“American Horror Story and Glee” writer Ryan Murphy's “Dahmer–Monster: The Jeffrey Dahmer Story” has been breaking records since its initial Netflix release on September 21st, as the second most-watched series on the platform right behind “Stranger Things 4.” Despite the massive backlash the show has been amassing on social media platforms such as Twitter and TikTok, and this trend still seems to remain positive.

It's not a surprise that a show about one of the most infamous serial killers in history has gone viral, similar to the success of the 2007 film “Zodiac” by David Fincher featuring Jake Gyllenhall and Robert Downey Jr. based on the investigation of the Zodiac Killer, or Joe Berlinger's 2019 “Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil and Vile” with Zac Efron and Lily Collins, telling the story of American serial killer Ted Bundy–both being equals to Dahmer when it comes to global infamy.

Yet, with the first few episodes of the show “Dahmer,” director Ryan Murphy's attempt in differentiating the show from pre-existing true crime television becomes apparent. After a few episodes on the upbringing of Jeffery Dahmer and his alleged childhood trauma, the show completely shifts focus from telling the life story of a killer to Dahmer’s victims–more specifically, the 16 men of color he murdered. Halfway through the show, we begin to see glimpses of the respective lives of Konerak Sinthasomphone, Anthony Hughes, Jamie Doxtator, and more of whom he killed.

Despite having a profound interest in the realm of true crime and having heard the story of serial killer Jeffery Dahmer, I had no clue of who his victims were, how they lived their own lives, and how their families were treated after watching “Dahmer.” Especially with the depths this show explores with the issue of race, police prejudice and being LGBTQ+ between the 1970~1990s, this show seemed to shed light on “why” Dahmer wasn't caught earlier than he did, rather than “how” he did at all. This was the general consensus found between the wave of criticism the series had been receiving.

With that being said, the Netflix series has tanked in audience reception, and received mixed reviews from critics. The primary concern for many viewers has been the fact that neither Ryan Murphy nor Netflix consulted the families of the victims of Jeffery Dahmer when creating the series. The series is "re-traumatizing Milwaukee's black LGBTQ+ community," Alexandra Jane from Yahoo!Life writes, as she continues to point out the irony in the series striving to shine light on the victims' stories while failing to even try to obtain basic consent to do so. Other viewers point out the uncomfortableness of the show's uncannily-realistic depiction of Dahmer's crimes, calling it to be "gruesome" and "disturbing".

To this, I could say that I stand with the notion that many of those claims are reasonable and justifiable, but only to a certain extent. There is no word other than 'inconsiderate' when describing Netflix's approach in tackling a true crime case with surviving families of victims. Especially with the fact that several families of victims were strictly opposed to their relatives' death being turned into yet another TV series, the show becomes an exploitation of the victims' trauma. Still, I can't help but to wonder what legacy the show “Dahmer” might have left in the world of true crime media, only if it was done the right way.

For one, it seems the widely-criticized gruesomeness of the show is what has been needed in true crime media for quite some time. When “Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil and Vile” made its 2019 Netflix debut, many were quick to point out the lack of "realness" shown in the film, as there were barely any scene of Bundy's crimes in action, such as the brutal killings and sexual assaults he eventually got charged for. Such circumstances led to the portrayal of Bundy as a charming young man who charmed his way through the American judicial system despite ending up on death row. It also put fuel to the fire of Bundy's supporters, most of whom were young women who saw a twisted attractiveness in his demeanor and looks. Yet, with “Dahmer” and its outright portrayal of Dahmer's crimes, the show continues to be criticized, but this time for being "hard to watch" or "too disturbing". To this, I say that there is no fine line in which true crime media has to walk in order to avoid such feedback. It seems crucial that more audiences should realize that; yes, the show portrays borderline unwatchable, hyper-realistic images of brutal killings and assault–yet that's what makes criminals such as Dahmer or Bundy such terrible individuals who should not be receiving anyone's support. While in recognition of the number of audiences who have went on to supposedly "romanticize" Dahmer and those who blame the show for causing such, “Dahmer” and it's terribly raw, real, and violent depiction of crimes which were just that goes on to remind us that perhaps it is the twisted audience at fault, rather than the show and its honest depiction of a serial killer.

This, combined with the aforementioned emphasis the show puts on Dahmer's victims, is what makes Netflix's “Dahmer” a hard one to watch go. Objectively speaking, it is a great show with top-tier cinematography and a radical understanding of what true crime should be–perhaps it could be considered one of the best true crime media of the 21st century. Yet, the sheer extent of disapproval it's been receiving from the victim's families makes the show out to be one built upon exploitation under the name of acknowledgment. Off-the-record, if this show may be of intrigue, I suggest watching it on pirated websites instead of giving Netflix the streams it already has more than enough of.