Killers in the Classroom: Case Studies of School Rampage Shooters

Rating: 1.5 Stars

The summary given on Goodreads says this book "contains detailed case summaries on some of the high profile shootings that have taken place and examines the shooters in detail." That part might be accurate, but not once are we given so much as a footnote to tell us where the author got any of her information. There is no bibliography, no resources, and much of the information contained could probably be found on most Wikipedia pages for the shooters. The author makes huge leaps of judgment, with zero research to back up anything she is claiming. It is true that the author takes quite a detailed look at each shooter, but once I came upon the section for Columbine and read several incorrect statements, it made me question just how accurate the information was in any of the other sections. Columbine was a big deal for me, as a sophomore in high school at the time, and having to deal with the aftermath and the multiple bomb threats called in through the end of the year. While we're on that subject, I think this is an important distinction to make. Klebold and Harris were not school shooters, they were failed school bombers. It might sound silly in the aftermath, because innocent victims still lost their lives, but so often Columbine has been held up by would-be shooters as the Gold Standard of mass school shootings. Klebold and Harris FAILED in what they attempted to do, which was to detonate bombs in the cafeteria and kill as many people as possible. But, by looking at them as school shooters, they come off looking pretty successful. Let's stop doing that, okay?

I was unfamiliar with most of these shootings, which I suppose is a good thing because the less attention we give to these scumbags, the better. At first I appreciated what seemed like fantastic attention to detail in creating a portrait of the shooters before their "rampages". But as I said, once I got to the Columbine entry, I saw many errors. Still, there are common denominators throughout for most of the young men who carried out these deadly assaults. Many were bullied in one way or another, many had dysfunctional home lives, some were diagnosed with various disorders, some on meds and some not.

The summary of the book also says that "By examining previous shootings, however, it is possible to gain a general idea of actions and behaviors to look for when trying to recognize a potential shooter." This is also extremely important, something I recognize as necessary, being an educator myself. The thing is, the author again cites no research for the conclusions she has come to. There is literally NOTHING at the end of the book, besides the author's acknowledgments, and then an 'About The Author'. We are told here that the author enjoys all aspects of researching and writing...but we see no concrete proof of the research part. I could take this book so much more seriously had the author cited sources and quoted the massive tomes of research available today, based on all these shootings and a myriad of others. The writing itself was not terrible, but there were a few places that could have used a bit more polishing before publication. Sweeping generalizations were an issue, as was repetition from case to case. This came in multiple forms, mainly the woulda/coulda/shoulda that was discussed every time. If this had been reported, or parents had been notified of this, or this, that, or a million other things happened, maybe the shooting could have been prevented. Maybe, maybe not. When we go too far into scenarios like that, it feels to me like we are shifting some of the blame off the shooter and onto others. Ultimately, we are responsible for our own actions. This is obviously different for those with mental illnesses, and I am speaking solely of day-of occurrences. One thing the author does well is point out the dozens and dozens of red flags that were flying high leading up to the shootings. In some cases, friends knew ahead of time that "something" was going to happen. Some knew exactly what was going to happen. In those cases yes, those who knew bear some responsibility for not reporting what they knew. And good Lord, the amount of bullying that was ignored by so many. I was especially appalled by the gym teacher who supposedly joined in teasing one of the students and made him play with the girls during class. One, what a horrible human being. Two, what schools still have gym class divided by gender? The instances I am specifically speaking of were things such as, "If the school had notified the parents that so-and-so wasn't at school that day..." At that point, no, the blame rests solely on the ones who chose to commit murder. Playing that kind of what-if game does no one any good in any of these situations.

Here are a few examples of the issues that stood out most to me. They mainly come from the Columbine section, as that is the one I know the most about.

At 53% the author discusses Klebold being placed in a gifted and talented program. She also mentions a 'close' friend of Dylan's who had "fond memories" of their time in the program. This completely contradicts what Brooks Brown wrote in his own book about Columbine. Brown says the bullying was just as bad in the program, especially from the kids who had bought their way in as opposed to testing into it. The author states that Klebold thrived in the program, but again there is no source to say that this is accurate. Brown paints a much different picture, and it was not nearly as happy.

At 54% the author discusses Klebold and his older brother, saying that they had been close when they were younger, "but they had grown apart as they got older and Byron was an active participant in tormenting Dylan at school." Again...source? I have often wondered this, particularly when I read Klebold's mother's book about Columbine and the aftermath. And of course no mother would throw one son under the bus for another that turned into a killer, but I believe I recall something about them growing apart as they got older. Perhaps Byron did "torment" Dylan at school, but if someone is going to make a claim like that, it needs to be backed up with proof.

At 60% there was an error so glaring, I can not ignore it:

"Brooks Brown was heading outside to have a cigarette when he ran into Eric and Dylan in the parking lot. Irritated that they had cut class and missed a philosophy test, he started giving them a lecture, but was immediately silenced. Eric just looked at him and said, "It doesn't matter anymore. Brooks, I like you now. Get out of here. Go home." Something in his tone made Brooks uneasy, and he lit a cigarette and continued in the opposite direction. Though he was confused by their behavior, he had no idea that it would be the last time he would see Eric and Dylan alive."

Brooks never saw both young men. He only talked briefly to Eric in the parking lot. It is odd to me that the words Harris spoke to Brown are documented correctly, but the rest of the details surrounding those few words is not. Klebold parked in a different area and Brown states very clearly in his own book he only saw Eric when he was going out for a smoke. This seems like an easy thing to get right, so I have not explanation for this. Additionally, there was some repetitiveness here to be found in other sections. There is always some reference to each shooter "leaving home for the last time" or doing this or that for the last time. And this treatment is not only applied to the shooters, but to the victims also. So often said victims at first do not "grasp the gravity of the situation", or some other way of saying the victims don't fully comprehend yet what is happening around them.

I feel if there were to be massive changes to this book, for it to be updated with relevant material regarding sources and documentation, it could be a valuable tool for educators especially. However, in its current state, I can not recommend it at this time.

People I Want to Punch in the Throat: Competitive Crafters, Drop-Off Despots, and Other Suburban Scourges

Rating: 1.5 Stars

People I want to punch in the throat: Jen Mann.

The f-bombs weren't offensive, but the rubbish that passes as humor in this book is. Disappointing and not nearly as funny as I heard it was or hoped it would be. Not much else to say, except that I find it mildly fucking ridiculous that they needed to go to fucking marriage counseling after six fucking months of marriage because neither of them wants to clean the fucking toilets. See, I can say fuck a lot too for no reason and get my point across just like the author. Thank goodness this was only $.99.

Kings & Queens of England, a Dark History: 1066 to Present Day

Rating: 1.5 Stars

Review:

I will keep this short and not so sweet because this book was not good. I try not to, but I sometimes can not help but take offense when I see historical figures I love so dearly and/or highly respect either much-maligned or simply presented wholly inaccurately by an author who could not bother to do five seconds of research. I like the 'Dark History' series in general, though it is nothing spectacular and you will find no new information contained in them. But what I found here was worse. This book was gossipy and sensationalized. it was poorly written and riddled with inaccuracies. There is nothing 'dark' about this history that is flat out wrong in many places. She refers to Catherine Parr as Henry VIII's "Finally, an enduring love" as one heading, which is laughable, considering she wanted to marry Seymour all along. Anne of Cleves was apparently "ugly, skinny and loud-mouthed" - news to me since I did not know you could be a loud-mouth in a country where you did not even speak the language. She is especially nasty to two Scots in particular, Mary and then her son James VI. First, Mary is described as being an, "ignorant, foolish, indiscreet airhead" who "managed to do almost everything wrong and was certainly not the queen 16th century Scotland needed." This could not be more wrong. Without a doubt, Mary made some very stupid decisions. But by all accounts in the short years she did rule, she worked to maintain a balance between her Protestant-turning country and herself. Much has been written about Mary not enjoying her studies but that does not make her an airhead and she was still well-spoken and educated. Her son James does not fair much better. The author refers to him as "creepy", with "spindly legs" a tongue "too big for his mouth...He drooled. He did not wash very often...He looked scruffy because he dressed so badly." It has been documented time and again that James looked oddly in his dress due to the many layers he wore to protect against an assassin. Yes, apparently his tongue was awkward and he was awkward but come on. All this book amounts to is a trashy gossip magazine in hardcover form. PASS!

Foundation: The History of England from its Earliest Beginnings to the Tudors

Rating: 1.5 Stars

Review:

I don't even.

I can't even begin to explain how disappointed I am in this book and Ackroyd's work here. I am actually kind of angry about this book. Normally he is an author I enjoy, having read several of his other titles (The Thames, Chaucer, etc). I so looked forward to this one as this book literally covered almost my entire interest in England.

What makes this disappointment even worse is how promising it even starts out. It begins with a delightful romp through Roman Britain and Boudicca's destructive power (again I say, Eleanor is so lucky I discovered Eleanor of Aquitaine before Boudicca, and the latter is just a nickname). I even enjoyed most of the bits about those nasty Angles and Saxons who were terribly destructive themselves, but eventually manage to evolve into my dear Anglo-Saxons.

When Ackroyd gets specifically to Alfred, king of Wessex, the Angles and the Saxons - Alfred the Great, my first issue comes to light. While it is generally acknowledged that yes, Alfred's grandson Athelstan is the first king of England (England as a whole, not an island of individual kingdoms - Wessex, Mercia, Northumbria, etc), Alfred's accomplishments can not be overlooked. I mean, come on, he remains the only king to ever be referred to as 'the Great'. Alfred set up the kingdom to become successful and united; had he not beaten back the Danes, encouraged reading, writing and education in general, or written down the laws of the land, England could have taken a very different course. Let's give him a little more credit here. There would be no England without Alfred.

The next big flag came when the death of Edmund Ironside was completely glossed over. When Edmund and Cnut were basically co-kings, and then within a few months Edmund was dead, it is generally thought that he was murdered so Cnut could rule alone. Edmund's two sons, Edward and Edmund, were spirited out of the country and Cnut's reach. While the son Edmund also died, sometime in exile in Hungary, Edward eventually returned to England, the potential successor of Edward the Confessor. However, within a few days of his landing in England, he was murdered, which set the course for the invasion of the Normans and The Conquest by William I. I have always felt like this is an important piece of the puzzle, as at this point England's history could have been drastically altered and the Anglo-Saxon line (albeit with a strong injection of Hungarian, due to Edward the Exile's decades away from home) might have continued for a long time. No Normans would mean no Plantagenets, which in itself would also have been tragic. But that is another story. It confuses me as to why Ackroyd would not present this information, but perhaps I view it as more important than it actually is.

Speaking of Edward the Confessor now, Ackroyd makes a statement to the effect of Edward choosing his successor as he neared death. The king did not choose his successor though, the next king was chosen and anointed by the Witan, so Edward could not leave his crown to anyone as was stated. The Witan chose Harold, so it would not have mattered if Edward has promised William and/or that Harold might have sworn an oath to uphold William's claim.

As we move through the beginnings of the Norman kings right before the Plantagenet dynasty dawns, there is another slew of missing and/or mis-information. Ackroyd seems to accept almost unequivocally that William II's death was an accident, despite his own brother's actions after his death - and that fact that his hunting companion who 'accidentally' shot him reportedly immediately left the scene. Upon learning his brother had been shot on their hunting outing, Henry immediately rode off to secure the treasury - surely a sign that he might have known something? The mishandling of the Norman kings continues with Stephen. Stephen was nephew to Henry I. Henry I had made his nobles swear an oath to support his daughter Matilda as queen, as his only legitimate son had died when The White Ship sank years earlier. Naturally when Henry I died and Stephen claimed the throne, no one argued because England had never had a queen rule and were not about to start. Ackroyd states that Stephen was crowned in 1135 but that it was not until 1139 that Matilda arrived to "claim her country". That is by and far one of the biggest issues with this book - there is no detail or support as to WHY it took so long for Matilda to land on English shores. She was married to Geoffrey, duke of Anjou. It was not as though she was thousands of miles away, she was across the Channel. Some kind of explanation for her actions would have been welcome, instead of just glossing over it as was done with Ironside's death a few centuries earlier. Ackroyd also fails to mention that Stephen had a son, who was passed over in the line of succession for Matilda's son (Henry II) to bring an end to their brutal civil war.

I was tempted to quit when Eleanor of Aquitaine was almost completely whitewashed from England's history. I mean, seriously. She was important, despite Ackroyd's statement of Eleanor "severing herself from the king". In truth she retreated to her own estates as the king became involved with his beloved mistress Rosamund Clifford, then was imprisoned for fifteen years for inciting their sons into rebellion. More than once. As we continue along with the Plantagenets, Ackroyd seems baffled by the fact that King John and Richard III are often associated. My guess would be they are associated often in peoples' minds because they both murdered children to get their thrones. Ackroyd does address the fact that Arthur (Geoffrey's son), John's nephew, was actively campaigning against him and actually besieging Eleanor at Mirebeau when he was captured. At the time Arthur was fifteen, and seeing as how he was active in the battle I see Ackroyd's claim that he essentially became a prisoner of war so to speak when John captured him. The fact remains however, that Richard I had named Arthur as his heir to the throne, seeing as how their deceased brother Geoffrey was older than John (the spoiled baby of the family), and thus had a better claim. Not to mention John was super shady and cruel and not at all fit to be king. So yeah, killing the rightful kings who happened to also be children is what will always link them, no matter how Ackroyd wants to say this was not true in John's case.

I seriously considered quitting a second time when I realized I had made it all the way to the reign of Henry III (John's son) and had not even caught a swift glimpse of William Marshal, the greatest knight in the history of England. I double checked the index just to make sure my eyes were not deceiving me, but sure enough, he is no where to be found.

I am almost tempted to not even bother with reviewing the chapters relating to Richard III. This book was published in 2011, so it is no fault of Ackroyd's that Richard's remains had not yet been discovered (Phillipa Langley wouldn't be bawling her eyes out on national television for a while yet, upon discovering that he did in fact have a crooked spine). However, the problem is he claims such authority, so sure that Richard's remains had been scattered or thrown in the river. He states this as fact, not the speculation they need to appropriately be described as. For example, on page 416 Ackroyd says, "The king, for example, was not a hunchback. As a result of strenuous martial training one arm and shoulder were overdeveloped, thus leading to a slight unbalance but nothing more." Again, while the author could not have known that within a short time the world would know that, in fact, Richard did have a significant curvature of the spine, he certainly could have addressed this more responsibly.

There are some positives here. Despite everything I have said thus far, though overall I was greatly disappointed, there is still some good. While the longer chapters detail what Ackroyd wants the reader to know with his take on England's history, he also includes shorter chapters throughout that deal with daily life on the island, from food, to religion, to dwellings, etc. At first these chapters annoyed me because it made the book feel a bit disjointed, going back and forth from general to specific history. But the more I read, the more I began to enjoy them. However if I had to choose between more details on the kings and queens, or these little chapters, hands-down I would opt for the former. I believe this is the first of four books. If Ackroyd wanted to present a clearer picture of England by including these chapters, perhaps he should have planned to write five books in the series then to make room for all the facts and information he left out.

I feel like I have made my point here with some of the biggest issues with the book. Basically, Ackroyd has taken some of the most interesting pieces of history and condensed them down into little bite sized morsels for popular consumption. The problem with that is that many of these stories are so complex and deserve to be fleshed out to explore all facets. That is how you really get the big picture, really understand how England became England. This is at times sensational and gossipy, ignoring more plausible theories for wild claims (hello, Edward II). It is as though this is a completely different author than I am used to reading. It is disheartening, because I was looking forward to the second book, which of course focuses on the Tudors, as this one concludes with Henry VII's reign. I can by no means recommend this as the first book for anyone to read who does not already have background knowledge, as I would hate for anyone to read this and think it is all accurate. There is a decent bibliography that I plan exploring further to see how Ackroyd came to some of the conclusions that he did. Perhaps then I will better understand his view, and then be able to move on to the second book with a little more ease.

Finding Arthur: The True Origins of the Once and Future King

Rating: 1.5 Stars (On Goodreads I gave it a straight 1)

Review:

So much wrong, I don't even know where to begin. I don't mean with the THEORY itself (because regardless what this guy would have you believe, it is still just a theory), but I mean the presentation, tone, so much. It was a gigantic struggle just to finish this by the last two chapters. I hardly got through the epilogue. I was so excited to find another Arthur book, I can't get enough. Unfortunately by page 53, I was already beginning to regret my decision to read this one, as the tone was incredibly self-righteous and pompous. Certainly not the way to grab readers and earn their respect. Or better yet, get them to buy into your theory.

Now, I love Scotland.It is my favorite country in the world. Edinburgh is the city I belong to (despite me being entirely a US citizen of German and Swedish heritage) and want so badly to make my home there some day. So, I would not be at all opposed to the finding of any evidence indicating Arthur was actually a Scottish. I too hold a special place in my heart for England, so if he was King of the Britons, I am down with that. For me, it is more so a matter of, "did he really live?" For the author it is a matter of "where did he really live?" I get the Scottish pride thing, I have it and I am not remotely Scottish, but due to years of bullying and repression by England, the author is bound and determined to prove Arthur is Scottish.

Unfortunately, all he basically has is what amounts to word play. "This place sounds like this place, this name sounds like this name. We don't know this guy's real name but we know where he might be from, which sounds like this, but it certainly can't be that place because that place is south." He hardly actually refers to England by name at all, ever. It is always 'south'. He doesn't actually have any evidence (unless you count the book "Finding Merlin" which, incidentally, he wrote himself. No joke, he actually uses the phrase, "according to Finding Merlin". And he references it all the time. I think you might need to read that one in order to understand his weird double naming thing he does here with Merlin. But, whatever). There are two problems with this little word play game he has going on. First of all, it is not solid evidence. It is him taking names that sound like other names and saying they sound similar. That's great that they do - to him. To others, perhaps they are not close enough. He uses the very thing he calls others who have come before him for doing. That does not make a lot of sense to me. Same goes for his use of conjecture, which he readily admits multiply times under the guise of being humble, yet continues to state without a doubt that Arthur was a Scottish warrior.

The author has a major axe to grind with Christianity. He states very early in the book that Arthur was not and could not have been a Christian king, and constantly refers to Druids as those of The Old Way. He even goes on to say later (page 252) that it is, "...just daft - holy product placement" in regards to references to Arthur carrying a cross at the battle of Badon. Perhaps it never occurred to him in all his infinite wisdom that this statement could mean Arthur had a cross painted on or affixed to his shield. Certainly other authors have come to such a conclusion - authors who are willing to look at multiply theories, places, and names, and not just fixate on one and say it is right and that is that. I also enjoyed (sarcasm alert!) the part where he said those who have looked and continue to look for the Holy Grail are 'deluded' (page 74). His opinions on Christianity shine through VERY early on.

In addition to the word play he calls evidence for locating the real Arthur, he does a lot of this in regards to his own family name. He references this a lot, about how peoples' last names are only interesting to them, his is so rare, blah blah. You are right buddy, I do not care one iota about your super rare last name or the fact that it is so rare, you are related to everyone who has it. Perhaps this was included to show how great you are at deducing which words in ancient times are equal to our words of today. Either way it was pointless and filler and I have expected him to make the claim that he had discovered he was a descendant of Arthur. Maybe he did, I don't actually know because I skipped over the personal stuff.

I guess you have to give the guy a little credit (thought I can't give him much, because his arrogance and pompousness are evident, page after page) for being bold enough to make claims like, "To exist in the south in Britain it was necessary for Arthur to become a legendary figure, because Arthur did not exist in the history of the south" (page 225).

So, in the end I have to say pass on this one. I had high hopes but they were dashed quickly. Big disappointment here, so if you are looking for books about Arthur, look elsewhere.