I do not think that Solomon portrayed Columbine too softly. Columbine becomes a looming background, as does Dylan Klebolds, as the story shifts focus to the parents of the murderer.
Solomon begins the article by listing fact and data from the shooting: the date, names of perpetrators, their roles, the school, and how the massacre happened. This general opening is a bit of the already known narrative surrounding Columbine. It exists to show the fact, and Solomon follows the paragraph with the blame people attributed to the massacre in a similarly detached manner.
I found this to be a wise choice structurally. It is removed enough to portray the massacre for what it was. It sets up the fact, leading into the more emotional pathos Solomon uses …show more content…
He may include interview bits where Sue meets someone on a train or at the grocery store, offering a variety of responses. He also carefully includes interview bits where Sue openly wonders about Dylan (his secret pain, her nightmares about the hidden cuts on his skin) and her wish for another outcome (the “hindsight” with the stealing incident that had Dylan and Eric released back home, or the family’s plans to move away before the massacre). Solomon returns to the concrete idea that Sue cannot lead a normal life. She is marked constantly, seen in a bit of dialogue where she says, “I had to tell him who I was. And who I am forever now is Dylan’s mother.”
While the account humanizes Dylan, thereby humanizing the horrors at Columbine, I find that to be only one layer within the story. An attempt to understand the “monster” is always a daunting task…That may be why many felt offended or off put by the piece. I can see how other parents of victims would react strongly against the piece, or refer to the Klebolds as irresponsible fools, but grief has that power to incense rage. This rage/grief is just as much a part of their experience as the love Sue has for Dylan is. Both stories should be written, which is why I think this piece is
Solomon begins the article by listing fact and data from the shooting: the date, names of perpetrators, their roles, the school, and how the massacre happened. This general opening is a bit of the already known narrative surrounding Columbine. It exists to show the fact, and Solomon follows the paragraph with the blame people attributed to the massacre in a similarly detached manner.
I found this to be a wise choice structurally. It is removed enough to portray the massacre for what it was. It sets up the fact, leading into the more emotional pathos Solomon uses …show more content…
He may include interview bits where Sue meets someone on a train or at the grocery store, offering a variety of responses. He also carefully includes interview bits where Sue openly wonders about Dylan (his secret pain, her nightmares about the hidden cuts on his skin) and her wish for another outcome (the “hindsight” with the stealing incident that had Dylan and Eric released back home, or the family’s plans to move away before the massacre). Solomon returns to the concrete idea that Sue cannot lead a normal life. She is marked constantly, seen in a bit of dialogue where she says, “I had to tell him who I was. And who I am forever now is Dylan’s mother.”
While the account humanizes Dylan, thereby humanizing the horrors at Columbine, I find that to be only one layer within the story. An attempt to understand the “monster” is always a daunting task…That may be why many felt offended or off put by the piece. I can see how other parents of victims would react strongly against the piece, or refer to the Klebolds as irresponsible fools, but grief has that power to incense rage. This rage/grief is just as much a part of their experience as the love Sue has for Dylan is. Both stories should be written, which is why I think this piece is