Location: Michael C. Hall

Discussion: Is Dexter Morgan really a monster?Reported This is a featured thread

Showing 1 - 20 of 22  |  Show  posts at a time
2 | Next
DrkPassenger
DrkPassenger
Is Dexter Morgan really a monster?
Jul 13 2009, 12:14 PM EDT | Post edited: Jul 13 2009, 12:19 PM EDT
I think that part of the appeal of Dexter is that he is personable and likeable. He interacts well with Rita and the kids and with Deb. His secret life is compartmentalized and does not intrude on his day-to-day, normal existence. While Dexter believes he is a monster and dead inside, he does not act this way. He does not function like Michael Meyers, who truly is dead inside. Rather Dexter is a super-vigilante who through the magic of Harry's Code combines a compulsion to kill (thanks to me, the Dark Passenger) with the greater interests of justice. He's sort of like Batman, except Batman brings 'em in alive and Dexter has no intention of doing so. I see some problems with the way the story has developed so far in the TV series because Dexter is simply too nice a guy. We really do not see his uglier side enough to experience fear and revulvsion, the way we do with, say, Hannibal Lecter's cannibalism. Since we see everything through Dexter's eyes, we do not experience pity or compassion for the victims, since Dexter has none. But what if he were to get it wrong? What if, despite every precaution of fact checking, Dex were to torture and kill a completely innocent individual? Would he feel bad? He would have broken the Code, but since Dexter enjoys killing, does not experience normal emotions, and is very pragmatic (Oops!) I am not sure he would have any deep regret. I think that for the character to develop we need to see more of the cold-blooded nature of Dexter the serial killer at work. We need to have some compassion for his victims. We need to see that he is really not like one of us (or rather like one of you, puny human individuals, not me--the Dark Passenger, a demon). Sgt. Doakes is the only one who really understood Dexter, since he too was a born killer, but he was written out of the story line. I think the series needs another Doakes to put Dexter at risk and expose his darker side to the public gaze. What do you think? 4  out of 4 found this valuable. Do you?    
DrkPassenger
DrkPassenger
1. RE: Is Dexter Morgan really a monster?
Jul 27 2009, 11:55 AM EDT | Post edited: Jul 27 2009, 11:55 AM EDT
Here's what I was trying to get at in my earlier posting: will Dexter ever fall off the wagon, so to speak, give in to his compulsion to kill, and become like his brother Brian? Right now the Code of Harry prevents this. Dexter can only kill killers whose guilt is undeniable and who deserve death. But like a recovering alcoholic, the temptation is always there. Brian believed if he could get Dexter to kill just one innocent he could tip this balance. Admittedly, Brian could have chosen a better victim for this purpose than Debra, of whom Dexter is "rather fond." What if Dexter were to make a mistake. Does the next mistake become easier to make? The moral constraints which control most people don't work for Dexter. This is one reason he considers himself a monster (another is his inability to love, although I think he loved Harry despite himself). The fragility of Dexter's condition as a serial killer on the edge between good and evil makes him interesting, but only if that fragility is real. 3  out of 3 found this valuable. Do you?    
clairebbbear
clairebbbear
2. RE: Is Dexter Morgan really a monster?
Jul 28 2009, 3:13 AM EDT | Post edited: Jul 28 2009, 3:13 AM EDT
"We really do not see his uglier side enough to experience fear and revulvsion, the way we do with, say, Hannibal Lecter's cannibalism. Since we see everything through Dexter's eyes, we do not experience pity or compassion for the victims, since Dexter has none. But what if he were to get it wrong? What if, despite every precaution of fact checking, Dex were to torture and kill a completely innocent individual? Would he feel bad? He would have broken the Code, but since Dexter enjoys killing, does not experience normal emotions, and is very pragmatic (Oops!) I am not sure he would have any deep regret. I think that for the character to develop we need to see more of the cold-blooded nature of Dexter the serial killer at work. We need to have some compassion for his victims. "
I would agree that we don't see that much of Dexter's uglier side. That's not just because we haven't seen him kill an innocent person - it's also because we don't see much of his kills full stop.

I understand that Showtime doesn't want to make the show torture porn, but by not showing the kills we don't get the reality of what Dexter actually does, and how he does it.

For example when he killed Dr Meridian - a man who would never have been convicted of murder and wasn't nearly as bad as some of Dexter's other victims - by drilling him to death. The camera cut before we got to see what really happened.

I also agree that it's swayed too heavily in Dexter's favour sometimes. For example, all his victims seem to have killed sweet mothers of three, or honor students, or teachers, so it's easy for us not to feel much sympathy for them.

On the other hand, the show IS about Dexter, not his victims. And I'm not really sure how the show could help us appreciate his victims as people without straying from that idea.
3  out of 3 found this valuable. Do you?    
clairebbbear
clairebbbear
3. RE: Is Dexter Morgan really a monster?
Jul 28 2009, 4:21 AM EDT | Post edited: Jul 28 2009, 4:22 AM EDT
"Here's what I was trying to get at in my earlier posting: will Dexter ever fall off the wagon, so to speak, give in to his compulsion to kill, and become like his brother Brian? Right now the Code of Harry prevents this. Dexter can only kill killers whose guilt is undeniable and who deserve death. But like a recovering alcoholic, the temptation is always there. Brian believed if he could get Dexter to kill just one innocent he could tip this balance.

What if Dexter were to make a mistake. Does the next mistake become easier to make? "
The show kind of touched on this in season 3. Dexter killed someone who was "innocent" - Oscar Prado - who had done nothing more than be a junkie and perhaps a drug supplier.

We saw that Dexter was kind of excited by the thrill of the wrongness of it, and it could have pushed him over the edge into more of the same kind of killing... but it didn't.

(Also because circumstances closed in pretty quickly - he had a lot of other stuff to deal with, and whatever he may have been feeling about abadoning the Code himself, when it came to sharing it with Miguel he realised how sensible it was and stuck with it).

Though Dexter isn't strictly a vigilante, I do believe that he gets his thrills from killing the "right" kind of victim, and he wouldn't enjoy killing an innocent person as much. They wouldn't be "his", he wouldn't get to speak to them in the same way, he wouldn't get to show them photos of his victims.

As Lundy correctly pointed out, Dexter justifies his kills by defining his victims as sub-human, and he couldn't do that with an innocent person. It's all part of the ritual and the allure of killing for him.
3  out of 3 found this valuable. Do you?    
clairebbbear
clairebbbear
4. RE: Is Dexter Morgan really a monster?
Jul 28 2009, 4:29 AM EDT | Post edited: Jul 28 2009, 4:29 AM EDT
(continued)

As for whether Dexter might become an unrestrained killer like Brian, who knows?

As we saw in season 3, he made one mistake, two even (kililng the pedophile - not in the Code), but it didn't trigger anything. So just dabbling in the "other" side wasn't enough.

Right now, Dexter's urge to kill is in a specifc form, and he can control it. This season, I think we're going to see what happens when the reality of family life means he has to control it even more. Will it go ballistic when it's finally allowed to be released?

I think the way season 4 is shaping up, even at this stage, it's going to have to be something kind of earth-shattering to make Dexter change the way he kills. I just have a feeling that something is going to happen to Rita or the kids because of Walter Simmons, and that it'll partially be Dexter's fault.

And that whatever happens will trigger something in him, the same way as his mother's murder did. And he's going to get really nasty in season 5.
3  out of 3 found this valuable. Do you?    
DrkPassenger
DrkPassenger
5. RE: Is Dexter Morgan really a monster?
Jul 28 2009, 3:56 PM EDT | Post edited: Jul 28 2009, 3:56 PM EDT
When does season 4 start? 2  out of 2 found this valuable. Do you?    
DrkPassenger
DrkPassenger
6. RE: Is Dexter Morgan really a monster?
Jul 28 2009, 4:06 PM EDT | Post edited: Jul 28 2009, 4:06 PM EDT
"I do believe that he gets his thrills from killing the "right" kind of victim, and he wouldn't enjoy killing an innocent person as much."
I agree; Dex gets a special kind of kick because of the identity of his victims, his manner of presentation of their guilt, as well as the particular way he chooses to dispose of each of them. I fully concur that he would not enjoy killing an innocent person. But what if he makes an honest mistake regarding his victim's guilt? What if he is trapped into killing again in self-defense (the Oscar Prado case) or in order to get away ("Don't get caught.") Could he become an improvisational killer like Tom Ripley, who does not (usually) intend harm but does not shy away from using lethal force where he deems it appropriate. I am just wondering how far the Code of Harry controls Dexter. Is the implicit sanction that "Harry would approve" an unshakeable premise which governs all Dexter's thoughts and actions? If so, what does he do when he falls short?
2  out of 2 found this valuable. Do you?    
DrkPassenger
DrkPassenger
7. RE: Is Dexter Morgan really a monster?
Jul 28 2009, 4:12 PM EDT | Post edited: Jul 28 2009, 4:16 PM EDT
"I understand that Showtime doesn't want to make the show torture porn, but by not showing the kills we don't get the reality of what Dexter actually does, and how he does it.
"
Yes, you would need the X-rated version of Dexter's killings to show them in full reality. Perhaps Showtime could get George Romero to direct an episode or two to make this point. Or maybe not. Harry could not live with the knowledge of what he helped Dexter become. Maybe we could not either.
3  out of 3 found this valuable. Do you?    
clairebbbear
clairebbbear
8. RE: Is Dexter Morgan really a monster?
Jul 28 2009, 11:49 PM EDT | Post edited: Jul 28 2009, 11:49 PM EDT
"I agree; Dex gets a special kind of kick because of the identity of his victims, his manner of presentation of their guilt, as well as the particular way he chooses to dispose of each of them. I fully concur that he would not enjoy killing an innocent person. But what if he makes an honest mistake regarding his victim's guilt? "
Well, Dexter enjoys the ritual of killing guilty people - and that guilt is determined by his research. He believes he is right about their guilt, and so-far - that we know - he always has been. But it's possible that he's already got it wrong and will do again.

If Dexter discovered he had killed an innocent person - in his usual ritualistic manner, rather than on the spur of the moment - I think he'd be annoyed at himself for getting it wrong, but it wouldn't stop him. He'd just be more careful next time.

But I don't think he'd start branching out into killing innocent people in his ritualistic manner. He'd still want to be sure himself that they were guilty before killing them. Even if he later finds out he was wrong, at the time of the kill he still wants to believe he is right. He's not going to take some stranger off the street and try and convince himself that actually they are an axe-murderer, just to allow him to kill them. The ritual wouldn't be the same then.
2  out of 2 found this valuable. Do you?    
clairebbbear
clairebbbear
9. RE: Is Dexter Morgan really a monster?
Jul 29 2009, 12:02 AM EDT | Post edited: Jul 29 2009, 12:02 AM EDT
" What if he is trapped into killing again in self-defense (the Oscar Prado case) or in order to get away ("Don't get caught.") Could he become an improvisational killer like Tom Ripley, who does not (usually) intend harm but does not shy away from using lethal force where he deems it appropriate. "
If Dexter has to kill in self-defence again - assuming his killer pathology says the same as it is now - he would react in basically the same way as he did when he killed Oscar.

Which was - he tried to convince himself Oscar was guilty, knew he wasn't, didn't appear to be massively concerned and just moved on. Probably because he knew that it was in self-defence and he'd had no choice. So he was comfortable with the decision to kill, even if he had preferred it hadn't happened.

(Contrast that with the Ellen Wolf killing - Dexter had decided that she wasn't going to be killed, but Miguel went against that decision. Dexter was far more upset about her death than Oscar's - not because he had any particular sympathy for her, but because there was no need for her to die, and he'd already decided that she wouldn't.)

As for killing in order to get away - well, it's never been so desperate for him that he's had to. In the final episode of season 2, his voiceovers told us that he was intending to go to the cabin and kill Doakes, but it never came to that.

So far, he's never been in a situation where he's had to kill someone he knew to be innocent to protect his secret. We saw with Doakes his absolute reluctance to do so.

But then again, we saw with Camilla and the pedophile that there are lines he will cross. So who knows?

Harry said that Rule Number 1 was "don't get caught". As far as I know, he never told Dexter how far he needed to go to protect that rule. So it's really up to him.
2  out of 2 found this valuable. Do you?    
DrkPassenger
DrkPassenger
10. RE: Is Dexter Morgan really a monster?
Jul 29 2009, 8:11 PM EDT | Post edited: Jul 29 2009, 8:11 PM EDT
Don't get caught indeed is the name of the game. As you point out, Dexter's actions suggest that he has a conscience (he will not kill Ellen Wolf, an innocent) and thus inhabits a moral universe. We know from somewhere (the books, flashbacks to his childhood?) that Dex likes to kill. The Dark Passenger (however I am conceived) elevates this to the level of a compulsion. Harry recognized that Dex would always need to kill and rather than try and stop him he sought to channel this impulse in a constructive direction. We have the impression that Dex cannot go for a long time without killing. So what happens when Miami runs out of serial murderers? 2  out of 2 found this valuable. Do you?    
clairebbbear
clairebbbear
11. RE: Is Dexter Morgan really a monster?
Jul 29 2009, 11:08 PM EDT | Post edited: Jul 29 2009, 11:08 PM EDT
"We have the impression that Dex cannot go for a long time without killing. So what happens when Miami runs out of serial murderers? "
It won't. There'll always be plenty of (especially drug-related) murderers there.

And even if Miami runs out of multiple murderers, Dexter isn't that picky. Sure, his ideal victim is probably someone who's killed lots of innocent women and/or children. But someone who's only killed one person is also fine for him - after all, Miguel had only killed Ellen, and Lila had only killed Doakes. So he'll always have plenty of victims.
2  out of 2 found this valuable. Do you?    
clairebbbear
clairebbbear
12. RE: Is Dexter Morgan really a monster?
Jul 29 2009, 11:28 PM EDT | Post edited: Jul 29 2009, 11:31 PM EDT
Just thought I'd add something about the thing about Dexter not being able to go for a long time without killing.

I think the series shows him killing at a higher volume than what is his usual rate, so it makes him look more kill-hungry than he actually is.

Seasons 1 to 3 have covered a period of about 1 1/2 years (three months each per season, two months between 1 and 2, six months between 2 and 3).

During those 1 1/2 years, he's killed 27 people. (That's in real time, not including kills that were flashbacks to before that time, and also not including the kill with Miguel.)

However, in his entire killing career, which spans 12 1/2 years (11 years before we met him, 1 1/2 years after that), Dexter has "only" killed 63 people.

I am basing the figure of 63 on the 48 in the slides box that Doakes took, four more after that in season 2, four between seasons 2 and 3, 7 more in season 3).

So - 36 people in the 11 years before we first saw him, and 27 in 1 1/2 years since then.

I wonder if that's a suggestion that, as he's got better and better at killing, and got his ritual down pat, he's killing at a higher rate?
2  out of 2 found this valuable. Do you?    
DrkPassenger
DrkPassenger
13. RE: Is Dexter Morgan really a monster?
Jul 30 2009, 12:00 PM EDT | Post edited: Jul 30 2009, 12:01 PM EDT
Point taken. So Dexter doesn't need to move ot New York, LA or Mexico City when he runs out of potential victims in Miami. If I may return to my larger point, is Dexter a monster, my view is that he is not. He certainly has a penchant for violence and a most unusual hobby, but I think that he is really too hard on himself. Dexter's moral sense of outrage at his own acts is what makes him think he is one. I also don't believe he is emotionally dead--he is capable of forming relationships with Debra, Rita, Lila, Miguel, and Rita's kids. If he thinks he cannot love, Dexter might be surprised to find out how little genuine love exists in otherwise successful relationships. Now the Dark Passenger, he's another story. Clearly I am a monster, and I would like Dexter to do monstrous deeds, but as long as he feeds me with some regularity I am content to leave him alone. Dexter is, after all, my special pet. 2  out of 2 found this valuable. Do you?    
clairebbbear
clairebbbear
14. RE: Is Dexter Morgan really a monster?
Jul 30 2009, 10:54 PM EDT | Post edited: Jul 30 2009, 10:54 PM EDT
Dexter kills people in a cold-blooded fashion, and enjoys doing it.

That makes him a monster. Let's not lose sight of the big picture here.

(For once, a short answer from me.)
1  out of 1 found this valuable. Do you?    
DrkPassenger
DrkPassenger
15. RE: Is Dexter Morgan really a monster?
Jul 31 2009, 10:14 AM EDT | Post edited: Jul 31 2009, 10:14 AM EDT
Hmm. Consider the US military, which hunts for Taliban and suspected terrorists in foreign countries, and regularly causes collateral damage by bombing or otherwise killing innocent civilians. Some Taliban and actual terrorists may be killed, but at the price of the additional loss of innocent lives, non-combatant men, women, and children who happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. We are implicitly saying that we value American lives more than we value the lives of these foreigners, and if our military can better protect our country by conducting a war which unavoidably kills civilians, we as a people will accept a certain number of such deaths (because American lives are worth more). Now the military acts with the sanction of the government, and hence the people, and within the parameters of law. So this is all OK. It doesn't matter if we drop atom bombs on civilians in Hiroshimo and Nagasaki or if we firebomb Dresden and burn, irradiate, and suffocate tens of thousands of innocent people. Now consider Dexter. He only kills those who deserve to die. His victims have all taken innocent life, and if left alone would do so again. By removing these monsters Dexter preserves life, those of the future victims. The legal system has failed in identifying and removing these individuals. So we are all at risk. Dexter is actually serving the public interest. Moreover he does so surgically, identifying the active serial killers, and removing them individually. No innocents are killed. The risk to the general public is far greater from the violence in our midst caused by murderers that the potential threat posed by terrorists--just compare the annual murder statistics in the US with the total number of American terrorist victims. And instead of costing billions of dollars like the military, Dexter funds this removal service personally, out of his own pocket, a sort of private charity. The only difference is he lacks public sanction. 1  out of 1 found this valuable. Do you?    
DrkPassenger
DrkPassenger
16. RE: Is Dexter Morgan really a monster?
Jul 31 2009, 10:22 AM EDT | Post edited: Jul 31 2009, 10:26 AM EDT
Regarding Dexter killing in cold blood, remember, these killings are not crimes of passion. Dexter has carefully analyzed his potential victim's actions and determined their guilt beyond any reasonable doubt. One might call any official executioner "cold-blooded" since he acts professionally, and dispassionately. And in terms of enjoyment, it is not unusual to enjoy one's hobbies, is it? 1  out of 1 found this valuable. Do you?    
DrkPassenger
DrkPassenger
17. RE: Is Dexter Morgan really a monster?
Jul 31 2009, 10:48 AM EDT | Post edited: Jul 31 2009, 10:50 AM EDT
"Dexter kills people in a cold-blooded fashion, and enjoys doing it.

That makes him a monster. Let's not lose sight of the big picture here.

(For once, a short answer from me.)"
Dexter: The Taxpayer's Friend.

It costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to investigate a single suspected murderer, bring him to trial, and then keep him locked up for life or for a period of years while he conduct appeals of a capital sentence. So even when the system works, it is hugely expensive. And often, the system does not work. Think OJ.
1  out of 1 found this valuable. Do you?    
clairebbbear
clairebbbear
18. RE: Is Dexter Morgan really a monster?
Aug 1 2009, 2:28 AM EDT | Post edited: Aug 1 2009, 2:28 AM EDT
You can't compare Dexter to a solder, police officer or even executioner, who kill people because they have to. Dexter kills because he needs to, and wants to.

He actually enjoys inflicting physical pain and torture - mental torture at least, sometimes physical as well - on people while they are defenceless and frightened. Before he did that, he enjoyed doing the same to animals. Not only does he enjoy it, he gets a thrill from it that looks very like sexual arousal. Is that okay by you?

No way should Dexter's killing be equated to an innocent hobby. Even if you make an argument that his victims deserve it, it's ignoring the other victims left behind - like the victim's families. He admitted it himself - he causes collateral damage wherever he goes (even if he is doing some kind of a civil service to society).
.
Funny - at Comic-Con Michael C Hall was asked about the different reactions to Dexter internationally. He said that, when he explains that his character kills people, he gets different reactions. When he explaints to Americans that he only kills bad people, they will tend to accept it. But when he says the same to Europeans, they'll say "but he's still killing people".

I guess it's my European background showing through. I don't care how reprehensible his victims are - he shouldn't be killing them, and certainly shouldn't be emjoying it. But then, I don't support the death penalty either.

For me, the guilt of Dexter's victims, the money he saves the taxpayers etc - they're all irrelevant arguments as to whether he's a monster. It's not about the victims or anything else, it's about the act of killing itself, how he does it, and why he does it. No normal, rational human being should take pleasure in the suffering of another.
1  out of 1 found this valuable. Do you?    
DrkPassenger
DrkPassenger
19. RE: Is Dexter Morgan really a monster?
Aug 1 2009, 9:39 AM EDT | Post edited: Aug 1 2009, 9:44 AM EDT
"
For me, the guilt of Dexter's victims, the money he saves the taxpayers etc - they're all irrelevant arguments as to whether he's a monster. It's not about the victims or anything else, it's about the act of killing itself, how he does it, and why he does it. No normal, rational human being should take pleasure in the suffering of another."
First of all, an apology. You're not an American. I'm sorry.

Suppose Dexter's MO was different. Instead of rendereing the victims passive with plastic wrap, presenting them with evidence of their guilt, and (usually) knifing them, what if the victim's never saw it coming? Would you consider that situation any better, if Dexter killed like the Brewster sisters in Arsenic and Old Lace?

But if your objection is to killing at all, by anyone, whether by a governmental or private actor, how then do you deal with serial murderers? Lock them up forever? Would it be OK if Dexter had a really big basement and kept all his victims locked up in a cage?

Or do you insist with Thomas Hobbes that violence is a monopoly granted to Leviathan under the social contract? Remember, locking someone up in a cage for the rest of his natural life is an extreme act of violence as well. And, to be consistent, do you also argue that there is no right of self defense, because using violence to resist violence might involve killing someone? Should Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman not have resisted their attacker?

I agree that Dexter is not a normal individual. He's fearless, brave, resolute, intelligent, cautious, determined, purposeful, methodical and successful, not to mention (so far) lucky. Regarding Dexter's youthful killing of animals, no one, not even the Dark Passenger, approves of killing dogs. But what about rats? Street rats must die. That's my point. It doesn't matter so much who does the deed, as long as only rats are targeted.
1  out of 1 found this valuable. Do you?    
2 | Next