Dave’s Comments (group member since Jun 01, 2009)

Dave’s comments from the Q&A with Dave Cullen group.

I'm on the road, but will return and catch up (probably Tuesday, and beyond).

Feel free to keep posting, if you like, and I'll get to everyone.

Have a nice weekend.

d

We can extend this a bit if people want to ask more questions.

I will be here Wed, and then I'm on the road for five days, but will check back for open questions next week.

I noticed the discussion was featured in the GoodReads newsletter today.

Feel free to jump in at any point.

Jennifer, I'm so glad you got the help you needed. Other people can have their own hangups, and sometimes you need to just ignore them. God, life without serotonin. That's hard to imagine.

April, thanks very much. I'll email.

Wow, Martha, that quote is heartbreaking, and chilling. I have to say, I'm really impressed by people who are willing to come face to face with brutal truths like that. The fact is, that when we pass on traits like that, it's not our fault--and yet, still, we have passed it on.

When I thought I would be a dad, I felt pre-emptive guilt for passing on traits like dropping flyballs in right field. Seriously. It's rough being a kid with terrible depth perception (I've learned), and poor hand-to-eye coordination, who therefore stinks at nearly every sport. You get made fun of, mercilessly. I did. I figured I'd raise sons who would face the same pain, because of what I'd passed on. Not my fault, but . . .

But that's nothing, compared to this.

I will look for that book.

I did have the great luck of reading "And I Don't Want to Live This Life: A Mother's Story of Her Daughter's Murder" about 15 years ago.

http://www.amazon.com/Dont-Want-Live-...

It's by Deborah Spungen, the mother of Nancy, of "Sid and Nancy" fame. (Sid Viscous, from the Sex Pistols, who murdered his girlfriend Nancy, then OD'd. Horrible story.) I was a big punk rock fan, and kinda knew the terrible story, but had no idea that it was merely the last horrible chapter in a trainwreck of a life for Nancy. Her mom was so candid about what that life was like. The writing is not always expert, but it is such an honest account that I found it terribly moving. The title is from a quote from Nancy, early on, I think.

The parents had several kids, and the others were fine, and they had no idea why Nancy was such a mess, from the start. They beat themselves up terribly.

The book really stuck with me. When I pass it on the shelf looking for something else, I will sometimes pull it out now and reread the dedication. I tear up every time.

That worked its way into me for a long time, and I think provided a reservoir of empathy for the killers' parents all those years later.

I felt a responsibility to be tough on the parents when and if I found anything on them, too, by the way. And I think I did point out a few situations that can give you pause. My goal was not to pass judgment on them and give them a passing grade. It was just to do what I tried to do with all the characters: consider what they had to work with at the time, and present that. But have some feeling for them, too, just like everyone else.

Martha wrote: "Dave wrote: "I guess what I still ask is why more people did not recognize Eric's ruthlessness. One person I wanted to know more about was Eric's father. I keep wondering if he understood that his son lacked empathy...."

I think the main reason is that Eric was a really bright psychopath, and they are so damn good at fooling people. That's why Dr. Cleckley titled that first book, "The Mask of Sanity." Even more significant than the lack of empathy--the wickedness, or however you want to label it--is the ability to mask that wickedness. Ted Bundy seemed like the nicest guy. They had no idea he enjoyed killing people.

The thing about psychopaths is that they know what they lack, and know they need to fake the empathy. Read that apology letter Eric wrote to the owner of the van he broke into. (p. 661 from the 1,000 pages. You can download a pdf of the 1,000 pages here, but it's 34 MB, so it will take several minutes: http://denver.rockymountainnews.com/p... ) It is SO convincing. There are lots of examples of how well Eric could fake empathy, but that one is staggering. (Then read what he really felt about it, written in his journal at the same time.)

Then think about a person who could fake that ALL THE TIME. Their whole lives are a performance, just to get what they want. They fool everyone. Or most everyone.

Now whether he really fooled his mom and dad, that is THE question. He clearly fooled them some of the time, but did they also get that they were getting played a lot of the time? I don't know. Parents of psychopaths are typically very confused about what's going on with their kid. They hardly ever know what a psychopath is, or guess that that's what they're dealing with.

I'd love to ask them. I hope to some day. Or I hope someone else asks. I'm with you on hoping they can work with some experts to shed more light on this.

Martha wrote: "it was as if I had done the research and made the "discoveries" as to why myself......."

You have no idea how happy that makes me to hear. That's one of the things I tried to do: make the killers' story unfold like a detective story (among other things), so it sort of falls into place one piece at a time. You have know idea how many times that "Psychopath" chapter moved around--or how far. It was the biggest bouncing ball of a chapter in the whole book. From the first day of the reconceived project (in 2004), I knew that chapter would be in there, but how soon, that was always a big question.

I also consciously worked on highlighting the core features of psychopathy--and naming them--in Eric, both before and after I presented the concept. When I got to revealing that, I wanted you to have enouch information so that you could see it, and think, "Yes, I've seen that." But I also wanted you to learn about psychopathy, and then see the characteristics again, so you could notice them yourself with me beating you over the head with it.

(Luckily, Eric made it easy. Most of what he wrote screamed out psychopath, once you know what to look for.)

That's kind of how I experienced the process of understanding Eric myself. I'd read massive amounts of stuff from him when I learned about psychopathy, and had that "Ohhhhhhhh! That fits" moment. And then for years, I kept reading more of Eric, and seeing how it fit. That was a very satisfying experience, and I wanted to recreate that for the reader.

Jake wrote: "The eeriest image for me has no photo: Eric’s moonlit dream (p. 135)...."

I'm glad you said that, because that has not come up so much in the discussions I've had with readers for some reason, but those passages really floored me when I first read them. It took me awhile to make sense of a guy who fantasied about bleakness.

Thanks for sharing those other passages, sentiments, too. I concur on just about all of them. And one more time, thank God for Patrick, and for Anne Marie.

Jennifer wrote: "The tone of this book is like nothing I have ever read. I am very impressed. Also I have to thank you for going into detail with the mental illness and psyopath information and PTSD ..."

Jennifer, that was really nice about the tone. Thanks.

And thanks, Chad, too. I'm glad you finished it.

I don't think I've posted this yet, but I wrote an essay for Borders about my two bouts with PTSD over the course of covering the story and writing the book. It's here:

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

I have also had questions about what to read further on psychopathy, and I highly recommend starting with Dr. Robert Hare's WITHOUT CONSCIENCE.

It's the classic, and it was written for a general audience, not for scholars. He did a great job with it, and it's an easy read, but packed with info.

Funny you say that, Natasha. I actually left one detail out of my story above, because I didn't want to sound like I was dissing the UK cover. But I also gave my US publisher, Twelve, one request on color: anything but red.

But the UK publisher didn't ask my approval, and I didn't know they were going to tweak the cover. It was already printed when I saw it, and I gasped. But then I realized it was OK. I think it actually works that way, and to me, doesn't suggest blood.

(BTW, in UK it's in paperback, because nearly all books are there now. I talked to the publisher when I went to London to promote it for them, and he said that they were not going with the embossed cover, and Columbine was well known there, but not AS much a household word, and it was released after the anniversary and therefore after the media attention. Based on all that, they felt they needed a cover with the title more visible. That sounded reasonable to me.)

I guess my original fears were about all the tasteless possibilities, and blood red, huge screaming type (ransom note type?) pix of the killers' etc. . . yuck. I wanted to stay as far from all that as possible. But with the really quiet, serene cover--and with that particular color palette--the red works just fine, for me. Context is everything.

I'd be curious what others think. The UK version is here:

http://www.goodreads.com/book/photo/6...

Hilary wrote: "Congratulations on what's sure to be an enduring classic!"

How did I ignore this line? You are really sweet to say that. Thanks.

Thanks much for all the responses to my questions.

Keep them coming.

(And please remind me if I missed some questions.)

Hilary wrote: "did you get to provide any feedback on the jacket design? It's very striking and suits the mood of the book perfectly...."

Thanks, Hilary.

I'm glad you asked about the jacket, which I can also say I love, because I had nothing to do with creating it. I gave very basic input in the beginning, that I wanted something tasteful and literary and preferably quiet--nothing with a tabloid feel.

Then they went away for a few months, and showed me a near-complete mockup of the cover, which was stunning, so I approved. (And they asked if it was OK to go ahead without my name on the cover, because they felt it was more striking that way. I agreed, and said yes.)

It was designed by Henry Sene Yee, who has done a lot of great covers, and he created a blog entry describing his process and posting lots of other possibles he mocked up. It's fascinating in its own right, and has gotten a lot of attention. You can see it here:

http://henryseneyee.blogspot.com/2009...

Joanne wrote: "My 16 year old son also eagerly read the book, and we had several interesting discussions on it. ..."

I'm really glad you and your son had a chance to talk about it. (Anything that gets a mother and son talking is a good thing.)

On the carpenter--as with everyone--it's all about perspective. I did quite a bit of digging into his past, and he has left quite a string of angry people, and frankly, there's a lot of bad behavior, which I did not go into in the book.

I will keep answering, but I also have some questions I hope you'll help me by answering.

It's important for me to know how people are experiencing the book (and how they might respond on my future books). These are some of the things I wondered about as I wrote and rewrote:

1. What expectations did you have when you picked up the book? Did it turn out to be what you expected? If not, how so?

2. Which characters made the biggest impression on you? Who did you find yourself wanting to return to?

3. Were there any characters who pushed you away (meaning when the scene shifted to them, you kind of wished we weren't going back to that storyline)?

Thanks.

I don't normally cite reviews in this kind of forum, but someone mentioned the book reminding them of Black Hawk Down, right?

I also just learned (in the same email from my publicist--who did a little recap of recent activity) that BHD author Mark Bowden reviewed COLUMBINE in the Philadelphia Inquirer this weekend.

I have not read the review yet, but my publicist plucked out this line (meaning it's the best line for me, of course): “remarkably detailed . . . it feels like the definitive story, and it disproves most of the prevailing wisdom.”

That makes me really happy. Hopefully the rest of the review doesn't trash me. Hahaha.

FYI, I just got word that Oprah's BFF Gayle King is going to appear on Good Morning America tomorrow, (Thursday), to discuss her own Summer Reads, including COLUMBINE.

GMA will post a chapter from the book on its website right following the show.

I'm setting my tivo now. I have no idea what she'll say.
(I've found people think I know about this kind of stuff weeks in advance. Sometimes I do--mostly if I've worked with a publication/show helping them prepare it. More often it's like this case: I opened my inbox this morning, and there was an email from my publicist letting me know for the first time. Often I find out about this stuff the same day it happens.)

Tom wrote: "Dave,

I still can't help feeling little stabs of regret that Eric's wish, that he would be remembered and that the event was for the "audience", in a way, has come to pass. Was this ever a dilemma for you?..."

Oh yes. That was the biggest ethical struggle I had. In the end, I decided that 1) the book had to be written: the story had been botched and had to be straightened out; and regardless, this was an important subject and there had never been a comprehensive book, and 2) Columbine and Eric were already famous.

That made it an easy call, to plunge ahead. It's not like I was going to turn Columbine into a household word. That ship sailed ten years ago.

It gnaws at me, still. The comfort I have is that the real Eric comes off pretty badly, and he also seemed to died a failure in his own estimation, and died pathetically. It doesn't end well for him.

My main ethical dilemma was how he looked for copycatters, and my first responsibility was to tell the truth, but luckily, the truth was pretty grim for him.

Natasha wrote: "I'm currently reading the book right now and am absolutely immersed in it. I can't offer any conclusions as yet but as an occasional freelance journalist myself I really appreciate the meticulous d..."

Thanks. I'm glad you noticed. Hahaha. Watching every detail can REALLY slow down the writing process.

Did I forget to respond to someone asking if I write fiction? I do, and have just gotten back to a bit of it this month. (Little time, but I'm doing a little.) It is so much easier to let those sentences flow. Of course it has other challenges, but it's liberating.

Wow, I'm going to have to station people wherever BBC or ITN might be. I love that.

Ali wrote: "Hi, Dave!

I just finished the book (loved it!) and I am curious about Harriet. Why is she the only person with a pseudonym? Does she know Dylan wrote about her in his journal? Did she have an awar..."

Thanks, Ali. At first, I had to do something with Harriet, because the cops blacked her name out. I was pretty sure I could get the name, and initially I planned to, but as I worked on the book, I had time to think about that. She was an innocent bystander, who would probably be very embarrassed about it.

She was different than the victims--who all had a story to tell of their own recovery; and from the friends of the killers--who for whatever reason, had a relationship with the two boys. Also, and critically, all those other people were out in the open from Day 1, and widely reported about. Harriet was known only to Dylan, so I saw no reason to expose her. If one person had maintained her privacy, I thought it best to leave her with it.

I did not talk to the cops specifically about her, but I know that in most or all cases, they disclosed to the people involved what the killers said/wrote about them, so they (the cops) could question the witness about it. So I expect she knows now, but she knew nothing before.