of them first appears on screen in a scene that is extremely memorable, unusual and specific. (Eg, Greg Kinnear's character, I believe, is introduced just recovering from a suicide attempt.) Great screenplay. He's juggling a lot of major characters, but each one, from the outset, Bam! you've got him/her. They are all introduced in about the first ten minutes, in ones and twos, and then as soon as that's accomplished, they are all thrown together in a dinner table scene where the action and interaction just bounces around like a superball ricocheting off the walls.

Great stuff. I used that as inspiration. Obviously, I was dealing with a completely different situation, and mood, but that technique and that level of execution is central to any narrative form.

I also liked how the film deeply respected all its characters, by the way. Those characters did not all respect each other, but the film did. It gave us tender, honest, candid and vulnerable moments with each one of them.

I had a somewhat comparable situation to that with many of my characters: real life people, many of whom got angry and sometime vicious with one another. My job was not to take sides in that: to show what happened, but to show good and bad sides of everyone, and find the sincerity in what they were trying to do and why.

Mensagem editada pelo seu autor, Jun 2, 2009, 12:42am.

Coppers:

On the parents remaining invisible/unphotographed:

They just had more stamina than the media. It's another myth that the media will hound a public figure indefinitely until they get something. I've worked in the media, and I've not seen it work that way. Reporters and photographers are a scarce resource for editors. If they keep coming back empty-handed, the media gives up pretty fast.

I have not worked in the part of the media that goes for pix of Angelina Jolie, or Princess Di in her day, but in those cases, they keep getting stuff: With "beautiful people," a photo is enough--especially if it's with a baby or a new dog or something. Also, those public figures regularly do interviews, make appearances, feed the beast.

With parents of killers, what the public and press want is information: statements. Nobody was really interested in getting photos of them early on. There were much more interesting photos, countless numbers of them; the Rocky won a Pulitzer (deservedly) for its amazing photos. From the parents, we wanted words, and they refused to do interviews.

I don't know for sure, but I imagine their houses were staked out for awhile, and then the press gave up.

The same thing happens with interviews, actually. Approach anyone who has the media really wants, but has remained silent for a long time. You will find they don't get asked very often. (Mostly leading up to "news pegs.") The press gives up.

I have gotten several exclusive interviews, and some of them were because I went back later, after the person had warmed to the idea of interviews and no one had asked for awhile.

This has been one of the most informative and interesting author threads that I have read. You give fabulous feedback, and clearly took a lot of time and effort to interact with us here. I thank you for that.

Ah, thank you, mckait.

I was thinking I should probably be more brief. I might be overwhelming people. I have a hard time keeping it short on complex ideas, though.

And I'm used to radio shows which are 5-10 minutes per segment, and it's rush rush rush. It's been refreshing to take whatever time seems required on each question.

Dave, come to think of it I just have 1 single suggestion for the book, perhaps for future prints... a diagram of the school would have been immensely valuable. Was it a decision not to provide any maps, pictures, diagrams?

Stats,

Yes, I knew from the beginning I didn't want pictures. I wanted to tell a story, and take you inside a world the way a novel does, and if it's not vivid enough, I haven't done my job yet.

I was thinking there would be a diagram, but then I talked to my editor. He said he wouldn't be opposed to it, but that when you pick up a book, and open a book, lots of cues about what it will be are conveyed instantly, consciously and otherwise. A diagram at the beginning tends to suggest that the logistics of the situation are cruial (like in a few books he did on deep diving operations into a sunken German submarine, or The Perfect Storm's maps indicating that it would be important where/how the ship was lost at sea. He said that he saw my book as a primarily a psychological drama--into the minds of the killers, as well as the emotional upheaval of the aftermath. I agreed, definitely. He said that if that's what I wanted to convey to the reader, a diagram at the beginning would be a miscue.

He said maybe one inside the book, but in the end, we decided that it was still a little off-message. I was kind of conflicted, because I know a lot of people want to envision exactly where things happened, and a diagram certainly simplifies that. But I wanted the emphasis on the why, not the how, so we decided against.

Was it frustrating for you--or others here--without it?

The book is working fine for me without it, but I think that a diagram would have been better. But maybe that's just the engineer in me coming out. 8^}

I actually thought that not having a diagram conveyed just a small fraction of the confusion felt during the attacks or perhaps I am reading too much into it.

yeah, like drneutron, I'm more of an engineering minded person, and it would have been nice to just see how the school was laid out. I didn't feel the need for pictures of anyone in the book, no matter their importance. Didn't need old pictures of the kids or adults. But, to be honest, I'm just INTERESTED in the layout of the school - its not so much I wanted a flowchart diagramming where the killers or kids went, or where things happened - I just wanted a diagram to be available whenever you specified a location. It just seems with locations, a physical map always helps. That was my intention with the initial question - I just threw in pictures/etc because you obviously chose not to include them. But I think a diagram either in the front or as an appendix, I personally would have liked that.

Let me pipe up briefly in defense of not including a diagram: There's a sense you get from the book pretty quickly that Harris and Kleibold didn't know what they were doing once they got inside the school, that the shooting was improvised after the bombing failed. Dave, you also make the important note (which I didn't know) that psychopaths quickly get bored with killing and look to move onto something else. Anybody who's read press accounts of Columbine knows that the library is ground zero of a sort; without the diagram, it stays as an emotional ground zero instead of the final stop on the route Harris and Kleibold didn't have.

Dave,
I have your book on my shelf and had hoped to read it before this chat started but it didn't quite happen. Definitely soon, though.

I have one question and it's not about style or content but rather: in what parts of the country is the book selling the best?

Karen

Thanks for the different thoughts on possible diagrams. Keep them coming. It's possible that we'll add one or two for the paperback edition next year, so I'd really like to hear what people think.

(The paperback is a year away, but my publisher has already begun work on it, talking about blurbs to add, additions to the front cover, and other things we might add. Very preliminary, but getting the conversation started early so that we'll have time to do it right.)

Karen, I don't get detailed regional info, but it seems to be selling pretty consistently across most of the country, based on it hitting local/regional bestseller lists all over. I recall seeing it on the local lists in LA, SF, Chicago, Miami, and DC, but there were a slew of other. (I can search for the email.)

I haven't been following them closely week to week, but a friend from LA sent an email linking to the LA Times on Sunday showing it still on their list. (There were some weird anomalies on their list. Hollywood books of course are selling well there, but Tori Spelling is being outsold by her mom there, while Tori did MUCH better nationally. I know this only because Tori's book came out the same week as mine, and it became a running joke among my friends whether I would outsell that literary heavyweight. Hahaha. I have not read Tori's book, so apologies to her if she's the next Tolstoy.)

It probably did the best in Colorado, as you'd expect. Columbine was #1 on the Denver Post list for several weeks. That's the only one I know of where it hit #1. It peaked at #3 on the NY Times list, which is based on national sales.

In Canada, it's doing well, but lagging slightly behind the US (based on Amazon and Amazon.ca)--in bestseller territory, but lower on the list.

In the UK, Ireland and former UK territories (which is how publishers divide up the world--kind of appalling that the British empire still exists in the pub world), there's a separate edition, which is doing well, but not a bestseller.

My agent is still negotiating translation rights with various countries, so there are no foreign editions yet. That remains to be seen, but I would be shocked if it approached the sales over there that it did here. (Columbine got huge coverage around the world, but interest didn't last as long. And perhaps more importantly for a book launch, there was a lot of media coverage around the tenth anniversary and that's not going to happen overseas.)

Over the course of my career, I would really like to build a readership around the world, so I wonder how we might go about that down the road. I don't know.

The other way my publisher was watching sales was the type of store. Chains, independents and online often go in very different directions, but this one has struck really close on all three. (BN & Borders release their daily data to my publisher, and the indies are tracked by the IndieNest list.) It's been ranked almost identical on each, week to week, which is somewhat unusual. I don't know if that's good or bad, just is what it is.

For some reason, it's done a little better at B&N than Borders. It was a bestseller for both, but as of the last ten days or so, only still at B&N. (Which can be a self-fulfilling thing: it's still 30% off at B&N and at the front of the stores.) This could be because B&N put it in the Discover Great New Writers program back in January, or something about the demographic. Both chains were really supportive.

I didn't make it into supermarkets, most airport stores, warehouse clubs and a lot of other outlets. (Although Hudson Books has it featured in their Denver airport stores and I think I heard Walmart is carrying it nationwide.) Their buyers make decisions months in advance, and they stock a limited number. My book sales were a big surprise, so none of those had me on their radar.

There was a great piece in NYT awhile back about those factors, and how hard it is to break onto national lists now, because so much is stacked toward authors who are already big names. (Big names get sold in all the sales channels, are in the front of the chain stores, and if they open big, go on sale for 30% off. And of course media coverage.)

I love Denis Johnson, and he has a new novel, and I figured since his last one won the NBA, he'd be a featured guy. I went into a chain store and asked for it, and they had one copy, buried in the middle of the store, spine out, not even face out. How is that thing ever going to get noticed? You have to walk into a store asking for it.

There are problems with this system.

Well, for what it's worth, I bought my copy at Costco... in Sheridan, CO. Don't know how well it's sold there but I think they've restocked more than once.

Guess I should have checked the Denver Post myself. Some days I'm just brain dead.

I admit to being conflicted about buying it because the whole thing was just a little too close to home for me. I had three children in high school at the time -- two at Sheridan and one at Englewood. The two oldest of these kids were *deeply* affected by Columbine and in fact the oldest still gets plain angry about the continuing attention the tragedy receives. I think he wants it to just go away so he doesn't have to think about it? I don't know.

BTW, a diagram that covers the inside cover and facing page might work well. I find such placement of maps and diagrams in a number of books I read (a mystery most recently) and I don't think it has much impact on my initial attitude. And, if I don't need to, I never even look at them.

On the other hand, it's pretty easy to find diagrams of the school on the 'net. Try Googling "Columbine High School Diagram".

Karen

I'm happy to keep answering questions, but I've also got some I'd like to pose, since I have some readers here. These are three I wonder about often:

1. Did this book turn out to be what you expected when you picked it up? If not, how was it different?

2. Who were your favorite characters? (Not necessarily who did you most like as people, but what characters did you care about most, or enjoy spending time with in the book? Maybe another way of putting it: as the book jumped around from one storyline to another, were there a few people you were frequently itching to see come back, and/or when you saw, "Oh, we're back to x," it made you happy and more eager to read ahead?)

3. Anyone where you had the opposite reaction--a person or storyline that caused you to take a snack break or bathroom break, or think about one?)

1. Yes and no. I expected it to be more chronological, more linear. The way you've chosen to tell the story is more like peeling back layers of an onion. It's been a more emotional book for me because of that.

2. Mr. D was the one I kept coming back to. I was fascinated by his sense of responsibility to the kids and how it impacted the rest of his relationships. Fusilier was also an interesting person.

3. There wasn't any particular person or story for which I had the opposite reaction, although I will confess to some frustration at some of the aftermath in the year following the attack. I was also pretty astonished at some of the sheriff department behavior.

Karen_o brought up a point that I don’t think has been mentioned here and that is the oversaturation of Columbine news and a certain reluctance to relive the nightmare by reading a book. When the 10 year anniversary rolled around this year, I hated hearing all the news reports rehashing everything. The memorial service was an absolute necessity but did we need to be reminded over and over again, in the local news, that this April was the anniversary? I know the anniversary was mentioned on the national news, but I don’t remember just how much. I really tried hard to not watch. I don’t think I’m alone in feeling that this was very much a local tragedy, one that somehow needed to be protected from the “outside” world. I live in Littleton and this tragedy is not us. But to a point, I could understand some of the local coverage this year, but certainly not nationwide - I was so glad when Oprah changed her mind about airing an anniversary show. That plan seemed like she was just looking at ratings and it angered me. And then two big books happened to be published right at the time when Columbine would be in the news again. From the author’s discussion above, of his writing/publishing process, this is perhaps a coincidence. But all this factored into my reluctance to read Columbine and I am sure that I’m not alone. I know I am rambling here – sorry - but my final point is this: the fact that a book on such a difficult subject is on the best seller lists at all is a testament to how good a narrative Columbine turned out to be. As painful as it was, I’m glad to have read it.

An aside, I appreciate maps and diagrams printed inside book covers and think that would be a value-added to the paperback edition. But please, no pictures.

As to your question, Dave, the obvious characters (if you will) that were most disturbing to read about were Kleibold and Harris themselves. I hardly wanted to even touch the book when they were the topic and those sections were the ones that truly disturbed my sleep. Conversely, I still find their parents to be so elusive that any bit of information about them was fascinating.

You were talking about the paperback edition and the cover – and I just wanted to put in my 2 cents – from the review of Columbine that I posted on Amazon and LT:

“My first reaction was to the cover, which is perfect. A picture of the school at the bottom and simply that name, in white letters, “Columbine”. Because really, for those of us that weren’t there that day, and despite the efforts made by those who were, to take back the name of their school, that says it all. It remains the name of an event, a massacre.”

OK – to your questions:

1) It was not at all what I expected. It took me 3 weeks to buy it after I heard a radio interview you did because I have 2 children and wasn’t sure I could handle it. Once I started the book, it quickly became clear that the focus was not solely on the killers, but on the community and the survivors. Oh – and the media – and how much of the story that was out there (and that I thought I knew) was completely wrong. I almost couldn’t put this book down because I was learning so much. It was fascinating – and not at all in the “can’t turn away from a grisly car crash” kind of way.

2) My favorite characters (and thank you for allowing us to refer to them that way – it does make this easier) were Frank DeAngelis and Brian Fuselier. DeAngelis because he seems exactly the kind of principal that needed to be there for the aftermath of Columbine and Fuselier because through him, we get as much of the “Why?” answered as possible. I was also drawn to the storyline of Cassie Bernall…because what we thought we knew was untrue – and because her story brought out a focus on how Evangelicals dealt with the events – also fascinating. Though I am not religious, I felt deeply for her parents as they suffered the loss not only of their child, but then of the myth around her death.

3) Least favorite? Hmmm – none really. Except that every time the story ran up against the impenetrable wall that was the Kathy and Wayne Harris – I was frustrated. I certainly understand their silence, though. By the way – since they did not talk to the press – how did you get Wayne’s notebooks?

Quick logistics question for you: You mention that you went through many drafts…and as a (probably never to by published) writer myself – I wonder how you keep the facts straight. Meaning – the books that I’ve written – I’ve gone through so many versions either in my head or on paper – that as I revise – I had trouble keeping the reader with me. I know ALL about the characters and everything that has happened to them – but I might have deleted a very important scene or fact from a past chapter. As I read my new stuff over – those facts still exist in my head but they are not there for the reader. With the 10 storylines you were juggling – what organizational tools did you use to keep it all straight?

Thanks again for this chat and for your incredible book.

Dave,

First, thank you for writing this book. It might seem strange to say it, given the topic, but this truly was a pleasure to read.

I have a few questions of my own before answering yours.

A) What are you thoughts on why some of the myths of Columbine are so durable? After reading your book I'm torn between believing that the myths are somehow comforting - the meek rose up and got revenge - and the idea that as a society we're don't apply critical thinking to "news reports" often enough.

B) Since you were exploding myths perpetuated by some of your colleagues, was there any backlash from them?

My answers to your questions:

1. Did this book turn out to be what you expected when you picked it up? It was better than expected and my expectations were high. The structure of the book, as others have noted, was surprising. I didn't mind not having a diagram of the school, especially during the shooting when it felt right to be disoriented about what was happening where. I read the book on my Kindle which makes it easy to get "lost" in a book. (When the book is good, I'm surprised at how "quickly" it ends.) So I was surprised that it was over 400 pages long in print. Finally, I was expecting the story of what I "knew" about Columbine. I didn't expect to be surprised.

2. Who were your favorite characters? Patrick Ireland was my favorite character. I found myself rooting for him get together with the girl he was in love with. I'm embarrassed to say I was actually annoyed when she wouldn't break up with her boyfriend to be with him! The minister at the Lutheran Church, (sorry, I've forgotten his name) also fascinated me. His story of actually living his beliefs was truly inspiring.

3. Anyone where you had the opposite reaction. The only ones that made me take a break, more out of frustration and annoyance, were the scenes of the police covering up their failure to investigate the earlier allegations against Harris and Klebold.

Mensagem editada pelo seu autor, Jun 4, 2009, 12:03pm.

This book was what I expected. I had read the EW review (grade: A) so I expected a lot.

My favorite character was Eric. I didn't know how charismatic and intelligent he was. I bought into the "loner/loser" portrayal perpetuated by the media.

The Brown family turned me off. They seemed a bit odd.

I want to 2nd the point made that the book cover is very good.

If I had one gripe about the content of the book, I was interested in hearing more about what happened to the kids/people who were there, not just the ones injured. I'm sure there are tons of stories about stress and related guilt from the tragedy. Many kids probably have scars other than the physical. Dave, you did a good job on addressing that, but my point is I could have read even more on it.

Mensagem editada pelo seu autor, Jun 4, 2009, 12:45pm.

I just wanted to say that I started reading Columbine this morning and really appreciate the chance to talk to you about it while I'm reading.

For now, I don't want to go through too many of the comments until I get a bit further into it. I'm reading it on my Kindle so I expect tha I'll soon be totally wrapped up in it.

I recall reading about it at the time, of course, but have not heard/read all that much about it since then though I was taken aback when a former co-worker mentioned, at one point, that she'd gone to high school there.

Great comments. I'm getting a lot out of this.

I have to run out to sign some books, but will be back later to respond. (I'm also using it as a chance to get some cardio in. I'm going to take my bike, but there's a huge line of thunderstorms rolling in, so I better go fast. I'll probably get soaked regardless. Worse things have happened.)

MJS: on A) did you mean why did they come into existence so strongly, or why did they continue after.

I think the reason for the myths developing and hardening was due to a lot of factors. The most fundamental was the need to have an answer to why--and grabbing one before we had almost any evidence.

But there was also a massive failure of critical thinking and examining. The data was there very early on to refute the biggest myth, that it was all about targeting jocks. The Rocky never fell for that one. We all didn't have to.

And yes, I think the comforting factor was huge. You put it really well with "the meek rose up and got revenge." We've seen that theme/plot in countless movies, so we were thrilled to see it come about in real life, even if we were still just making it up.

As for the myths enduring once in place, I think that was mainly two things:

1. Inertia. People had no reason to go back and unlearn something they thought they had learned.
2. Big failure by the media to correct our mistakes. We do that a lot. We run 24-hour-a-day saturation coverage for weeks, and then we discover fundamental mistakes, we run a few print stories. See an imbalance there?

---

I'll be back for your question B.

I am very excited to say I brought home my copy today!
A trip to Barnes and Noble with a friend kept me from having to order it online.
I have to say that even though it looks like a good/interesting book, I would probably have passed it by. I am one of those who found the subject just so tragic, that I doubt I would have bought it.

What sold me on the book was the discussion here.. the viewpoints of the other LT'ers, and frankly your interest in what was being asked and discussed. You sold me on you! :)

I doubt I will get to read it before this chat is over, as I have several queued up for read and review, but I know I will appreciate more for your having taken part in our author chat. So, thank you!

MJS: on B) I have not felt much in the way of backlash, certainly not overtly. There has been none that I'm aware of from the national media. I've done a few hundred interviews, and not one had any reaction like that. At this point, they're eager to get it right.

Locally, I'm not an insider, don't hang out with many Denver journos, so I really don't know for sure. I've heard little rumblings of grousing here and there from friends who are insiders, but I think it's pretty limited. The interest in the book among local media has definitely been muted, compared to national interest. There are lots of reasonable explanations for that, though.

mckait, what a nice thing to say.

I have to say that I had a little trepidation, because communicating online has some pitfalls: harder to express tone, etc. I have gotten very used to talking about it on radio, and to reporters over the phone or in person, but that's a whole different thing. I'm glad to hear I'm coming through reasonably here.

I think I still have some more questions left unanswered.

I should have clarified this earlier, but it's fine for anyone to join the conversation at any point.

It's also fine to revisit topics from upthread if you want to add a comment, a follow-up or whatever.

I've got a few more questions I want to pose to you guys, too, which I'll try to get together over the weekend, or Monday.

I am 48 percent finished (according to my Kindle). This is quite a book. Fascinating but somehow not as upsetting as I thought it'd be (though it is, at times).

I am struck by a few things.

I was never aware of what they'd really planned or how catastrophic this could've been had all gone according to the plan. Any death is one too many but this could've been a whole lot worse.

Also struck by Eric's (I think) comment to Brooks as the shooting was about to start "I like you. Get out of here and go home."

I especially enjoy the parts involving Fuselier as well as the principal. I also prefer reading about Dylan rather than Eric. Not sure why that is. Before this, I thought of them only as a single duo, not as two totally different guys.

I love that the kindle tells you the exact percentage through you are. Hahaha. I do that constantly when I'm reading a book--flipping to the last page and computing an approx amount to go. I often wondered if others did that.

Whether I'm wishing it would end soon, or praying it will never end, or something in between, I'm always wanting to know. (That's why I love my tivo and even my fake tivo giving the bar to show me, too.)

I'm tickled that someone coded that.

I'll be back.

Spoilers ahead...

How in the world did Eric's dad answer the phone from the gun shop (when the ammo was ready) and he didn't even seem to think that his deliquent kid was ordering them? To me it seems so far fetched, it almost appears that Eric's dad is covering his behind. Yes, I am implying he knew Eric was buying ammo and didn't care. I mean to think otherwise - that he actually believed it was a wrong number or something - is equally absurd. Who has a kid that gets in perpetual trouble, gets a call from the gunshop, and does that?

Which leads me to the $1 million question... in your opinion, how responsible/negligent were the parents? I'm not talking about in the deep psychology of how the kids were raised, but in their total absence from knowing what was going on leading up to the tragedy. I understand if you don't want to go there...

Coppers, I think you and I are the only ones who feel there's an oversaturation and who were reluctant to read the book as a result -- and I suspect it's because we both live too close.

Dave's information that the book is selling best in Colorado is both expected and surprising to me. On the one hand, it makes sense since it happened here, on the other hand we've been so smacked in the face with it and most of us just intensely want it to go away.

I was talking to a friend tonight and showed him the book and he said he just wasn't sure he could bring himself to read it... But I'll bet he does.

I did. And I surprised myself by doing so.

The thing is, as tragic and horrifying as the whole thing was/is, it is still a compelling event. Perhaps the need to find an answer to the question of WHY? is one of the reasons that the book is selling so quickly. When something so terrible happens, people want answers.

At the time, I for one thought about the parents, and wondered how on earth those kids could manage to stockpile weapons, and the parents not know. They lived at home, they were kids.. and where did the money even come from? So many questions, as there are with any tragic event.

Our media does have a habit of saturating any tragic event. When there is nothing else available, they sensationalize something mundane and wring it dry. I think most of us are tired of that. :(

#47, Dave, on the Kindle, the first thing I do, upon starting a book, is check to see where the text ends. I like to know how much is left. For Columbine, it ended at 85%, with the rest consisting of footnotes etc.

Mensagem editada pelo seu autor, Jun 6, 2009, 4:50pm.

I finished Columbine late last night. This is an exceptional book, one I believe I will be thinking back on for quite some time.

1. Did this book turn out to be what you expected?--No, I thought it'd be more of a straight narrative but it was far more complex than that. I hadn't heard that much about it so I wasn't sure what to expect.

There was a lot I didn't know. I didn't realize how big a catastrophe this could've been if all had gone according to plan. I'd heard some of the myths but had never heard about some of them being debunked. Things like Cassie Bernall saying yes or Danny holding the door open so others could escape.

2. Favorite characters? The principal, for sure, along with Fuselier. Those two were definitely my favorites.

Oddly, early on, I wanted to hear as much as possible about Eric and Dylan but, as the book progressed, I wanted to hear less about them and more about the dead and the survivors and what happened with them.

3. Anyone where you had the opposite reaction? Danny's Rohrbough's father, Brian, was not someone I liked. I was also less interested in the religious angle and also the police coverup portions. I think these topics are necessary for a more complete record of the events but just not something I'm personally interested in.

I'll hit the easy ones first.

linda: on the kindle, does that mean the other 15% is the endnotes, bib, etc.? I had not thought of it as that much, but I guess it is.

It's funny, but I do the same thing with paper books. I flip to the end to see if there is any backmatter, and memorize the number of the last page of text, so I know how much, all the way through.

Mensagem editada pelo seu autor, Jun 6, 2009, 6:03pm.

karen & mckait, I've heard from quite a few people locally that they were turned off by over-coverage, and/or were resistant to a book coming out about it. That was a minority of what I heard, but a significant minority. Of course I was getting a very skewed sample--mostly people showing up to my readings, or emailing or calling in to radio shows who were interest. So it's hard for me to gauge anything like percentages in the overall community.

It does seem to me that there are both feelings in the community, and often in the same person: conflicted feelings sort of like, "God, I've heard enough--except if this is going to straighten it out for me, maybe it's worth one more." Something like that?

Oddly enough, a lot of the families and others closest to the incident have been the most eager for the book to come out. Many of them are/were eager for some answers, and felt they were still lacking.

Also, I didn't plan it this way, but I think the book would have a much cooler reaction here at say the five year anniversary. Early on, there was tremendous resentment about saturation coverage. That lingered for years, but has seemed to dissipate quite a bit the past few years. The students themselves--the survivors--have really changed, and on this anniversary, many were finally ready to come back and revisit it. They had had enough quiet time, if you want to call it that.

(Of course that is not a universal response, but it was very different this year than years past. I talked to Frank DeAngelis about it the day after the tenth anniversary, and he saw the same thing. He was really surprised by how different this year was with those kids. And more came back than ever before.)

#49 karen_o, Yes I think our perspective is a little different due to our close proximity. I've spoken with a lot of people around here who are still reluctant to read it despite my pushing it on them.

And I wouldn't even have considered reading Columbine 5 years ago.

The kindle talk reminded me of something. I looked back constantly at the endnotes while I was reading. Does everyone else do that or do you wait for the end?

I looked back constantly at the endnotes while I was reading. Does everyone else do that or do you wait for the end?

I'm curious to hear that, too. I wondered if anyone would ever read them.

(I kept much longer notes as I went, BTW. Rough guess, at least 20 times as long, but they were not all in complete sentences, or concise or anything, just notations to myself. Then at the end, in one crazy burst of under a week, I took just the most important ones and wrote out sentences explaining a bit.)

Were they useful?

I'm still working on a much longer version to post on the web.

Were they useful?

Frankly, I wished there were more! I liked having the gaps filled in, kind of like deleted scenes and extras on a dvd...

I couldn't wait. I put the other books aside and am nearly 200 pages into Columbine. I would have finished it, but yesterday was my sisters birthday.
So far, my favorite person is the principal. He is really something. Do you "know" him, now Dave? After working on the book, are there any of these folks that have become friends?

My least favorite is Eric's dad. He makes me shudder.

I think that you have done a fantastic job of rounding out the people, and allowing us to "feel" them. It has been done so that the horror of the event is recognized, but has not taken on a life of its own. That would have made the book overwhelming to read. The people are the story instead.

Dave, on the Kindle, of course the fiction books go to about 99 percent. Copyright and sometimes blurbs etc often appear at the end.

As for nonfiction, the first book I read back when I first got it in March was about the Great Books movement and it ended at about 55 percent. This really confused me because it sounded like the book was winding up and there was still half a book to go, according to the percentages!!

Incidentally, the total units on the Kindle does not change even when I change the typesize--only the number of units per page.

So now I look at where the text ends. Eighty-five percent is pretty typical. I will look at the end material but typically not while I'm still reading the book.

Finished.
Stunning.

It is not what I would have expected had I not been reading this thread.
I would have expected the typical sensationalism, or maybe another book
just looking to capitalize on the event ( sorry Dave, but.. I have to be honest)

This thread showed me that it was anything but either of the above.

I did not look at the end notes until I was finished with the book. I then flipped back once or twice, but it was all still pretty fresh in my mind, as I read it in 2 days..

Thank you for a wonderful read!

Man, I am loving this thread.

mckait: Yes, I've gotten to know Frank D pretty well over the last ten years. Also Agent Fuselier, Dr. Ochberg (who is not quoted much, but played a big role behind the scenes--I became an Ochberg Fellow with the Dart Foundation, which is now part of Columbia Journalism School) and some others who don't appear in the story. They were not central characters, but became friends and colleagues. I met several in the Evangelical Christian community who became friends.

I spent the most time with the psychologists because it was such a daunting task to understand the killers--and in Fuselier's case, he was one of the leaders of the investigation, too. With Frank DeAngelis, there were so many different aspects that involved the school, so I was always running into him.

I spent less time with the Ireland family, but really admire Patrick, and his parents, John and Kathy. I got to know and admire several of the other family members, too.

I still owe some answers, and I have a few more questions, but I've got a crazy day.

I will be back later today, probably this evening.

I don't see anyone asking..
do you have another book in the works?
( sorry if it has been asked and I missed it. )

Since I've now finished, I guess I should answer Dave's questions.

1. Did this book turn out to be what you expected when you picked it up? I have no idea what I expected when I bought it but by the time I read it this thread was in full swing so I knew what to expect, therefore, no surprises. ETA: The one thing that surprised me was learning that the Jeffco Sherriff's department had been deliberately obstructive, even to the point of apparently destroying records that should have been evidence. Before this I thought they were simply inept.

2. Who were your favorite characters? Principal DeAngelis and Agent Fuselier closely followed by Patrick Ireland.

3. Anyone you had the opposite reaction to? Brian Rohrbough. Although apparently his sustained anger had some positive results, I think he needs counseling. I've also always thought Wayne Harris was a bit too rigid (and the book confirms and amplifies that impression) and that Brooks Brown is a bit... strange.

And I also want to say that from the very beginning, and this hasn't changed since I read the book, my greatest sympathy has lain with the parents of the murderers, particularly the Klebolds. Remember, I had children of the same ages at the time of the murders; while I felt just terrible for Linda Sanders, her children, and the parents and families of the dead and injured, I also understood how easily a child can just go south and you don't expect it. It could have been *my* kid getting sucked into Eric Harris' web...

Mensagem editada pelo seu autor, Jun 8, 2009, 6:27pm.

Dave, question for you, since you know more about this than anyone else I will ever speak to. In your opinion, did the SWAT team act appropriately?

ETA: Another question: Do you have any idea why Randy Brown is so angry? I don't get it and I don't understand why he would be so invested in the bullying theory since even in his son Brooks' case, it was clear that Eric was the bullier not the bullied.

Mensagem editada pelo seu autor, Jun 9, 2009, 1:42am.

Hi there. I had to jump in as the author of the other Columbine book who also worked at the Rocky Mountain News for 10 years, from the day of the shootings to the day the paper closed.

I don’t believe the Harris and Klebold parents didn’t talk because the media are lazy. They didn’t talk because they didn’t want to talk. Or maybe because their attorneys told them not to. (And of course, they did talk briefly to a couple people who then publicized information about them.)

I don’t know how many times the media contacted the Klebolds and Harrises (and their representatives) over the years, but I am willing to bet it was hundreds. I wouldn’t call that lazy. Again, I don’t have the exact number, but no one else has cited one either.

It’s also untrue, in many respects, that the media were lazy. Dave and I both benefited from media lawsuits that I do not imagine came cheap. The Denver Post got what seem to be the full diaries of the killers in 2006 and the paper said of itself then, “Since 2001, The Denver Post has sought release of Harris ' and Klebold 's diaries, school papers, medical records, annotated high school yearbooks; notes written by Harris ' father, Wayne; and access to the (audio and video) tapes.”

Victims families themselves brokered much information, and they joined with CBS News in court to get the Harris draft affidavit for a search warrant released. The Rocky fought for three years to get Dylan’s autopsy released. The paper was eventually successful.

Wayne Harris’ military photo was widely distributed shortly after the shootings (maybe within days). The Rocky also took photos of all the killers’ parents in 2003.

For my book, I wrote numerous letters throughout the years to the killers’ parents asking for interviews. I successfully utilized open records act requests in three states to get job applications, resumes and e-mails from Sue Klebold, and Dylan’s college essays. The Klebolds often threatened me with legal action.

There are other examples, but you get the idea. After years of seeing others, and myself, fight for information, I wouldn’t paint the media with a broad brush and say they were lazy.
Jeff Kass
Author of Columbine: A True Crime Story, a victim, the killers and the nation's search for answers.

jeff: This is the first I'm hearing of anyone calling the media lazy. (Or suggesting that this is why the parents didn't talk.) Perhaps I missed it.

Many times while on my book tour, I have heard the idea that the press gave special treatment to the parents' families by keeping them hidden. I have seen no evidence of that, which is the point I tried to make in post 30 (ie, defending the press diligence in this case). I was responding there to a question specifically about photographs.

As you point out, and I make clear in my book, we reporters have asked repeatedly for the parents to talk, but they chose to remain silent. (With rare exceptions, such as the Klebolds speaking to David Brooks after his 2004 column summarizing my Slate piece "The Depressive and the Psychopath." I wish they had talked to me, but Tom apparently reads the NY Times every day and saw the column there. David was very generous with me, filling me in on things they told him beyond what he printed in his follow-up column.)

Of course the media can't make them talk. I think everyone understands that, but the question of pictures sometimes comes up. In the past, I have had readers express the idea that public figures like that are routinely followed around daily for years, and in post 30, I tried to explain that it really doesn't work that way, in my experience. I hope it was clear from the context that my remarks there were referring specifically to photographs, which I focused on throughout to post, with comparisons to Angelina Jolie, or Princess Di, etc. If not, hopefully this clarifies that.

There was a great deal of early misreporting on the Columbine case, which I try to unravel a bit in the book (and point out that the Rocky did some of the best work from the start, least prone to the myths). And there was also a tremendous amount of great journalism done on the case, both early on and later. I was and am grateful for all that great work to build on. I cited the sources I found most helpful throughout my acknowledgments, endnotes and bibliography.

Mensagem editada pelo seu autor, Jun 9, 2009, 2:28pm.

mckait:

Thanks for asking about future books. I hope to spend my lifetime writing more--as well as more magazine pieces--and I've got some ideas I'm playing with, but it's premature to discuss them. I haven't even talked to my editor about that yet. That's one of the very few things I won't talk about. But I appreciate the interest.

There were several topics in the book that I found especially difficult to read and they have stuck with me. Anything having to do with Dave Sanders and his wife was just heartbreaking as was the story of the Klebold’s and their attempt to grieve and give their son a dignified funeral.

Dave, I was wondering whose stories in particular you had a hard time writing and thinking about.

karen_o,

The police response question is one of the thorniest. First, we have to disentangle SWAT officers from commanders. The latter made the decisions, and bear responsibility.

Clearly, from this distance, it would have been better if they responded more aggressively, actively, instead of a defensive perimeter. They were, however, following the primary doctrine at the time--going by the book.

Columbine was key in helping everyone rethink that, and toward the end of the book, I summarize the Active Shooter Protocol, which is now the norm. (It's also summarized in a Slate piece I did this April. I can find the link if you like. I spend more time on it in the book, both in the main text and the endnotes.)

At this point, I didn't see a point in making judgments about them or the decisions they made in a chaotic situation. So in the book, I just tried to convey what happened and what they were responding to, what they thought they were responding to. I tried to judge as little as possible and leave that to you readers.

*laughing a bit to myself* I understand that you were doing the proper reportorial thing and leaving all judgement to the reader in your book. I'm still curious about your personal opinion. But you don't have to answer if you don't want.

I ask because it is the single thing about which I have personally held the harshest judgement and I didn't see anything in the book to make me change my mind.

coppers,

Wow, you followed the same emotional path as me.

It's been interesting talking to readers about this, because it really does vary, and that's a good thing. But for me, personally, the hardest chapter to write, by far, was the one on Dave Sanders bleeding to death. It took me about a month--one awful month.

I knew that one was going to be hard, but the chapter on the Klebold funeral really caught me off guard. That one tore me up, too. And for a long time, I felt a lot of guilt about my reaction to it. It took me quite awhile to sort through that.

I wrote an essay about the experience of writing that part of the book and my own battles with secondary PTSD. Borders published it online here:

http://www.borders.com/online/store/Arti...

I think there were some questions upthread about how spending ten years with this subject affected me personally. The essay will give you a lot of insight into that.

The essay is extremely personal, and I don't usually reveal that much about my emotional situation, but in this case, it seemed worthwhile. (I also cleared it with my shrink, who plays a big role in the piece, and she was fine with me writing about her. In fact, she is using it in some of her own classes.)

I am open to discussing it more, but this is the one situation I'm going to ask for a little sensitivity. Everyone here has been great, so that's probably unnecessary, but it's painful and I feel vulnerable there.

Anyway, coppers, thanks for asking.

I'm also curious what other people found most difficult, and/or how either of those two chapters came across to the rest of you.

Dave, one thing that you mentioned (and I thought would be addressed more later) was Eric's comment to Brooks right before the shooting started, something to the effect of "I like you. Get out of here and go home."

As I read, it sounded like Eric and Brooks/family did not get along all that well. Mrs Brown was constantly calling the police on Eric.

This comment surprised me and never really made sense to me. I had to look back, thinking that Dylan said it but no, I think it was Eric.

As did coppers, I found that anything involving Dave Sanders or his family was tough to read.

I also felt sorry for the Klebolds in many ways, including the funeral, though not nearly as sorry for the Harris family.

linda,

Eric had a running feud with Brooks, but had made peace with him at the start of that final semester. (They had a class together, and--going by memory here--Eric came up to Brooks right off and announced it was time to bury the hatchet.) They had returned to hanging out. Hopefully I included that in the book. (Honestly, I spent so long on edits and rewrites I lose track of what was cut, but I sure hope I didn't inadvertently cut that.)

The quote was: “Brooks, I like you now. Get out of here. Go home.” There has been disagreement about how to punctuate and break that up. The "now" is often quoted as the start of the second sentence. I had a long discussion with Kate Battan about that, and she felt strongly that the now was part of the first sentence--as opposed to previously not liking him. She made the most compelling case and in the end, I went with that version.

Dave -

I am in the position right now of having to wait on a copy of your book to be available through my local library system. (Number seven in the queue).

I'm concerned that this thread may disappear into the ethers without a trace when your agreement with LibraryThing is completed.

I may do a screen shot to save it as a doc in my doc file.

I am really looking forward to reading your book and hope that I will have a chance to contact you through LT afterward to follow-up with a comment.

Thank you for the time, energy, skill and awareness/sensitivity that you have placed in your book about this "page in our collective history."

womansheart

The thread won't disappear. And to make it easier to find later, go to the top and look for a grayed-out star. Click on the star and it'll turn yellow. When you want to find the thread again, go to the Talk tab and click on "Your Starred". It'll be there.

Thanks for the concern, womansheart, and the info dr.

You can also bookmark this page (or make it a favorite, depending on your browser). I believe the url will stay the same indefinitely, right?

BTW, when I respond to questions/comments by name, I followed the convention of pasting your name in from you post (or sometimes typing it) exactly the same way. Most of the names are in lower case, so I feel a bit odd addressing everyone that way. I hope it's OK. Maybe I should have mentioned that sooner, and/or just started capitalizing.

(I was also making an effort to use the whole name, but I've gotten lazier and started abbreviating, as I'm used to doing on most online places.)

I've discovered that on the web, it's possible to offend people in very unintended ways. No offense intended. Let me know if anything like that is bugging you. Thanks.

Mensagem editada pelo seu autor, Jun 9, 2009, 9:19pm.

For me, writing about Dave Sanders' death was wrenching, but I got great joy about writing about his life.

Researching it was great, too. He has some wonderful friends, who were a pleasure to meet, and Linda was a delight. (I worry about her sometimes, but she's gotten so much better the past few years.)

I made several trips to The Columbine Lounge and that place was unique and a lot of fun. Often that's the best part of my job: walking into places I never would have set foot in. You never know who you're going to meet.

Mensagem editada pelo seu autor, Jun 10, 2009, 12:17am.

Dave (see, I’m shortening your name too…),

I’ve only been around here for about a year but I haven’t found that people are overly sensitive about things like that. I had an author address me as “Yo cops” once and I didn’t care. My dog might though.

Thank you for that last post – it was uplifting. I’m starting to find this thread almost as difficult to read as your book, but anyway, thank you for providing the link above and sharing your essay. It was very, very insightful. Certainly some of your personal pain flowed through to your writing. You showed a lot of strength and courage to continue writing and editing Columbine.

Whereas I had anticipated much sorrow and frustration when reading of Mr Sanders plight (not to mention the kids who were trying to help him), the Klebolds caught me off guard. As the mother of a son in high school maybe I should have anticipated some empathy for them. I just didn’t expect them to seem so normal and maybe that’s the problem.

The Harrises are another story. By walling themselves off so effectively, they have managed to keep any bit of compassion at bay. But perhaps that was necessary; they don’t seem as sympathetic as the Klebolds. As for their sons, I think of Dylan and shake my head as I just don’t get it, but Eric, he just makes me shudder.

I think that by abbreviating our names, it just shows that you are getting comfortable here. I hope so. I would like to see you continue to participate when you can.

I have no caps in my screen name...i like it that way, as I am not a fan of caps.
in fact unless it is a legal doc or something, I rarely use caps for my own name,
kath.

I read your essay. It is clear that you really take to heart what you are writing about. Thank you for sharing all of that :).

I am happy to hear that you plan to continue writing books. I will keep a lookout for future offerings .

Dave---I've read your book and the entire thread here and I want to thank you.
I think your book is important for teachers and parents to read because you challenged the media's long-standing conclusions about the causes of this tragedy. I agree that our recognition of the issue of bullying in the aftermath of Columbine has been a good thing, but I appreciated your further investigation and analysis of why this tragedy happened. It's a question I still live with and probably always will. Blaming the parents is too easy, but I would still love to know their side of the story to gain a greater understanding of the dynamics that led to this sad and horrible event.
Thanks for taking the time to give such detailed and thoughtful responses to all the questions here (and for the essay at Borders.com.)
In some ways, we were all victims, weren't we?

ee,

Eric certainly intended us all as victims. He referred to us as his "audience." He wanted to terrorize us, and that was one of the few aspects of his plan that worked.

I think we are all victims of this. There are many degrees of victimhood, and my suffering is tiny compared to someone who lost a child or husband or sibling or friend. But it's real, too. So is yours.

coppers,

I was similarly caught off guard by my own responses. The parents of Eric and Dylan also suffered tremendously--no doubt about that.

I also felt much more for the Klebolds than the Harrises, but that may well be because I was able to get closer to them and learn more about them. To know what a person is going through and what they are trying to do is the (huge) first step in empathizing with them. I wish I had more to offer on Wayne and Kathy.

It's understandable why they kept quiet--especially while facing legal threads--but I also hope that they decide to speak at some point. We can learn a lot from them. And that includes learning about them, and what they went through.

I'd love to tell their stories, but chances are it will be someone else. That's fine with me, too. I'd just love to hear their stories.

Mr Cullen,

I finished your book last night and have a few question. Was Kate Battan at the Open Space meeting? Do you think that Jeffco officials chose to implicate Brooks Brown as a means of discrediting the Brown family? Was his treatment significantly different from Nate, Zack or Robyn Anderson? Further, why wasn't Robyn Anderson treated similar to Mark Manes?

In answer to your question I have the following reactions.

The book was not what I thought it would be. I was in Denver working not far from Columbine when the shootings took place. I limited my exposure to to the Rocky Mountain News, parents and friends of Columbine students. I did this because at a previous point in my life I was involved tangential, in a murder trail. I saw in that case how the media, didn't get it wrong but presented a very narrow view of the facts. I was looking for your book to fill in the gapes in my knowledge about what happened at Columbine. I was previously under the impression that the cause was an inappropriate response to bullying. I think you pretty clearly show the psychopathy of Eric Harris was the root. However, that said, I think you wrote the book expecting your audience to already have a great deal on knowledge about the case. I still don't have a clear idea what went on in the library. Dylan's action during that time are still unclear. Perhaps that's a good thing.

I don't want to say Dylan was my favorite character but he was the one I most interested in. It seems like he was just another gun or bomb to Eric. It appears that he just didn't have the strength or courage to escape Eric. It is still ironic to me that Eric was on medication that Dylan should have been taking. If Dylan had got the help Eric got, the medication, a therapist, he might have been able to get out.

My least favorite character was Sheriff Stone and the Jeffco officials. They repeatedly impeded the communities understanding and healing. The one good thing they appeared to do is provide a text book example of what not to do in a similar situation.

Mensagem editada pelo seu autor, Jun 11, 2009, 10:45am.

misericordia,

On the first part, no, Kate Battan was not at the meeting.

It's really hard to know people's motives, and dangerous to guess at them. Often, people don't know their own motives, fully. At the very beginning, everyone, cops included, assumed the boys must have gotten help, so they were looking for co-conspirators. All the killers' friends were high on the suspect list. And since he was warned to get out, that put Brooks in a high risk group.

That makes sense: good police work. What does NOT make sense, and is not fair, is to TALK about that, publicly, and cast suspicion before you've checked it out. In this case, nothing ever checked out on Brooks.

Now how much of that was in Sheriff Stone's head when he shot his mouth off, and how much was a desire to discredit the family that had warned his department--I can't see into his head to know. I leave that to you to assess.

I don't recall any of the others you mention being cited on TV by officials as suspects. (And if memory serves, it was only Stone personally who did that with Brooks--although I literally wrote that section of the book years ago, and would have to go back into my notes to make sure.)

I was also stunned by the difference in reactions between Robyn and Manes. Because of gun law technicalities, Robyn didn't break any laws, and was not charged. I think so much of the anger came down on Mark because he was the first person ever brought to a sentencing hearing, and by then we knew he and Duran would be the only ones ever, with Manes the main one of the two. Anger is not always rational.

Point taken. It is more a mis-reading on my part. It wasn't clear to me if Sheriff Stone already knew about the Browns when he said Brooks was a suspect. I guess my narrow view tripped me up there. Thanks for straighten me out.

Hey misericordia,

I re-read my post, and I hope I didn't come off as judgmental about YOU--or other readers. LOL. There's irony there.

When I said it's dangerous to guess at motives, I mainly meant dangerous for ME to--although actually, I think we live in a culture where there's way too much of it. (The cable Shouter Shows as I think of all those ghastly "news" panel shows contribute to it a lot, I think. Everyone makes these snap judgments about everyone, casts the world in black/white terms, every politician is slimed as a villain or praised as a hero . . . Come on. It's more complicated than that.

I'm really struck by how people will quickly guess motives of others on the flimsiest of information.

Now having said all that, reading a book is a lot more deliberative than watching a cable shouter show--or participating in one of those shows, assigning motives to people you've never met, about actions taken fifteen minutes ago, under circumstances the panelists know little about.

Reading a book is a pretty deliberative process. You're doing a lot more work. I was thinking back on just about every book I've ever read, and of course I come to judgments about the characters in them--whether fictional or real-life--and assess their motives. I think that's healthy. That's being a thoughtful reader. That's part of why we read books, right?--to understand things better, come to conclusions.

But just talking this through highlights the different responsibilities between writer and reader for me. You can/should make your assessments, but I need to refrain, publicly. I do have some opinions on Stone, but I can't know for sure what's in his head, so I should present various sides of his character, and show you the things he did and leave it to you.

Does that make sense? Sometimes I need to write it down to figure out some of the finer points of what I think.

No Problem. I think you are right and make a good point. Maybe I am little hard on Stone and Jeffco officials. My view and conclusion of their motives is too quick. What could have prepared them for what happened? They struggled in the aftermath, that is clear. Was their motive to CYA or something else, they might not even know.

I am still baffled by Robyn Anderson. I know you are not a legal expert but what was the difference between what she did and Manes. Was it that Manes made a profit? Was it the type of guns Manes got? Did Robyn Anderson plea bargain for testimony? It's not that I don't believe her real mistake was based on proximity to Eric Harris. It just seem baffling that the law allowed/allows this. (My ignorance of gun laws is equaled only by my ignorance of slander.)

What I am a little more curious about is, how did you go from Aurthur Anderson and EDS to being a reporter/writer?

Oh and one more thing, Glen Campbell "Rhinstone Cowboy", oh yeah! But try this "Crazy: The Demo Sessions" by Wille Nelson. It won't be what you expect.

thanks

Mensagem editada pelo seu autor, Jun 11, 2009, 3:38pm.

Dave,

I just wanted to drop back in and thank you for being so generous both with your time and your thoughts on this thread for the last couple of weeks. You have set the bar pretty high in terms of other author chats; this is the first one I’ve participated in and thought it was just great!

The world can be an angry and confusing place sometimes, as we’ve seen in the events just in the last few weeks and days. Thanks again for helping to make some of it make sense.

Hope you decide to stick around – LT is really a lot of fun.
Joanne

Coppers, thank you very much for saying that. I've enjoyed it quite a bit, and gotten a lot out of it.

It's great to hear how people reading the book are reacting to it, and what they want to know more (or less) about.

Dave,

I would like to second coppers as well.

I really appreciate your discussion in this thread about narrative non-fiction and the structure. Your website resources at http://www.davecullen.com/columbine/colu... are very helpful as well.

Thanks

I'd like to join in the thanks. I hadn't intended to read this book; I thought it would just be too much to bear. But after following this thread, it's clear I'll have to read it.

me too, jenn..

I appreciated this thread a lot... and so enjoyed your participation :)

You guys are really nice to say that. I've had a wonderful time.

I've got kind of exciting news, too.

There's a new cover story on Oprah.com, and it will be the cover of the July issue of O Magazine: "Oprah's Summer Reading List: 25 Books You Can't Put Down."

She picked Columbine as one of the 25 (it's #7, if you scroll through the list).

http://tinyurl.com/n92kyr

We gave her exclusive rights to an excerpt--the first chapter--now on Oprah.com, which you can read at the link above, if you're interested. Her site also features new Book Club Discussion Questions for COLUMBINE.

They gave it a terrific review. A taste:

". . . Dave Cullen's spectacularly gripping account of the Colorado school shooting that shocked America a decade ago. But Cullen's chilling narrative is too vital to miss, as are his myth-busting revelations."

Thanks, Oprah.

(Let your friends know, if they're Oprah fans. There are Send & Share buttons there. There is also a place to discuss any of the 25 books:

http://www.oprah.com/community/community...

Well done! Oprah has done as much for reading as JK Rowling in my opinion...
just, different. You are in good company with some of those other books. I can recommend Dreaming in Hindi and I am putting a couple of others on my list at Amazon..

I have no self control..

Thanks for being here the past couple of weeks, Dave. It's been a pleasure. Although I had already purchased the book in April or May, I read it sooner than I might otherwise have done and I'm glad I did. I'm recommending to all the readers I know.

Wow, Oprah - She's like gold to authors - Congratulations!

Thanks for coming onto LT and doing this author chat, Dave.

I'd planned on reading Columbine "someday" but I'm glad I moved it up to read and discuss here.

Dave-

To echo some many of the comments above. I appreciate the time and energy you used to participate in this discussion. Not only is the book incredible, knowing your thoughts made it eve more touching.

Thanks,
Bridget

Thanks very much to everyone who participated. I really enjoyed it. And thanks to everyone who has helped spread the word about my book. Word of mouth is still crucial with books.

I'll try to stop by once or twice a month for awhile to follow up if anyone found the thread late and wants to follow up.

Take care everyone.

Best,

Dave

For anyone checking in, former Newsweek corespondent Michael Hastings just published an in-depth interview with me about the book:

http://trueslant.com/michaelhastings/200...

>104 - Dave -

Thanks for the link. I have the blog post by Michael bookmarked to read later today.

I am so pleased that you are getting positive admiration from so many journalists. It takes a good one to know a good one. In my opinion you set the mark quite high, Dave.

Ruth Craig aka womansheart

I'm back on book tour for COLUMBINE starting this morning (Tuesday).

I'll be in Longmont, CO at 11:30 a.m., then LA (Northridge and West Hollywood) Wed/Th, and an editor's conference in Portland Saturday. (Thursday night is at Book Soup in WeHo.)

Oct. 3, I have a homecoming event to my hometown of Elk Grove Village outside Chicago, just before my high school reunion.

Later in October I'm doing the Texas Book Festival, the Southern Book Festival and Grand Rapids' library festival, and a school safety conference in Indiana.

All the tour details are here (and you can see the book trailer there, too):

http://davecullen.com/tv-tour/tour-sched...

If you come, take pictures and post them on facebook and twitter, and send to me and I'll add to my tour-pictures page:

http://davecullen.com/tv-tour/tour-photo...

If you're still using this thing, I'd like to use this instead of facebook discussions. This is a great thread and I dont want to appear to be anything but congenial on your facebook page.

First, of course, I'd like to offer my praise for your work. It obviously took a lot of time, an amount that really is inconceivable to me. You seemed careful, yet daring, in your depictions of the killers' heads, and the psychoanalysis of both of them. They were the perfect storm, together, and you nailed that part in my esteem. Your way of backing off of hostile portrayals of them is amazing. It's what readers need. Many will approach the subject with preconconceived notions about Eric and Dylan, but you back off of that and take a very simple objective approach, which also allows readers to become empathetic as they wish.

Alright... BUT

These are probably things that you've heard countless times and might be tired of discussing, I dont know. But I have a problem with the downplaying of the "bullying" that took place there and takes place at every suburban school in America. Bullying is such a weak word for the topic. It implies a bigger kid picking on a weaker kid and afterwards, everyone goes home ok. I think the word bullying should be replaced with the word "degradation." That word is much heavier and in my opinion hits closer to home. What I dont understand is countless times both boys brought up, in their writings, how much everyone had picked on them and abused their psyche during the course of their lives. While I MAY be able to see it as an excuse/rationale for Eric to continue his psychopathic actions and thoughts, with Dylan I just cant see it. He was a withered soul as a direct result of what others put him through. Eric even mentions at one point that perhaps NBK could be avoided with more compliments towards him, which of course never happened. While I know that we cant really trust a lot of what Eric wrote, because he knew he would have an audience for his writings, with Dylan I dont think he would have thought one bit about the audience for his musings, at least while he wrote in his journal. To me, reading the journals provides me with the ability to see that the world being unfair/unforgiving/unloving-in-the-ways-we-need/uncaring is what caused Dylan, at least, to become who he was. Yes, I've read Brooks' account and theories, and I have to say that when it comes to observation of Dylan's life, I have to lean towards trusting someone who was there with him for much of it, instead of an objective, purely rational account.

Brooks' account also raises another point of contention. You portray the school administration pretty glowingly, both before and after. Brooks does not share these sentiments. Without throwing the two of you in a boxing ring, to determine who is "right" or "more right," I have to again point to the fact that someone who is closer to the people involved would be one I would have to lean towards trusting more. According to him, the administration was almost considered, by those outcast students, to be part of the problem simply by overlooking it or not caring about it, by looking down more on those students who did not fit inside the model teenager that people strive to mold us towards. According to him, they favored the kids who were causing the main problems within the social structure of the school.

I just wondered about these things, Im sure you've answered them before, but I have not seen a response yet from you that I can accept, and I'd really, really like to. You've a brilliant mind and I've no doubt that you've thought of these things already. Thanks for reading.