Scan barcode
eclecticemily's review against another edition
dark
emotional
informative
reflective
medium-paced
4.5
Summary: A nonfiction book about the Columbine school shooting. It goes over the shooting itself, the aftermath, as well as what lead up to it. This edition also includes a couple afterwords and epilogues that cover things after the book's original publication.
Favorite Quote: Distortion of time was rampant, particularly chronology. Witnesses recalled less once the killers approached them, not more. Terror stops the brain from forming new memories. A staggering number insisted they were the last ones out of the library—once they were out, it was over. Similarly, most of those injured, even superficially, believed they were the last ones hit. (pg. 287)
Review: This is a really thorough examination of what happened at Columbine. It strikes a good balance of telling about the victims but also giving enough information about the killers. It also tells a lot about mistakes along the way by news media and police that lead to the events or misconceptions around what happened. The only part I don't think 100% worked was that he stated in the intro that part of his goal in writing this was to undo some of the positive perception the killers have/had, but he still portrayed them as having a decent plan and portrayed Dylan pretty sympathetically, so I don't know that he was completely successful.
Favorite Quote: Distortion of time was rampant, particularly chronology. Witnesses recalled less once the killers approached them, not more. Terror stops the brain from forming new memories. A staggering number insisted they were the last ones out of the library—once they were out, it was over. Similarly, most of those injured, even superficially, believed they were the last ones hit. (pg. 287)
Review: This is a really thorough examination of what happened at Columbine. It strikes a good balance of telling about the victims but also giving enough information about the killers. It also tells a lot about mistakes along the way by news media and police that lead to the events or misconceptions around what happened. The only part I don't think 100% worked was that he stated in the intro that part of his goal in writing this was to undo some of the positive perception the killers have/had, but he still portrayed them as having a decent plan and portrayed Dylan pretty sympathetically, so I don't know that he was completely successful.
jbrugge's review against another edition
5.0
It is so hard to say that this is an excellent book because it might imply that it's merely a well told story, and it is so much more than that. It is heart wrenching, but it isn't trying to manipulate you. Cullen is telling the stories of the people involved, and letting the power of their stories come through loud and clear. It is a grisly story, but it is a real story, full of very real people, and you come away feeling better for having come to know them in even this small way.
persnickety9's review against another edition
3.0
I have mixed emotions about this book. The initial few chapters made me absolutely sick to my stomach. I considered not finishing it. After some quick research, though, I have found that this book may not be as accurate it was portrayed, and I do not agree with Cullen’s assertion that Harris was a psychopath and that Dylan was a hapless victim. After reading some of the transcripts of the Basement Tapes, as well as some of their journal entries, I unfortunately find Dylan as angry as Eric, if not more erratic. I think they were the yin to the other’s yang: Eric was composed, methodical, and also severely depressed from his constant moving and bullying; meanwhile, Dylan was young, erratic, and severely depressed from the bullying.
I don’t believe in this leader-follower narrative Cullen has relied on, especially after reading the transcripts. Dylan was reportedly excited and hollering during the shooting. Cullen omits many facts like these to drive his narrative as Eric as the leader.
I am also disheartened by how quickly he wrote off bullying when there are PLENTY of reports that bullying was common at Columbine. In particular, Harris was ridiculed for his clothing and chest anomaly, and Dylan was bullied for his stature and awkwardness. In the end, Cullen basically says that it wasn’t bullying, it was “conflict.”
What I found most disappointing was that Cullen eludes to other journalists and reports, only to admit in the last 20 pages of his 520 page book that he is the other journalist who wrote these reports! It seems sneaky and very one-sided. I wish he had truly gotten more evidence for his reasoning instead of citing himself and pretending other journalists felt the same. It feels fairly disingenuous.
Overall, I learned a lot more about the other victims, which was good. But I am disappointed in the book and often the flowery writing that made it feel less like a true case study and a series of magazine articles to keep 30 seconds of attention. Probably because that’s precisely what he did.
I don’t believe in this leader-follower narrative Cullen has relied on, especially after reading the transcripts. Dylan was reportedly excited and hollering during the shooting. Cullen omits many facts like these to drive his narrative as Eric as the leader.
I am also disheartened by how quickly he wrote off bullying when there are PLENTY of reports that bullying was common at Columbine. In particular, Harris was ridiculed for his clothing and chest anomaly, and Dylan was bullied for his stature and awkwardness. In the end, Cullen basically says that it wasn’t bullying, it was “conflict.”
What I found most disappointing was that Cullen eludes to other journalists and reports, only to admit in the last 20 pages of his 520 page book that he is the other journalist who wrote these reports! It seems sneaky and very one-sided. I wish he had truly gotten more evidence for his reasoning instead of citing himself and pretending other journalists felt the same. It feels fairly disingenuous.
Overall, I learned a lot more about the other victims, which was good. But I am disappointed in the book and often the flowery writing that made it feel less like a true case study and a series of magazine articles to keep 30 seconds of attention. Probably because that’s precisely what he did.
lmplovesbooks's review against another edition
5.0
This was an amazing book, a true testament to what real journalism can be as well as a look at what happens when reporting is done quickly and without research.
Most interesting to me were the description of the characteristics of a psychopath.
"Psychopaths are distinguished by two characteristics. The first is a ruthless disregard for others: they will defraud, maim, or kill for the most trivial personal gain. The second is an astonishing gift for disguising the first. It's the deception that makes them so dangerous. Your never see him coming. (It's usually a him--more than 80 percent are male.) Don't look for the oddball creeping you out. Pshychopaths don't at like Hannible Lecter or Norman Bates. They come off like Hugh Grant, in his most adorable role.
In 1941, Dr. Hervey Cleckley revolutionized the understanding of psychopathy with his book The Mask of Sanity. Egocentrism and failure of empathy were the underlying drivers, but Cleckley chose his title to reflect the element that trumped those. If psychopaths were merely evil, they would not be a major threat. They wreak so much havoc that they should be obvious. yet the majority have consistently eluded the law.
Cleckley worried about his title metaphor: psychopathy is not a two-dimensional cover that can be lifted off the face like a Halloween mask. It permeates the offender's personality. Joy, grief, anxiety, or amusement--he can mimic any on cue. He knows the facial expressions, the voice modulation, and the body language. He's not just conning you with a scheme, he's conning you with this life. His entire personality is a fabrication, with the purpose of deceiving suckers like you.
Psychopaths take great personal pride in their deceptions and extract tremendous joy from them. Lies become the psychopath's occupation, and when the truth will work they lie for sport. "I like to con people," one of Hare's subjects told a researcher during an extended interview. "I'm conning your right now."
Lying for amusement is so profound in psychopaths, it stands out as their signature characteristic. "Duping delight," psychologist Paul Ekman dubbed it." pp. 240-41
"Researchers often compare psychopaths to robots or rogue computers, like HAL ... - programmed only to satisfy their own objectives. That's the closest approximation of their behavior, but the metaphor lacks nuance. Psychopaths feel something; Eric seemed to show sadness when his dog was sick, and he occasionally felt twinges of regret toward humans. But the signals come through dimly.
Cleckley described this as a poverty of emotional range. That's a tricky concept, because psychopaths develop a handful of primitive emotions closely related to their own welfare. Three have been identified: anger, frustration, and rage. Psychopaths erupt with ferocious bouts of anger, when can get them labeled "emotional." Look more closely, Cleckley advised: "The conviction dawns on those who observe him carefully that here we deal with a readiness of expression rather than a strength of feeling." No love No grief. Not even sorrow, really ore hope or despair about his own future. Psychopaths feel nothing deep, complex, or sustained. The psychopath was prone to "vexation, spite, quick and labile flashes of quasi-affection, peevish resentment, shallow moods of self-pity, puerile attitudes of vanity, absurd and showy poses of indignation." pp. 242-43
Most interesting to me were the description of the characteristics of a psychopath.
"Psychopaths are distinguished by two characteristics. The first is a ruthless disregard for others: they will defraud, maim, or kill for the most trivial personal gain. The second is an astonishing gift for disguising the first. It's the deception that makes them so dangerous. Your never see him coming. (It's usually a him--more than 80 percent are male.) Don't look for the oddball creeping you out. Pshychopaths don't at like Hannible Lecter or Norman Bates. They come off like Hugh Grant, in his most adorable role.
In 1941, Dr. Hervey Cleckley revolutionized the understanding of psychopathy with his book The Mask of Sanity. Egocentrism and failure of empathy were the underlying drivers, but Cleckley chose his title to reflect the element that trumped those. If psychopaths were merely evil, they would not be a major threat. They wreak so much havoc that they should be obvious. yet the majority have consistently eluded the law.
Cleckley worried about his title metaphor: psychopathy is not a two-dimensional cover that can be lifted off the face like a Halloween mask. It permeates the offender's personality. Joy, grief, anxiety, or amusement--he can mimic any on cue. He knows the facial expressions, the voice modulation, and the body language. He's not just conning you with a scheme, he's conning you with this life. His entire personality is a fabrication, with the purpose of deceiving suckers like you.
Psychopaths take great personal pride in their deceptions and extract tremendous joy from them. Lies become the psychopath's occupation, and when the truth will work they lie for sport. "I like to con people," one of Hare's subjects told a researcher during an extended interview. "I'm conning your right now."
Lying for amusement is so profound in psychopaths, it stands out as their signature characteristic. "Duping delight," psychologist Paul Ekman dubbed it." pp. 240-41
"Researchers often compare psychopaths to robots or rogue computers, like HAL ... - programmed only to satisfy their own objectives. That's the closest approximation of their behavior, but the metaphor lacks nuance. Psychopaths feel something; Eric seemed to show sadness when his dog was sick, and he occasionally felt twinges of regret toward humans. But the signals come through dimly.
Cleckley described this as a poverty of emotional range. That's a tricky concept, because psychopaths develop a handful of primitive emotions closely related to their own welfare. Three have been identified: anger, frustration, and rage. Psychopaths erupt with ferocious bouts of anger, when can get them labeled "emotional." Look more closely, Cleckley advised: "The conviction dawns on those who observe him carefully that here we deal with a readiness of expression rather than a strength of feeling." No love No grief. Not even sorrow, really ore hope or despair about his own future. Psychopaths feel nothing deep, complex, or sustained. The psychopath was prone to "vexation, spite, quick and labile flashes of quasi-affection, peevish resentment, shallow moods of self-pity, puerile attitudes of vanity, absurd and showy poses of indignation." pp. 242-43
russj's review against another edition
4.0
Them Boys were not very nice ! Also the writer has a crush on Dylan Klebold he paints him out as like a tortured soul. Nah man he shot and killed a bunch of people he’s not a nice boy.
courtneyq16's review against another edition
challenging
dark
emotional
informative
reflective
medium-paced
4.0
Content Warnings
Graphic: Death, Gun violence, Mental illness, Suicide, and Mass/school shootings
sierradella's review against another edition
4.0
this book is very well written. you can tell that years and years of research went into it. i was born mere days after this tragedy - it shaped my school years growing up. i had to remind myself numerous times while reading this that it is a true story. so sad, but i would highly recommend it to learn more about the events leading up to, during, and after columbine.
sarahweyand's review against another edition
dark
emotional
informative
reflective
sad
tense
medium-paced
4.25
This has been on my TBR for a long time and I'm glad I finally got around to reading it. A really interesting account of a day that has been mischaracterized and incorrectly recounted by the media and popular culture. The timeline was a little all over the place and I wish we had gotten a better deep dive as to how misinformation was perpetrated by the media during the initial hours of the tragedy.
Overall though I think this was a well-written, tactful story that did justice to the victims and the situation. If you're interested in this day, what happened, why it happened, and its long-lasting events on media and culture, this is the place to start.
Overall though I think this was a well-written, tactful story that did justice to the victims and the situation. If you're interested in this day, what happened, why it happened, and its long-lasting events on media and culture, this is the place to start.
zimmerman21's review against another edition
4.0
One of the hardest books I've read, yet also fascinating and a relief to have so many of the myths we all associate with the Columbine massacre de-bunked.
poofus73's review against another edition
3.0
Interesting information and well put together, but I can't say I actually enjoyed reading this book. Maybe I thought it would be more revealing?