Dexter and Pinocchio: What it Means for Serial Killers and Marionettes to Become Human

The acclaimed series Dexter is about a forensic blood spatter pattern expert working closely with the Miami-Dade Homicide Department while battling with his own homicidal impulses. As a young child, he had witnessed the bloody and gruesome murder of his mother and it is said that this experience has turned him into the monster he is.

The young boy Dexter is adopted by a police officer called Harry Morgan. Harry becomes aware of the serial killer impulses of his adopted son and tries his best to help him manage those homicidal tendencies. As a result, his father comes up with a “code of ethics,” called simply “Harry's code.”

Apart from the obvious rule of not getting caught, there are others, such as killing only those who are bad guys, criminals who have escaped through the loopholes and meshes of the law, and who have caused and - continue to cause - harm and damage to people and society. Dexter is a serial killer turned into a Batman-like hero and vigilante. The series claims that even serial killers could be useful to society if only they channeled their energies toward killing people who are similar to them!

The series is a psychological portrayal of a serial killer fighting with his own impulses. He knows that killing is bad, but at the same time, he is addicted to it like a gambler to his game or an alcoholic to her booze. He needs that rush and release of pent-up energy and gets this satisfaction by “removing” evil people from the face of the earth. His code states that he should never kill an innocent person, and he tries religiously to abide by that rule. (The emphasis lies on tries because inevitably even a disciplined killer like Dexter may have a slip-up). In other words, Dexter's serial killer instincts and tendencies define him as the person, or rather the monster, he is in reality.

So what do Pinocchio and Dexter have in common? It is the quest for becoming human. Both are different in the eyes of the world. Pinocchio is a pine-eyed wooden marionette; he is a lifeless creature different from all the other boys out there. No matter how hard he tries he can never fit in. What he wants most is to be like the others, but perhaps even more importantly, to have a heart, the feature that figuratively gives us our humanity.

The same applies to Dexter. The show is based on a series of novels starting with the 2004 book Darkly Dreaming Dexter by Jeff Lindsay. Incidentally, the author had originally planned to call his book Pinocchio bleeds. Dexter, like Pinocchio, is trying to become human, yet he is forced to hide himself and his secret; only occasionally when he is able to release that “burden” and when he discloses his predicament, he gets a glimpse and sense of what true companionship would be like. Unfortunately, it is not the type of secret that you can open up to those close to you, since the other person's first impulse would be to call the police. Dexter's own sister, on the other hand, would not even have to call anybody being a cop herself.

So who could Dexter possibly open up to? The answer: Like-minded serial killers. Those with whom he shares the same struggles. In fact, he feels admiration for some who are really good at their “craft” and wishes to find out and learn how they do it. Life is difficult for serial killers as they can get lonely and there is no official club or member meeting to deal with those issues (jail does not count).

As Dexter is confronting life, he also has to deal with all that goes with it. So he experiences different roles. He is a co-worker, a brother, a friend, but more importantly also a husband and a father. As he is going through his journey, he is under the impression that he lacks any real emotion or feeling, since like Pinocchio he has no heart (but unlike Pinocchio his nose does not grow when he lies, otherwise the series would not have lasted that long).

It raises an interesting question, namely that if people with no feelings can indeed acquire them. We read about horrible criminal acts and most of them reveal that the perpetrator, the cold-blooded serial killer, lacks any form of empathy or emotions. One needs cold blood to be able to act out those chilling deeds without any remorse or conscience. Does Dexter have remorse? The answer is yes, particularly because, Harry's code of ethics aside, he has an innate strong sense of justice.

What about Pinocchio? He acts like any normal boy would, getting into trouble and causing mischief. And he lies. But he realizes one major difference between him and the other boys: he is not human. This realization also occurs to David, the boy in Spielberg's A.I. (Artificial Intelligence) who as a “mecha” (mechanical being) - a human android programmed to love and created by Cybertronics - is “built” differently and is not "orga" (organic) like those of flesh and blood.

Pinocchio's dream is rather unrealistic. But in the end, Pinocchio redeems himself. Through his good acts and honesty, the marionette turns into flesh and becomes human. (In terms of allegory, one could say he turns from the body of flesh to spirit, but that might be reading too much into the novel.) At the end anyhow, Pinocchio is then just like any other boy, of flesh and blood, thanks to the magical touch of the Blue-haired Fairy.

What about Dexter? This remains to be seen. But mainly, Dexter Morgan is willing to change and would like to become human just like Pinocchio. He knows that there is something wrong with him; at the same time, he is also aware that his traumatic experiences of the past have shaped him the way he is. He would need to heal those deep wounds, revive life and feelings within, and conquer the dark abyss inside himself.

Yet reality is not a fairy tale. Unless Dexter gets a night visit from the Blue Fairy, his future may be rather bleak. Serial killers suffer from an incurable disease, and there are, to my knowledge, no cured or reformed ex-serial killers living happily in society. In fact, by definition "once a serial killer, always a serial killer" since one of their characteristics is to continue killing until the very end. This is why when police are confronted with cases of serial killers, they hope for one of these options: either that the serial killer is caught, or that he or she dies or is killed.

So is there no hope for serial killers? I believe not. I doubt that even heavy medication and therapy could cure serial killers of their twisted sealed fate, from that “obscure passenger of darkness” within. But I cannot shake off the idealist within me that - despite evidence to the contrary - keeps on believing that humans are capable of becoming and being human.

The tales of Pinocchio and Dexter demonstrate that humanity is something that needs to be earned; it is not an automatic process. Likewise, you do not become a parent just by having children. Technically and on paper, yes, but in reality, there is more to it; one needs to open up and embrace life and, most of all, learn the ropes and challenges of what it actually means to be a true human being. 

Ennui, Boredom and Having Absolutely No Time to Waste

Here's an inspirational post about an un-inspirational topic: Boredom. Boredom seems to be part of life. It is everywhere you go. You get bored with your job, your relationship, your holidays, your life. There is no time limit to boredom either. It can last from a minute to a lifetime.

What is boredom really? There are different types of boredom. Some of it may be dissatisfaction. You may be dissatisfied with a certain situation or outcome. You wished your job were exciting, but all you do is twiddle your thumbs all day long. It can also be disappointment. You were expecting your partner to be a stand-up comedian and amazing in bed but after a while living together you realize he or she has nothing to say, nor anything interesting up their sleeves.

Boredom is also frustration. You would like to change a situation but feel incapable of doing so for whatever reason. Or you feel stuck in an uninteresting situation like an endless family dinner with pointless discussions and little to stimulate the imagination. Or you are trapped in an activity that is all but fun or interesting. Routine may be comforting for some but can be boring for many others. It lacks originality; it is predictable; it is, in other words, boring!

Yet the most famous and most symptomatic type of boredom has the fancy French term “ennui” and has been a trademark of the bourgeoisie. The higher classes have obviously less economic woes, not having to work for their lives and as a result, they tend to have too much extra time with too little to do. Kierkegaard complained about this kind of boredom which he considered a “disease” and the "root of all evil," whereas French writer Flaubert complained about this all-engulfing sense of restless boredom, yet somehow managed to turn it into an art form. 

So is boredom any good for you? I think not. Boredom is actually, to use a tautology, a waste of time. By this I mean you are letting precious time and energy go to waste; you are throwing it all away. It is like a poison that slowly fills you up and then anything you see, taste or touch becomes bitter.

In these moments, boredom is close kin to depression. You feel unfulfilled and nothing can really fill you up. There are so many things you do not acknowledge because of your obsession with boredom itself. All the while, precious time is ticking away continuously, soundlessly, and endlessly.

The problem with this is the fact that our “stay” in this life is generally limited. It is a big portion - add to it being stuck in traffic or elevators, waiting in line and sleeping – that we are throwing to the dogs; these are potentially wonderful moments we leave unused and unattended. We need to break out of this vicious cycle, the karma of boredom and being bored.

Next time look around when you feel bored. Take a walk in the rain. Give someone close to you a hug. Stay away from boring people. Watch a movie that excites your imagination and fills you with laughter (just don't watch a boring movie!). In those moments you need to remind yourself most of what life has to offer if only you stripped yourself free from the impulse of boredom. And worse comes to worst you can always drop by and visit Arash's World to read articles that are exempt of boredom. Or so I hope!

Maya and the Illusion of Perception and Reality in the World

In the Hindu and Buddhist tradition there is the mention of Maya, which is generally defined as the illusion we face in our everyday lives. It is Maya (literally meaning “Not-That”) that blocks our true perception of Reality, Truth and the real meaning of life.

But where exactly does this illusion lie? In other words, what creates this illusion or gap between our perception of the world and its reality, the “such-ness” of the world. Is it inherent in the source itself; is the world itself not real but an illusion, or does the problem exist because of our “perception” of the world? Does it reside in our minds then?

It is a worthwhile question. If what looks like reality is indeed reality, if there is a “real” material world out there, then we would not have to doubt it anymore. Instead it would become a psychological matter of “cleansing” the mind, of attempting to see things as they really are.

I would spend less time philosophically and existentially on examining (the) matter, but will see and accept everything as truly and undoubtedly there. Seeing will be believing. And I would say, hey listen, Descartes, the world out there exists, I exist as well, now let us synchronize the two and achieve a vision of truth and reality. We do not look at the world existentially anymore, but rather psychologically.

This is not Plato's posture, however. To Plato the world is simply appearance. All things have a perfect eternal source, but the way they appear is only its copy, an imprint, an imitation. The Form is itself the true object while many diminutive forms exist in the world. It is like a fax; the imprint is the same, but it is only a copy of the original document. At its extreme, all things on Earth no matter how faithful they look are “forgeries” then.

What would such a worldview entail? This would mean that we need to “train” our mind to be able to see through things as they appear in order to get a glimpse of its real ultimate Source or Form. This is, in Platonic tradition, achieved through reason and deductive logic.

Still there would be a gap there that could be filled with the concept of God or a Supreme Being. The highest good there is would be perfect and eternal in nature, just as the monotheistic religious tradition claims. The world we see in our daily lives are only shadows on the wall compared to the true life and meaning in the other heavenly world. That was one of the reasons why Plato became a perfect mouthpiece for the Christian religion.

On the other hand, to return to our first argument, if the world is the Form itself – if the two of them are identical and match perfectly - then there would be nothing beyond our world; therefore, an idea about a Platonic Form as the real essence would be a case of faulty thinking or simply Maya. If the Reality is there, right in front of our noses, it is our own fault of being too blind or too confused to perceive it as it is.

Which one is it then? There is an example in Buddhist thought that may be reconciled with Plato's ideas. It goes with the saying that the map is not the territory or that the finger pointing to the moon is not the moon itself. In my opinion, this is true.

The world as we see it is in fact a perfect case of illusion. With modern technology we have been able to delve deeper into the subatomic world and there is definitely more than meets the eye. These findings will have sooner or later repercussions on our religious and philosophical beliefs.

The world becomes then a veil created, sustained and incorporated by the Cosmos. Now the Cosmos could be the embodiment of Brahman in the Hindu tradition or God as defined in the Christian tradition. This view, however, would mean that God is the world and that has a mystic flavor to it (what some Christians would define as a "bitter taste"). It can be reconciled with Plato's views and is Spinozian in nature.

And at this point, we have suddenly turned full circle and combined what seemed like a gap between two perceptions. Perhaps the world is really one whole, both interacting and harmonious within its little parts or monads, as Leibniz would say. Maya may lie in the faulty assumption that there is indeed any gap between the two. One is the other the same way drops make up the ocean.

At best, this is a positive and comforting conclusion and may satisfy and embrace most religions. At its worst, it may add to the endless pathways of Maya. It would be then like looking from a mirror into a reflection in a mirror with absolutely no idea which the real source is or whether such a thing actually exists. We would be caught up in an indeterminate web of self-propagating lies and mirrored deception with nothing solid to fall back on. For better or worse, I prefer the previous option.