[TV] Dexter - Page 153

On November 16 2011 03:22 floor exercise wrote:
You're missing a key factor: Tyler Durden was never dead. He is not a real person who died, and came back. Casper the Friendly Ghost presumably died at some point and that's how he became a ghost. The other difference, which no one seems to have any problem distinguishing, is that Tyler Durden exists in one guys head, and Casper floats around with children.

Why people can grasp one of those distinctions and not the other, I cannot say.

I'm not debating whether Dexter's dad or brother can go and haunt LaGuerta's house if they felt so inclined. I am merely defending, to the death if necessary, my right to call the disembodied spirit (by which I mean the incorporeal supernatural being that a person who died and is somehow acting as though they are living is) of a dead person a ghost, whether real or imagined.

To recap:

Tyler Durden: Imaginary, not a ghost

Casper the Friendly Ghost: ghost, not imaginary (in the context of the cartoon)

Dexter's Dad: Imaginary Ghost. He is both imaginary (we are to assume based on the show) and he is a ghost as defined above or with your favorite dictionary.

On November 16 2011 03:22 floor exercise wrote:
You're missing a key factor: Tyler Durden was never dead. He is not a real person who died, and came back. Casper the Friendly Ghost presumably died at some point and that's how he became a ghost. The other difference, which no one seems to have any problem distinguishing, is that Tyler Durden exists in one guys head, and Casper floats around with children.

Why people can grasp one of those distinctions and not the other, I cannot say.

I'm not debating whether Dexter's dad or brother can go and haunt LaGuerta's house if they felt so inclined. I am merely defending, to the death if necessary, my right to call the disembodied spirit (by which I mean the incorporeal supernatural being that a person who died and is somehow acting as though they are living is) of a dead person a ghost, whether real or imagined.

To recap:

Tyler Durden: Imaginary, not a ghost

Casper the Friendly Ghost: ghost, not imaginary (in the context of the cartoon)

Dexter's Dad: Imaginary Ghost. He is both imaginary (we are to assume based on the show) and he is a ghost as defined above or with your favorite dictionary.

On November 16 2011 03:22 floor exercise wrote:
I am merely defending, to the death if necessary, my right to call the disembodied spirit (by which I mean the incorporeal supernatural being that a person who died and is somehow acting as though they are living is) of a dead person a ghost, whether real or imagined.

On November 16 2011 03:32 SkysLa wrote:


I will quote this one instead of the next. I will start with a hypothetical in that I believe even if Dexter's dad was not dead but in a remote location where Dexter wasn't sure of it. Dexter would still imagine his Dad. Do you agree with this or no?

What I mean when I say this is that it doesn't matter that Dexter's Dad is dead or not, Dexter's Dad didn't come back as a ghost. Dexter's Dad is dead, period. Dexter's Dad is more of a conscience for Dexter rather than an actual ghost. This "conscience" is represented by an imagined being. The fact that you call it a disembodied spirit alone is wrong imo. Because neither of them is actually them. The imagination of Dexter's father is not actually Dexter's father's ghost.

On November 16 2011 03:33 Lord_J wrote:


Well it's good to see that you have your priorities in life straight.

On November 16 2011 01:32 floor exercise wrote:



Said with an almost casualness that suggests it's perfectly reasonable to regularly talk to and even argue with manifestations of dead people. What is a ghost by your definition? Whether they are entirely constructs of his own mind or if the Ghostbusters are going to burst in at any moment to take care of Ghost Dad and Ghost Bro, does it change that they are no longer living and he is still seeing them? And if that doesn't make them ghosts by definition I don't know what a ghost is and need your help.

On November 16 2011 03:28 Liquid`Tyler wrote:
imo the manifestations of father and brother are there to communicate dexter's inner dialogue to the audience. story-wise, the manifestations are justified by his general mental weirdness -- they are not a further development of his mental weirdness. it's just a failing of the medium of television that such a device needs to be used. instead of thinking "what do i think of dexter so readily accepting hallucinations?" you should be thinking "what am i learning about dexter through these conversations?" and if you want to sympathize with the writers, you can ponder "in what other way could i have learned these things?" and then you'd realize it's really fucking hard to introduce a device that accomplishes the same thing that doesn't spiral out of control. he could have confidants like he has had before but they never last. anyway, if you have no problem with the excessive use of voice-over, then you should have no problem with voice-over 2.0, imaginary conversation.

if you think about the way books tell you these things, you realize they're even more bullshit. omniscient narrators simply directly tell you, the reader, information you need to know about how a character is feeling. they get to use 100's of words to describe how one character is feeling for just one moment. it is way more bullshit and yet people just accept it without letting it ruin the story

On November 16 2011 03:55 ballasdontcry wrote:
There were better ways to illustrate Dexter's "evil" side coming out than writing a scene where he randomly decides to bang a gas station attendant when clearly it's been established multiple times during the course of this show that Dexter isn't at all interested in sex (see Rita; high school reunion chick from episode 1).

On November 16 2011 03:22 floor exercise wrote:
I am merely defending, to the death if necessary, my right to call the disembodied spirit (by which I mean the incorporeal supernatural being that a person who died and is somehow acting as though they are living is) of a dead person a ghost, whether real or imagined.

On November 16 2011 03:28 Liquid`Tyler wrote:
imo the manifestations of father and brother are there to communicate dexter's inner dialogue to the audience. story-wise, the manifestations are justified by his general mental weirdness -- they are not a further development of his mental weirdness. it's just a failing of the medium of television that such a device needs to be used. instead of thinking "what do i think of dexter so readily accepting hallucinations?" you should be thinking "what am i learning about dexter through these conversations?" and if you want to sympathize with the writers, you can ponder "in what other way could i have learned these things?" and then you'd realize it's really fucking hard to introduce a device that accomplishes the same thing that doesn't spiral out of control. he could have confidants like he has had before but they never last. anyway, if you have no problem with the excessive use of voice-over, then you should have no problem with voice-over 2.0, imaginary conversation.

if you think about the way books tell you these things, you realize they're even more bullshit. omniscient narrators simply directly tell you, the reader, information you need to know about how a character is feeling. they get to use 100's of words to describe how one character is feeling for just one moment. it is way more bullshit and yet people just accept it without letting it ruin the story

On November 16 2011 03:28 Liquid`Tyler wrote:
imo the manifestations of father and brother are there to communicate dexter's inner dialogue to the audience. story-wise, the manifestations are justified by his general mental weirdness -- they are not a further development of his mental weirdness. it's just a failing of the medium of television that such a device needs to be used. instead of thinking "what do i think of dexter so readily accepting hallucinations?" you should be thinking "what am i learning about dexter through these conversations?" and if you want to sympathize with the writers, you can ponder "in what other way could i have learned these things?" and then you'd realize it's really fucking hard to introduce a device that accomplishes the same thing that doesn't spiral out of control. he could have confidants like he has had before but they never last. anyway, if you have no problem with the excessive use of voice-over, then you should have no problem with voice-over 2.0, imaginary conversation.

if you think about the way books tell you these things, you realize they're even more bullshit. omniscient narrators simply directly tell you, the reader, information you need to know about how a character is feeling. they get to use 100's of words to describe how one character is feeling for just one moment. it is way more bullshit and yet people just accept it without letting it ruin the story

On November 16 2011 03:28 Liquid`Tyler wrote:
if you think about the way books tell you these things, you realize they're even more bullshit. omniscient narrators simply directly tell you, the reader, information you need to know about how a character is feeling. they get to use 100's of words to describe how one character is feeling for just one moment. it is way more bullshit and yet people just accept it without letting it ruin the story

On November 16 2011 03:03 floor exercise wrote:


Okay. If a deceased ancestor of yours was haunting your mind, whether or not it is a real affliction or the construct of your mind, how or why would you label that a person and not a ghost?

Why would anyone ever take exception to that being called a ghost? Whether or not it's imagined.

Would you not describe this problem as being 'haunted by the imaginary ghost of my dead father' or 'an imaginary person that looks and acts like my father, who happens to be dead'?

Why is this not a ghost? How is this even a debate? It's a perfectly reasonable description of what is going on in Dexter's mind by any definition you will find in any dictionary of what a ghost is.




Sound the fuckin alarms!

Where is the problem? Other than Professor Pedant over here who doesn't really know what he's talking about