Well, not exactly. I read Dave Cullen’s book in about two days. It’s being compared to In Cold Blood and Helter Skelter (both of which I read three and four years ago, respectively), but that doesn’t do it for me. I sound like I’m way the hell off in left field saying how much he reminds me of Jon Krakauer but look: Columbine and Into Thin Air were both about a lot of people dying for a really stupid reason. Or one big nonsensical underlying cause that’s not a reason at all, and then lots of little reasons thrown in: minor lapses in judgment or failures in the chains of command or terrible coincidence.
Still with me? Okay. Both are extremely talented writers in their own right, and both are compassionately (and respectfully, as much as it’s possible) meticulous. They know the best way to honor the dead is to tell as much of the truth as they can find, as clearly as possible. And it’s more than that. Cullen even had me feeling sympathy for a woman who modeled herself an Upstanding Christian while working for Lockheed Martin. I guess part of the reason I like Cullen so much is because he doesn’t even hint at this glaring contradiction. Either he’s way too classy or he didn’t even notice (hard to believe, considering how observant and thorough he is otherwise), but either way we can infer the same thing: that shit is not the point. He got someone like me to step back and say, “okay man, you’re right. I’m still with you,” and keep reading.
Anyway, Cullen’s also written for just about every top-shelf news publication I read regularly, and he’s been reporting on Columbine since the day it happened. He knows more about it than anyone and he’s trying to explain. Probably the worst thing is that the more he explains the who, what, and how, the more you realize there is no why. This brings me back to Krakauer also, because mountains and snowstorms don’t follow human logic, and because the climbers’ reasons were all some sloppily personalized version of because it’s there, which is no reason at all. What Cullen comes away with isn’t any better, and it’s not for lack of trying. Helter Skelter and Into Thin Air both fucked with my sleeping patterns. I tried to approach Columbine as a piece of local history but it turned out to be one more thing that almost broke me.
Sometime later I’m standing at the foot of the bed taking my jeans off, my fingers still cold from the air outside and he sits up and looks at me. Wants to know, are you sleeping? Yes, I say. Oh, you are? I’m sleepwalking, I say. Sleeptalking. And he slumps back down, pulling the blanket up around his shoulders, still saying things, but nonsense this time. He talked to me all night and he doesn’t remember a thing.
I think I might pick up War and Peace again. Tolstoy, he says. Wants to know if it’s any good. It’s surprisingly easy to outline the basic structure of the thing. He’s pretty cool, I say, even if he hated Shakespeare for no good reason. (See: Orwell’s essay on Tolstoy in All Art is Propaganda – it’s fairly pissy, even for him.) Apparently the reason they call Shakespeare a thief isn’t what I thought it was, because Blaise says Much Ado About Nothing was originally a Turkish folk tale, that there are a bunch like that, taken from African and Eastern parables and stories and of course the British general public didn’t know any better at the time. Or I guess for a long time after.
I have the Complete Works lying around somewhere. Wonder if wikipedia would be of any use. When I said the word “history” to the MLIS chair, this is what I meant. Fernando Baez is what I meant.
That’s why he doesn’t talk much during the day, he says all he needs at night and I’m wondering if that’s why he doesn’t know the right things to say when I kind of wish that goddamn it someone would. I’m wondering why it took me so long to realize what a crazy academic I am, and how much trouble I’m really in.