211 replies to this topic

[Lady Melisandre]

It's pretty obvious I love the books, otherwise I wouldn't be procrastinating here

One major critique though that I have of GRRM's Westeros/Essos/Sothoros world-building is its apparent 'Orientalism'. His West/East/South cultural divide seems very stereotypical and if misinterpreted, perhaps ethnocentric (although I wouldn't want to accuse the author of such notions).

Why?

- Westeros: typical, Medieval, feudal culture with a very 'Catholic' set-up. Prohibits slavery (though not serfdom), shows some minimal concern for the poor and smallfolk, has a strongly centralized religion based on a revealed text.Caucasian inhabitants.

- Essos: stereotypical 'exotic' Eastern culture with Islamic/Zoroastrian overtones ('the Lord of Light'), a predominance of slavery (Astapor, Yunkai, Meereen) and 'barbarism' (Dothraki culture). People are described as more swarthy/dark-skinned, practice 'strange' culinary customs (unborn puppies and honeyed locusts, anyone?) and wear 'strange' clothes and hold 'strange' (if not plainly inhumane) social values. Everything about this continent seems to invoke an exotic type of Orientalism.

- Sothoros: we do not know much about Sothoros but it is supposed to be jungle-like, inhabited by small-scale, 'primitive', hunter-gatherer type cultures. The Summer Islanders have black skin and seem to embrace a sexually fluid and open culture, much like how Colonialist Westerners perceived Colonized cultures in Africa etc.

So... is GRRM merely employing memes and literary devices that feel familiar to us and are a reflection of our own reality? Or does he rehash cultural clichés and stereotypes, missing the opportunity to be both truly creative and to dismantle commonly-held stereotypes?

[TerraPrime]

Lady Melisandre, on 19 June 2012 - 05:36 PM, said:

Or does he rehash cultural clichés and stereotypes, missing the opportunity to be both truly creative and to dismantle commonly-held stereotypes?

Yes.

I think GRRM just doesn't know enough about the other cultures to do as good a job in presenting a realistic picture of those cultures. Or if he does know enough, he just didn't care enough to put the effort into it. The Dothraki culture is one-dimensional and flat, and so are almost every cultures across the bitter sea. The only exotic culture in the book that reads real is Dorne, imo.

[Lady Melisandre]

And Dorne isn't all that exotic. To me, it reads as Spain or North Africa at best.

I agree: the other cultures feel much flatter. And worse yet, seem to have fewer 'moral' qualities to them than Westeros.

[Gurkhal]

EDITED

Edited by Gurkhal, 19 June 2012 - 05:45 PM.

[Khal Pono]

I don't think it's really a fantasy authors job to "dismantle stereotypes" for the sake of dismantling stereotypes.

Incidentally, though, GRRM does dismantle a lot of fantasy stereotypes along the way:  that good and justice triumph over evil and treachery; that good and evil are clearly defined; that knights are good and true and protect the weak; that brave adventurers on quests will successfully arrive where they're trying to go, that fantasy book characters dont piss or shit or fuck....

But it's not natural or necessarily good for him to dismantle and subvert every literary and cultural stereotype that's ever been invented, or else the series would be an empty exercise in postmodernism or dare I say "political correctness"

Edited by Khal Pono, 19 June 2012 - 05:45 PM.

[Hear me Meow]

In GoT Dany marries Drogo outside the walls of Pentos in 'barbaric splendour' and Illyrio tells Viserys a Dothraki wedding without three deaths is considered a dull affair.

Seems like the Westerosi agree, at least after SoS.

Tyrion does point out in DwD that eastern slavery is not all that different from western serfdom (not sure historically, that I agree) so GrrM doesn't see these divisions as black and white.

The behaviour of the Dothraki towards the lamb men is mirrored by the activity of Tywin and his raiders in aCoK.

Edited by Procopius, 19 June 2012 - 05:46 PM.

[Lord Ben]

Personally I think the Orientalist bits of it are intentional.  If you have a strange an unusual place the characters have never been to you can describe Japan or Greece and then say "oh, this is super strange" and hope the readers appreciate it's strange to the character even though familiar to themselves or you can create a fictionalized world where it's strange even the reader feels a bit out of place.

I think it's this deliberate drawing of influences but super exaggerating them leads to a few negative perceptions of his writing... I don't mind it.

[Hear me Meow]

Khal Pono, on 19 June 2012 - 05:44 PM, said:

I don't think it's really a fantasy authors job to "dismantle stereotypes" for the sake of dismantling stereotypes.

Incidentally, though, GRRM does dismantle a lot of fantasy stereotypes along the way:  that good and justice triumph over evil and treachery; that good and evil are clearly defined; that knights are good and true and protect the weak; that brave adventurers on quests will successfully arrive where they're trying to go, that fantasy book characters dont piss or shit or fuck....

But it's not natural or necessarily good for him to dismantle and subvert every literary and cultural stereotype that's ever been invented, or else the series would be an empty exercise in postmodernism or dare I say "political correctness"

I agree with this.

[Ser Heathcliff]

I must agree with the original post too. I think if there is a weakness in GRRM's books, it is this one. It is also shown on the "exotic-sounding names" which, in my opinion, are from large part just really weird and bad. (Mostly it just looks like trying to come up with the way a name can sound the most exotic - "how many X's and Q's can you fit into one word, I wonder?")

It is not that bad, however. The exotic places have its own spirit, and for most part they are interesting, and they evoke certain ideas, and after all, the "orientalism" has some magic in itself: the feeling of something really awkward and a bit "outworldly", even, which is exactly the feeling the European colonists had.

But you cannot look at the non-Westerosi cultures as realistic cultures, no. As in, they couldn't be the "central" culture, because they are just too weird. They are built on some archetype/stereotype, they are representing something (wild riders from the steppe/slavers/etc), but they lack the dimensions a "real" culture has.

I would maybe just say, I don't think the other cultures are seen as less "moral" or something. The Westerosi see them often as that, true, but the reader doesn't have to, and also, I don't think the Westerosi are in the position to judge anyone based on morality...

[Lady Melisandre]

Thanks for the interesting points

Yes, the moral nuance and gritty realism does break the traditional fantasy format, I do agree with that.

And I am torn between thinking that GRRM's writing is truly Orientalist or a conscious literary decision to let us see the world through Westerosi eyes.

The question of whether fantasy in general or 'ASoIaF' should 'break stereotypes' is a broader question of 'socially engaged literature' and what the role of literature should be. I often like to think as Fantasy and Sci-Fi as genres that allow for much relevant social commentary. But I do agree that it shouldn't become forced or politically correct.

[Gaius Martell]

Well, Essos does have the Free Cities, which all are leagues ahead of, socially and technologically, the Seven Kingdoms.  Likewise, the Valyrian Freehold is effectively a Roman Empire that dissolved into powerful city states, not feudalism.  Essos as whole thus isn't uniformly oriental, but I do believe some of GRRM's choices on stereotype hyperbole were intentional to preserve some sense of reality for the readers.

[mythsandstuff]

Lady Melisandre, on 19 June 2012 - 05:49 PM, said:

And I am torn between thinking that GRRM's writing is truly Orientalist or a conscious literary decision to let us see the world through Westerosi eyes.

The question of whether fantasy in general or 'ASoIaF' should 'break stereotypes' is a broader question of 'socially engaged literature' and what the role of literature should be. I often like to think as Fantasy and Sci-Fi as genres that allow for much relevant social commentary. But I do agree that it shouldn't become forced or politically correct.

This. I can't decide if seeing, say, Mereeneese culture through Dany's eyes is a critique of imperialism or if I really just want it not to be blatantly Orientalist. I'm leaning towards the former.

Re: forcing, I think analyzing current work in this manner is, in part, about the work itself, but is mostly about checking to see where we are as a culture. In other words, it's not an attack on the text or the author, but rather a cultural progress report, a way of testing, through the lens of a particular work, whether what we think about progress is true or just true of the bubble we live in. I dig it, and I'm glad to see lots of it around lately, but it is uncomfortable work.

[Dr. Pepper]

Lord Ben, on 19 June 2012 - 05:45 PM, said:

Personally I think the Orientalist bits of it are intentional.  If you have a strange an unusual place the characters have never been to you can describe Japan or Greece and then say "oh, this is super strange" and hope the readers appreciate it's strange to the character even though familiar to themselves or you can create a fictionalized world where it's strange even the reader feels a bit out of place.

I think it's this deliberate drawing of influences but super exaggerating them leads to a few negative perceptions of his writing... I don't mind it.

I agree with this, I think it's entirely intentional.  I think the reader is meant to feel that Essosi characters are strange, exotic and even barbaric because that is what the Westerosi characters living or traveling in Essos think. When we disregard what characters like Tyrion, Dany, Quentyn, Barristan, Victarion and others think and say about the Essosi, we can better see the humanity of the people there and we can see that Westerosi POV character views are very ethnocentric and unfair.

It wasn't too long ago that Dany thought the Dothraki were barbaric savages until she lived with them and discovered a shared humanity nor was it too long ago that Jon thought the wildlings were barbaric savages until he lived with them and discovered a shared humanity.

[butterbumps!]

Lady Melisandre, I like that you raised these issues as its own topic.

I've made a few scattered rants about this subject in places from time to time.  I do think that there is a degree of missed opportunity regarding the creations of un-stereotypical cultures, but for me, this isn't the main problem I have.  I think to some extent part of the flagrant Orientalism we see is due to the fact that we are quite literally engaging with it with outsider's eyes: Quentyn, Barristan and Tyrion are Westerosi, and Dany is not of their culture either.  So we are relying on their perceptions of and interactions with the "other", none of which are particularly sympathetic to these societies.  The books are written in third person limited point of view, which is important to keep in mind, as by its nature this literary device limits our perception of events to what the characters can see and perceive.

To that end, I am disappointed with our engagement with the Ghiscari, because we really only see the bottom of the societal barrel on our journey.  The bulk of our information of them comes through Dany's POV, and the focus is on the most ridiculously deplorable examples of humanity to date.  We do not see the educated classes, the merchants, architects, weavers and other craftsmen to hear their point of view.  No, we get the Snidely Whiplash slavers who force eunuchs to kill babies and puppies, and on top of it all, are incredibly stupid, lazy and completely incompetent in everything they do.  I can only think of a single instance where we see a bit of humanity of the Ghiscari: when the boy of a slaver family comes to court and petitions Dany for justice for the rape and murder of his family.  

Other than this, they are presented as completely without any sort of attempt at rendering them with human qualities, and that really leaves me uneasy.  I understand that we are perhaps supposed to unquestionably support Dany's actions in Slaver's Bay because these people "cannot be redeemed," but I am still troubled by this idea.  Without saying this as a criticism of Dany, the fact that Martin is giving Dany the go-ahead to just raze an entire society with Dragonfire because it's worthless leaves me feeling like something's missing here, that the representation of the culture is too thin, that we're supposed to just write off these cartoon villains as getting their just deserts.

In another thread I wrote a comparison between the way the Ghiscari are presented versus the Wildlings, and I firmly believe that the way the Ghiscari are depicted is highly problematic.  When you think about it, the Wildlings are rapists thieves and subscribe to a form of "might makes right" in terms of how they execute their "freedom."  Yet we love them (at least, I do- I fully support and sympathize with them) because they are drawn empathetically, and we get to know a variety of them pretty personally (Ygritte, Val, Mance, Tormund).  We don't get anything like that with the Ghiscari, and it seems the more we learn of them, the more reprehensible they become.  So, yes, I do think it's problematic!

Edited a typo

Edited by butterbumps!, 20 June 2012 - 10:16 AM.

[Yuri Targaryen]

The books are a little bit Orientalist and that's why they're good!

Really, people should get over it. What's the problem with some stereotypes? That makes the book much more colourful, interesting and magic. We also should notice, Essos is viewed from a Westerosi perspective, so it's natural this cultural clash.

West and East are different. Period. Let's deal with it.

[butterbumps!]

Yuri Targaryen, on 19 June 2012 - 06:24 PM, said:

The books are a little bit Orientalist and that's why they're good!
Really, people should get over it. What's the problem with some stereotypes? That makes the book much more colourful, interesting and magic. We also should notice, Essos is viewed from a Westerosi perspective, so it's natural this cultural clash.

West and East are different. Period. Let's deal with it.

I respectfully disagree with you, because of the impact it has in terms of the way the story seems to be playing out.  If an entire culture of people are portrayed as completely worthless and reprehensible, then it sets up an imperative for one of our characters with dragons to annihilate a populace, by absolving any moral quandary this might otherwise cause.  It's the literary equivalent of throwing someone a meatball pitch here.   Further, I can't count how many times I've seen it posted that Meereen doesn't matter, that Dany should either leave or nuke them and move on to Westeros, suggesting that human life does not matter unless it's Westerosi.  It's the same kind of orientalism that leads to the assumption that the time in Slaver's Bay is just a "practice session" enabling Dany to learn how to rule so that's she's all set for the more important Westeros headlining event.  It's not precisely about "just dealing with it," so much as orientalism's presence does lead to some significant plot and character developments that are problematic in both a humanitarian context, as well as removing an otherwise complex and rich literary quandary.

[The Taupe Grace]

Butterbumps, could not agree more with your post, especially on the one-dimensionality of the Ghiscari culture. At least with the Dothraki, Daenerys actively integrates and shows respect for their culture; whereas in Meereen, she dismisses their culture, customs as cruel and barbaric and assumes the superiority of her own moral judgement. The city and people are never presented in a positive light, nor does it humanise any individual within that culture. Meanwhile the exoticism and barbarity that makes it 'foreign' is laid on so thick it's farcical. E.g.: Hizdahr zo krzqvxzkqikdairoph etc. etc. It's equating the two - that foreign culture = irredeemable and deserving Daenerys's imperialist messiah complex that's problematic.

It's true that we do view it from Westorosi POVs entirely - thus it's unsurprising the narrative is laden with orientalist tropes evoking 'otherness'. But I think it's a massive failing - given how much of the narrative is spent in Essos, that we do not have any POVs or at least major characters that have some substance rather than being just accessories of the Westorosi protagonist. Even as a medieval fantasy romp, it's kind of a shame that it's still so implicitly eurocentric and caucasian-dominated, when it could easily choose to properly represent the other, less euro-familiar cultures in 3-dimensions.

[Winter's Knight]

Yuri Targaryen, on 19 June 2012 - 06:24 PM, said:

The books are a little bit Orientalist and that's why they're good!

Really, people should get over it. What's the problem with some stereotypes? That makes the book much more colourful, interesting and magic. We also should notice, Essos is viewed from a Westerosi perspective, so it's natural this cultural clash.

West and East are different. Period. Let's deal with it.

Because the books are read by people supposedly represented in those stereotypes? Because some of us grew up reading ourselves in those stereotypes and are getting tired of it?

The one-dimensional characters in Essos  annoy me intensely-and it would not have been difficult surely to have an Essosi PoV, like Areo Hotah?

[Yuri Targaryen]

butterbumps!, on 19 June 2012 - 06:40 PM, said:

I respectfully disagree with you, because of the impact it has in terms of the way the story seems to be playing out.  If an entire culture of people are portrayed as completely worthless and reprehensible, then it sets up an imperative for one of our characters with dragons to annihilate a populace, by absolving any moral quandary this might otherwise cause.  It's the literary equivalent of throwing someone a meatball pitch here.   Further, I can't count how many times I've seen it posted that Meereen doesn't matter, that Dany should either leave or nuke them and move on to Westeros, suggesting that human life does not matter unless it's Westerosi.  It's the same kind of orientalism that leads to the assumption that the time in Slaver's Bay is just a "practice session" enabling Dany to learn how to rule so that's she's all set for the more important Westeros headlining event.  It's not precisely about "just dealing with it," so much as orientalism's presence does lead to some significant plot and character developments that are problematic in both a humanitarian context, as well as removing an otherwise complex and rich literary quandary.

butterbumps!, on 19 June 2012 - 06:40 PM, said:

I respectfully disagree with you, because of the impact it has in terms of the way the story seems to be playing out.  If an entire culture of people are portrayed as completely worthless and reprehensible, then it sets up an imperative for one of our characters with dragons to annihilate a populace, by absolving any moral quandary this might otherwise cause.  It's the literary equivalent of throwing someone a meatball pitch here.   Further, I can't count how many times I've seen it posted that Meereen doesn't matter, that Dany should either leave or nuke them and move on to Westeros, suggesting that human life does not matter unless it's Westerosi.  It's the same kind of orientalism that leads to the assumption that the time in Slaver's Bay is just a "practice session" enabling Dany to learn how to rule so that's she's all set for the more important Westeros headlining event.  It's not precisely about "just dealing with it," so much as orientalism's presence does lead to some significant plot and character developments that are problematic in both a humanitarian context, as well as removing an otherwise complex and rich literary quandary.

Well, I don't see it that way. The good thing about "Orientalism" is make them different, not necessarily dehumanize them. I for one love the imperialistic perspective and I don't want Meereen nuked. Also, we are constantly reminded there are many good Easterners in the book.

[Blisscraft]

I agree with BB.  If there is any part of the ASOIAF world that is shallow it is in the slavers' cities.  I also agree that the reason for this apparent lack of depth is due to the POV's through which this part of the world is presented.  We never see anything through the eyes of Hazzea's father or one of the young captives (cupbearers) in Dany's household.  The result is a limited Westerosi centered world view.  Hopefully, in the future we will see this flawed aspect of the series improved.  Finally, with regard to the point made above regarding the "practice session" quality to the representation of Meereen, Meereen offers more challenges to Dany's character development than ever before.  Maybe that's why it is so frustrating and difficult accept, especially in contrast with other stories in the book.