Reader Response Peterman 2

When comparing the levels of violence in Dexter to that of Natural Born Killers, I feel like the two are at polar opposite ends of the spectrum. Interestingly, both works feature a story line about a serial killer(s), but the way in which they are presented are so completely differently that I am amazed at how different I can feel about the same subject matter (serial killers) all based on the presentation of the material.
Take for instance the aspect of visual violence content in each production. With Dexter, the producer gives you just enough visual detail to leave you certain that Dexter is killing his victims after he has finished torturing them; but stops short of forcing you to watch every last gory detail. Versus Natural born Killers which shows you in very horrific and graphic detail how each of their murderous killing sprees are carried out.
Both works also touch upon the issue of media violence, but I feel as if Dexter really challenges what we as a viewing public think we know about media violence. Although there is reoccurring theme of brutality to the Dexter series, the producers have shown us that the people who enjoy and create this type of on-screen brutality can be smart and creative and not just vulgar and graphic. Dexter’s sincerity and likeability sets him apart from the other on screen “slasher” types. Another defining feature about Dexter is the fact that Dexter’s world is a democratic world. Young or old, black, white, Asian or Hispanic, wealthy or not, his violence touches anyone who is a bad person or commits heinous crimes against others. In fact, I think the violence contained in the series is the least interesting aspect of the show. The villains who end up on Dexter’s infamous table all die in the same way and the mechanics of the act aren’t important. I think what is interesting is the fact that each of the killings add complexity to Dexter the character and the narrative. In fact, most viewers are left feeling as if Dexter is a