Susan Klebold turned down other interview requests, but, as Hortense noted earlier this month, she agreed to tell her story to O. She apparently did so as a way of raising suicide awareness, writing,

In raising Dylan, I taught him how to protect himself from a host of dangers: lightning, snake bites, head injuries, skin cancer, smoking, drinking, sexually transmitted diseases, drug addiction, reckless driving, even carbon monoxide poisoning. It never occurred to me that the gravest danger-to him and, as it turned out, to so many others-might come from within. Most of us do not see suicidal thinking as the health threat that it is. We are not trained to identify it in others, to help others appropriately, or to respond in a healthy way if we have these feelings ourselves.

In closing, she adds, "I only hope my story can help those who can still be helped. I hope that, by reading of my experience, someone will see what I missed." But Meghan Daum of the LA Times isn't having it. She says,

The ostensible reason for her article appearing now is that Nov. 21 is National Survivors of Suicide Day. But imagine being the mother of a suicide victim who didn't happen to take 13 people along with him. Would you want to commemorate Nov. 21 with Susan Klebold? Or would you prefer she speak solely for herself, even if what she had to say offered no comfort because it fit no familiar idiom and offered no resolution?

My guess is the latter.

Daum may be right that many families of suicide victims wouldn't want their dead loved ones compared to a killer. And it's certainly strange to focus on Dylan Klebold's suicide when most of us remember him for his murders. After Columbine, most people put Klebold in the category of "killers who turn the gun on themselves," but his mother thinks of him as a member of "that small percentage" of people whose "suicides involve the killing of an additional person or people." This reversal is odd, if not off-putting, at least at first.

But Susan Klebold doesn't gloss over the fact that her son killed people. She speaks movingly of her guilt and shame, and of the soul-searching she did when everyone from radio commentators to state officials blamed her for her son's crimes. She does make some excuses — saying, for instance, that Dylan's school dropped the ball when he wrote an essay about killing — but ultimately she sees her own failure to recognize warning signs as a major factor in the deaths of Dylan and his victims.

Daum writes that Klebold's essay "seems like a form of pandering — to readers' sympathies and, more important, to the American obsession with 'closure.'" But the piece reads less like "pandering to an American obsession" and more like a mother's attempt to gain personal closure by helping other people. She seems to have been a loving parent, and the criticisms lobbed at her after Columbine had an element of scapegoating — especially when they were delivered by people who advocated personal and family responsibility as the way to prevent such attacks, rather than better school safety or gun control laws. Yes, parents bear some responsibility for the actions of their minor children, but the kids of good parents can sometimes do terrible things, and to settle all the blame for Columbine on Susan Klebold's shoulders was also a way of avoiding making any systemic changes. It shows grace that Klebold doesn't make these points herself, and instead seeks to expiate some of her guilt by reaching out to people and families in need.

So can her story actually do anything for those who have lost a loved one to suicide? Some will undoubtedly be angry, but others might identify with her struggle to figure out what she could have done, something that does, despite what Daum says, "fit a familiar idiom" for many families of suicide victims. And for some parents of depressed kids like Dylan, kids at risk of harming themselves or others, perhaps Klebold's essay will serve as a wake-up call. She clearly hopes to prevent other tragedies like Columbine, and maybe she will. But as useful as it is to learn "warning signs" — signs that, as Gavin de Becker points out, both families and law enforcement often ignore — not every suicidal kid displays them, and not every act of violence can be prevented. Daum acknowledges that for Susan Klebold, who must spend her life wondering what she did wrong, there's likely no complete closure. So it seems cruel to begrudge her what little she can get.

Columbine, O Magazine And Suicide [LA Times]
"I Will Never Know Why" [O Magazine]

Earlier: Dylan Klebold's Mother "Haunted By Horror And Anguish" Her Son Caused

• Jessica Simpson is launching a line of luggage. Because that's the image of America we want to project when we travel abroad! [People]

• Jennifer Aniston wants a beauty deal. Join the club, sister. [WWD]
• When Kimora's slashing fabulosity budgets, you know things are bad! On her subdued Baby Phat show, "Now's not the time to be running all over and flaunting the money that we don't have." [WSJ]
• Ex Russell Simmons would seem to agree: he's launching a line at Wal-Mart. [Business Week]
• Remember how last week Rachel Zoe said that designer Christopher Sauvé couldn't sell those "Bananas/I Die" tees due to trademark infringement? He's having none of it! He's starting a "free the fruit" campaign to return bananas to the people. [New York]
• Should you have a Michelle fetish and a few grand to spare, check out Jason Wu's truly lovely offerings on Net-a-Porter. [Fashionista]
• Liz Claiborne exec: "Isaac Mizrahi is a nuclear weapon." Is that...a good thing? For the flailing company's sake, we hope so! [New York Times]
• A big spread in O Magazine can't hurt: "A spokeswoman for Liz Claiborne said the brand chose O because it reaches its demographic. In the issue, more than 50 pieces will be modeled by a mix of "real" women, models and celebrities, including Veronica Webb, Becki Newton of "Ugly Betty" and fashion icon Iris Barrel Apfel. The designer has included plus and petite sizes in his collection and has kept it budget conscious. To finish each look, Liz Claiborne is selling coordinated shoes, bags, jewelry and lingerie."[WWD]
• David Gandy is as modest as he is beautiful. Quoth the British model, "Why would anybody want to look at my body?...How can a man be pretty? Flowers and women are pretty. Men are not". We respectfully disagree. [Fashionista]
• Wal-Mart's move to New York could screw some of their vendors. Good plan, though: we're sure the cost of living is way cheaper here than in Bentonville, Arkansas! [Business Week]
• We're not sure how psyched we are about the Jay McCarroll Fashion Week documentary. On the one hand: his last doc was a bit sad, what with Heidi blowing him off and everything. On the other: it's as much Runway as we're getting! [Reuters]
• Jenna Lyons, the creative director of J. Crew, obviously has great timing and a lot of skill. But...we're confused by the deliberate hole in the knee of the jeans she's pictured wearing. [Observer]
• The new Zappos ads: "Underpants-clad customers are pictured either standing in a Zappos box or walking into one. Putting on their best Vanna Whites for the camera, they either reveal their purchases or lift the box over themselves — at which point they are suddenly transformed into fully-dressed Citizens of Society." Hehe. Underpants. [AdRants]
• Speaking of skivvies: OMG the Herry Hall Cherie-inspired Chanel ads are out and are they rad! (We're assuming they're ignoring the sequel in which Cherie commits suicide.) [New York]
• Meanwhile, Chanel's mastermind, Karl Lagerfeld, doesn't dig the internet. Quoth the Kaiser, the web doesn't project "the unique feel and sophistication of luxury materials, refined tailoring and extraordinary attention to detail found in luxury fashion." But can luxury fashion show Christian Bale ranting?! [WSJ]
• THE BARBIE COUTURE IS HERE. Okay, sketches, but still. [AP]
• Anna Sui: "It's survival of the fittest at this point." We'll back the iconic iconoclast in any Darwinian struggle! [NYT]
• Says the head of struggling label Five Four, "I want to create our generation's Polo. You can't be a megabrand in the U.S. today if you're selling a woven shirt for $200...I think the concept of luxury is passé." [WSJ]
• Rachel Roy's current motto? "Strength and courage." [Glam.com]

Sometimes, shit happens, and it is the human thing to do to have strong, maybe even unmanageable, emotional reactions. Jarvis quotes a study that says that people who "visualize moving a way from [a terrible] situation to a vantage point where they could watch themselves in the unfolding drama as if it were a video," had lower blood pressure. Maybe they had lower blood pressure because they were DEAD INSIDE. They also have someone from the Insight Meditation Society who recommends meditating in order to "detach yourself from your thoughts and feelings."

I think this sort of technique is worthwhile with minor upsets. You shouldn't be having a hysterical breakdown just because you dropped coffee on your blouse. But with the major stuff? It's far healthier, I think, to get out those visceral emotional responses than it is to process them immediately. You can, and will, process them eventually.

The sort of self-meditation meme is very popular with the big O to a detrimental degree. It's really just an extension of The Secret, Oprah's favorite self-help book, that advocates the power of positive thinking. For those of you unfamiliar with the distinct charms of The Secret, basically, you get back from the universe what you put out into the universe, and so you are only rewarded by thinking positively. If you think negative thoughts, any failure is your own damn fault. The whole focus on ignoring negative feelings seems like a vast conspiracy to shame women into towing the emotional line, into never being "out of control." Maybe with all her money and her endless stream of gurus catering to every emotional whim, Oprah herself has evolved beyond actually experiencing strong, negative emotions. For the rest of us, having a mini-breakdown when a loved one is in an accident is a totally appropriate reaction.

How to Cope: Step Back and Get Some Distance [O]
The Secret Behind The Secret: It Was Stupid Crap Even In 1910
Living Oprah

I wrote a story for the Times over the summer about a blogger on a site named Living Oprah who decided to live her life based on Oprah's counsel for a full year. Living Oprah, aka Robyn Okrant, told me that women "want [Oprah's] personal help, because they think she has the secret…She has a private plane and she came from nothing. If she’s lifted herself up from the horrible background she came from, she’s got the key. When she gives advice it’s sort of like doling out some of that.” And just like American women, Saudi women long for Oprah's personal touch. A Saudi woman named Nayla who was interviewed for today's Times article sends the big O-racle a letter once a month, and even though she has yet to receive a response, Nayla says, “I feel that Oprah truly understands me…She gives me energy and hope for my life. Sometimes I think that she is the only person in the world who knows how I feel.”

Oprah's influence has even inspired some Saudi women to stand up to their husbands in the incredibly male-dominated Saudi society. One woman interviewed tells this story: "I have a friend whose driver touched her in an inappropriate way. She was very young at the time, but she felt very guilty about it — and Oprah helped her to speak about this abuse with her mother.”

It's been pointed out by many, myself included, that Oprah's show has threads of materialism that are deeply problematic. However, articles like today's about Winfrey's positive impact on women from all walks of life are some of our favorite things.

Saudi Women Find an Unlikely Role Model: Oprah [NY Times]
Life In The Time of Oprah [Oprah]

1. The covers suck.
If you love fashion, why would you pick up a magazine that had a Photoshopped roboGwyneth on it? Or an animalistic-looking basketball player? Or Sarah Jessica Parker wedged between a decapitated man's legs? French Vogue's covers are daring and provocative; American Vogue relies on Kate Bosworth's "superstar style." YAWN.

2. Photoshop is out of hand.
Art directors rendered Drew Barrymore and Tina Fey almost unrecognizable. ScarJo's waist was whittled. Not even "healthy" magazines like Self and Fitness are immune. Maybe readers are sick of the artifice?

3. Expensive Shit.
Even if you adore the fall collections and think of Galliano as God, you probably can't afford a $13,000 dress. So when you have to look at said $13,000 dress posed in the middle of a desert like it ain't no thing, you can get miffed. No? How about a $270 Bible? Or a $246 Louis Vuitton headband?

4. "News" you can't use.
Once you get past the cover and expensive shit, some mags are filled with mind-numbing, trite or just plain evil content. The illustrated "How To Take A Shower" piece in Allure comes to mind. As does the quote from Vera Wang in Vogue: "The armpit is nasty, nasty. Even young girls can have this problem."

5. The Internet.
When in doubt, blame this Web 2.0 thing everyone's talking about!

Or maybe it's something we haven't mentioned. Thoughts? Are you buying fewer magazines? Why?

'Oprah,' 'Vogue' Among Major Newsstand Losers [Portƒolio]

And here, the translation, without the use of "o": Here We Begin! I think I may have said this a few times in my life, but in case my readers missed it, let me repeat: I like reading. I call friends that they may advise my reading, I visit literature-sellers, I enact regular hunts seeking the next great tale. But my best wellspring that spews a delectable untrue tale, a brilliant true tale regarding a human life, beautiful images taken with a camera, and anything else I might like curling up with, is the reading part in the magazine my readers are currently palpating in their hands.

Cookie, for example, is now writhing on his back in the grass, emitting small grunts of pleasure, without the slightest hint of concern that his chubby tummy and exquisite enjoyment are on display. I know people who've spent thousands of dollars on sex therapy trying to do that...Here's one of the very few generalizations I believe unconditionally: There is not one useful thing we can do that we don't do better when we're relaxed.

Isn't stress and anxiety the source of some motivation? I say this because I completely and utterly lack the ability to get stressed about shit anymore. I am fully relaxed, all the time, and the speed just makes me moreso. And while I definitely find it irritating when other people (Virgos, for instance) get unnecessarily worked up about pointless shit, I am entirely too Zen to try and impose my worldview upon them about it, and really too Zen to do much of anything anymore. If relaxed people ever got stressed out and motivated, maybe our global conflicts would be over tariffs on meditation robe exports and incense dumping legislation, but no. Hysterical fanatics govern everything.

How many did you count? Anna got 13, I got 14...

Or wait, did you get too distracted by the guy in the gorilla suit to count? Because you know, there was a guy in a gorilla suit and that's what was supposed to happen; you were supposed to see him but the problem is that these days no one notices anything because they're all too busy looking at their Blackberries since they're the only screens small and technologically limited enough to actually convey information anymore.

But take heart! You didn't just double the amount of RAM in your computer because you didn't need to gorge your brain on pointless overstimulation to the point that it didn't require your every ounce of concentration to perform the most menial task. Wait, or maybe you didn't ever want that? Maybe you'd trade in your hard drive for a ditto machine and a purple Trapper Keeper any day if you could? Wait a second, am I still making sense? Can you follow what I'm saying? Nevermind, the point is: you're probably wondering what's going on with your brain that it can't register obvious facts anymore, which is why I Googled that for you. It's called Inattentional blindness, and it's also what happens when you try to drive drunk. Comforting, yes? Is it too early to rejoice in the fact we don't have to drive anywhere?

People born in the fall have been found to be more likely to develop panic disorder and/or drug abuse problems.

After all, if we accept this hypothesis, do we thereby discount the 100% accurate relationship compatibility analyses given by leading Australian astrologer Milton Black, based on the fact that he lives in Australia?? Where, you know, Libras are born in the EARLY SPRING?? (Including Anna's fiancee Paul, who is, incidentally, way more of an alcoholic than a schizophrenic.) (Oh come on Anna, like I think that's a bad thing.)

What's Your Sign? (No, Seriously) [O Magazine]

They're the ones who will tell you they always wear heels because they confer "power" only because they're not honest enough to tell you heels distract men by making them think of taking them doggy style while they're giving PowerPoint presentations, thereby shaming them into just approving whatever dumb project they were proposing. Whatever. (By the way, we learned this by reading Testosterone, Inc., just in case you got the wrong idea.) We hate these types. And not only because our boss isn't at all interested in fucking us.

Buying cheap clothes from foreign factories actually helps the workers.

MICHAEL S. JEFFRIES, 62, CHAIRMAN AND CEO, ABERCROMBIE & FITCH CO. Total value: $26.2 million Base salary: $1.5 million; Bonus: NA; Stock and options awards: $14.1 million; Other: $10.6 million

PAUL MARCIANO, 55, CEO AND VICE CHAIRMAN, GUESS INC. Total value: $17.1 million Base salary: $1 million; Bonus: $0; Stock and options awards: $603,532; Other: $15.5 million

BRAD MARTIN, 55, CHAIRMAN, SAKS INC. Total value: $12.9 million Base salary: $1 million; Bonus: $0; Stock and options awards: $9 million; Other: $2.8 million

True, there are problems with the fact that buying cheap clothes from foreign factories helps white guys not smart enough to succeed in any other industry a lot more, but whatevs. We need to just chill.

The Money List [WWD]
Related: Seven Things You Can Stop Worrying About Right Now! ['O' The Oprah Magazine]

What is it with Oprah Winfrey? Anyone who witnessed the flamingly heterosexual Tom Cruise pounce on her couches ranting of his love for poor dear Katie Homes must have wanted to wack Oprah round the head with a copy of A Million Little Pieces, when she went on to crucify James Frey. Is there an in-crowd and an out-crowd for liars? Tom - have a couch and bounce, bounce, bounce for your fake love. James, screw you, you lying little bastard.

Which brings us to this month's O magazine. Or rather, the editor's letter, where the World's Most Powerful and Book-Embracing and Healing Female Billionaire perches randomly on a rock, contorted strangely, but precisely, to minimise sight of any flab, and airbrushed from a size 14 to a size 6 with the wonder of modern technology. But not even the best airbrush artist in the world can distract attention from her posterior, which seems to be ominously inflating, as if it's desperate to fly away, make a bid for statehood and maybe cure cancer at the same time.

But don't think that any of this is about Mother Teresa Oprah being self-conscious about her weight. Perish the thought. In the June "Body Issue" of O, America's Future First Female President and Winner of the Nobel Prize for the Promotion of Mediocre Literature tells us she's finally made peace with her body. No, really.

"I don't know if embracing tummy flab will help save the world [don't worry folks, she'll get back to you on that once she's done it], but I promise that getting comfortable in your own skin will save you a lot of grief."

And if that doesn't work, perch yourself uncomfortably on a rock, and have an airbrush and your delusions close to hand.