I have been trying to catch up on watching Dexter. About a year and a half back I watched season one and actually enjoyed myself a lot. For some reason I didn’t immediately pick up the second season. I don’t know why I did it. Watching things in my own time is how I usually do it. when I watched Doctor Who I blew through it all in like a week and a half—that was the first four seasons and the specials that followed them.
Watching any show is kind of like studying for me. Even if the show is bad or unrelated to what I write there are pieces of the narrative that I can learn from. At least that’s how I see it.
The thing about Dexter is that it has a lot to do with the moral gray area between good and evil and turning our own ideas about what we think we know on us and using them against us. That’s what I find impressive in narratives. When an author or shows writer takes the world or people we know and shifts the dynamic of all that knowledge it excites me and makes me want to see more and know more. It challenges your thought processes and gives you this feeling like anything else could change.
Making your reader feel like any of the characters is at stake and that anything could happen is one of the best things you can do in a story. Even one where the killing isn’t violent. When it comes to formula of Dexter it’s very noticeable. Formulas however aren’t always a bad thing. Though I can see the ones present in Dexter with great ease (the structure of the season is the most apparent). The fact that a formula can work and in your favor actually reinforces what I’ve always thought.
People used to use the criticism that something is formulaic without any other reason for calling something bad. But it really isn’t a bad word, the same way formula isn’t always a bad thing.