What do you think?
Rate this book
Popular Culture and Philosophy #58
Dexter and Philosophy: Mind over Spatter
What explains the huge popular following for Dexter , currently the most-watched show on cable, which sympathetically depicts a serial killer driven by a cruel compulsion to brutally slay one victim after another?
Although Dexter Morgan kills only killers, he is not a vigilante animated by a sense of justice but a charming psychopath animated by a lust to kill, ritualistically and bloodily. However his gory appetite is controlled by “Harry’s Code,” which limits his victims to those who have gotten away with murder, and his job as a blood spatter expert for the Miami police department gives him the inside track on just who those legitimate targets may be.
In Dexter and Philosophy , an elite team of philosophers don their rubber gloves and put Dexter’s deeds under the microscope. Since Dexter is driven to ritual murder by his “Dark Passenger,” can he be blamed for killing, especially as he only murders other murderers? Does Dexter fit the profile of the familiar fictional type of the superhero? What part does luck play in making Dexter who he is? How and why are horror and disgust turned into aesthetic pleasure for the TV viewer? How essential is Dexter’s emotional coldness to his lust for slicing people up? Are Dexter’s lies and deceptions any worse than the lies and deceptions of the non-criminals around him? Why does Dexter long to be a normal human being and why can’t he accomplish this apparently simple goal?
Although Dexter Morgan kills only killers, he is not a vigilante animated by a sense of justice but a charming psychopath animated by a lust to kill, ritualistically and bloodily. However his gory appetite is controlled by “Harry’s Code,” which limits his victims to those who have gotten away with murder, and his job as a blood spatter expert for the Miami police department gives him the inside track on just who those legitimate targets may be.
In Dexter and Philosophy , an elite team of philosophers don their rubber gloves and put Dexter’s deeds under the microscope. Since Dexter is driven to ritual murder by his “Dark Passenger,” can he be blamed for killing, especially as he only murders other murderers? Does Dexter fit the profile of the familiar fictional type of the superhero? What part does luck play in making Dexter who he is? How and why are horror and disgust turned into aesthetic pleasure for the TV viewer? How essential is Dexter’s emotional coldness to his lust for slicing people up? Are Dexter’s lies and deceptions any worse than the lies and deceptions of the non-criminals around him? Why does Dexter long to be a normal human being and why can’t he accomplish this apparently simple goal?
293 pages, Paperback
First published April 12, 2011
24 people are currently reading
519 people want to read
About the author
Richard V. Greene
7 books7 followersRichard V. Greene is a Professor of Philosophy at Weber State University. He is involved with research in metaphysics, the history of modern philosophy, medical ethics, and philosophical topics related to pop culture. He is also the Executive Director of the Society for Skeptical Studies, a philosophical society formed to promote discussion and research on topics related to skepticism.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews
July 19, 2022
dexter really just wanted human connection and, of course, as one author delightfully puts it, “the poor boy just wanted to kill things” 🥺🔪
content/trigger warnings; ableism, r slur variant, sanism, murder discussed, rape discussed, torture discussed, child abuse discussed, pedophilia discussed, trauma discussed, racism discussed,
i have what one might call strong feelings about dexter. and this book brought them all out. one star goes to how much the book made me want to rewatch dexter, which i am now doing. 📺
before i get into the main event (dexter’s emotions, nature vs nurture, and psychopathy) let’s start with some basics about the book;
i really enjoy the short essays separated into short sections, it made the reading feel easier and quicker. it’s a relief that it’s about the excellent show and not the books (because really, we don’t know those books). for the most part, the essays aren’t bogged down by all the explanation of the philosophy they’re using to analyze dexter, but some do have entire pages dedicated to that. some essays stand out, such as examining dexter’s whiteness, touching on the show’s representation of women, and dexter being more punisher than killer.
and of course, i love (read: find hilarious) that things like this even need to be said: “there’s no contradiction between passionately wanting a fictional character not to get caught and quite decidedly wanting his real-life counterparts to get caught” and “a work of art is not a manual of ethics or self-help. if you find this too tricky to wrap your head around, maybe it’ll be safer for all of us if you stay away from fiction.” i mean, who is genuinely stressing about their morals because they enjoy dexter??? 😭
i don’t like how repetitive it is, especially considering the endless possibilities of topics. another bummer is it was published before season six, so all analysis is incomplete. and there a few inaccurate details that irk me in books like this, because shouldn’t y’all know the basics?
now, the intertwining topics of dexter’s emotions/empathy, nature vs nurture, and psychopathy;
a common basis for analysis in these essays is the belief that dexter doesn’t have emotions, feelings, empathy, humanity, etc. (all kind of used interchangeably), which is usually summed up in dexter being called a psychopath or sociopath. it’s treated as definite truth to the point where authors who mention times when dexter displays these things assert that he doesn’t have them. but just because the show tells us dexter doesn’t have emotions, doesn’t mean we should ignore when it shows us that he does.
(an aside, one author dives into what an emotion even is and it’s a mess of contradiction and fundamental misunderstanding of how emotions work that seems to only serve to negate the canon emotions dexter displays by arguing they aren’t actually emotions. the author even bizarrely describes pets as emotionless.)
(another aside, a lot of essays wrongly state psychopath/sociopath is a diagnosis, equate serial killers with several mental disorders that real non-murderers have, and play into the sensationalized and counterproductive narrative that falsely equates psychopathy with murder/evil/violence and an inability to feel or change. there is just so much inherent ableism in the use mental disorders and mentally ill people as scapegoats for murder/evil.)
so, dexter’s emotions. he has felt love for his kids, sister, rita, and hannah. he was afraid of hurting them, afraid of getting caught. he longed for friendship/acceptance, was disappointed when it didn’t work out. he was remorseful and regretted killing an innocent. he was guilty over rita and deb’s deaths. he experienced emotional discomfort at funerals. he passion attacked rita’s ex. he committed a passion kill and broke down after rita’s death. he cried when he killed brian. he had an emotional reaction to a flashback to his mother’s murder. he is often angry, irritated, annoyed, confused, and bored. he also exhibited emotions as a kid/teen/young adult. (no doubt there are more examples, but you get the point.)
even when it comes to the code, dexter followed it less because of values or morals, and more because of emotions. his adherence to the code was as much about survival as it was the emotional memory of harry (and in the awful revival, that of deb), shown in him respecting and honoring harry and trying to live up to what harry wanted him to be (and in the tragic revival, it’s guilt, remorse, and shame regarding deb’s death).
with empathy in particular, not “appropriately” reacting to, literally feeling, and/or understanding other people’s emotions (three different types of empathy) doesn’t make you bad, evil, abusive, inconsiderate, inhuman, etc. but dexter does exhibit empathy. with brian, jeremy, hannah, rita, deb, and harrison, he understood and related to how they felt or reacted “appropriately” to them. he even empathized with various characters, often victims. in the first season, he said “i can understand their pain.” there are plenty of examples where he struggled with empathy, but they don’t negate the plenty of examples where he didn’t.
(plenty of neurodivergent people lack or struggle with empathy and that doesn’t make them bad. lacking empathy does not equate to being bad or doing bad things. being able to feel, understand, or “properly” react to other people’s emotions isn’t what makes people bad or do bad things. lack of empathy is just another ableist scapegoat for bad behavior.)
dexter’s childhood trauma did not strip him of emotions, it traumatized him and instead of getting him literally any kind of professional help, harry repeatedly told him he’s a monster, not normal, incapable of emotions, and molded him into the perfect killer. which dexter very clearly internalized well into adulthood, to the point where he didn’t realize or understand when he was having an emotion.
and let’s be clear. harry had no reason to believe dexter, as a kid/teen, was beyond help or change and was doomed to become a serial killer. childhood trauma, even as severe as dexter’s, does not equate to future murderer. he is a cop, not a doctor, that wasn’t his call to make. dexter was in his care, and he took advantage of him. even the disappointing revival acknowledges, through the manifestation of dexter’s conscience in deb, that what harry did to dexter was child abuse.
there’s no reason to believe that dexter was predetermined to be a serial killer, or that he wouldn’t have been able to change or stop or help himself. i think this belief, in part, comes from people needing a way to separate people like dexter from everyone else. they can’t fathom anything other than a fundamental and inexorable difference. but dexter wasn’t born the way he was, and we know he was capable of not doing what he did.
(he went almost a decade on his own without killing, as we learn in the pointless revival. so if he had been able to not kill for almost ten years, after two decades of killing, imagine if he had gotten help as a child before he ever killed. he might’ve turned out to be a very different person.)
the idea that dexter couldn’t help himself, that he had no other option, and therefor isn’t responsible makes no sense. he only started killing people, years after the urge appeared, under harry’s direct orders. harry actively cultivated dexter’s interest in and desire to kill. he went almost a decade without. he could help himself. some authors argued dexter’s “illness” (what illness idk since he’s never diagnosed as anything) made killing beyond his control, but “illnesses” are varying degrees of treatable/manageable. so ultimately, dexter chose to kill and is responsible for that. seems obvious, but here we are.
other notes;
— “most people would never consider a murderer a pillar of moral virtue” idk most people never question the moral virtue of state sanctioned murder so
— “that’s also how killers are able to elude the police for years; they look and act like everyone else to the world at large” yeah i’m sure it has nothing to do with institutionalized incompetence
— “murderers, and others who have suffered catastrophic, traumatic losses” super weird to put those in the same category
— one author separates dexter and spock from us by saying they are logical and have values but are emotionless, but then says emotions are logical and based in one’s values. which would mean dexter and spock are fully capable of emotions after all. i’m confusion.
— “if sexuality is a key to understanding someone’s psychology, then dexter is in danger of being exposed as a killer if others realize his personal life is a little unorthodox” it is very much not normal to think someone is a serial killer because they aren’t interested in sex oh my god
— “the ripper is more legend than fact. the press, with the connivance of the police, conspired to pad his resume by crediting him with murders committed by several different unconnected people” you can talk about how any somewhat similar murder at the time was attributed to jack the ripper, and how the media fear mongering and sensationalism and ultimately unsolved nature of the murders played into the narrative of jack the ripper, but to say jack the ripper is more legend than fact is super gross. regardless of five women’s murders being reasonably linked together as jack the ripper’s only victims, regardless of whether you believe “jack the ripper” was actually one person or several people who were intentionally amalgamated, the fact is that women were hunted and brutally slaughtered. it’s not a fucking conspiracy. so asinine and reductive.
and that’s about it. thank you so much. ✌
content/trigger warnings; ableism, r slur variant, sanism, murder discussed, rape discussed, torture discussed, child abuse discussed, pedophilia discussed, trauma discussed, racism discussed,
i have what one might call strong feelings about dexter. and this book brought them all out. one star goes to how much the book made me want to rewatch dexter, which i am now doing. 📺
before i get into the main event (dexter’s emotions, nature vs nurture, and psychopathy) let’s start with some basics about the book;
i really enjoy the short essays separated into short sections, it made the reading feel easier and quicker. it’s a relief that it’s about the excellent show and not the books (because really, we don’t know those books). for the most part, the essays aren’t bogged down by all the explanation of the philosophy they’re using to analyze dexter, but some do have entire pages dedicated to that. some essays stand out, such as examining dexter’s whiteness, touching on the show’s representation of women, and dexter being more punisher than killer.
and of course, i love (read: find hilarious) that things like this even need to be said: “there’s no contradiction between passionately wanting a fictional character not to get caught and quite decidedly wanting his real-life counterparts to get caught” and “a work of art is not a manual of ethics or self-help. if you find this too tricky to wrap your head around, maybe it’ll be safer for all of us if you stay away from fiction.” i mean, who is genuinely stressing about their morals because they enjoy dexter??? 😭
i don’t like how repetitive it is, especially considering the endless possibilities of topics. another bummer is it was published before season six, so all analysis is incomplete. and there a few inaccurate details that irk me in books like this, because shouldn’t y’all know the basics?
now, the intertwining topics of dexter’s emotions/empathy, nature vs nurture, and psychopathy;
a common basis for analysis in these essays is the belief that dexter doesn’t have emotions, feelings, empathy, humanity, etc. (all kind of used interchangeably), which is usually summed up in dexter being called a psychopath or sociopath. it’s treated as definite truth to the point where authors who mention times when dexter displays these things assert that he doesn’t have them. but just because the show tells us dexter doesn’t have emotions, doesn’t mean we should ignore when it shows us that he does.
(an aside, one author dives into what an emotion even is and it’s a mess of contradiction and fundamental misunderstanding of how emotions work that seems to only serve to negate the canon emotions dexter displays by arguing they aren’t actually emotions. the author even bizarrely describes pets as emotionless.)
(another aside, a lot of essays wrongly state psychopath/sociopath is a diagnosis, equate serial killers with several mental disorders that real non-murderers have, and play into the sensationalized and counterproductive narrative that falsely equates psychopathy with murder/evil/violence and an inability to feel or change. there is just so much inherent ableism in the use mental disorders and mentally ill people as scapegoats for murder/evil.)
so, dexter’s emotions. he has felt love for his kids, sister, rita, and hannah. he was afraid of hurting them, afraid of getting caught. he longed for friendship/acceptance, was disappointed when it didn’t work out. he was remorseful and regretted killing an innocent. he was guilty over rita and deb’s deaths. he experienced emotional discomfort at funerals. he passion attacked rita’s ex. he committed a passion kill and broke down after rita’s death. he cried when he killed brian. he had an emotional reaction to a flashback to his mother’s murder. he is often angry, irritated, annoyed, confused, and bored. he also exhibited emotions as a kid/teen/young adult. (no doubt there are more examples, but you get the point.)
even when it comes to the code, dexter followed it less because of values or morals, and more because of emotions. his adherence to the code was as much about survival as it was the emotional memory of harry (and in the awful revival, that of deb), shown in him respecting and honoring harry and trying to live up to what harry wanted him to be (and in the tragic revival, it’s guilt, remorse, and shame regarding deb’s death).
with empathy in particular, not “appropriately” reacting to, literally feeling, and/or understanding other people’s emotions (three different types of empathy) doesn’t make you bad, evil, abusive, inconsiderate, inhuman, etc. but dexter does exhibit empathy. with brian, jeremy, hannah, rita, deb, and harrison, he understood and related to how they felt or reacted “appropriately” to them. he even empathized with various characters, often victims. in the first season, he said “i can understand their pain.” there are plenty of examples where he struggled with empathy, but they don’t negate the plenty of examples where he didn’t.
(plenty of neurodivergent people lack or struggle with empathy and that doesn’t make them bad. lacking empathy does not equate to being bad or doing bad things. being able to feel, understand, or “properly” react to other people’s emotions isn’t what makes people bad or do bad things. lack of empathy is just another ableist scapegoat for bad behavior.)
dexter’s childhood trauma did not strip him of emotions, it traumatized him and instead of getting him literally any kind of professional help, harry repeatedly told him he’s a monster, not normal, incapable of emotions, and molded him into the perfect killer. which dexter very clearly internalized well into adulthood, to the point where he didn’t realize or understand when he was having an emotion.
and let’s be clear. harry had no reason to believe dexter, as a kid/teen, was beyond help or change and was doomed to become a serial killer. childhood trauma, even as severe as dexter’s, does not equate to future murderer. he is a cop, not a doctor, that wasn’t his call to make. dexter was in his care, and he took advantage of him. even the disappointing revival acknowledges, through the manifestation of dexter’s conscience in deb, that what harry did to dexter was child abuse.
there’s no reason to believe that dexter was predetermined to be a serial killer, or that he wouldn’t have been able to change or stop or help himself. i think this belief, in part, comes from people needing a way to separate people like dexter from everyone else. they can’t fathom anything other than a fundamental and inexorable difference. but dexter wasn’t born the way he was, and we know he was capable of not doing what he did.
(he went almost a decade on his own without killing, as we learn in the pointless revival. so if he had been able to not kill for almost ten years, after two decades of killing, imagine if he had gotten help as a child before he ever killed. he might’ve turned out to be a very different person.)
the idea that dexter couldn’t help himself, that he had no other option, and therefor isn’t responsible makes no sense. he only started killing people, years after the urge appeared, under harry’s direct orders. harry actively cultivated dexter’s interest in and desire to kill. he went almost a decade without. he could help himself. some authors argued dexter’s “illness” (what illness idk since he’s never diagnosed as anything) made killing beyond his control, but “illnesses” are varying degrees of treatable/manageable. so ultimately, dexter chose to kill and is responsible for that. seems obvious, but here we are.
other notes;
— “most people would never consider a murderer a pillar of moral virtue” idk most people never question the moral virtue of state sanctioned murder so
— “that’s also how killers are able to elude the police for years; they look and act like everyone else to the world at large” yeah i’m sure it has nothing to do with institutionalized incompetence
— “murderers, and others who have suffered catastrophic, traumatic losses” super weird to put those in the same category
— one author separates dexter and spock from us by saying they are logical and have values but are emotionless, but then says emotions are logical and based in one’s values. which would mean dexter and spock are fully capable of emotions after all. i’m confusion.
— “if sexuality is a key to understanding someone’s psychology, then dexter is in danger of being exposed as a killer if others realize his personal life is a little unorthodox” it is very much not normal to think someone is a serial killer because they aren’t interested in sex oh my god
— “the ripper is more legend than fact. the press, with the connivance of the police, conspired to pad his resume by crediting him with murders committed by several different unconnected people” you can talk about how any somewhat similar murder at the time was attributed to jack the ripper, and how the media fear mongering and sensationalism and ultimately unsolved nature of the murders played into the narrative of jack the ripper, but to say jack the ripper is more legend than fact is super gross. regardless of five women’s murders being reasonably linked together as jack the ripper’s only victims, regardless of whether you believe “jack the ripper” was actually one person or several people who were intentionally amalgamated, the fact is that women were hunted and brutally slaughtered. it’s not a fucking conspiracy. so asinine and reductive.
and that’s about it. thank you so much. ✌
November 27, 2011
In general, I liked it. It should definitely not be read if you have not already seen Seasons 1-5 as it will spoil a great many things (and it doesn't warn you either). Thankfully, I'm very current on my Dexter. Some of the essays felt like I was reading the same thing but by a different person and I can practically quote verbatim some of the lines that came up again and again. There was an interesting one about the invisibility of whiteness, a commentary on the lack of support the female characters get, and my favorites, the ones by David Ramsay Steele. The blurbs at the end of the book about each contributor are surprisingly funny.
Overall, I enjoyed it, but I kind of felt like it would have been better as a coffee table book (though I can never really do piecemeal reading) in which each essay was read at your leisure instead of straight through.
Overall, I enjoyed it, but I kind of felt like it would have been better as a coffee table book (though I can never really do piecemeal reading) in which each essay was read at your leisure instead of straight through.
November 20, 2013
Somewhat interesting collection of philosophical essays addressing our fascination and love for this television series featuring a serial killer, Dexter Morgan, as the central figure. Why do we like Dexter? Why do we want him to not get caught? How does he draw us in to see all of who Dexter is and understand, perhaps condone, his addiction to killing. Of course Harry's "code" adds an element of reason we can live with and sometimes cheer him on.
A few of the entries were well done and thought provoking. Some were more of the same, and some I felt were not particularly interesting.
A few of the entries were well done and thought provoking. Some were more of the same, and some I felt were not particularly interesting.
March 12, 2013
186 - 2013
August 30, 2014
This is more of a collector's item than a good read. I feel like someone is explaining the most obvious things to me. Not that interesting but 20 years from now maybe it'll be worth my time.
April 29, 2011
Library Journal Review:
If I identify with a serial killer, what does that say about me? Every fan of Dexter has pondered this rather complex philosophical question. In this latest volume in the "Popular Culture and Philosophy" series, a broad collection of philosophers analyze the morality and ethics of Dexter Morgan. Whereas other subjects in this series require some mental dexterity to connect the two themes (The Red Sox and Philosophy, for example), the popular Showtime program is ripe for philosophical dissection. Greene, George A. Reisch, and Rachel Robison-Greene, who have all edited other volumes in the series, compile essays that apply Mill's Method of Difference in comparing Dexter's emotionless demeanor to that of Star Trek's Spock, Sartre's existentialism in exploring Dexter's Dark Passenger, and the deontological lens to explain Dexter's adherence to Harry's Code. The philosophical canon is aimed squarely at Dexter Morgan. Though certainly interlaced with philosophical insight, each chapter is written by an author who is clearly also a fan of the show.
Verdict Devotees of the television program will find this philosophical examination both illuminating and entertaining.—Joshua Finnell, Denison Univ. Lib., Granville, OH
If I identify with a serial killer, what does that say about me? Every fan of Dexter has pondered this rather complex philosophical question. In this latest volume in the "Popular Culture and Philosophy" series, a broad collection of philosophers analyze the morality and ethics of Dexter Morgan. Whereas other subjects in this series require some mental dexterity to connect the two themes (The Red Sox and Philosophy, for example), the popular Showtime program is ripe for philosophical dissection. Greene, George A. Reisch, and Rachel Robison-Greene, who have all edited other volumes in the series, compile essays that apply Mill's Method of Difference in comparing Dexter's emotionless demeanor to that of Star Trek's Spock, Sartre's existentialism in exploring Dexter's Dark Passenger, and the deontological lens to explain Dexter's adherence to Harry's Code. The philosophical canon is aimed squarely at Dexter Morgan. Though certainly interlaced with philosophical insight, each chapter is written by an author who is clearly also a fan of the show.
Verdict Devotees of the television program will find this philosophical examination both illuminating and entertaining.—Joshua Finnell, Denison Univ. Lib., Granville, OH
October 20, 2011
Is Dexter an angel of justice, a tortured victim of a trauma from childhood, an amoral psychopath or a tragic superhero? This is one of the many questions philosophers around the country cover in this book. This is a great book for fans of the show and should only be read if you have seen the first four seasons of Dexter. In the end this is another solid book in the Pop Culture and Philosophy book series.
August 6, 2014
I am a big fan of this series of books and a big fan of Dexter, so it's hard not to like a book. The only slightly down-side to this one is that pretty much all philosophical discussions surrounding Dexter are ethical ones, and this isn't the case with most books in the series. The most interesting essays for me, were the last few that dealt with the issue of why we cheer for Dexter, and is it okay to do so.
August 16, 2012
A book of multiple essays about America's favorite TV killer. Essays delve into the philosophical and psychological aspect of the show and some of the essays will blow your mind and make your head spin.
October 17, 2011
Interesting, but repetitive, and I got bored.
Read
July 31, 2012never finished.
October 31, 2013
Very boring. The writing styles vary chapter to chapter, making it an erratic read.
April 10, 2018
So far this has been my least favorite of the pop culture and philosophy books that I've read. The essays within each section felt very repetitive.
August 15, 2020
Open Court’s Popular Culture and Philosophy team takes on Miami’s favorite serial killer in Dexter and Philosophy: Mind Over Spatter. Featuring 25 articles, various authors analyze whether Dexter is responsible for his actions, if his killing of killers is moral, why audiences sympathize with him, and much, much more. One or two of the essays fall a little flat, but the rest prove to be tantalizingly intriguing and quite engaging. And even though most of the discussions center on whether Dexter and his Code are moral, each author comes at it in a unique and interesting way. Additionally, they stay especially focused on the show and avoid getting bogged down in explaining concepts and theories – making the discussions remarkably conversational and easy to grasp. One of the best entries in the Pop Culture series, Dexter and Philosophy: Mind Over Splatter is a fun and entertaining read.
February 20, 2023
It took me forever to get through this because I could only take it in small sections at a time. Too repetitive and too many typos.
June 20, 2024
In my opinion, the use of Nietzsche by the essays of Deborah Mellamphy (Chapter 21) and James Pontuso (Chapter 23) to be the most insightful of all.
July 21, 2024
“Following the rules may lead you to do things that seem wrong or even ridiculously wrong.” —M. Carmela Epright & Sarah E. Worth, pp. 126–127
April 22, 2014
Like some of it, didn't like some it. A bit repetitive. Shorter would have made it better.
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews