The issue of O Magazine is not supposed to be out until Tuesday, but NBC found a copy on sale in LA. They faxed me a copy this evening just before taping an interview for tomorrow's Today Show.
I had to read it fast, but it stopped me cold several times. I good deal of it is about the experience Tom and Sue (Dylan's parents) went through, and it was heartbreaking. It's a must-read for anyone interested in Columbine.
The essay should add a lot of insight for people who have not followed the case closely or read the book, but Sue did not have a whole lot to add to the voluminous record on Dylan. That actually didn't surprise me. I didn't expect her or Tom to be sitting on some bombshells. Day in, day out, Dylan wasn't projecting the signs of a killer.
I got one huge insight, I think, though, and for that I'm gratefule. Sue talked about Dylan's conflicted and irrational thoughts about suicide and murder, which he kept to himself. Then Sue said, "I believe that Dylan did not want to talk about his thoughts because he was ashamed of having them." God, that fits perfectly with the picture I got of him. And it explains a lot to me about how he managed to make that last step to murder. I'll expand more on that soon.
Sue will likely take flack for seeing Dylan's actions largely through the lens of suicide--motivated by suicide. I have heard many readers sneer in emails at my events, about Sue "conveniently" thinking in those terms. But those are the same terms the FBI sees it, which I see, it, which nearly everyone who has studied the case sees it.
Dylan's was primarily suicidal. That's what drove he. He followed a familiar patterns of angry depressives, who perform vengeful suicides: killing themselves and taking others with him. To understand Dylan you have to understand suicides. (Eric is a completely different story, of course.)
I think Sue Klebold took a wise tack, speaking mom to mom, to women who may have a teen in crisis or approaching one. O Magazine is a great venue for that, and the way she structured the piece and the candor with which she told it will reach them, I think. I hope they hear her loud and clear. I expect many will. If she accomplishes that, it will be a valuable service.
I will have more to say, but I just got back from the Southern Book Festival Nashville, and have an early morning radio interview and need to get food and sleep. (We set up the interview while I was traveling, and the crew was parked in front of my building when I got home. It was quite the logistical ordeal for them from there, and they will be up late tonight editing. I don't envy the people who work those early morning shows.)
Sue is going to take a beating for the essay in some quarters. But within the Columbine community, but I think and hope it will be a limited number of people. It may be worse with the general public. I will be very curious to see.
I think there is great good that can come from this.
I don't want to infringe on the O Mag copyright by posting it all, but may well be in your grocery store now, or very soon. I'm very curious to hear what you guys think.
---
And FYI, the Today Show segment is projected to air in the first hour, probably 7:15/7:20-ish, but breaking news can easily change that. I am taping Michael Smerconish's radio show in the morning, and will let you know when they plan to air it. (I guess their afternoon show.) It's on in most major markets.
---
The AP story about the essay has some excerpts released by O Magazine, but they had not yet seen the essay. It fills four pages in the magazine.Update:
The Today Show segment is online here.
Update2 :
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Christopher di Spirito
SaucyB
gaypersonsofcolor
six foot skinny
King Kaufman
Aunt Shelle
Salon.com
Comments
The quotes I read offended me in that they all focused on the suicide of her son, when that was really the smallest part of this whole tragedy, albeit not for her.
Ablonde, I did read it.
I don't think you can judge the lengthy essay from excerpts. Let me know what you think when you get a chance to read it.
I have to differ with you on the suicide of her son being the smallest part. Dylan was primarily motivated by suicide. She hit that on the head. There would have been no Columbine if Dylan had not been suicidal. It is crucial to understanding why this happened, and to preventing lots of other murders and far more suicides.
I also think it's where she can be most helpful: speaking mom to mom to the mothers of other teen boys in crisis.
I will be very disappointed in Oprah if a book is forthcoming and Oprah has promoted it after pulling your show.
Hopefully these interviews and articles will focus on preventing it.
Rated.
"Today" used a bite of me saying Sue would take flack about not seeing warning, and suicide as a cop out, but didn't include the part about me saying I agreed with her. Oh well. It was a short piece and they only had time for a couple thoughts from me.
I got to flesh out how I felt on the Michael Smerconish radio show, which I think airs today.
"Today" did a nice little summary of the piece.
We've had three school massacres in Montreal. The first (U of Montreal) was a suicide/murder. The second (Concordia, where my mother had worked closely with both the murderer and two of the the victims) was a sociopath/professor who is still in jail. And in the third (Dawson College), the motivations are still murky, but at least the swat team got in early enough to kill the shooter.
It's almost impossible to predict the actions of these killers. Believe me, if you couldn't predict it for a rage-a-holic professor who routinely threatened to kill people, it's pretty hard to predict in a withdrawn, isolated teen.
Fortunately, there seems to be reason to believe that police can actually learn to control these situations better. Unfortunately, that learning curve may be somewhat dependent on experience.
We will not prevent it happening again, we will not see those two killers in some other kids. We will enact idiotic zero tolerance rules and laws, and still refuse to see evil when it sits at our table.
We will encourage copycats by IN DEED keeping the killer's names alive.
I dont know how anyone could think otherwise.
i'll be on ABC Nightly News w/ Charles Gibson tonight. Taped it about an hour ago, then did more radio.
i think it's good that the media is interested in the story again briefly, because most people still don't understand what happened. and i think sue contributes to their understanding.
and we not only can, but have prevented a staggering number of similar events since columbine. we can also prevent a great number of suicides, as sue points out.
andy: yes, for dylan, it was primarily suicide as motivation. for eric, completely different. no desire to kill himself at all.
each one is individual.
All I can say is that if our president gets flack for receiving a Nobel Peace prize, Sue Klebold is in for just more of the worn, commonplace blame and criticism far too many Americans relish slathering, like condiments, on others so they don't have to look at their own fears. The "public" is quick to criticize others and do it as copycats and not from careful consideration of facts and uncertainties and serious thinking about how much they know about what goes on inside their own heads much less their children's.
I can only imagine what suffering this woman has gone through and will live for the rest of her life. And she has amazing courage for making herself a target again by trying to help other "moms." I say moms in quotes because it seems the mother gets the blame when something goes wrong with a child. It's not the "parents" nor the "father," but, the same old stuff. It's the mom's fault. "She" should have known. The Salem Witch trials are still with us and their fires have not been extinguished. What a shame.
Joan, I think you're right: a lot of people throw punches without really looking into it.
I'm anxious to hear how some of the families reacted on Nightline. I tivo'd it, but have not had a chance to watch yet. (I'm on hold for a live radio interview right now, so I can't watch.)
Until I heard the audio book version of "Columbine." They were not abused. They had the benefit of parents who didn't give a damn about them, boys whom psychiatrists often classify as DCHH - "Daddy Can't Handle Him." They weren't resolutely determined to punish specific people, only killing whoever happened to be in their crosshairs. They were incompetent militarists, most of whose devices didn't go off due to lousy design.
After they suicided, their lives were used by the incompetents who claim to be teachers and administrators, to let them abuse and berate students even more than before. They were used by Charlton Heston to promote greater gun use and paranoia about blacks and foreigners. Michael Moore didn't give a damn about them, using their story as an excuse for his own critique of American society's paranoia and violence, which had nothing to do with Harris and Klebold. And from this article, I gather Sue Klebold is trying to slough off blame for what happened, as both her family and the Harrises did after the incident by disappearing.
But beyond all of these abuses of the truth, the incorrect image of Harris and Klebold as abused nerds who finally struck back is the most appealing and romantic part of the story. As nonfactual as the story may be, it will appeal to future generations of school shooters, who hopefully will do their job more accurately and efficiently than these two losers. Remember the lesson of "The Man Who Shot Liberty Valence." When the legend becomes fact, print the legend.
I think you should read Sue's essay before you accuse her of sloughing off blame. I certainly didn't see that in the essay.
Your whole response is built around the idea that either I or some other "you" has determined the killers were not at fault. I have read of such people, but don't think I know any. I wrote a whole book which says nothing of the sort.
What or who are you responding to?
By disappearing? What should they have done? Stayed in the media spotlight and written books and cashed in on made-for-tv movies and let the world trash them after they've been through such hell? I don't think she's trying to slough off anything. I think this article is her way of working out the horror of that day. I don't know if you know this, but people deal with tragedy in many different ways, not just how you say they should. And as someone who just admitted they would have done the same thing if they had the arsenal those boys had, I would expect you to be a little more sympathetic. How do you think your mother would feel if it had been you? I don't believe Sue Klebold is trying to "slough off" blame. I believe she's a mother who's been through hell and back and is trying to understand the situation, and help other mothers who may be concerned about their own kids.
I don't see an interest in this as off-putting. It's important to try and understand these kids so that we can (hopefully) prevent another Columbine. We'll never be able to completely stop troubled kids from shooting up schools or beating up classmates. We'll never be able to stop kids from being kids and we'll never stop all the bad kids. But isn't it important to recognize the warning signs? To be able to save even a few before they choose the dark path? Maybe if society pulled its head out of its ass it might have seen that Dylan was a really screwed up kid who needed some help. Eric was a sociopath, he was beyond help. No one saw anything wrong with Eric because that's what he wanted them to see. That's what sociopaths do. They imitate us so that we don't suspect that they're different. But Dylan was a seriously depressed and suicidal young man. It's a shame that no one was able to see that clearly and reach out to him in time. To me, from reading David's book and seeing Dylan's journal, it seemed very much like that's what he wanted. Someone to reach out and tell him it was okay to feel the way he felt. Someone who understood his sadness and not just his rage.
the killers' parents were also held back for several years by first the threat and then the actuality of dozens of lawsuits against them.
sue also hand-wrote a letter to each of the 13 families of the dead. gayle king also said today that sue's therapist advised her to stop doing stuff like that, because she was retraumatizing them: that she should wait for those who chose to come to her.
(i'm not sure that was good advice, but she was acting on professional advice, and trying to do the right thing. who, in that position can sort out the right thing? i would have listened to the advice of a pro, too.)
Not enough is written or investigated on this topic ... I would love it if the Oprah show or a documentarian would do a report on this. Then again, if someone out there has covered this topic in depth at some time, would love some more info!
Althought, it was quite supportive of the Harris mother as I recall.
(The African American mother as well)
Your blogs are wonderful to read. Insightful.
Sexual teases? Seriously? Did some girl give you blue balls in high school? Grow up.
Tom, I won't allow comments advocating mass murder on my blog. You are free to express dissenting views, as you did in your first msg, but not to incite murder. Do it again, and you'll be permanently banned.
This gets my vote as the most galactically ignorant comment of the week. In one swell foop, this ignoramus has dismissed behavorial science in its entirety.
Yes, jane smithie redux, you "dont (sic) know."
Great post. Rated.
I appreciate that: the praise, and the concern. I saw her essay as both a chance to tell what she knows, and to focus on a group she can help: moms and dads of depressed kids who might do something awful to others or themselves.
I also think she focused on the central aspect of what was driving Dylan. I'm not sure what you were looking for in terms of insight on the anger. What would you have liked to hear?
It's true: it was not an interview, and I agree that we can gain by having someone probe her more for other perspectives. (Though personally, I'd just as soon have the prober be an expert in the field rather than a journalist, or perhaps with a journalist. I shudder at the surface stuff a lot of journalists would ask--especially in a TV interview.) Frankly, I think we learned a lot more from this than we would have from TV.
Hopefully that will also come in time, though I don't blame Sue for controlling her story the first time out. Why hand over the reigns to someone who might go right for the most provocative stuff, and leave core ideas on the cutting room floor? I think Sue was pretty smart the way she handled it.
Thank you so much for the response; I agree with your read on this article and I've been thinking about it a lot since I posted. My class and I actually watched clips in class today from Rachel Maddow, The Today Show, and Nightline--having watched those, I now couldn't agree more with your point about Sue Klebold exerting control over the message rather than turning it over to someone else (my class felt the Today Show went overboard in their repeated clip of Dylan ranting into a camera, of course playing while they were summarizing Sue Kelbold's deep grief for the tragedy). As to your question, "What would I have liked to hear?": I have no answer, and I think that was actually the source of my frustration while reading--my anticipation far outmatched any tangible, realistic expectation. Anyway, thank you for taking the time. My class is truly enjoying your book (as well as learning a ton about the research process)--the subject matter is painful, but all of our discussions have been meaningful. Thanks again, and good luck on the book tour.
I had a similar thought after watching myself on the Today and World News shows. I don't think they portrayed me inaccurately, just selectively. It was a time constraint: they only had about 20 seconds for me, so they got one thought out there--or really half of one. They were not even close to the ones I would have chosen, but it perhaps the best ones for the story they were trying to tell.
In trying to express my opinions about Sue's essay, granting an interview to network TV was not a very effective route--except for the very large reach. Since millions of people saw me there, I can hope that some small but still significant fraction came to the web and found much more.
But actually writing my own piece would have been much more effective at getting my assessment out there. I think Sue Klebold figured the same thing out: Hand yourself over to a TV show, and you've got a huge audience, and also a big crap shoot about whether you can communicate what you think is important. Write the essay yourself, and you can insure you do.
There are other advantages to interviews, too. Often outsiders have a much better idea of what the public wants to know, and can draw out thoughts or examples she might never have thought to include. And a lot of viewers will feel more comfortable with some sort of interlocutor questioning Sue on their behalf. So hopefully she'll go that route eventually as well. But this was a pretty savvy start.
I'm sorry if I offended you. I'm very curious how you and the other families react to situations like this. I don't know what it's like to be in your shoes. I didn't realize I was coming across as pounding the drum for compassion for the perps, or their families. That might come from spending most of the last six months doing radio and touring, where I am responding to a constant barrage of criticism of the perps' parents--some of it informed, most of it uniformed. That's what I hear literally every day, and what I think I'm reacting to.
(I'm fine with someone who looks into the situation and comes to a different conclusion that me. But I hear from so many people who have very strong opinions about the killers' parents without bothered to learn much of anything about them first. That's frustrating to me.)
I will go back and look what I've written on the blog, though. I talk about the victims at length when I'm on the road, and hopefully a lot of compassion for you all comes through then, but of course only a few hundred people at a time, max, are hearing that. I'm not sure I separate what I'm saying to whom where. I'm probably missing some important things.
I'm not sure what you mean by ignoring you: on this issue, or in general? I had not seen an update on your blog in awhile, and I'm frankly overwhelmed and terrible at keeping up with any blogs, or even answering all my email.
For the record, I also have to back off the concept that Sue collaborated on the book. They rebuffed most of my efforts to interview them, but late last year, did answer several questions through their attorney, Gary Lozow. Basically, I sent several (3-4) pages of passages from the book about Dylan, and they fact-checked them, correcting and clarifying, and adding a few examples. That was very helpful, but the book was nearly complete at that point, and in fact typeset. (I was still making changes to the galleys.) Gary actually insisted I agree to a statement specifically saying that the information they provided would not be construed as them "collaborating."
I do feel grateful for their help, but not indebted. I am much more interested in getting it right than in pleasing any particular party. With a handful of exceptions, most of the people appearing in the book at any length cooperated with me, and I try to portray them as accurately as I can, and say what I authentically feel.
Hopefully we can discuss this more in person. I'm eager to hear more what you think, and what this process has been like for you.
LOL. I was actually writing my response and didn't see this till after, but it made me laugh.
I do get how things look very different through your eyes. I've actually been a little frustrated this past week wondering how the different families reacted to the essay. I only saw a few families on TV, and short of calling you all up--if I had phone numbers for you all--it's hard to really know.
I have to say that I was completely surprised by Brian's reaction, though I'm not sure all of his thoughts made it onto the air.
I'm eager to talk to you. I'm going to send my cell number.
Sometimes I scare myself with how much I blab.
I'm glad I came across your blog via a friends blog, otherwise I would never have known about the interview (I never watch the Today Show and I don't read O).
I went online and read the full interview. I found most of the 300+ posts to be widely supportive, but the ones that weren't were pretty brutal. One poster, a forensic criminologist, raised an interesting question regarding whether or not Dylan may have suffered from a brain disorder. I think we are so used to seeing extreme acts through the lens of morality, we forget that, as far as science is concerned, much of what we choose to do in life is determined largely by brain chemistry. People don't like to think about that because it kind of shakes up our precious notions regarding the institutions of religion, politics, ethics, philosophy that provide the framework for our moral environment. To me, the near certainty from experts on the case that Dylan was mentally ill only underscores our need for greater understanding, not hypocritical and savage judgment.
Did Mrs. Klebold make parenting mistakes. She most certainly did, but I don't think any of them fall outside the realm of errata that any loving parent would inadvertently make. As far as the essay is concerned, I think her reaction was similar to a parent who may have just suspect their kid was having sex: They want to know, but they don't want to know. There's a tentativeness, but again, nothing that ought to justify the level of disdain some people are throwing at her.
One final point: The spotlight is on Mrs. Klebold. I know there's a Mr. Klebold. Why do we always throw the responsibility for these things mostly on the back of the mother? I know it's her essay, but this doesn't seem right.
Thanks again!