Talk:Dexter Morgan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Food 2 the dark passenger 3 Sociopaths and Victims of Abuse 4 Reply #2 5 Reply 6 reply to above 7 reply 8 reply 9 spoilers 10 Victims 11 Reply to Above 12 Victims List = Episode List

[edit] Food

I really think we ought to include a note about how food is a huge theme in the show. I mean Dexter is almost always eating. Witchbaby 04:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any notability in this besides that a guy's gotta eat.--CyberGhostface 04:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

It's as significant as the way James Bond is particular about how his martini is prepared. Note the opening credit sequence. Fried pork. Eggs, runny. Oranges with blood-red pulp. All thematically linked to a guy who was traumatized by blood, whose work has to do with blood, and who collects blood samples as souvenirs of his victims. Dexter has no emotions, no feeling for other human beings no interest in sex or romance. It is through food that Dexter Morgan revels as a sensual being.

   Food themes also recur in the books. Dexter is fond of pork sandwiches (like Cuban sandwiches, popular in Florida). He also has an interest in doughnuts. and although the discipline of harry taught him to keep his mind sharp, in "Deeply Devoted Dexter," our hero discovers the distraction of beer.
   Dexter's gotta eat, and he's gotta kill. At a certain level, they're both the same thing. [USER: EGTea, 29 March 2007]

[edit] the dark passenger

I think that "the dark passenger" should not be an alter-ego of Dexter, he's described as a different character, one who "takes over." More along the lines of Multiple Personality Disorder, but still quite different. Seeing as different people can have a "dark passenger" of their own (Cody and Agent Doakes), it seems that it would be less of an an alias and more of... well, a mysterious personality flaw.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Trocisp (talk • contribs) 05:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Sociopaths and Victims of Abuse

1. Whoever removed the categories for sociopaths and murderers clearly has little knowledge of who Dexter is. Dexter is clearly a sociopath. One of the driving factors of his narrative is his inability to feel normal, human emotions. He does care for people, but on a distant level. Heck, several times in the novel he refers to himself as a sociopath. What other proof do you need?
2. I removed 'victims of abuse'. While I won't spoil anything for those who have not yet finished the novel, what happened to Dexter (while very traumatic) was not abuse.--CyberGhostface 00:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reply #2

I have finished the novel, and I disagree. To explain in detail would be a spoiler.

It can be argued that Dexter Morgan is a psychopath. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) provides definitions in which the traits of psychopathy and sociopathy overlap somewhat. What psychopaths and sociopaths have in common is utter disregard for the rights and feelings of other people, an ability to be superficially charming and a lack of remorse in whatever they do. All of these traits are present in Dexter, but none is absolute. Either Dexter cares about *some* people, or Harry Morgan was successful in teaching him how to behave like someone who cares.

What tilts the scales to psychopath for Dexter is that sociopaths are more likely to act impulsively and erratically. Dexter is nothing if not extremely deliberate and organized.

I recently read "A Death in Belmont," Sebastian Junger's book about how racism may have sent a black man to prison for life for a murder that was out of character for this individual, but which fit the pattern of a famous serial killer who had terrorized the area for more than a year. In a chapter that defines serial killers, Junger cites experts who say that serial killers always have a sexual component in their motivations. That would be inconsistent with Dexter, who says he isn't interested in sex, and chose his girlfriend because, as a traumatized victim of domestic abuse, Rita wasn't interested in sex either (only her uninterest took the form of "I'm not ready for that *yet*. Please be patient.")

[edit] Reply

While such qualities do certainly make a person a sociopath, that's not the issue here He is listed as both a sociopath and a psychopath, which is not possible. The terms sociopath and psychopath are often used interchangeably, but they are not the same thing. They are two separate (if very similar) psychological conditions; why else do you think that antisocial personality disorder and psychopathy each have their own distinct entry in this very encyclopedia? Oh, and it also stands to reason that a serial killer is a murderer, so why list a character as both? Treybien 19:42 15 October 2006 (UTC)

He actually said in the book something along the lines of "I'm a sociopath but not a psychopath". So if anything would have to be removed, it would be the latter. And all serial killers are murderers, but not all murderers are serial killers. While it may seem redundant to have similar categories, they are important for people for searching through the categories.--CyberGhostface 10:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] reply to above

Why do I think sociopathy and psychopathy are defined differently in this very encyclopedia? I could point out that this very encyclopedia is written and edited by amateurs, and people who don't know what they write about are not excluded to any great degree.

That being said, I would agree on reflection that Dexter is more of a sociopath because his behavior fails the so-called McNaughten standard, also known as the "cop in the room" rule. By this standard, a true psychopathic killer would kill whenever the impulse came upon him, because he couldn't help himself. Such a psychopath wouldn't plan his crimes, he wouldn't care about getting away with the crime. A psychopath would follow his impulse, even if he was aware that a police officer was standing next to him while he did it. I think we can agree that Dexter Morgan can control his "Dark Passenger" to such a degree that he wouldn't kill anyone if there was a cop in the room. Therefore, Dexter is not a psychopath, but a sociopath who does what he does because it's what he wants.

A simpler rule is: a psychopath is sick. A sociopath is evil.

[edit] reply

Actually, sociopath and psychopath are interchangeable words, synonyms. I think Dexter uses sociopath to imply someone who can blend seamlessly into society while a psychopath can't. ~Clenching Teeth Toast Guy

[edit] reply

No, psychopathy and sociopathy are not the same thing, although the definitions overlap somewhat. The legal definition of insanity (which is not psychological terminology) is the inability to distinguish right from wrong. A psychopath cannot perceive how society's standards may apply to his behavior. A sociopath, on the other hand, knows the rules, knows he's wtong, and doesn't care.

[edit] spoilers

I inserted the words (contains spoilers) to the "Character history" header because the fact that Dexter Morgan has a brother was not revealed until the climax of "Darkly Dreaming Dexter" and would spoil the ending for both readers and viewers of the television series as of this writing. For this same reason I woud not recommend adding the names of Brian or Dexter's biological father ("Driscoll?") to the family list

Wikipedia contains spoilers. And in the future you should add the proper spoiler template.--CyberGhostface 19:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Victims

Was it really necessary to remove the victims table? It is, I think, encyclopedic and interesting. --Mister Six 09:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

How is it encyclopedic? Victim pages have been removed from other articles on account of them being unencyclopedic.--CyberGhostface 19:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I'mn working on the principle that 'encyclopedic' = 'comprehensive and relevant'. Which, you know, it is: the guy's a serial killer in a series that mainly focuses on him and his killings (unlike, say, The Silence of the Lambs, which focuses more on the serial killer's world), so listing his victims seems extremely relevant to me. I just don't see an argument for removing it. I don't know what other pages you're referring to, so I can't comment on them, but in the case of Dexter Morgan, a character in an episodoic TV show, I think it's certainly relevant. Feel free to call for a public vote or something, because right now it's one person versus another and I don't see why your opinion outweighs mine. Unless, of course, you can refer to a specific Wikipedia rule that overrides it (ie: something applicable to this situation, rather than something that happened on another page) I'd appreciate you leaving it up. --Mister Six 11:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

And who his specific victims are contributes what exactly to his character? All that needs to be said is the type of person he kills. Adding stuff like "In Episode 606 Dexter kills Joe Bloe because he ate babies" is just trivia and fancruft. Look at other articles for serial killers. For example, in Jigsaw Killer someone attempted to add a list of his victims. This was removed on account of it being unencyclopediac.

Also keep in mind that first and foremost Dexter is a character from novels, and this article seems to be writing about the novel's character and continuity. So adding TV information seems out of place.--CyberGhostface 20:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

So what about putting it in the Dexter TV show section? --Mister Six 21:48, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I guess if you could make it like the list of Deaths in the Sopranos articles.--CyberGhostface 21:59, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, since the list of victims would be different for the TV series and for the novels, it would be more appropriate to have separate lists connected to the entries for the separate versions. This article needs to remain neutral between the two versions.24.13.222.219 20:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reply to Above

The above argument makes Jeff Lindsay sound like a victim, whose literary character Dexter Morgan is being disfigured by its development for a television series. I can only presume from the lack of any news of copyright infringement litigation that the people who developed the "Dexter" TV show are doing so with Mr. Lindsay's permission. This "don't molest a novel character" stuff is what's out of place. It's provincial and not in touch with how the masses experience fiction today.

It is legitimate to discuss the character's TV development, if only to point out how it differs from the novels. For example, a major good-guy character dies in the first novel, and a bad guy escapes. At the comparable point in the TV plot, the same good guy lives and the same bad guy dies. That's worth discussing, no matter which side of the argument you side with.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.35.82.78 (talk • contribs).

A.) What makes your argument so special that it deserves its own section? (This goes for everyone here who feels the need to make one reply to a previous post in its own section) B.) Whose argument are you replying to? No one has discussed Lindsay's novel being molested. And your complaints about how it differs from the novel is lacking from this article is fruitless: the main article for the TV show has a detailed section that tells how the show differs from major events to minor changes. C.)If what you're complaining about is the missing table for Dexter's victims...it has NOTHING to do with Lindsay's novel being 'molested'. Even if used information from the book, it'd still be trivial and unencyclopediac to list the fictiona victims of a fictional serial killer. I don't see Freddy Krueger or Otis B. Driftwood having their own table filled with victims and how they were dispatched?--CyberGhostface 20:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't complaining about the lack of a victims' table. I don't care about such a table one way or the other. If I were to make an argument based on the question "Why Dexter and not Freddy Krueger?" it would be that, unlike Freddy, Dexter Morgan's victims are not innocents who happened to stumble into the den of the monster. Dexter Morgan is, by his own description, a monster, but he follows a code by which he doesn't kill the undeserving. His victims generally get more character development than the typical victim in a teen slasher movie. It's no fun to watch Dexter kill if you don't agree his victim deserves to die.

And my writings deserve to get a header for the same reason as anyone else who edits Wikipedia: Because I made a header. Asking why is silly.

Dexter doesn't kill the undeserving? That depends on if you're familar with the books, where on two occasions he's let innocent people get murdered and mutilated with indifference. But thats beside the point. The argument that "Well, Dexter kills evil people and Freddy doesn't so therefore they deserve their own section" doesn't make much sense, nor that the his victims get more development. Shit, except for the teen that was raped, I can't think of a single victim that had any complexity.

Discussing changes between two medias in an article dedicated to the show is relevant and encyclopediac. A list of victims saying "So and so got killed by Dexter" is not.

As for the headers...FIVE people made their own sections for their own reply. All that served to do is clutter up the page and it make overlong and unwieldy. Make your reply in the appropiate discussion. Simple wiki-quette (or wiki-ettiqutte or whatever the nickname is).--CyberGhostface 23:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Victims List = Episode List

There's a List of Episodes which looks like there's room for another column in which we could list "Dexter's Victims" for each episode. That would put all of the victims in the TV series in one place, so we wouldn't need to have a list here as well. Likewise there could be a list of victims in each book on the page for that book. Sound like a good way to handle the differences? 24.13.222.219 04:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it could be like List_of_deaths_in_The_Sopranos_series. I still don't think they're relevant enough for their own page but I guess that would be a way to handle the differences of opinion.--CyberGhostface 23:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)