(no subject)

[icedark_elf]

Just finished the Dexter books. At least the first three. If there are more, I haven't seen them.

Haven't seen the show based off them, but I like the books. Dexter is fun to read, as he seems so confused by people so often, and I like how he interacts with other killers. It's fun to read.

Now I need to see the show, though I'm told it's not as good as the books.

Comments

[mathematagi.insanejournal.com]

I've seen the show and am reading the books. I enjoyed the first season a lot, but the second season is a bit weird, though I do love it's major premise. It's the minor storylines that irk me. Still, I highly recommend it.

[arin_rowan.insanejournal.com]

The show is in both more and less realistic than the books. They go into more depth about the other characters, and sort of competely change the personalities of several characters- for example, Deb. It also got rid of the twin cliche. But it definitely has its moments.
One thing the show does that the books don't is show Dexter's psychopathy as an illness with the potenial to be cured- as in, his psychopathy is a reaction to an extremely traumatic event that happened in his childhood, and his inability to experience emotion or connect with others is a result of that trauma. Over the course of the first season, Dexter deals with some of this trauma, and seems to be becoming more emotionally healthy. (Still killing people, but actually experiencing emotions).
Another thing it does that I like is the emphasis that no matter how good Dexter is at acting normal, there are some things he just *can't* get from only being a watcher. One example- one of his colleagues is worried about giving his wife a gift for their anniversary. He keeps asking Dexter if he thinks she'll like a piece of jewelry. Instead of reassuring him, Dexter studies it, and gives a completely unintentional "the emperor's butt-naked" esque comment.