Thirteen Seconds: Confrontation at Kent State

by Joe Eszterhas, Michael D. Roberts

The dramatic and eye-opening original account of events that shook the nation. At noon on May 4, 1970, a thirteen-second burst of gunfire transformed the campus of Kent State University into a national nightmare. National Guard bullets killed four students and wounded nine. By nightfall the campus was evacuated and the school was closed. A generation of college students said they had lost all hope for the System and the future. Yet Kent State was not a radical university like Berkeley, Columbia, or Harvard. Although a new mood had been growing among the students in recent years, the school was not known for political activity or demonstrations. In fact, exactly one week before, students had held their traditional spring-is-here mudfight. What most alarmed Americans was the knowledge that if this tragedy could occur at Kent State, on a campus made up of the children of the Silent Majority and in the heart of Middle America, it could happen anywhere. But why? how did it happen that young Americans in battle helmets, gas masks, and combat boots confronted other young Americans wearing bell-bottom trousers, flowered shirts, and shoulder-length hair? What were the issues and why did the confrontation escalate so terribly? Would there be future confrontations like the one of May 4? To answer these questions, prize-winning reporters Eszterhas and Roberts, who were on campus on May 4, spent weeks interviewing all the participants in the tragedy. They traveled to victims' homes and talked to relatives and friends; they spoke to National Guardsmen on the firing line and to students who were fired on. By putting together hundreds of first-person accounts they were able to establish for the first time what actually took place on the day of the shooting. With new prefaces by Joe Eszterhas and Michael D. Roberts.

Genres: History, Nonfiction

258 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1970

About the author

Joe Eszterhas is a Hungarian-American screenwriter, known for films such as Jagged Edge, Music Box, Basic Instinct and Showgirls. Before becoming a screenwriter he was a journalist and has also written non-fiction books and memoirs.

Reviews

[Stefania Dzhanamova · Rating 2 out of 5]

In his book, Jon Eszterhas attempts to chronicle the Kent State Massacre, but his attempt is unsuccessful because he does so in a way more reminiscent of chaotic diary entries than a coherent narrative. His account is stuck somewhere between a disorganized report and a confusing novel. I have little to say about Eszterhas's work except that it is useless. 

As a historical work, it has no value because it lacks any historical analysis. What happened at Kent State was significant, one of the turning points in the protest movement against the Vietnam conflict. Although the death of the four students did not have an impact on the American government's policy toward Vietnam, those shots were definitely heard around the world. In America, there had not been many other incidents in which soldiers killed unarmed citizens for protesting. Furthermore, the shootings happened only a few days after the invasion of Cambodia. President Richard Nixon's decision provoked a student protest of unprecedented proportions – more than two hundred college campuses were shut, and classes in another one hundred were interrupted. America was torn by an internal conflict. It is surprising that the author does not discuss the context and the consequences of the Kent State Massacre. His approach makes it difficult to call this account a historical one.

If he had meant to write a permanent record of the event, only for historical preservation, the result is confusing. His narrative is so disorganized and so limited in perspective that it is challenging to understand without prior knowledge of what happened at Kent on May 4, 1970. At the same time, though, no one who has read other accounts of the Kent State Massacre will discover anything new for himself in this work. Other authors have studied piles of evidence, meticulously separated facts from myths, and presented a clear picture of the event in well-written narratives. Compared to them, Eszterhas has written a news report.

THIRTEEN SECONDS does not deserve more than thirteen seconds of a serious reader's attention. This book is neither a good introduction to Kent nor an informative addition to the existing scholarship on the topic.

[Robert Morrow · Rating 2 out of 5]

Originally published six months after the tragedy at Kent State, the book is more of a summary of reporting than an historical narrative. The authors chose to simply publish what they had written forty-one years ago rather than do any additional research. The narrative itself is very choppy and only occasionally provides a sense of drama; it could have been vastly improved by reorganizing it into the parallel stories of the key players and those who died at the scene. For example, the story of the shootings makes no mention of those who died; they are simply bodies falling or people bleeding. We only learn about them after the tale is told. An entire chapter is devoted to Corso, but he disappears when the action unfolds and so his link to his responsibility for the shootings is severely weakened. The lack of diagrams showing the movement of students and soldiers on May 4 is inexcusable.

The value in the book is to remind us that the current period of divisiveness in the United States is hardly unique and relatively small potatoes when compared to the division in the country during the Vietnam War.

[David Ellis · Rating 4 out of 5]

Another book about the shootings at Kent State on May 4th, 1970 that I felt had both strengths and weaknesses. My reasons for reading it included that it was available on iBooks and that it included believable biographies of the four students that died that day. Bringing the victims alive, giving them a place in the story was, for me, the biggest strength of this book. On the other hand, the book was quickly produced, based largely on interviews done in the aftermath of the events. While the two authors brought different perspectives (or biases?) to their work, the unintended consequence was that it was a choppy read. It was a journalistic work, rather than an historical analysis; it did however Include the four who's lives ended that day.

[Kyle Brooks · Rating 3 out of 5]

Highly informative look at the events leading up to and including May 4th, 1970 at Kent State University. Due to the time of its writing, though, the aftermath is a muddled mess that lays out the chaotic search for answers. 50 years later, there are many answers, but you’ll have to look elsewhere than this book for them.

[Laura Messer Spears · Rating 4 out of 5]

4 dead in ohio

I remember this tragedy. I was 10 years old. I still can't believe that it Happened in America and that people thought that killing protesters was OK. Flowers are better than BULLETS.

[George Kasnic · Rating 5 out of 5]

No spin, no agenda. Interviews, facts laid out for the reader to judge. If you have a choice between this and the Michener book on Kent State, read this one.

[Jan · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book was good and covered the events. But some of the writing was "overdone." It needed a bit more conciseness in places.

[Cheryl · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is an important book, well written and well researched. Initially, I thought there was too much background, and too much jumping around and discussing different events that may have lead to the shooting. But it worked and was very informative. I found the chapters near the end about each student who was killed to be very moving and to be as nice as a tribute as you could give to four young people killed by violence that was unnecessary, unapologized for.

[Chuck · Rating 5 out of 5]

Thought I kmew

I grew up in this time period and I thought I knew what happened at Kent State. This story unfolds as an amazing yet tragic story of college students who would not give up what they believe in. From the violence before the shootings to the profiles after, this is truly an amazing book.

[Anne · Rating 1 out of 5]

I knew people who were there on May 4th. The ONLY thing this book has going for it is its immediacy. And that's not saying much.