Dexter - Left Turn Ahead and The British Invasion

[selenak]

Reviewing not just "Left Turn head", but the season finale, "The British Invasion", as well, but will leave spoiler space before getting to the later, so Left Turn Ahead only watchers can click away in time.



The previous episode pulled the rug under the viewer who had grown comfortable with and adjusted to Dexter’s particular brand of serial killing, and let’s face it, that describes most if not all of the audience. This one arguably shows Dexter at his most human, coming close to redemption, and I didn’t even think that was a question or on the offering on this show – but then it pulls away the rug again, and in an even more devastating way. (More about that later.) Whether or not Dexter can stop being a serial killer was an ongoing question this season, with the additional complication that when he did stop for a while, the personality that emerged was anything but sympathetic. In this episode, however, the alternative to being a serial killer is something else. “Turn yourself in,” says Doakes – Doakes, who saw the inhumanity in Dexter when no one else did, and hated him for years! – and it’s to the credit of both writing and acting that this is believable, as is Dexter contemplating the idea for most of the episode. Taking steps towards it – setting up a will, spending one “last day” with Rita and the kids, making his goodbyes – and then faltering and changing his mind. This, too, is believable, if you look not just at Dexter’s history but his motivation. He does realize he’s framing an innocent man, and that this is the same thing Lila does to Angel.

(Sidenote: if last season, Dexter’s most touching line was “but I am…fond of her” re: Deb, this season it’s “if I could be anyone, any real person, it would be you” to Angel.)

Lila, who is a problematic character by herself but as an element of the narrative makes sense because it’s Lila who presents us with the unprettifyed, stripped of all deadpan voice overs and other endearing attributes selfishness of Dexter, which she embodies. You can wonder through the episode whether Dexter getting closer to turning himself in is motivated by a sense of justice, compassion for Doakes (who shows compassion for Dexter when he thinks for a second that Dexter is going to kill himself, as the tone of his voice when he says “Morgan, you’re not gonna…” demonstrates), or even fatalism. But in the end, it’s none of this. It’s guilt over Harry, and the moment Dexter is able to replace Harry with Deb, who, as he says “believes in me”, he decides to continue with his frame job, and to let Doakes rot and die for him. Dexter’s feelings for Deb, Rita and the children are real enough, and you could probably add Angel, too, but that’s as far as it goes. What makes him rethink his choice in the end isn’t some unsatiable killing urge, either. It’s putting his own life ahead of Doakes’, plain and simple, and with that, the code is broken.

Meanwhile, the other Morgan sibling is on an upward swing. Deb has been on a great journey this season, starting out shattered and traumatized by the Rudy experience, and then getting her groove and her life back, bit for bit. While the relationship with Lundy helped, and she loves her brother deeply, her self-esteem doesn’t rely on the validation by either. She’s starting to move into the protector role, finding a way to help Angel via police work (in the previous season, that kind of thing would have been left to Dexter), defending Lundy to his superior – being the “sheriff”, as she says, vis a vis Lila. More about Deb’s journey in the finale. For continuity lovers, there is a great irony in Dexter planning to tell her the truth over some steaks; think back to season 1 and Deb’s hurt reaction when Rudy dropped by for steaks and a chat at Dexter’s, not because she wanted Rudy for herself but because Dexter opened up to Rudy, and not her. This time, Dexter plans on opening up, but changes his mind precisely because they’re sharing. And makes the fatal analogy of Deb recovering from the Rudy experience to himself simply needing to get rid of those pesky self doubts (and Doakes) in order to be his old self again. “Maybe Harry couldn’t live with what I am, but Deb clearly believes in me.”

On balance, I probably would have preferred for him to turn himself in; it would have made for an amazing season and series finale. But maybe that would have been cheating, crediting Dexter with a nobility he simply does not have and is unable to achieve. He might be able to recognize that Angel is a good man (and that Doakes is innocent, and doesn’t deserve this), but he’s not able to really act on this when his own life is at stake. In the end, he doesn’t really choose Deb, Rita and the kids, either; neither Deb nor Rita are as fragile as they were anymore, and have proven they can live without him. He chooses himself.


S

O

U

L

M

A

T

E

S



I had a pretty visceral reaction to “The British Invasion” when I first saw it, which has quieted down by now, but the basic emotion is still there. The thing is, if “Left Turn Ahead” presents Dexter at his most human in s2, “The British Invasion” presents him at his most inhuman, even more so than the sequence with Doakes (crosscut with the one with Harry) in episode 2.9, and it does so completely without gore. When Dexter, the morning after Doakes’ death, his “miracle”, goes through his morning routine, which is of course the morning routine from the credits, it felt obscene. So did him cheerfully bringing donuts for everyone to the station afterwards, and needing a reminder that yes, there was that thing with Doakes. This is when you finally believe that he really doesn’t feel much of anything – except for the select few – and it’s a continued slap in the face. As is Rita taking him back, because at this point, I didn’t want this to happen any longer. Because he didn’t deserve it, which is a funny thing to say, given that, well, serial killer.

Narratives can be constructed so we root for someone to “get away with it” without that someone being Robin Hood or even very likeable; I’m thinking of Chicago where both Roxy and Velma are unabashed narcissistic egomaniacs (oh, and murderers), but we still want them to have their moment in the limelight at the end. But it pretty much hinges on the audience not seeing too muich of the pain the survival/success of these people costs. Doakes, through the last three episodes of season 2, had been presented in a sympathetic light, being courageous, doing his best in a horrible situation, pleading for the life of a drug lord, even having the odd moment of empathy and compassion for his captor. So when Lila kills him, it’s painful enough. (And no, I don’t think Lila killing him is a copout that keeps Doakes’ blood from Dexter’s hands, or makes Dexter look better, because the show has been very careful to show Dexter making his decision re: sacrificing Doakes before, and shows his unabashed relief and glee and complete not-caring afterwards.) And Erik King rocked in his final scene, the tired relief when he first sees Lila come in, down to reassuring her he’s fine so she’s not worried, and then the horrified realisation just what she is, and what she’s going to do, the determination to fight until the last moment – it’s impossible not to completely root for Doakes there. And then comes the morning sequence, which makes you think, yes, monster. Complete monster.

In addition to this, we have LaGuerta’s pain. LaGuerta, too has been fighting until the last minute to clear Doakes’ name, finding evidence, convincing Lundy – and not only is it all in vain, but he’s dead. The scene where Lundy talks to her in her office, and she’s holding it together until he exits and then breaks down and cries is just devastating. As is, in a more subdued way, Doakes’ memorial service which only his sisters and mother, LaGuerta and Dexter attend. At this point, I just can’t feel Dexter’s survival and freedom is worth all this.

As I said above, Lila pretty much embodies the worst of Dexter, and when she paints him on her wall after returning from killing Doakes, the idea of Lila as the character who despite physical attractiveness shows us the ugliness of just who we’ve been rooting for for two seasons, his true face, works. Lila as a character in her own right does not, especially since the writing for everyone else is so good. She’s simply not interesting by herself, which is always the ultimate criterium. However, she does work as a cypher and a mirror, and a meta commentary on certain storytelling traditions. Several episodes back, I already speculated she was a walking critique of the “embrace your inner darkness” cliché. I’m alwas reminded of the fact that after s1, there was a subsection of fanfic, AU s in which Dexter ran away with Rudy in double serial killer bliss, and the finale pretty much settles Lila as an attack of such ideas. Oh, and of course of the romantic illusion of being a killer’s Understanding True Love. As opposed to the season 3 episode of Alias, where Sydney’s use of the term “soulmate” is cringeworthy because it’s meant to be taken straight, for the audience to believe just that about Sydney and Vaughn, Lila using the term “soulmate” is a further element of her characterisation as a complete psychopath and the Anti Mary Sue.

(A part of me is even wondering whether Lila is meant as a harsh caricature of a part of fandom, because her reaction to finding out the truth about Dexter from Doakes is so much a fangirl one – oh, poor woobie, how lonely he must be, etc. – but that’s probably not intended on the part of the writers.)

And yet, here’s the irony: she’s not completely wrong. Not for the reason she thinks, but because of the shared selfishness.

Lila going after the children when she realizes Dexter had no intention of running off with her and on the contrary intended to kill her was too predictable, as was Dexter rescuing Astor and Cody, and hence disappointing. What saved the sequence was the very end with Deb coming to the rescue of Dexter and then taking charge of the crime scene. While I had expected a mirror to Dexter rescuing Deb in last season’s finale, I hadn’t expected how much it would tie into her ongoing growth this season; Deb’s arc is one I’m completely happy with. The parting between her and Lundy was basically caused by higher circumstances neither party could change, and it didn’t leave her shattered yet again or embittered, on the contrary, it left her more take-charge, and she’s great at that. When Dexter observes it has only been a few months when he took care of her, Deb retorts: “I like this better.” Yes indeed.

Dexter’s final killing of Lila: was a complete contrast to his highly emotional killing of Rudy/Brian, and to all his ritual killings. The only remaining element of the ritual is showing her the picture of Doakes; otherwise, he simply uses a knife. No dismemberment, no trophy. I was somewhat relieved that they didn’t go for a direct Fatal Attraction repeat where the killing of the female villain is celebrated a moment of glory; and of course given the way Dexter was presented through the episode is not in any way heroic. (Saving of Astor and Cody aside.) Plus the show does make it clear there is no moral superiority here, from “I am more like my father than a realised; I created a monster” to calling Lila “a mutated version of myself”.

(Speaking of mirrors in connection of Harry – through the season we have: a) Dexter discovering Harry had a relationship with his biological mother and promptly sleeping with Lila, b) Dexter resenting Harry, via using Laura Moser as an informant, having endangered her and her children, and of course Dexter despite being given warning signs of just how obsessive, psycho and ruthless Lila is puts Rita, Astor and Cody in danger as well – and the children do nearly die as a consequence , c) Dexter’s shocked realisation that Harry, in the end, couldn’t bear to live with what he created and seeing Harry’s suicide as a rejection followed up by his acknowledgment of Lila as his own creation combined with rejection-through-death – but Lila’s death.)

So where does that leave me as a watcher? Not sure whether I’ll continue watching, despite the fact this show is wonderfully well written. (Occasional lapses like the way Esme Pascal was removed aside.) Because honestly, in the scene when Dexter, intending to kill Lila, ran into Deb and then Lila ran into both of them? I wanted Lila to tell Deb the truth. Not that Deb would have believed her, I know that, but as with Rita taking Dexter back, I don’t feel any longer Dexter deserves Deb’s belief in himself. (Her affection, that’s different, and that’s not about deserving anyway.) I was too strongly affected by the loss of Doakes and what this meant to LaGuerta (and his family) to feel otherwise.

Comments

*spoilers for 11 & 12*

[likeadeuce.livejournal.com]

I did end up watching both eps, and I'm feeling much the same way -- I can appreciate the craft of the show, and I can also understand that we're not to take this as a happy ending, and that there's no reason to require a happy ending. But in order for me to want to watch something, I want to have some kind of emotional investment and here, beyond Deb's growth and development (to which I say 'yay!' -- I'd like to think she and Lundy can still end up together, but what's important is that Deb doesn't need them to). But other than that, it's going to take a lot to convince me that there's really a new story to tell in a third season. I feel like, narratively, Dexter either should have died or turned himself in, and that he only got away with it so they can have another season.

Thinking about this show since last week has me pondering stories in which protagonists do nasty things (Highsmith's Ripley series and Lawrence Blocks' Hit Man stories come to mind, as does "Richard III," for that matter). I'll try to put some coherent thoughts together to post in time for when the finale airs for real.

Re: *spoilers for 11 & 12*

[selenak.livejournal.com]

I'd like to think she and Lundy can still end up together, but what's important is that Deb doesn't need them to

Yes, that's it exactly. She's obviously happy with him, but she doesn't need him to live, be strong and be herself, and that was the important step for her to take. She's still fiercely emotional but not needy anymore. For a moment when Lundy asked her to think about whether she really wanted to come with him, I wondered whether we were in for a repetition of the Casablanca speech with Lundy as Rick and Deb as Ilsa, which I would not have liked because I wanted Deb to make the decision for herself. But as it turns out, she was Rick, and Lundy was Ilsa.*g*

But other than that, it's going to take a lot to convince me that there's really a new story to tell in a third season. I feel like, narratively, Dexter either should have died or turned himself in, and that he only got away with it so they can have another season.

Right now, I think you're right. They have now answered the question whether or not Dexter can change and achieve, for lack of a better term, full humanity, which was a legitimate question to answer in the second season after the first. But that leaves nothing I want to see for him in the future, and he is the narrator.

Highsmith's Ripley series and Lawrence Blocks' Hit Man stories come to mind, as does "Richard III," for that matter.

Haven't read Lawrence Block, but I think the problem with a Richard III comparison is that the play comes at the tailend and as a climax to the three Henries VI, and the whole idea of Richard being allowed to plague humanity as divine punishment and the long term result of the natural order being disturbed by the Richard II-Bolingbroke tale to boot, plus of course there's heavy emphasis on Richard's removal and the natural order being restored etc in the end.

The Ripley series is a good point, because yes, he gets away with it in every single book, and the narrative doesn't offer anyone else to root for. It's interesting that both film versions of the first novel changed the ending so that Ripley gets punished, the first one so that evidence incriminating him is unearthed in the final sequence (with the implication that thus he'll get caught), and the second one so he has to kill the one person who genuinenly loves and accepts him in order to maintain the lie. The second one worked better for me because it grew organically out of that particular film, while the first one felt like a hasty addendum to make the audience feel better.

Re: *spoilers for 11 & 12*

[likeadeuce.livejournal.com]

Re: Richard -- all true, but I do think the way the narrative of R3 itself works gives a template for the purely corrupt yet seductive and charismatic POV character, who never makes any bones about being a villain, but makes the audience a co-conspirator, then dies at the end to expiate our guilt for allowing ourselves to be seduced (not to mention the rest of the characters', whose several generations of bad behavior all gets lumped on the 'inhuman' Richard before his sendoff). I think the play often reads like that in performance, anyway, at least for modern audiences; whether it's a misreading or not, a widespread misreading can function as an influence (Stops babbling before I quote Harold Bloom).

Another thought on Dexter -- it's interesting that he takes for granted that his "miraculous" salvation shows that he should keep living like he was living. I suppose that miracles are like Rohrschach tests; somebody whose background/compulsion had a religious flavor to it, might see this as a sign to stop killing while he's ahead, or even to kill himself before he could do anymore damage. But Dexter interprets things the way he wants to interpret them, and at the end we're left with a guy who has completely forgotten the lessons of the past year, that he's not going to get away with this forever.

Re: *spoilers for 11 & 12*

[selenak.livejournal.com]

P.S. re Deb - another thing that struck me was that while at the start of the season I thought the revelation Dexter was a serial killer, too, would shatter her, now I'm convinced she could cope. (And no, not in the "go ahead, bro, keep killing people as long as they're bad guys" way, either.) So yes, I really love how Deb's recovery and growth was handled this season.

[ide-cyan.livejournal.com]

Great writeup, Selena.

[selenak.livejournal.com]

Thank you!

[ffutures.livejournal.com]

It's always worth remembering how much bloodier and nastier the books are. Won't go into details, except to say that the first ends with Rudy alive and Deb aware a passive collaborator in Dexter's crimes.

I agree that the last two episodes did a lot to shatter any sympathy we might have for Dexter. But we were all beginning to forget he was a monster, they had to remind us somehow. I'll probably continue to watch if there's another series because I want to see what happens now he's making his own rules - a slow slide towards more indiscriminate kills, I suspect.

The final Paris sequence lacked a little logic - how the hell does he get his knives etc. and a body bag through customs - but was needed; that, or they should have shown Lila stepping out on her own road as a killer. They could have left it open, of course, but then everyone would be waiting for a rematch in S3

[selenak.livejournal.com]

I agree that the last two episodes did a lot to shatter any sympathy we might have for Dexter. But we were all beginning to forget he was a monster, they had to remind us somehow

Oh, true, and it's very well written and narratively honest. (I also was reminded of my reasons for writing the BTVS story Five in One, which was that while we hear about Spike's victims on BTVS, we don't actually "meet" them in a way that allows identification with the victims, with the arguable exception of Niki Wood and.) But it meant that I felt sympathy for everyone BUT Dexter in the finale, and this isn't Lost, where the ensemble nature of the show means I could love it while actively disliking the closest thing to a lead (which changed through the s3 finale, but was the case for me as a watcher through the first two seasons). Here, Dexter is the narrator, and his story is the one driving the narrative.

I want to see what happens now he's making his own rules - a slow slide towards more indiscriminate kills, I suspect.

It would tie with him believing "somoene out there" wants him to continue, i.e. having the hubristic idea of being selected. But as I said, I'm not sure whether I can emotionally stand it.

Lila: well, he could have aquired both knives and bag in Paris, where they do sell those things. In any case, yes, I agree that leaving Lila alive would mean they have to bring her back in s3, and they obviously wanted to wrap her up, no pun intended.

[likeadeuce.livejournal.com]

I agree that the last two episodes did a lot to shatter any sympathy we might have for Dexter. But we were all beginning to forget he was a monster, they had to remind us somehow

That's a point, but it had the (I think) unintended effect of making the whole two seasons of the show seem like a pointless exercise for me. It's not like we woke up in the morning and said, "Let's go find a serial killer to sympathize with." We bought into a fictional construct that the show sold us. (I'm not talking here about audience members who might have been going around saying, Dark-Defender like, "Dexter is great because he kills bad guys; I don't care what happens to anyone else as long as Dexter's okay. I'm talking about the baseline level of sympathy that the show built up for Dexter as a character and ripped away in the last three episodes). I don't believe redemption is mandatory, of course, but I've now watched 24 hours of television just to be told the main character is irredeemable. /before I start sounding like a season 7 Spike fan.

[cadesama.livejournal.com]

I think my hatred of Lila has colored all of my perceptions of the show. The whole plot with her just makes me cringe. However, I do agree that she's a direct send up of fannish villain-saving true loves (funny, how both Dexter and Heroes had those this season).

I can't quite decide if I wanted Dexter to tell the truth to Deb just because I like making trouble on TV and I hate secrets in fiction almost as much as I can't "we-can't-win" shows, where it's over the moment they win, or if it's because it truly would have been a more satisfying ending. There was truth in what Lila taught him, in the beginning. It's not like Dexter was lying to himself during that self-discovery phase. And for that to all be thrown away just for some new kill methodologies seems like obtuse writing.

It's a delaying tactic that's not terribly effective. Someday Dexter will get caught. So why do it at the end of the series, when it's least emotionally viable for the character and waste this opportunity, and just keep on pretending that the status quo can remain?

[selenak.livejournal.com]

Which is why I think that Left Turn Ahead, with the difference of Dexter actually telling Deb the truth, would have made a great finale for the show. But basically they wanted their next season and didn't want to write it as "Dexter: The Trial", I guess.

[cadesama.livejournal.com]

They probably were thinking that, but that's blinkered thinking. There's so much evidence against Doakes, would they throw that all away to go after Dexter? Would Deb turn him in? It's so much messier and more fraught and more interesting than what they seem to think it would be, and also than what they actually did.

[monanotlisa.livejournal.com]

Excellent review! I'm still mulling over the ending; not quite happy with it. The fact that he killed Lila doesn't bother me, but the shoddy writing regarding the way he did it does, very much. Also, while pointing out the deus ex machina within the story helps, it hardly negates its generally worrisome existence, you know?

[selenak.livejournal.com]

It also harks back to the problematic way Lila is written. As I said, she has her functions in the narrative. But she's not really a character, she's a plot device, in comparison to every other character. I mean, for heaven's sake, Matsuka is more interesting than Lila by himself! Or compare her with Lundy, who also has obvious narrative functions - put some pressure on Dexter by making an intelligent outsider lead the hunt, give Deb a relationship where she can both act out her daddy issues and heal - but still feels alive in his own right; you can imagine him before and after his time in Dexter's story, as with all the other characters. Except Lila, who never gets beyond plot device. Which given the skill this show usually has with characters really grates.

Oh, something positive I didn't mention in my review: the two Deb-LaGuerta sort-of-bonding scenes in the last episodes, which I hope are some set up for next season. (And a good counterpart to the two scenes in the season opener when LaGuarta sees that Deb is far from well but Deb refuses to admit it.)

[wee-warrior.livejournal.com]

I appreciated that they managed to make me really like Doakes and regret his death - and that was a challenge, as talented as Erik King obviously is, because I really despised that character - but much like last season's finale, this left me with a feeling of a ending that's too pad. I guess deep inside I really want Dexter to get caught, even though I find myself rooting for him more often than not (like you, not in this case, but my reaction against him winning was less visceral). I was surprised but pleased that the show actually took the step and actively alienated Dexter from the audience; in that respect, the next season interests me indeed, because it seems impossible to go back to the comparatively comfortable POV from S1, where the audience is more or less his accomplice. In that vein, I am wondering if the third season will end up as Dexter vs. Deb (whose development over the last few episodes I really enjoyed).

Rita: I was torn about that, because on the one hand, I'd want her and the kids to stay away from Dexter as far as possible, but on the other I would hate to lose Julie Benz - I don't see how she could stay on the show if she wasn't Dexter's girlfriend, seeing that she has virtual no connections to the rest of the cast.
(Speaking of which, I wonder if that's it for James Remar, since Dexter technically doesn't need Harry anymore now.)

[selenak.livejournal.com]

I never despised Doakes (loved his friendship and truth calling scenes with LaGuerta last season, as well as his rough regard for Deb), but I'd agree that in the early s2 episodes, he was presented in a negative light whereas in the later ones, he comes across as extremely sympathetic.

I guess deep inside I really want Dexter to get caught

I don't think I did last season, but this season, definitely, and that was before the last three episodes.

I was surprised but pleased that the show actually took the step and actively alienated Dexter from the audience; in that respect, the next season interests me indeed, because it seems impossible to go back to the comparatively comfortable POV from S1, where the audience is more or less his accomplice.

I hope so. Mostly I trust the writers but not completely, especially since the show will go on network next season, which does make me afraid we'll get a reset button to the audience-as-accomplice.

Rita: I'd hate to lose Julie Benz as well, especially since she's so good in the role, and Rita is one of the characters who usually gets dismissed early on in a show, if she exists at all, as "boring" whereas here both JB and the writers make it clear she's not, so yes, dilemma. I guess what I wanted was for the show to end, even, because I still think Dexter giving himself up would have been a great finale. Which would have meant no more everyone.

James Remar: probably out of a job, because yes, I don't think we'll get any more Harry flashbacks.

[wee-warrior.livejournal.com]

I don't think I did last season, but this season, definitely, and that was before the last three episodes.

I did want him to not get away last season, too, but last season he was more vulnerable and likable, because Rudy was worse than him, and Harry seemed worse as well, because he seemed to coolly turn Dexter into this vengeance machine. This season, Dexter really is the biggest, meanest fish in the pond, since Lilah was so underwritten and in the end, really more of a groupie than an adversary. And as much as I like the Cylons and Baltar, I usually don't root for actual bad guys (hence to a degree my complete lack of understanding for Sylar worship).

especially since the show will go on network next season, which does make me afraid we'll get a reset button to the audience-as-accomplice.

They are going in earnest? I thought this was only for reruns of the old episodes.

I guess what I wanted was for the show to end, even, because I still think Dexter giving himself up would have been a great finale.

I don't know if I could have bought that, to be honest. This much humanity would have seemed too much for him to be genuine characterization. I feel that his affect is truly disturbed, and while I buy him having feelings for the people nearest to him, I can't see it get more "abstract" and involve colleagues and acquaintances, not to mention generally "good people."

[selenak.livejournal.com]

And as much as I like the Cylons and Baltar, I usually don't root for actual bad guys (hence to a degree my complete lack of understanding for Sylar worship).

Oh, me neither. I mean, there have been villains I've loved before, and who even were my favourite characters on their respective shows (*cough* Arvin Sloane comes to mind *cough), but not in the sense that I wanted them to actually win. Wanting them to survive and make it into another day, sure. But in the case of Sloane, for example, I'd have been totally cool with the end of season 4 as a show finale as far as his personal storyline was concerned, too, and he was in jail at that point. But he had just saved the world, had paid a terrible price for a situation that was ultimately his fault, and was at semi-peace - in prison, and let's face it, Sloane did such a lot of things that made him fit for same - and his relationship with Sydney had finally turned a corner, as in that final scene between the two of them, she had forgiven him.

Anyway, Sloane and a few other villains - well, the Cylons & Baltar - are the exception, because by and large, I root for the semi-good guys and good guys (i.e. in the Jossverse, for example, I definitely was on Buffy's side, and over in Los Angeles I thought the W&H personnel was interesting, but could have done without Lindsey's return in s5, and definitely didn't want him or Lilah to win).

My own lack of understanding for Sylar worship isn't just that well, he eats people's brains, it's that he's not that interesting. He's not especially layered. He wants to be special, he wants to have as many powers as possible, he has zero feelings for anyone except some kind of obsession with the Surehs, and that's that. Which him the kind of villain you might need to provide menace for a limited time but don't keep around because hes's DULL.

(Meanwhile, Bob is an example of an interesting villain, because he's not that simple, his goals can't be reduced to one thing, and his interaction with people isn't limited to wanting to kill them for their powers.)

I don't know if I could have bought that, to be honest.

I can see why you wouldn't, and I wouldn't if they hadn't given us a very specific situation plus of course Dexter having the realization that he'll get caught sooner or later late last season already. In this specific situation, under the shock of discovering Harry's suicide, with Doakes' life at stake and being presented with an ugly mirror in the form of Lilah, I could have bought it if he had done it. Mind you, I also could have bought him recanting his confession a week later, but I would have believed him going as far as telling Deb at the very least, and/or going to the station and telling LaGuerta.

[wee-warrior.livejournal.com]

I mean, there have been villains I've loved before

I have the rather unique distinction that I liked every single Ultimate Bad Guy on VM, with the exception of the first season's culprit, but with them you at weren't supposed to think they were evil. Still, where that show is concerned I could just as well be Mohinder. (Also, character death related: I don't think I'll ever forgive the VM writers the culprit of S2. Man, that one hit me badly.)

Apart from that, well, there is one Justin Crowe, but Carnivale really is a special case. And I tend to like evil minions like Morden, but I usually expect them to die horribly at some point, so it's not like I exactly root for them. *g* And I have a thing for redemptive bad guys, like Damar (although Damar's character arc is arguably a grotesque thing to behold, of "What on earth was Behr smoking?" proportions.).

But generally, it's mostly the semi-good guys for me as well. (Jack Bristow is a good example. I find a lot of the things he does very questionable, and I wasn't devastated about what happened in the end - but that was mostly because it was in the end. If it had happened in Season 3, I would have walked away from Alias and never looked back - and I loved that show a lot more than anything I'm currently watching.)

Sylar: is dull indeed, and I keep wondering why they don't at least evolve him if they have to keep him around. Bob is clearly a lot more interesting.

[selenak.livejournal.com]

Did anyone like the first season's Ultimate Bad Guy on VM? (Though otoh, I know there are people who like Lionel Luthor, so...)

Also, character death related: I don't think I'll ever forgive the VM writers the culprit of S2. Man, that one hit me badly.

For me, it was more the way they wrote the culprit in the finale, rather than it being this person. Several weeks earlier, vonnie_k had already made a compelling case of why it had to be him, so that didn't surprise me. But to add the roofie/rape thing from s1 and to give him the megalomaniac speech was really superfluous and bad writing. (Even worse writing was the Veronica/Logan instant hook-up in the same ep, and that was what ultimately made me conclude I wouldn't have to watch s3.)

And I have a thing for redemptive bad guys, like Damar (although Damar's character arc is arguably a grotesque thing to behold, of "What on earth was Behr smoking?" proportions.).

You mean Dukat's arc, surely. Damar's was fine, but Dukat's was a clear case of smoking the bad crack.

Re: Jack Bristow - this reminds me, a couple of weeks ago Yahtzee said that she sees Noah as Morally Grey Lite because his show doesn't make him pay prices for his greyness in the way Jack had to on Alias. I had a bit of the reverse impression, in as much as Alias does let Jack do grey stuff, but also almost always makes him look good while doing it, or after. Even Project Christmas, the most questionable thing he probably did, was retconned into him not conditioning Syd after all, just noticing she had aptitude (in the s5 flashback), and I never got the impression the narrative wanted us to question the "everything I do, I do for my daughter" in the way the Heroes narrative does question Noah. I mean, both narratives clearly have both Jack and Noah convinced of this - it's all for Sydney's/Claire's sake - but on Heroes, we do get scenes where this does not exactly jive with what we're seeing - i.e. the way Noah gets focused on the picture of his death, the way his first Company Man flashback, predating Claire (and they could have made him being somehow blackmailed into joining the Company) makes it clear he signed on for the work voluntarily, etc - and it does get spelled out for us when Mohinder says "your paranoia and violence is what got us here". Whereas on Alias every single time Sydney accuses Jack of something, the narrative proves her wrong.

[wee-warrior.livejournal.com]

Did anyone like the first season's Ultimate Bad Guy on VM? (Though otoh, I know there are people who like Lionel Luthor, so...)

I don't think so - other than in the vein of "I will never see LA Law the same way again."

For me, it was more the way they wrote the culprit in the finale, rather than it being this person.

Oh, that, too - I would have been more comfortable with the idea if they had left the character more grey, and had played him as someone who was disturbed beyond repair, but ultimately tragic, because it seemed so unlikely that he could have developed differently. I found the whole set up - sexual child abuse in connection with neglect and harassment from his own family, which in his case turned to violence - much too complex for the way they dealt with it and I also had issues with the fact the victims in general were presented.
On an entirely different level, I was pissed off about them retconning A Trip To The Dentist, which before was a brilliantly structured episode, precisely because you had no actual culprit you could pin the rape on, and because it so well illustrated the fact that it was Neptune's screwed up culture that was responsible for Veronica's ordeal. All of this was only enhanced by the fact that they decided to play the finale confrontation as something I liked to call "Jessica Fletcher meets Dr. No" back in the day.

You mean Dukat's arc, surely. Damar's was fine, but Dukat's was a clear case of smoking the bad crack.

I think Dukat's arc was a different kind of cracky, because, like Justin on Carnivale, he was dumbed down to make a more "suitable" villain. That doesn't mean that I think it was a good idea to do that, but I see a certain logic behind it. Damar on the other hand went from loyal, decent subordinate and rebel to Number One Thug who got beaten up by Major Kira and shot Dukat's daughter to drunken puppet to resistance leader and martyr in roughly two seasons - that's like five different personalities for the price of one.

Re: Jack and Noah - I think Alias shied away from making Jack too culpable, but I'm not completely convinced Heroes does really criticize Noah's decisions all that clearly, because they tend to gloss over a lot of stuff. And I think a lot of the stuff that ultimately happened - Claire and West's stunt getting discovered by the Company, Nathan apparently getting shot for something Claire wanted to do - does prove Noah right against Claire's protestations.

[selenak.livejournal.com]

I don't think so - other than in the vein of "I will never see LA Law the same way again."

LOL. I will never see "Kampf der Titanen" the same way again.

Oh, that, too - I would have been more comfortable with the idea if they had left the character more grey, and had played him as someone who was disturbed beyond repair, but ultimately tragic, because it seemed so unlikely that he could have developed differently.

And that would have been entirely possible, given the set-up.

On an entirely different level, I was pissed off about them retconning A Trip To The Dentist, which before was a brilliantly structured episode, precisely because you had no actual culprit you could pin the rape on, and because it so well illustrated the fact that it was Neptune's screwed up culture that was responsible for Veronica's ordeal.

Oh yeah, that pissed me off, too. Though my suspicion was they retconned it because so many people had complained that there HADN'T been one single culprit as the solution of that mystery whom Veronica and the audience could safely have hated and taken revenge on. It was belated audience service in the worst way.

And I think a lot of the stuff that ultimately happened - Claire and West's stunt getting discovered by the Company, Nathan apparently getting shot for something Claire wanted to do - does prove Noah right against Claire's protestations.

I didn't see either as justification of Noah. I mean, obviously Claire`s and West's stunt was stupid. But Claire knew that by herself before talking to Noah (see her reaction when West shows her the newspaper). The fact that she refused to admit it once Noah brought it up was typical teenage behaviour. Besides, if they gave Claire a guilttrip scene where she said "Dad, I should have listened to you" etc. during the "funeral", they let Noah say "Claire, you were right, this is all about me" when he comes back (and earlier he says the same thing to Sandra when finally showing her the death painting - i.e. "Claire was right, this is all about me"). So I think that as opposed to the Sydney-Jack confrontations, which always go:

Sydney: *discovers something* OMG, I hate you! I'll never trust you again.

Jack: *waits half an episode with martyred expression while doing something heroic*

Narrative: *proves Jack right and shows Sydney previously unrevealed reason for original resentment-inviting action*

Sydney: OMG sorry dad. *hug*

the Noah shady dealings are not similarly cancelled out, with the arguable exception of Sandra's mindwiping. Also, on Alias Sydney is basically the only one who calls Jack on his questionable actions, and as I said, the narrative is structured against her. (Okay, Vaughn does call him on them in the first season, but that's part of the s1 "Jack Bristow: good guy or bad guy?" mystery, and Vaughn is proven wrong every time, too.) Whereas on Heroes, we get not only an entire episode - The Line - in which Noah is shown to do something reprehensible, torture and execution, which isn't in any way retrospectively justified by the text (no saving of Claire or anyone else results from the discovery of Isaac's remaining paintings, on the contrary, Noah's actions directly contribute to Mohinder switching sides and thus make the very thing he fears possible) - but as opposed to fannish interpretation of Noah: Right, Mohinder: Wrong, the text itself has yet to deliver a Mohinder "OMG, HRG, so sorry, my bad, you right" scene and instead gave us over the course of eight episodes several scenes of Noah giving Mohinder more and more cause to doubt him, and a post-shooting scene in which Mohinder still is convinced he was right.

Sidenote: have you read the newest comic? The random namechecking of Arthur Petrelli awakens my Arthur-as-Irina-Derevko-suspicion again, plus Bob talking of Claire as a potential future leader of the Company, not an experiment, is highly interesting in regards to the overall storyline (and strengthens my hope they'll use what happened to Nathan to reunite Claire with the Petrellis and the New York action for longer than an episode). Oh, and it definitely supports the Claire/Elle hopes for the future.*g*

[wee-warrior.livejournal.com]

Though my suspicion was they retconned it because so many people had complained that there HADN'T been one single culprit as the solution of that mystery whom Veronica and the audience could safely have hated and taken revenge on. It was belated audience service in the worst way.

I definitely agree with both of these assessments. In addition, they probably added it to make Beaver look worse (and don't let me get started on how convincingly constructed their crime is if they have to turn a mass murderer who cold-bloodedly killed a man by running him over with a car into a rapist for people to think he is evil.)

Noah-Jack: Okay, you convinced me, Heroes does it more ambiguously.

Comic: oh dear. Of all my insane predictions, I really didn't think this one would turn out to be true. (I'm now really torn about this theory that Arthur was the one who shot Nathan - first of all I am enarmoured with my setup theory, which requires (Slightly)FuturePeter being the shooter, and the shooter definitely looks like Milo, not Jack or Nick D'Agosto, and secondly, Arthur still should be an old guy right now, not someone who's still young and dark-haired. But on the other hand - this would ensure that this family becomes even more fucked-up than I would have considered possible.)

[selenak.livejournal.com]

Well, we already know there is no limit to Petrelli fucked-upness. Though I actually hadn't thought of the Arthur=shooter theory, despite Irina shooting Sydney as a hello. I thought more of "Arthur turns out to be alive and secretely working against both good guys and the Company" (because we'd need a reason for him to fake his death in the first place). And it would be very interesting if the boys, after Nathan's guilt trip post Six Months Ago which led to a rosy-eyed view of Arthur and Peter's angst about "I love you, but I can't be with you right now" and "no, my father died", were confronted with a living Arthur.

The shooter definitely isn't Nick d'Agosto, btw, because Allan Arkush mentions in the commentary for Powerless that the scene with Claire was his departure from the show.

[wee-warrior.livejournal.com]

I thought more of "Arthur turns out to be alive and secretely working against both good guys and the Company" (because we'd need a reason for him to fake his death in the first place).

Well, the next part is called Villains after all, so it should fit. Besides, given the way they have been building him up as way more dangerous than he was alluded to in the first season, I doubt he'll be sweet and peaceful and only minding his tomatoes. Not to mention that it would be quite the bad surprise for the boys.

The shooter definitely isn't Nick d'Agosto, btw, because Allan Arkush mentions in the commentary for Powerless that the scene with Claire was his departure from the show.

Thank god. Apparently, Jack Coleman alleged on a TV show that he didn't know who the shooter was, but that the production team left it ambiguous on purpose, so technically, Bennet is back in the race. My problem with this is twofold - for one, the shooter really seemed rather specific - slender, small - could be a tiny guy, or even a woman - and secondly, from a few remarks, Adrian seemed to know who it actually was, so I'm guessing they do have a tentative plan here, and Jack either wasn't told what it was, or he was asked to be obscuring.

[selenak.livejournal.com]

Besides, given the way they have been building him up as way more dangerous than he was alluded to in the first season, I doubt he'll be sweet and peaceful and only minding his tomatoes. Not to mention that it would be quite the bad surprise for the boys.

And for Angela, don't forget that, if she didn't help him fake his death. How about a Gaslight scenario where she tried to kill him because he didn't agree with one of the Big Plans, and he pretends to be dead so he can plot his retaliation and take-over of the Company in secret? Especially since Adam now conveniently removed the entire competition except for Bob and Angela. (I think nobody ever thought of Maury as Big Boss material. It's a Parkman's lot! Anyway, Maury's in a nightmare coma. Though depending on what Arthur's power is, he might be able to wake him up and thus have a minion at his side.)

But the boys would be most shocked. Bad enough that Nathan just was told by Matt Mom was ruthlessly practical enough to say how Peter could be killed. And, if they didn't set the shooting up, reacted with the same ruthless practicality to Nathan's shooting. And now Dad is back and isn't actually the hero who would have Nathan committed for even thinking about Linderman's plan...

...oh, and depending on how manipulative Arthur is (and he had to be a bit at least, to keep up with Angela, surely?), he could totally milk the filial guilt, aka "all of this wouldn't have been necessary if you two hadn't stabbed me in the back"....

so I'm guessing they do have a tentative plan here, and Jack either wasn't told what it was, or he was asked to be obscuring.

I'm betting on the later. As you said, they needed to learn some foiler-fu, and I guess they have!

[londonkds.livejournal.com]

So is this character Lila the first Fangirl Villain on the lines I suggested here (http://londonkds.livejournal.com/165129.html), to match Fanboy Villains like Warren Meers, Sylar (a bit), and Syndrome?

[selenak.livejournal.com]

Hmmm, yes, one could say that. But as with James and Elisabeth, I don't think most of fandom has realised this.

P.S.

[selenak.livejournal.com]

I'll also say that Lila as a character is less successful than Warren, because Warren you believe as a human being while still recognizing what he's symbolizing, while Lila is, as I wrote in the review, too obvious a plot device and a cypher, which is especially glaring on this particular show where everyone else, good, bad, or comic relief, is written so very well. So perhaps the best comparison within the Jossverse would be to characters like Billy and Caleb, who have their function in the plot they are in but by themselves just are caricatures (which I'd say Warren, despite the satire inherent, is not).

[kernezelda]

*worn out* I've just finished watching the second season.

It didn't seem possible that the emotional impact of killing Rudy/Brian in the first series could be matched, but as you say, it's Harry who's meant everything to Dexter for most of his life.

I almost completely agree with your analysis, except that I would be eager to watch a third season, now that Dexter's particular brand of hubris has been ratified by convenient 'miracles'. He's free to resume the very good relationship he'd formed with Rita and the children; his relationship with Deb has strengthened and improved; he no longer has the threat of Doakes; he's spun loose of the defining code of his life.

I'm quite interested to see how this will or won't alter his behavior in future, now that he knows what he is, and knows what he wants.

[selenak.livejournal.com]

The thing is, what has always made Dexter as a character interesting to me was the tension between him being a serial killer on the one hand and on the other having that code of ethics he feels compelled to adher. That and the fact that despite claiming to feel nothing, he obviously did have feelings for a few people in his life.

Now he's come to terms with the fact that he does have those feelings, those relationships, and he has broken the code; and most crucially, I can't really root for him in any sense anymore. I've lost all sympathy. The only thing I want for him is to go to jail. Despite my love for all the other characters, I'm not sure that thinking "god, I so hope LaGuerta will find out the truth and get Dexter behind bars!!" is a good emotional position to start a new season with for me as a watcher.

[kernezelda]

After digesting the finale for a few days, I'm still intrigued by Dexter's new outlook. Essentially, nothing has changed since the first episode. He's a serial killer, a monster. But he's always been a monster, and letting Doakes take his fall is only different in degree from discouraging Deb with her profile. I think the third season (although I would have been very satisfied if he had in fact been captured or turned himself in) should center on Deb's slowly discovering Dexter's true nature and activities.

She's the one whose acceptance he needs, and uses to justify his self-preservation, now that Harry is both gone and discredited.

With Dexter realizing that his actions and their consequences affect those around him, the season serves as a kind of adolescence for him, and now, as an adult, he appears to be choosing the code again, but with security modifications. It's a useful code, after all, no matter the disillusionment with its source.

Dexter's still a murderous creature masked with civility, and the dichotomy between what he actually is and what he tells himself he is, is what holds my interest.

spoilers ahoy

[violaswamp.livejournal.com]

Having finally seen the last two episodes, here are my scattered and rambly thoughts:

1) I'm definitely watching the next season. My sympathy for Dexter wasn't really affected by these latest developments. To me, the appeal of the show was never really about what Dexter deserved, or whether or not his freedom was somehow worth its cost to others. I think that Dexter a) has sympathetic moments, and b) always has an interesting effect on characters who are generally sympathetic. These two things make it rather irrelevant to me whether Dex himself is generally sympathetic or not. When he is being sympathetic, he's interesting to watch in and of himself; when he's not, he makes interesting things happen to characters who I do like. That's enough for me to be emotionally invested in the story.

2) I'm not really sure what to make of Dexter's "decision" to frame Doakes rather than turn himself in, since it came so fast on the heels of so many other extreme and contradictory "decisions." That is, I don't know if he would have gone through with it or what; I could see it either way. I do like that the choice was removed from him by Lila--whose presence there is the result of his previous choices, so his responsibility is still there.

3) Like you, I like Lila's textual function but find her a dull character. That said, I don't think that's a writing flaw. Lila--unlike Dex--is a pure sociopath, and pure sociopaths can't really be interesting characters. They're too predictable. There's no conflict. They can only be interesting in how they relate to the non-sociopath characters as antagonists, mirrors, allies, etc.

4) I'm quite interested in the philosophical/storytelling questions this show explores and how well it explores them, and for that alone I'm looking forward to S3. I think they hinted at something interesting when they had Dexter say the code was his own now and not Harry's. But I don't know what that means, in practice--how is Dexter's behavior going to change because of this? I'm confident enough in the writing to believe that it means something, though I don't know what, and that the line wasn't thrown in just because it sounded good.

5) LaGuerta breaks my heart. Deb kicks ass. I love them both.

That is all, I believe.