This last episode (Waiting to Exhale), and some of your posts in the episode thread got me thinking about the ambiguous morality on the show and the feelings it evokes in the viewer. I am absolutely fascinated with how this show toys with our emotions and our prejudices to make us actually root for a psychopath and serial killer.

For example, I think most of us were almost relieved when Dexter killed again! Yes, Little Chino had it coming, but the fact remains that it is cold-blooded, premeditated murder. This show (and the books, probably, I haven't read them) take us to frankly uncharted territory regarding our own ethic beliefs. Sometimes it even scares me a little, as I realize the maturity that we, the audience, must have to really understand all the nuances.

What do you all think?

"I think most of us were almost relieved when Dexter killed again! Yes, Little Chino had it coming, but the fact remains that it is cold-blooded, premeditated murder. "

And I cheered when Dexter killed him, then I felt like I had to take a shower 'cause it looked to me like Dexter got his rocks off when he stuck the knife in.

I've always been more interested by the anti-hero character. from Robin Hood, Batman, Han Solo and Jack Sparrow, the darker the hero, the more interesting the drama. Most anti-heros are tempered by their intentions and nobles ideas even if their action are never in line with the letter of the law.

Dexter has the most foriegn and alien motivation than any other Anti-hero I know. I can understand greed, anger, revenge, but killing for killing's sake is something so mind boggling and extreme, that I can never feel entirely at ease, even if I agree with Dexter's goals.

After the 1st episode of this season I almost stopped watching. I didn't watch this week's episode until yesterday thinking I'd really given it up. Afterwards I felt guilty about how much I love this show. I can't get any of my friends to watch it. My dad watches it though. I don't root for Dexter to kill per se but I care about him and don't want him to get caught. I don't want anything bad to happen to him either. I try to imagine if there were a real killer in our world killing bad guys but not getting caught how I would feel. Would it be like the last episode of the first season with the parade and all the appreciation Dexter was getting in his fantasy? I don't know. I personally don't like the idea of killing at all and wonder about myself watching this program as entertainment. I tell myself that it's just TV but wonder if it's like what you put in your head is as important as what food or whatever else you put in your body. Like I've said, I'm a conflicted viewer.

Conflicted is a good word to describe my feelings about this show too. I absolutely love the writing, acting, photography and execution, but the subject matter digs up uneasy feelings.

I think the root cause of Dexter's pathology causes the viewer to sympathize with him. Prior to the massacre that occurred when he was a child, Dexter was a well-adjusted, normal kid. After that, he became something else. We look at that watershed moment and go, "Aw, poor guy, he's a victim. It's not his fault that he's emotionally dead and kills people."

Having said that, I'd be curious to see if this show would be as popular or interesting if Dexter didn't have a specific reason for being the way he is. Would people still watch the show and root for Dexter if he killed people because he was just plain evil? Is the sympathy factor, as stated above, what makes rooting for Dexter acceptable on any level?

I don't know that we actually have to have sympathy for Dexter but we have to be able to make an emotional connection in order to root for him and even care about him.

Well, I guess I exist on a lower plane of morality than the rest of the posters here. I'm not conflicted in the least -- I agree with Dexter's actions. He really IS "taking out the trash," and I love him for it.

It's that complicated morality of having the work of art/entertainment come from the bad guy's POV. Like a heist movie told from the POV of the thieves, the narrative structure makes us root for them to succeed and get away. So since we're told the story from Dexter's POV (in voiceovers, shooting choices -- everything), we as viewers have to share his mindset for the story to work successfully. And I totally buy into it.

Dex is just a fascinating character, and I'm drawn to his ambiguous nature. Part of me is just fascinated by what he really is: a man or a monster? And part of me wants him to succeed because I like him. As simple as that. If he were made repellent, I would have qualms about his killing. But the acting and writing and everything have seduced me at least a little into his mindset. He's not a good man, but he's trying to be. He's trying real hard. And if by trying, he has to murder various cold-blooded killers and assholes, I'm OK with that.

Of course, I'm the kind of person who is traditionally more attracted to the villain than the protagonist, especially if the villains have depth. If they aren't just cardboard baddies, but people of passion and feeling, good and bad mixed together, only the evil parts seem to dominate. Also: the violence as portrayed on this show isn't that horrific. If we got an unvarnished look at how depraved Dex's lust for blood and mayhem really was, I would probably feel differently. I hope.

How can any of us know that Dexter was a normal, well adjusted kid before living through the massacre in the shipping container? I think it's plausible that he had sociopathic tendencies from birth. It goes to the age-old nature vs. nurture question. Certainly the gruesome circumstances of his mother's murder could have set him off down the path of killing. And it's clear that he and Biney were not raised in a "traditional" family situation (not a value judgment, just a statement of fact from what's been depicted on the show). Harry may have succeeded in channeling Dexter's urges in a certain direction, but he didn't succeed in erasing something cold and cunning in Dexter's core being. Folks, there are functioning sociopaths among us who are "normal and well adjusted" enough to adapt to the world in a non-violent way, but still struggle with emotional coldness, problems with authority, and risk-taking behavior. I'd rather have someone with a background in abnormal psychology weigh in on this; I'm way out of my depth here --

I watch this show for the excellent writing and the acting. As far as the morality of the show I guess, I have less problems with it because I have never totally bought into the premise.

Yes, he's a "serial killer" but Harry's Code so dominates that he's as much a serial killer as Don Corleone was a mobster. It's even exacerbated by the fact that he's always absolutely certain that who he's killing is guilty. I guess you could say that what I find to be the show's weakness is what keeps me from having serious moral qualms. Mind you, I think the writers want it that way.

I think it all boils down to him killing such horrible people, people who have murdered numerous innocent people and gotten away with it until Dex sniffed them out. Am I really going to root for the likes of Little Chino over Dex? Nah.

That Dex was a traumatized child plays a part too, but it's not the deciding factor since I didn't even know until later into the first season to what extent he was traumatized - and I rooted for him long before I knew.

I think that if you look at the popularity of the Charles Bronson Death Wish movies from the 70's, you see that vigilante killers activate a revenge emotion in us. We don't actually see the crimes that Dexter's victims commit (usually) but seeing someone that's apparently gotten away scot-free with heinous crimes get eye-for-an-eye punishment is satisfying. I don't feel conflicted one bit to see Dex take out the trash.

Pugposse, now THAT'S what I call a post just dying for well-informed answers! Unfortunately, I don't have them (rimshot!). I suspect that both of us took a course or two in abnormal psychology during our college days, but that neither of us could possibly come up with the answers to the questions you posed. If there are any experts in this field, I would also love to read what they might have to say.

There are a few (woefully uninformed) points I'd like to make. First, I believe that the human brain begins "wiring" itself with synapses between neurons from conception until about the age of 3 (coincidentally, Dexter's age upon his mother's murder). These wiring connections can continue to be made later in life, but with far fewer connections being formed. The pathways between neurons not used regularly by the age of 10 or so tend to disappear. I seem to remember reading that if a child has not developed appropriate social, emotional and intellectual skills by that age, it is extremely difficult to do so going forward.

Second, your "nature vs. nurture" question is key. I haven't kept up with the topic in recent years, but it seems to me that there has always been a dearth of information available on the topic of child psychopathology (especially concerning antisocial personality disorder). I'm not even sure if that diagnosis is ever made before the early teenage years. I think it is most often diagnosed around age 13 or 14. Some scientists think that the onset of puberty might be a trigger. (In Dexter's case, didn't we learn of his killing small animals around this age?) When I was in college, the prevailing thought was that psychological disorders began with a genetic predisposition that were "brought to life" by environmental impact. I'm guessing that that is still the favorite theory. I'm quite sure that I had read of some studies that suggested that parental psychopathology weighed heavily in the mix. For example, the family history of many disturbed children indicates a likelihood that the childrens' mothers had a history of depression or anxiety or drug addiction. That would suggest a biological or genetic connection. But I also believe that in recent years researchers are weighing environmental factors more heavily than they once did. So, in Dexter's case, we know that his mother was in fact a drug addict. We know that his father had served time in prison (suggesting possible parental sociopathology). We can probably assume that Dexter's mother's parenting skills left a lot to be desired. There may have also been socioeconomic stressors at play, since it appears the Moser family had limited financial resources.

Third, both Dexter and Brian grew up to become serial killers. Since they both witnessed their mother's death, was that a trigger (or is it possible that such an event would cause a child to grow up with an aversion to violence and bloodshed)? In the case of the Moser boys, obviously not. But, as you asked in your post, were Dexter and Brian already screwed-up kids before the murder occurred? Would they have become killers even if their mother had not been slaughtered before their eyes?

I see that I'm starting to babble now, and I apologize. I'm confusing myself. If there are any psychologists out there, PLEASE enlighten us. Inquiring minds really do want to know!

The funny thing about this is that Dexter the TV character is actually noticeably softer than Dexter the book character.

The season two episodes put me off a little bit because they showed more of the killing process than season one. I'm pretty sure that in the first season you would see Dexter prepare the murder weapon, and then cut to the boat dumping. In the first two episodes in the new season they've had to show the "money shot" because the plot required it.

Really, though, it's not that much more extreme than Daredevil or the Punisher.

I disagree, Dexter is more extreme than Daredevil, Punisher, or Charles Bronson. While they may kill those who deserve it to them, I would not call them seriel killer's in the traditional sense. They have no routine, no ritual. The Punisher justs shoots people and moves on. Unlike Dexter, who makes the actual murder so much more.

Dex is not motivated by revenge, punishment, justice or anger. He just wants to kill to satisfy his urges. Its the difference between a homicide and a manslaughter. It's all about motivation, and predetermination.

The odd thing is I could never get behind cheering on Charles Bronson in his "Death Wish" incarnation. All of the countless movies and tv shows which tried to sell that the "hero" was justified in acting out the most gruesome cruelty because the bad guys were really that bad always left me with a feeling of warmed over disgust. There was never even any question about the humanity or the rightness of the "hero" because, well he was the hero and the other guy wasn't.

What I like about Dexter is we know up front that the protagonist is deeply disturbed and he lables himself a monster so while he is likeable and his prey are generally worse people than himself, we as viewers are not let off the hook. We are not placed in the vantage point of a pure heroism which is never to be questioned because its on the side of the angels, not to mention mom and apple pie.

The end of "Born Free" touches on the idea that Dexter is the voice that we as a civilized people have to keep locked up in a fantasy, so that we don't have to acknowledge that there is a calm, seemingly reasonable voice which runs through all kinds of discussions on how to run our society which counsels violence as the way of logic.

Also, just another point of view but while for Dexter the chief motivation for his crimes is his need to kill, frankly to get his rocks off from the act, I would argue there is more at play. The show very clearly tells us that Harry was the one who set the template for Dex's victims. Yet when confronting his prey with their crimes before reaching for the edged implements, Dex's demeanor is different when dealing with someone who has killed children or whose crimes have damaged the lives of children. Anger or revenge? Hard to say but he was plainly furious with the choir director in the pilot who was a child murderer. Although he generally doesn't go in for shouting, but in my hearing his voice takes on an edge when he is dealing with these special people. I would say the issues he is working out in his murders go way beyond merely scratching an itch.

I've only seen the first season, so my comments will be limited accordingly.

I find the show interesting and the character himself engaging, but I also have never justified or sympathized with his actions. The killing of one human by another should be done in self-defense, through legal institutional processes, or not at all. Harry was, quite frankly, a horribly flawed human being for not getting Dexter the psychiatric help he needed, and instead using him in a sick one-person weapon against widespread flaws in the modern judicial system. In terms of the modern criminal system, the point of retributive justice is only partially to stop the criminal from doing it again. Another major point is to give an open, transparent judicial process that provides a disincentive for other people. An "execution" of a heinous murderer that occurs in secret is largely a waste, in a civic sense.

Also, in his killing process and expertise Dexter has accumulated far too much unchecked power in the hands of a serial killer. The only thing keeping him from harming the innocent is his own perceptions, judgment on his own verification process, and instruction from his foster parent. This is far too unstable to be trusted in any context remotely similar to the modern world.

Actually Dexter has always reminded me more of Batman more than any other comic book character. Because of the detective stuff, the way he investigates his victims, the childhood trauma, the secret identity, the facade for the outside world etc. Except of course the small detail of the killing and cutting up in little pieces ;)

Dexter is obviously written to be sympathetic as a person while potentially despicable as a character. Dexter has a code that controls him, and since we've never seen Dexter give in to his urges, i.e. 'I've got to kill someone now and I don't care who!!!' he's really just tapping into the vigilante in the audience. So, while Dexter may say he's a 'serial killer' he really isn't shown as such. What we see is an archetype vigilante. Death Wish is a perfect example of this character. Bronson's went out looking for any criminal to kill and he didn't care who. Dirty Harry was a similar, but lesser example.

Dexter's voice-overs allow him to be sympathetic, or at worst, just ambiguous. It's frustration with our justice system that fuels this ambiguity and it hasn't changed since Dirty Harry, just gotten more sophisticated in it's depiction.

Whether or not capital punishment and public executions provide a disincentive is a debatable and controversial point but otherwise I completely agree with the points made above. I know that this is the moral high ground and I want to be disgusted and repulsed by Dexter's actions but I'm not, or at least not as much as I think I should be. I originally purchased Showtime for The Tudors but ended up keeping it until the re-run of the first season of Dexter ended.



Yeah, this is the point I reached, so after a couple weeks of internal debate, I canceled my subscription. But when season 2 of Dexter comes out on DVD will I still be able to resist? Its more than a little frightening how successfully this show taps into desire for and satisfaction with vigilante justice.

Generally it is a bad idea for a society to have members who take the law into their own hands. But maybe there could be an exception. The authority to judge that one is an exception is more than what a society can grant to an individual- but an individual is not necessarily wrong to so judge.

To give a very banal example; take laws against speeding. They are there to ensure safety on the roads. Ordinary people cannot dispense themselves from traffic laws, and it is illegal to speed. But on a straight, empty stretch of highway on a clear, dry day, with a well-maintained vehicle and fast reflexes it could be perfectly safe to go well over the posted speed limit. It is against the letter of the law, but not its spirit. If you exceed the speed limit you are not authorized to do so, and it is illegal to do so, but there is a sense where you do no wrong by speeding. There is procedural wrong (you are not following the rules) but no substantive wrong (you are not doing any harm).

I think there is a similar case to be made for homicide. In my freshman philosophy class I teach about John Locke: Locke's state of nature envisions a world where there is no law, and where everyone does what they like. While Locke thinks that in a state of nature most people would live peaceably most of the time, he recognizes that when two individuals come into conflict they will each be rather biased to their own point of view, and such a conflict is liable to end up in violence. The state of nature turns inevitably into a state of war, and the only way to avoid it is to give up the right to retaliate against wrongdoers to a higher authority; courts and police become established, and a civil society is formed. So generally one does not have the right to resort to force, let alone lethal force, against someone who has done wrong. At least in a state of civil society. But if Locke's civil society had a few Dark Defender's operating on the Code of Harry- would it break down? Of course not. There is no provision in Locke's social contract for the existence of a Dexter figure, but that doesn't mean that his existence harms the social order. They are exceptions to the procedural order, but they need not do substantive harm.

It might be best to think of Dexter as an act of God. In some way entirely outside the social order and its restraints. But not necessarily evil because of this.

Newbie here, had to post some thoughts...

I think the series has tapped into the real-crime paranoia phenomena quite well.

We don't feel safe knowing real serial killers are out there. We also feel that our criminal justice system is impotent against them, as many serial killers take numerous victims before they screw up and get caught, some never get caught.

Dexter is wish fulffillment at its most basic. We want a bad man out there to protect us since only bad men can do what needs to be done. Jack Bauer serves the same function against foreign threats.

Dexter is honorable because he has a code he never breaks. He is a better criminal justice system since he is never wrong.

The show puts Rita's kids there for a very specific reason, is is a subliminal that Dexter is a father figure for the audience. He is a moral man who is always right and if he does bad things, he did it to protect us. Part of what they are doing in the second season, changing his motives towards protection of the innocent, feeds into this.

I'm not really sure I agree with that, and I think we all go too far when we try to justify 'rooting for the bad guy'. Dexter is just the latest in a long line of well-drawn, sympathetic characters with a fatal flaw - hell, Greek tragedy was entirely based on the idea. We root for Dex because he's a good guy, who just happens to need to kill, in the same way that Oedipus was a good man who just happened to be cursed, or Gatsby was a good man who just happened to fall on the wrong side of The American Dream. Dexter isn't like Hannibal Lecter, that's been established from the start, so I don't think it's totally necessary to think of him in similar terms.

Maybe the most interesting thing about your statement is that, in that case, the writers have been able to make a compulsion to kill a 'fatal flaw'. I think that also accounts for our anxious stabs at discovering our reasons for rooting for Dexter in the first place. We root for him because we really harbor distrust of our justice system or because he doesn't harm our social order or because he's performing a necessary social function for us - not altruistically but conveniently. Is Dexter moral or are his actions moral? Either way, we can agree with the kill so we can root for Dexter, who is only flawed.

The Greeks could believe that incest and patricide were just a 'fatal flaw'. Elizabethans could believe that greed or avarice in a leader could be. I guess for us, with the way we now think about crime and psychology and trauma, the compulsion to kill can be a fatal flaw. Interesting.

I wonder if we would root for Dexter (even in the context of a show) if his crimes were presented and described in court. If the evidence, a description, of what Dexter did to the bodies was shown, if a prosecutor said damning things like, "He rendered them unconscious, cut their cheek, taunted them, and hacked them apart with a chainsaw," to a jury, would we still want to acquit Dexter? Do the trappings of a trial itself make the crimes more heinous. I think, to me, I find it difficult to imagine an acquittal, even if his victim's crimes were equally exploited. I might turn against Dexter at a trial, while I've been rooting for him during actual kill scenes.

I find that reaction interesting too.

I don't root for Dexter so much as I'm just not bothered by the targets he's chosen. I have no compunction about the idea of taking a known murdering pedophile out of circulation. "Known" is key, because it's one of the guiding principles of 'The Code' that Dexter proves his victims' own guilt for their crimes.

Integrity is another component of The Code, IMO; following a code infers a measure of integrity and responsibility to operate under guidelines - perhaps this is my own personal code I bring to the premise of the show. The problem this season is the inherent conflict in the tenets of The Code of Harry: don't target the innocent, yet don't get caught. This has come to a head now that Doakes knows Dexter's secret.

Even if Dexter does not kill Doakes, to allow Doakes' name to be placed on the BHB killings compromises the integrity of Dexter's character. It ain't cool to throw someone under the bus to save your own skin. It diminishes Dexter in my view, and while MCH is turning in a phenomenal performance and is long overdue for award recognition, I don't pledge unconditional loyalty to Dexter Morgan. It's very possible for him to fall out of favor with me if he commits enough acts or behaviors that I feel are outright wrong.

And Dexter himself sometimes puts us at arms' length. After he had that discussion with Lundy in the morgue tent about the killer's possible motives, he reminds us "I didn't do it to save lives, but save lives I did." He's fine with reaping the fringe benefits of his kills, but he reminds us that he wasn't in it to do good; that result was incidental.

Hmmmmm, I'm going to post in this thread, at the risk of sounding completely psychotic. Which I'm not. Really.

I "root" for Dexter, first because I can identify with the mask, and his feelings of alienation, trying to figure out the appropriate response to a situation. On a darker note, I "root" for Dexter because I think many of us, myself included have a fantasy "dark defender" inside of us; I can see myself killing someone in self-defense, or if they threatened my family. If that someone was a pedophile, I can also easily imagine a drawn-out torture session prior to my killing him.

But, the key word here is imagine. In real life, I have no idea what I'd do.



I completely agree with this. IMO, framing someone to go down for his crimes is outright wrong. I can't root for someone who could do this- because I can't identify with it. For me, the "good" Dexter does by taking out bad guys isn't enough to justify his framing someone else so he can continue to kill.

Dexter is as immoral as any other murderer. Murder is immoral period. Not justified for revenge for war or for any reason doesn't mean it won't happen or in the case of a Hitler or PolPot shouldn't happen but it's still immoral - the question is how immoral. For me Dexter is a 2 - 1-10 scale of somewhat immoral (1) to very very immoral (10).

• "Dirty" Harry Callahan shot fleeing suspects and tortured wounded prisoners for information (to save others).
• I've lost count of how many suspects Jack Bauer has tortured (to save others).
• Captain Willard cut Colonel Kurtz's head off (to stop a crazy man and because Kurtz wanted him to do it).
• Charles Bronson made a cottage industry in the 70's and 80's out of the vigilante movie (Death Wishes 1-142).
• How many people, including good friends, did Tony Soprano kill or have killed?

Yet I liked the movies and shows all these characters appeared in, and found the characters, within the context of the dramas, sympathetic.

America has been in love with morally ambiguous heroes, or anti-heroes, since Christ was a corporal -- another good example, since the most interesting character in the whole passion story is not Jesus, but Pilate. Finding these characters dramatically interesting and fascinating to watch does not equal an endorsement of their methods. There are many rabid fans of 24, myself included, who recoil with disgust from stories about Americans water-boarding suspects at Guantanamo.

If you like Dexter Morgan the character, cut yourself some slack. That doesn't make you a bad person. It merely makes you a person who's gratified by great writing, great acting, and terrific drama. Dexter is the protagonist. You spend a great deal of time watching the show from his point of view, and in his head. You're supposed to have some sympathy for his character. But don't worry. Hardly anyone who watches the show and likes it will go out tomorrow and dismember someone.

I abhor vigilantism; I abhor movies that glorify vigilantes. No matter how righteous the motive, people taking the law into their own hands undermine our social fabric. If a republic is to have any chance, we must be a government of laws not men.

That said, I love Dexter. The writing is brilliant. Early in the season, I was able to emotionally identify with Dexter. When he killed the Little Chino guy I felt an enormous rush. I could, on an emotional level, feel the sense of almost sexual release that came with the killing. Later in the season, when Harry vomited as Dexter chopped up the bad guy, it was a slap in the face. A cold reminder that what Dexter does is disgusting. I love that this show makes me root for Dexter by connecting to that which is human in him but also makes me uneasy with the moral essence of this choice by consistently reminding me what a monster Dexter is.

We are base; we are noble; we are everything in between: we are human. This show, like the Sopranos, Six Feet Under, Mad Men, and probably some I haven't seen is brilliant television and takes us new places that shorter forms like novels and movies cannot. So long as Dexter continues to display the sharp edge of its moral ambiguity I will continue to find it fascinating.

One thing I find unique and interesting and also creepy about rooting for Dexter is not just that he kills bad people, but the way he kills his victims. If this were a show about a vigilante who goes out and shoots criminals, that would be one thing. We've seen a lot of that before. Usually vigilantes in movies/TV dispose of criminals very efficiently.

But Dexter actually tortures them. Gruesomely. Yet we still root for him. I think that makes this a much more challenging show. Why is it that we basically sort of accept, and sometimes even encourage, Dexter's particular brand of torture in this show? Does this mean that deep down sometimes we actually want to see certain people not only removed from society, but also tortured, if they "deserve" it? This is a creepy thought and something that I don't generally believe about myself, but sometimes it disturbs me when I'm watching the show and I find myself happy about certain people "meeting the monster."

so what is this torture you speak of?

Cutting them to pieces while they are still alive.

mostly he seems to stab them first.

His victims are long dead when most of the cuts are made. Remember that Dexter usually starts with the head. Actually I think that neither Dexter nor Brian were big on torture. Brian cut his victims' throats and just waited until their bodies were bloodless and frozen before making any other cuts. Apparently he and Dexter are very fond of mutilating corpses. Isn't it great that they aren't as bad as they could possibly be? ;)

Well, Jimenez was still alive when he started working on him with the chainsaw, the only other one I remember he started cutting up before they were dead was the child murderer he killed in the first episode. Maybe the psychiatrist?

Really? They don't show much of it, but I always got the impression he did a lot of the cutting up while they were still alive. And remember the chainsaw guy? He was definitely not already dead.

I mean that Dexter is just, to me, definitely not a traditional "put the bad guy out of his misery quickly and efficiently for the good of society" type guy. He's definitely a serial killer who likes the torture or at the very least, dismemberment and other gross things we would probably prefer our protagonists not do. And really he does those things for his own enjoyment, don't you think? It's just an unusual trait for a hero to have and I just think it's kind of creepy that we (including me of course) still like him as much as we do.

But he started with the head too. After he cuts the head off, I guarantee the victim is pretty dead.

Absolutely. The only brand of justice that Dexter likes to practice is the kind that ends in murder. He wouldn't bother about framing a rapist or a corrupt politician. If he can't kill the criminal, forget it, he's not interested. And why let the criminal be convicted if Dexter can get him out of prison with a blood spatter report and kill him later? Dexter likes it that the solve rate for murders in Miami is only 20% and that "Florida prisons kick free 25,000 inmates a year. They don't do that for me, but it sure feels like it." And let's not forget that bloodless bodies of prostitutes are beautiful. He was very happy when the Ice Truck Killer killed someone. He didn't care about his innocent victims. Dexter couldn't be happier about Doakes's death, but the hypocrite dared to show his picture to Lila before killing her. Do we like him?

During the first season, the psychiatrist was definitely alive and so was the choir director. Second season, Jimenez. I just assumed it was his MO with all his other victims including the coyote. Dexter sliced the carotid artery of the coyote's wife because he didn't have enough time to kill both of them the way he usually does.

He seemed to change his MO for the second season. He stabbed the voodoo guy, Little Chino, and the car saleman in the heart.


Cutting someone's head off while they are still alive seems like torture to me.

Yes, but it's not as bad as it would be if he cut the legs and the arms first, for instance.

I think we're splitting hairs here :) I also got the impression that he mutilated them while they were still alive.

Not likely, most of the victims died soon. Here is a list of victims and killing methods:
- Mike Donovan: Dexter cut his head off with a saw.
- Jamie Jaworsky: ?
- Drunk driver: it's not shown how he died. Dexter might have tortured him, because in his last scene he was alive and Dexter had already stabbed him once.
- Jorge Castillo: ?
- Valerie Castillo: Dexter cut her neck, Ice Truck Killer style. She must have died very fast.
- Dr. Meridian: Dexter cut his head off with a saw.
- Brian: Dexter cut his neck.
- Little Chino: Dexter stabbed him and he stopped moving.
- Car salesman: Dexter stabbed him and immediately he looked dead.
- Copycat killer: ?
- Jimenez: let's forget the bar fight. What are a few bruises and broken ribs anyway? Dexter cut his head off with a chainsaw.
- Harlow: probably he wasn't even conscious when he died.
- Two drug dealers: Dexter shot one, not sure about the other.

so I'm thinking about torture and rituals. Rereading the first book where Dexter kills Jaworski. THAT was torture and I hope this is not a ritual Dexter will be exploring next season.

Yes, I remember that. In the books, Dexter is a torturer. When he killed Mike Donovan, he said Donovan would stay alive for hours after Dexter started working on him.

I've changed my mind several times about whether Dexter tortures his victims. I think that when something like torture arises, it is more or less by accident, and is over quickly- it results from his varying his method of kill. Let me explain.

Torture is something you might expect a serial killer to include in his ritual; whatever perverse enjoyment they get from killing is probably whetted by their victims suffering, right? But as can be seen from Mad Queen's list, many of Dexter's kills are very quick. So quick that it seems to be the victim's death, not their suffering, that brings satisfaction to Dexter's Dark Passenger.

The taking of a trophy (the blood slide) before death *is* a part of his ritual. So is his talking to the victim and confronting them with their crimes; this is quasi-judicial, and I suppose might be seen as torture. (But not as much as a prisoner being on trial and death row for years, and then marched down to the electric chair!) But the incidental suffering that accompanies death is just that: incidental suffering.

However, unfortunately for some of Dexter's victims, he doesn't always use the same method of execution. A lot of times he stabs someone quickly through the heart. But other times he cuts their throat- and this, while quick, might not be as quick as the heart stab. The killing of Jimenez might have had a torture aspect- but his circumstances were special.

edit: Oh, and with regard to the book: book Dexter is definitely a vivisectionist. But I don't think TV Dexter is. They shouldn't be conflated!

Cheiromancer, I am also torn about this. Some victims are dispatched quickly, others may take longer to die, and while he did stab the car salesman and finished him off quickly,that was more because he was angry at the salesman for calling Rita a C#%*.

And the blood slides, how did that come about? With First Nurse and the pimp Dexter had covered his workspace with plastic wrap we saw no signs he did take a trophy. I hope they address this next season.

Jamie Jaworski and the Copycat Killer were both done in with a whack from the cleaver. They spared us from seeing where it landed, but I assumed the first blow was a killer in both cases.

It wouldn't surprise me if he started collecting blood slides during college or med school, when he started getting comfortable in a lab setting. I wonder if he collected a different kind of trophy before then? Do serial killers ever change the kind of trophy they collect? Do they start collecting that trophy with their first kill?

I think you've put your finger on an important point. Dexter kills quicker when he's angry -- see also Jimenez, who killed his mom, and Chino, who pissed him off by getting away the first time.

This is interesting on two levels: first, Dexter may be able to toy more clinically with the victims he isn't emotionally involved with; second, what's a sociopath doing with real emotions, anyway?

Dexter claims that he only has "primitive impulses to immediate situations". I don't see anything in these situations to contradict his story.