hey were great. Those two really gave me the teacher's point of view. A lot of the details that you see in that first chapter, on the shooting, came from either the Jefferson County Sheriff's Office (Columbine) or from those teachers. I also spoke to a young man named Kevin Braun, who was a survivor at Rocori. His best friend was killed that day, and he was in gym class with the other student who was killed. He had never talked about this with anyone. He says—as I imagine you have heard also—that kids who were there know that there are no words for what happened, and if you weren't there, you'd never understand anyway, so why bother?

In terms of the twist at the end, I often do that in my books. I'll have a twist, and I'll know it before I even write it. Because I need to be able to lay a paper trail for you throughout the book, so you can go back at the end and say, "What did I miss?" And of course, thematically, this twist is something you should be able to figure out.

What appealed to you about bringing back two characters from previous novels:

It's always great fun to bring a character back, because you get to catch up on his/her life; and you don't have to reinvent the wheel -- you already know how he speaks, acts, thinks.

Two other facts that surprised me: for many of these shooters, there is the thinnest line between suicide and homicide. They go to the school planning to kill themselves and decide at the last minute to shoot others, too. And that, psychologically, a single act of childhood bullying is as scarring emotionally as a single act of sexual abuse.

Nineteen Minutes offers a fairly straightforward account of what could make a student turn against his (or, sometimes, her) fellow class mates

The relationship between Peter and his parents is given more space, but this could also have been examined more closely. Picoult appears to hold back from following up on the intriguing world she creates. Relating the role of parents in raising a child who ends up being a murderer is welcome, particularly when we are told Peter’s father lectures on the economics of happiness. Irony is heaped on irony with the descriptions of Peter’s mother, Lacy, as she is a midwife (and deemed knowledgeable on parenting) and is also seen to be as kind as she is inept in her understanding of her son.

This lack of awareness between the parents and child could have been squeezed for more material and this could have been brought about at the expense of editing out the less relevant musings of Alex Cormier, a judge and failing mother.