A Mother's Reckoning by Susan Klebold

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read it and I have also read Columbine. In addition, I'm a mental health professional and mother of teens. I found the book to be very moving, honest and painful. Sue K. accepts responsibility for what she and her husband missed; but you can see how easy it would be to miss what they did. She blames herself for not paying close enough attention but Dylan, and especially Eric, fooled many people including teachers, counselors and law enforcement. The Klebolds seemed like a very loving family who just didn't get how seriously depressed their child was. Put yourself in their place - the kid was going to college and had just gone happily to the prom. What would you have suspected?

Dylan was still spending most of his free time with Eric. After the trouble that those two had gotten into - why were they still hanging around each other so much?

I have always thought that those two spun off of each other and that they were emboldened by each other to do this. If the two of them had not been together, Columbine would not have happened.

Dylan probably would have gone off to college where the st*ff would have hit the fan for him but in not such a violent way. The kid was not stable.

This is right. Both of these grossly neglected kids did whatever they pleased. Their parents were afraid of them.

Does Dylan's mom say that she was afraid of him? Most parents give their HS seniors lots of freedom to get themselves to/from school, work, friends' houses. It is understandable and normal that Dylan had some freedom. But I would think that, given his troubled history, his parents would have been keeping tabs on where he was going, who he was seeing and when he would be back.

So I would think that they were aware that he was hanging around Eric a lot. And that Dylan had gotten into trouble with Eric in the past. Did they know Eric? Were they aware of how disturbed he was?

No, in fact she specifically states she was never afraid of him.

You may believe whatever she tells you,
just like she believed whatever her boy told her.

If you read her book and come back with an informed opinion your perspective might be worth something.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read it and I have also read Columbine. In addition, I'm a mental health professional and mother of teens. I found the book to be very moving, honest and painful. Sue K. accepts responsibility for what she and her husband missed; but you can see how easy it would be to miss what they did. She blames herself for not paying close enough attention but Dylan, and especially Eric, fooled many people including teachers, counselors and law enforcement. The Klebolds seemed like a very loving family who just didn't get how seriously depressed their child was. Put yourself in their place - the kid was going to college and had just gone happily to the prom. What would you have suspected?

Dylan was still spending most of his free time with Eric. After the trouble that those two had gotten into - why were they still hanging around each other so much?

I have always thought that those two spun off of each other and that they were emboldened by each other to do this. If the two of them had not been together, Columbine would not have happened.

Dylan probably would have gone off to college where the st*ff would have hit the fan for him but in not such a violent way. The kid was not stable.

This is right. Both of these grossly neglected kids did whatever they pleased. Their parents were afraid of them.

Does Dylan's mom say that she was afraid of him? Most parents give their HS seniors lots of freedom to get themselves to/from school, work, friends' houses. It is understandable and normal that Dylan had some freedom. But I would think that, given his troubled history, his parents would have been keeping tabs on where he was going, who he was seeing and when he would be back.

So I would think that they were aware that he was hanging around Eric a lot. And that Dylan had gotten into trouble with Eric in the past. Did they know Eric? Were they aware of how disturbed he was?

Are you serious? What parent will admit to being afraid of their own kid? Hell, I've seen parents afraid of their five year old.

Yes, I can see how that would be a hard thing to admit. But Dylan is dead and he died by his own hand after shooting his fellow students at Columbine. The worst case scenario has happened for Dylan's parents and the parents of the victims, it can't be prevented and it is very clear that Dylan was a very troubled young man to have participated in that horror. And it is also clear that Eric was a very disturbed young man.

Yet, no one saw signs, no one was ever afraid of them and what they might do?

Why should their parents *admit* to seeing severe signs of trouble? Then they'd have to admit to things they don't want to admit to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read it and I have also read Columbine. In addition, I'm a mental health professional and mother of teens. I found the book to be very moving, honest and painful. Sue K. accepts responsibility for what she and her husband missed; but you can see how easy it would be to miss what they did. She blames herself for not paying close enough attention but Dylan, and especially Eric, fooled many people including teachers, counselors and law enforcement. The Klebolds seemed like a very loving family who just didn't get how seriously depressed their child was. Put yourself in their place - the kid was going to college and had just gone happily to the prom. What would you have suspected?

Dylan was still spending most of his free time with Eric. After the trouble that those two had gotten into - why were they still hanging around each other so much?

I have always thought that those two spun off of each other and that they were emboldened by each other to do this. If the two of them had not been together, Columbine would not have happened.

Dylan probably would have gone off to college where the st*ff would have hit the fan for him but in not such a violent way. The kid was not stable.

This is right. Both of these grossly neglected kids did whatever they pleased. Their parents were afraid of them.

Does Dylan's mom say that she was afraid of him? Most parents give their HS seniors lots of freedom to get themselves to/from school, work, friends' houses. It is understandable and normal that Dylan had some freedom. But I would think that, given his troubled history, his parents would have been keeping tabs on where he was going, who he was seeing and when he would be back.

So I would think that they were aware that he was hanging around Eric a lot. And that Dylan had gotten into trouble with Eric in the past. Did they know Eric? Were they aware of how disturbed he was?

Are you serious? What parent will admit to being afraid of their own kid? Hell, I've seen parents afraid of their five year old.

Yes, I can see how that would be a hard thing to admit. But Dylan is dead and he died by his own hand after shooting his fellow students at Columbine. The worst case scenario has happened for Dylan's parents and the parents of the victims, it can't be prevented and it is very clear that Dylan was a very troubled young man to have participated in that horror. And it is also clear that Eric was a very disturbed young man.

Yet, no one saw signs, no one was ever afraid of them and what they might do?

Why should their parents *admit* to seeing severe signs of trouble? Then they'd have to admit to things they don't want to admit to.

Well, there you go. There is that. For those that have read it, do you all feel that it's candid and worth reading? Do you get the impression that maybe Dylan's mom has still not fully processed what happened?

[Anonymous]

I did read the book and some of the comments on here are really uninformed. I get that some of you think she missed things. I do, too. Quite a lot of things, actually. I think she made some big mistakes. But, none of those mistakes are something that I would consider as a reason to blame her. In fact, I've had friends with children who got into much more trouble than this kid and ended up just fine.

I also think the big thing to remember is it wasn't just the parents that missed things. Others trained at dealing with children failed to catch him and Eric. Dylan did have at least 1 violent writing that he submitted for a class. It was flagged but nothing done. In his trouble with Eric the year before -breaking into an empty van and stealing- he completed all his diversionary program's requirements and was discharged from the program early for exemplary behavior. The kid hid a LOT.

I think back to my own adolescence and I hit a lot, too. Nothing violent or over the top bad. But there were lots of things my parents did know, people I was with and places I went and drinking I was doing and sex I was having. But, at home, I was an A+ cheerleader, in the NHS, I had a job, and was going off to college. So, I don't think it's incomprehensible that she did not see things.

The issue i have with her book is a) the willingness to more or less blame the other kid (Eric). I don't doubt his maliciousness and influence over a depressed Dylan. But, Dylan participated equally. And B) I think she goes just a bit too far to painting their family as sunshine and rainbows.

My last thought is this: She doesn't "owe" the victims anything. I think their lawsuits were ludicrous. She didn't pull the trigger. Plus, she has paid dearly. Financially ruined. Divorce. Her own physical and mental health deteriorated. Her family received DEATH THREATS. She has to live with what her son did for the rest of her life. She has apologized to the victims (some accepted it; some did not). She's done enough.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I did read the book and some of the comments on here are really uninformed. I get that some of you think she missed things. I do, too. Quite a lot of things, actually. I think she made some big mistakes. But, none of those mistakes are something that I would consider as a reason to blame her. In fact, I've had friends with children who got into much more trouble than this kid and ended up just fine.

I also think the big thing to remember is it wasn't just the parents that missed things. Others trained at dealing with children failed to catch him and Eric. Dylan did have at least 1 violent writing that he submitted for a class. It was flagged but nothing done. In his trouble with Eric the year before -breaking into an empty van and stealing- he completed all his diversionary program's requirements and was discharged from the program early for exemplary behavior. The kid hid a LOT.

I think back to my own adolescence and I hit a lot, too. Nothing violent or over the top bad. But there were lots of things my parents did know, people I was with and places I went and drinking I was doing and sex I was having. But, at home, I was an A+ cheerleader, in the NHS, I had a job, and was going off to college. So, I don't think it's incomprehensible that she did not see things.

The issue i have with her book is a) the willingness to more or less blame the other kid (Eric). I don't doubt his maliciousness and influence over a depressed Dylan. But, Dylan participated equally. And B) I think she goes just a bit too far to painting their family as sunshine and rainbows.

My last thought is this: She doesn't "owe" the victims anything. I think their lawsuits were ludicrous. She didn't pull the trigger. Plus, she has paid dearly. Financially ruined. Divorce. Her own physical and mental health deteriorated. Her family received DEATH THREATS. She has to live with what her son did for the rest of her life. She has apologized to the victims (some accepted it; some did not). She's done enough.

Maybe if you had gotten yourself arrested, expelled and your grades tanked your parents would have reined you in a bit? I think you are comparing a teen w/normal (although a bit wild) social life and school involvement to teens who had gotten in trouble together before and were in the process of going off the rails in a big way. Eric has been described as a seriously disturbed psychopath. That is not an every day sort of diagnosis...

There probably isn't a teen in history that hasn't pulled the wool over their parents' eyes about something (I know I sure did). But to not know that your kid is a freakin' psychopath? Is that even possible? And to allow your depressed kid to hang out with someone that he had a history of getting in trouble with? That was a bad call.

[Anonymous]

The woman is STILL in deep denial. Whatever.

[Anonymous]

^And I am not about to get into whether or not the lawsuits brought by the victims and the victims' families were or were not "ludicrous". Obviously that was for a judge/jury to decide.

I will say that as a parent I can totally understand how enormously devastating this whole thing was to them - not just for the victims who lost their lives but for the injured victims whose young lives will never again be the same. So much was stolen that day. Those people were robbed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^And I am not about to get into whether or not the lawsuits brought by the victims and the victims' families were or were not "ludicrous". Obviously that was for a judge/jury to decide.

I will say that as a parent I can totally understand how enormously devastating this whole thing was to them - not just for the victims who lost their lives but for the injured victims whose young lives will never again be the same. So much was stolen that day. Those people were robbed.

That's why when we see a troubled kid, we can't say, "not my business," because you never know when it WILL be your business, like it or not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^And I am not about to get into whether or not the lawsuits brought by the victims and the victims' families were or were not "ludicrous". Obviously that was for a judge/jury to decide.

I will say that as a parent I can totally understand how enormously devastating this whole thing was to them - not just for the victims who lost their lives but for the injured victims whose young lives will never again be the same. So much was stolen that day. Those people were robbed.

That's why when we see a troubled kid, we can't say, "not my business," because you never know when it WILL be your business, like it or not.

Problem is the teenage years are often full of angst and misjudgments. Drama and parental disdain. If you go around looking for troubled teens, you will find them. And if you treat otherwise good kids like "Troubled Teens!!" you will probably only make their problems even worse. And, really, their problems really don't need to be anyone's business.

But there HAD to be something that set these two particular young men apart. There had to be. Normal kids with normal teen angst DO NOT do this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^And I am not about to get into whether or not the lawsuits brought by the victims and the victims' families were or were not "ludicrous". Obviously that was for a judge/jury to decide.

I will say that as a parent I can totally understand how enormously devastating this whole thing was to them - not just for the victims who lost their lives but for the injured victims whose young lives will never again be the same. So much was stolen that day. Those people were robbed.

That's why when we see a troubled kid, we can't say, "not my business," because you never know when it WILL be your business, like it or not.

Problem is the teenage years are often full of angst and misjudgments. Drama and parental disdain. If you go around looking for troubled teens, you will find them. And if you treat otherwise good kids like "Troubled Teens!!" you will probably only make their problems even worse. And, really, their problems really don't need to be anyone's business.

But there HAD to be something that set these two particular young men apart. There had to be. Normal kids with normal teen angst DO NOT do this.

I'm sorry, you sound really confused.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^And I am not about to get into whether or not the lawsuits brought by the victims and the victims' families were or were not "ludicrous". Obviously that was for a judge/jury to decide.

I will say that as a parent I can totally understand how enormously devastating this whole thing was to them - not just for the victims who lost their lives but for the injured victims whose young lives will never again be the same. So much was stolen that day. Those people were robbed.

That's why when we see a troubled kid, we can't say, "not my business," because you never know when it WILL be your business, like it or not.

Problem is the teenage years are often full of angst and misjudgments. Drama and parental disdain. If you go around looking for troubled teens, you will find them. And if you treat otherwise good kids like "Troubled Teens!!" you will probably only make their problems even worse. And, really, their problems really don't need to be anyone's business.

But there HAD to be something that set these two particular young men apart. There had to be. Normal kids with normal teen angst DO NOT do this.

I'm sorry, you sound really confused.

No. Most teens are not disturbed psychopaths. And most teens do not hang out with disturbed psychopaths. Dylan and Eric were not normal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^And I am not about to get into whether or not the lawsuits brought by the victims and the victims' families were or were not "ludicrous". Obviously that was for a judge/jury to decide.

I will say that as a parent I can totally understand how enormously devastating this whole thing was to them - not just for the victims who lost their lives but for the injured victims whose young lives will never again be the same. So much was stolen that day. Those people were robbed.

That's why when we see a troubled kid, we can't say, "not my business," because you never know when it WILL be your business, like it or not.

Problem is the teenage years are often full of angst and misjudgments. Drama and parental disdain. If you go around looking for troubled teens, you will find them. And if you treat otherwise good kids like "Troubled Teens!!" you will probably only make their problems even worse. And, really, their problems really don't need to be anyone's business.

But there HAD to be something that set these two particular young men apart. There had to be. Normal kids with normal teen angst DO NOT do this.

I'm sorry, you sound really confused.

No. Most teens are not disturbed psychopaths. And most teens do not hang out with disturbed psychopaths. Dylan and Eric were not normal.

Did you miss where posters said they seemed normal, with normal families?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^And I am not about to get into whether or not the lawsuits brought by the victims and the victims' families were or were not "ludicrous". Obviously that was for a judge/jury to decide.

I will say that as a parent I can totally understand how enormously devastating this whole thing was to them - not just for the victims who lost their lives but for the injured victims whose young lives will never again be the same. So much was stolen that day. Those people were robbed.

That's why when we see a troubled kid, we can't say, "not my business," because you never know when it WILL be your business, like it or not.

Problem is the teenage years are often full of angst and misjudgments. Drama and parental disdain. If you go around looking for troubled teens, you will find them. And if you treat otherwise good kids like "Troubled Teens!!" you will probably only make their problems even worse. And, really, their problems really don't need to be anyone's business.

But there HAD to be something that set these two particular young men apart. There had to be. Normal kids with normal teen angst DO NOT do this.

I'm sorry, you sound really confused.

No. Most teens are not disturbed psychopaths. And most teens do not hang out with disturbed psychopaths. Dylan and Eric were not normal.

Did you miss where posters said they seemed normal, with normal families?

Well you don't become a disturbed psychopath overnight nor is it particularly normal for a person to think "Yeah! Columbine sounds like a great idea. Let's do it!"

You don't just leap from point A all the way to point Z. Points B thru Y were there too and that is not what people are seeing. They are focusing on the appearance of "nice boys, nice families" who very suddenly did something awful.

[Anonymous]

When I've seen the videos that these boys took of themselves - even the one of them driving to the school - it almost seems like they were actors in a movie. Eric as a born psychopath was probably getting off on making himself BIG name in the news. But I think Dylan seems almost like he disassociated from himself and was instead playing the role of a character in a movie. The clips I see simply look like a horrible, horrible movie.

Do depressive people disassociate like that or does that seem to speak of another type of mental illness?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^And I am not about to get into whether or not the lawsuits brought by the victims and the victims' families were or were not "ludicrous". Obviously that was for a judge/jury to decide.

I will say that as a parent I can totally understand how enormously devastating this whole thing was to them - not just for the victims who lost their lives but for the injured victims whose young lives will never again be the same. So much was stolen that day. Those people were robbed.

That's why when we see a troubled kid, we can't say, "not my business," because you never know when it WILL be your business, like it or not.

Problem is the teenage years are often full of angst and misjudgments. Drama and parental disdain. If you go around looking for troubled teens, you will find them. And if you treat otherwise good kids like "Troubled Teens!!" you will probably only make their problems even worse. And, really, their problems really don't need to be anyone's business.

But there HAD to be something that set these two particular young men apart. There had to be. Normal kids with normal teen angst DO NOT do this.

I'm sorry, you sound really confused.

No. Most teens are not disturbed psychopaths. And most teens do not hang out with disturbed psychopaths. Dylan and Eric were not normal.

Did you miss where posters said they seemed normal, with normal families?

Well you don't become a disturbed psychopath overnight nor is it particularly normal for a person to think "Yeah! Columbine sounds like a great idea. Let's do it!"

You don't just leap from point A all the way to point Z. Points B thru Y were there too and that is not what people are seeing. They are focusing on the appearance of "nice boys, nice families" who very suddenly did something awful.

You are correct. Glad we mostly agree. Except these bad boys did not have "good" parents. They had neglectful parents.