I appreciated that Susan Klebold took her time with this article. Ten years in fact. She had many years to process it and her feelings about it. Enough to include a simile; “like staring at one of those computer-generated 3-D pictures when the abstract patterns suddenly comes into focus as a recognizable image.” She is able to look back and notice things that she now interprets as warning signs—the tightness in her son’s voice, his friend (a bad influence) suddenly coming over the house after many months, his ability to hack into the school’s computer system. None of these things alone are signs of a potential murder spree, but they serve as evidence that Dylan was capable of ever worsening crimes.
In situations like these, there is always other evidence—like his notebooks—but these things are usually not discovered until it is too late. No one wants to admit that their friends or family or students are capable of committing the violence they voice on paper. No one wants to jump to conclusions. Psychologists can look at his journal entries and make conclusions, but the problem was that Dylan’s issues were all in his mind and never expressed to his parents. While I’m sure these things were difficult for Klebold to read, using lines from Dylan’s poetry was useful concrete evidence of the issues he was dealing with.
Obviously this story is a terrible tragedy, but the pace of it keeps you going. It keeps you interested in reading because she is addressing questions from an insider’s perspective. I can’t even imagine what this author and her family were going through—it seems like a bad dream or a movie, not something that could happen to your own son, in your own community. Then that community is so quick to turn their back on Klebold and blame her parenting skills.
I also appreciate that Klebold’s tone doesn’t over emphasize the drama of the tragedy. She wasn’t telling me what to feel. I knew that she was trying to be as honest as possible with the facts of what happened—what she was thinking and feeling and doing. When she says she heard his voice for the last time and all he says is “bye,” angrily, my heart broke for her. Writing this article could not have been an easy task. Having to live with your son’s mistake for the rest of your life, you can’t help but have questions, like why and could I have stopped it? But it’s too late to get an answer to those things now.
I did wonder why she chose Oprah’s magazine to write her story. This seems more typical of an article in People, but either way, I’m glad she chose to share the story. It doesn’t provide all the answers—it can’t, nothing ever will—but it humanizes Dylan; shows he was not just a cold blooded killer but obviously had other problems of his own, not that that excuses his actions. Klebold summarizes the events of that day and her process afterward; talks with the police, psychologists, parents of the student’s her son murdered, and her reflections on her son and his choices. She comes to a conclusion as best she can to keep on living her own life. I was happy to see her emphasize and support suicide prevention. She didn’t write this story for money or fame, she wrote it to help those in similar situations, and possibly to help herself, to get her story out on paper—out of her own head for a while.
-Katie Huffman
I agreed with everything you said, and that's also what I liked and appreciated about Klebold's piece. And it's true, Klebold seems to want to honestly help those who've had to struggle with suicide, either personally or in a family member.
ReplyDeleteI also could respect her more because she didn't try to blame anyone. Her son suffered from severe depression and she makes this clear.
I thought it was clever of her to publish her writing on Oprah. People is usually more of an entertainment magazine and Klebold didn't want to be the center of gossip (she already has been for all the years since the shooting). The Oprah magazine would give readers a different impression of what she wanted to say (since Oprah's interviews are often-enough with people who are centers of controversial issues) and I think readers would look at it with a different mindset and perhaps a willingness to understand.
-Justyne M.
I agree with what you say, especially about her tone. She kept you interested and was honest in everything. She talks about the good and the bad. She recognizes that looking back you do see the 'warning signs' much clearer. I thought it was interesting that she wrote 10 years after. You never know how long the healing process will take, after losing a loved one. She had lots of time to reflect and grieve the situation. I thought it was smart and enabled her to use that tone.
ReplyDeleteI did not really think about Oprah Magazine. Since I don't read it, that fact didn't catch me. But after reading Justyne's comment, it makes sense!
-Angela P
Delete