A Game of Thrones a tad bit Orientalist?

[Lady Blackfish]

That's how I thought of it when reading, it's supposed to be a flatter view (I agree with Daena that the main of Westeros is not purely historically accurate either, but it does have greater degrees of complexity). Because I think that things do get more complicated as Dany goes from the plains of Dothrak to the Free Cities and eventually to Westeros, so while I was reading it, it came across to me like it could be some kind of commentary on Orientalism itself. The stories we tell about some places, we choose to tell them because we view them in a way that can offer us easier emotional catharsis -- and Dany's eventual landing in Westeros could be the flipswitch that put that all into perspective. But I was never sure if I was overanalysing.

[Darzin]

Well I guess the east might seem a bit flat to some people, I myself have always enjoyed it yeah maybe the Dothraki were a bit simplified but still a belivable culture with different characters.

I feel it is important we have only one Pov in the east, and she’s a rich exile, Westros might seem a little flatter if the only Pov we got was Jalabar Xho as he tries to get support for his claim. We could easily be complaining about how stereotypically corrupt Westros was.

Quarth always felt well developed to me with a realistic culture and Government, sure Dany mostly met corrupt people but the only people who had reason to deal with her were those whowanted her Dragons.

1)Dany doesn't get to claim moral high ground for pounding the local into submission 2) Dany doesn't pound the locals into submission, rather she runs into some Littlefinger, Freys, Boltons, Lannisters equivalent and becomes somewhat of a puppet and has to initiate a subtle yet bloody purge if she really wants to get control

I think one or both of these things is going to happen in Mereen as well as its eastern culture being expanded upon further.

[King Hodor]

Really? I never found the East or the Dothraki to be flat. Though the cast of characters is admittedly smaller in the East, and we do have fewer POV characters, like others have mentioned, I'd still say the settings and peoples are believable and engrossing.

I'm not sure what the OP meant by "civilized barbarity." I don't think the fact that someone is wearing fine garments while raping someone in a castle is better than doing it wearing boiled leather in a razed city. Indeed, between the two, I'd say the latter is more "justifiable."

I'm also not quite sure what people would prefer? The Dothraki as noble savages who are in tune with Mother Gaia like the Na'vi of Pandora? Nah, I think having them as roving war bands is much richer and less contrived.

[Mandurang]

I agree with King Hodor. In terms of detail, it seems to me that you shouldn't be so quick to rule out the lack of POV chapters that detail the East as a valid reason why the eastern world isn't as fleshed out. It could be, but we are not getting that information, for all we know.

About the Dothraki in particular, I think I see people commonly doing the following when discussing the world of Ice and Fire: attributing a false historicity to the setting of the books and judge their apparent veracity against it. As a real-world example, why don't you consider the Mongol tribes before their unification and Genghis Khan, instead of after? It seems to me a very convincing description based on that - or, at least, of the aspects of their culture we are getting a description of through Dany's POV (which is probably the only one).

About Quarth, however, it is indeed a little more laden with mystery. In the beginning, at least - because later on that aura is partially dispelled through Dany's actions, those of Xaro Xhoan Daxos, and other characters, but not completely, because of the Prophecy. Which is still a good thing - the variations of tone have always seemed a testament to how good the books are, because they mirror so well the characters they depict.

[All-for-Joffrey]

Really? I never found the East or the Dothraki to be flat. Though the cast of characters is admittedly smaller in the East, and we do have fewer POV characters, like others have mentioned, I'd still say the settings and peoples are believable and engrossing.

I'm not sure what the OP meant by "civilized barbarity." I don't think the fact that someone is wearing fine garments while raping someone in a castle is better than doing it wearing boiled leather in a razed city. Indeed, between the two, I'd say the latter is more "justifiable."

I'm also not quite sure what people would prefer? The Dothraki as noble savages who are in tune with Mother Gaia like the Na'vi of Pandora? Nah, I think having them as roving war bands is much richer and less contrived.

I meant that Westeros is indeed a very brutal, barbaric society but the people who inhabit it are not one dimensional and simple and not everyone is the same and thinks the same way, which is the impression the Dothraki give. Every single one of them seems to be completely chill with senseless slaughter and rape -- including that of their own tribesmen. Where as in Westeros there are noble, honorable people and even among the "monsters" there are varying degrees.

The fact that you even use the term "noble savages" reeks of orientalism itself and I think the fact that you thought that I wanted some sort of Avatar/Native American belief system says a lot about your own perspectives as that sort of culture isn't remotely like that of nomadic tribesmen. The Dothraki as a roving war band is fine, I have no problem with that, the Mongols were too. Nor was I saying or implying that the lack of POVs in the east makes it orientalist but other people did cite this as a reason the east feels underdeveloped, which I agree could be part of the reason. I think you missed the point I was trying to make entirely. What it essentially boils down to is that the Dothraki are not a realistic and believable culture because of their obsession with rape and murder, even amongst their own kinsmen. You could make the argument that this is true in Westeros too but not EVERYONE is like that. Among the Dothraki, there is no variance of opinion, everyone is static, etc. And, of course, there are the other reasons I cited, such as the bothersome, broken-English used when the Dothraki speak their own language.

About the Dothraki in particular, I think I see people commonly doing the following when discussing the world of Ice and Fire: attributing a false historicity to the setting of the books and judge their apparent veracity against it. As a real-world example, why don't you consider the Mongol tribes before their unification and Genghis Khan, instead of after? It seems to me a very convincing description based on that - or, at least, of the aspects of their culture we are getting a description of through Dany's POV (which is probably the only one).

Do you really think the Mongols pre-Genghis really went around attacking every single settlement and preforming whole scale slaughter? Even more, do you really think they would be allowed to do this to their own tribe? And lastly, do you really think the status of women and the elderly were as diminutive. I'll admit, I don't know much about Mongol society but I know quite a bit about the ancient Turks who were very similar and I know that none of this was true in the case of the Turks so I'm extremely skeptical as I can't see an entire culture automatically changing their ways just because one man unifies them.

[Marakesh]

I feel it is important we have only one Pov in the east, and she’s a rich exile, Westros might seem a little flatter if the only Pov we got was Jalabar Xho as he tries to get support for his claim. We could easily be complaining about how stereotypically corrupt Westros was.

Quarth always felt well developed to me with a realistic culture and Government, sure Dany mostly met corrupt people but the only people who had reason to deal with her were those whowanted her Dragons.

Very nicely put.

The fact that you even use the term "noble savages" reeks of orientalism itself

When they do in Viserys I was reminded of Howard's line about civilization destroying people's manners because you don't have to worry about someone loping off your head when they get angry. Conan was a noble savage, and he certainly wasn't oriental or eastern in any way. The Romans viewed the Germans that way, its too common to notice in most of history. The Dothraki are more brutish but more honest than corrupt civilized peoples. It is a bit of a stereotype there, I just don't see it as racially based.

And btw - the Navar actually are a Native American racial stereotype, its just that its a socially acceptable one these days. Check out A Man Called Horse for a good movie. Its where this story line started and unlike the 2 blockbusters that followed its not a fairy tale about running away from reality.

[Acid Rainbow]

The Dothraki are good as villains or an external threat, but when Dany lives with them they just seem a bit ridiculous to me. The real Mongols respected women much more, and they didn't casually kill their own tribesmen like that.

And yeah, they do speak in broken English even when they're using their native language. One of Dany's handmaids (Irri?) told her that "dragon is terrible evil beast".

[Lord Mord]

How much of the alleged problems of Essos can be explained by the fact this is being seen through Dany's eyes? Dany, who probably is most comfortable with the Common Tongue, might translate her servant's words literally, and the servant's language may not always (or ever) employ the adjectival article "a". The cultures look flat(-ish, for some) because Dany's appreciation for them is flat.

As for the Dothraki being ridiculous ... I suppose that's possible. I don't see why it is obviously ridiculous, though, as it's being treated. I mean, so the Mongols did things "better" than the Dothraki do -- so what? Why is it so definitely very bloody impossible the Mongols could have behaved so, and which behaviors anyway are we talking about that make it so definitely very bloody ridiculous?

I mean, isn't that a form of Orientalism? "It doesn't conform to the expectations I have, it appears to belong to an alien 'other,' therefore it's puny and stupid" ...? It's a different world. Sure, it has its real-world mirrors, sure as an authorial creation it relies on cliche, but if it actually happened like that -- and who's to say it couldn't have? -- then really what we're quibbling about is execution, and not ideas.

[schpat]

I meant that Westeros is indeed a very brutal, barbaric society but the people who inhabit it are not one dimensional and simple and not everyone is the same and thinks the same way, which is the impression the Dothraki give. Every single one of them seems to be completely chill with senseless slaughter and rape -- including that of their own tribesmen. Where as in Westeros there are noble, honorable people and even among the "monsters" there are varying degrees.

Um, everybody north of the wall seems to think that kidnapping women, even killing the men around her, and forcing her to live with you is a valid way of finding a wife. The Iron men seem to think that taking salt wives is a grand idea, doesn't Victarion's salt wife have no teeth anymore?

Remember that at the Wedding, the part where men are killed and they have rough sex with the dancers, Dany is very new to the culture and doesn't speak the language. Her perceptions are affected by this.

Also I'm not sure that there is any mention that the dancers are not willing partners in the coupling. Dany is just shocked that they do it on the open. Yes I know that men kill each other over the dancers, but some women like it when men fight over them.

I think you missed the point I was trying to make entirely. What it essentially boils down to is that the Dothraki are not a realistic and believable culture because of their obsession with rape and murder, even amongst their own kinsmen. You could make the argument that this is true in Westeros too but not EVERYONE is like that. Among the Dothraki, there is no variance of opinion, everyone is static, etc. And, of course, there are the other reasons I cited, such as the bothersome, broken-English used when the Dothraki speak their own language.

See Above, and we don't actually see that many dothraki. The major dothraki we see don't seem to be obsessed with rape, maybe killing but it is a warior culture. The only Dothraki we really see in detail are Drogo, his blodriders, Danny's bloodriders and two of dany's handmaidens. That's nine people and none of them seem obsessed with rape.

I'd bet that if you took a Westrosi High Lord and eight of his closest retainers they'd also be culturally similar.

Do you really think the Mongols pre-Genghis really went around attacking every single settlement and preforming whole scale slaughter? Even more, do you really think they would be allowed to do this to their own tribe? And lastly, do you really think the status of women and the elderly were as diminutive. I'll admit, I don't know much about Mongol society but I know quite a bit about the ancient Turks who were very similar and I know that none of this was true in the case of the Turks so I'm extremely skeptical as I can't see an entire culture automatically changing their ways just because one man unifies them.

Who cares what the Mongols or Turks did or belived, if GRRM wanted to write about them he would have. This is a fantasy novel were similarities can be drawn to real world cultures but the fictional people are not suposed to be direct imports. Westeros is very similar to European medival/feudal culture, but it also differs in significant ways.

[Ran]

scpat,

doesn't Victarion's salt wife have no teeth anymore?

No. She has no tongue, but she's a slave from the east that Euron gave to him.

As far as the Dothraki goes, it's true that GRRM said that the Dothraki are a mix of things with some fantasy thrown in. One of those things is the Native Americans (presumably, he means the post-Colombus plains tribes that took to horses and used them extensively as part of a nomadic lifestyle, such as the Sioux). I think he was looking at the relatively primitive culture and organization of the Sioux (as compared to the Mongols and Turks) for the Dothraki...

But the Sioux didn't roam in tribes made up of 80,000+ individuals. You need a lot more advancement in terms of organization to do this. Now, Drogo's khalasar is said to be by far the largest and most powerful. Perhaps this is due to some sort of governmental innovations Drogo introduced. But there's no hint of it, and instead I think we're just supposed to take it as a matter of force of personality and his string of victories. But that doesn't surmount organizational problems.

Were Drogo's khalasar a tenth of its size, the Dothraki would feel much more plausible. Or if there was any hint of advanced organization -- including labor specialization beyond warrior, too old/young/weak-to-be-warrior, slave (where are the smiths? I can buy that the Dothraki largely produce their own goods, but smithing requires a high investment in equipment and knowledge) -- it would be more plausible.

[Daena the Defiant]

Are you sure about that? Doesn't Dany largely speak to them in Common and they speak Common back to her (albeit brokenly?).

Alternatively, maybe Irri is just stupid ;)

[Ran]

One of Dany's handmaids (Irri?) told her that "dragon is terrible evil beast".

They're speaking either the Common Tongue or Valyrian at that time, not Dothraki.

Dany still knows hardly any Dothraki at that point (and there's no evidence that Doreah, the hand-maid they're talking with, knowns any Dothraki to speak of), and doesn't seem to be fluent even by the end of AGoT, given how often Drogo chooses to respond to her in the Common Tongue rather than in Dothraki.

[Mandurang]

Do you really think the Mongols pre-Genghis really went around attacking every single settlement and preforming whole scale slaughter? Even more, do you really think they would be allowed to do this to their own tribe? And lastly, do you really think the status of women and the elderly were as diminutive. I'll admit, I don't know much about Mongol society but I know quite a bit about the ancient Turks who were very similar and I know that none of this was true in the case of the Turks so I'm extremely skeptical as I can't see an entire culture automatically changing their ways just because one man unifies them.

Let me say that I did not imply you can identify cultures that are actual historical fact and those that are fiction set in a fantasy world. However, let me again elaborate, on the particular case of the Dothraki. The question that seems to me to be most pertinent is not "did this ever happen?", but "could this ever happen?", and there I would answer "yes", allowing for any differences in sociopolitical realities in a world where magic and dragons exist (which I am not entirely capable of evaluating, nor, I think, is anybody else). But even disregarding these elements, that of the Dothraki is a very plausible description. I don't claim to be an expert on Central Asian history, but I have read a few books on it, and based on that, do I think the status of women and the elderly was as diminutive? It has often historically been so, not only in the case of the Mongols, but many other warrior cultures. Finally, the "ancient Turks", as you put it, which I can safely assume relates to the various ancient Turkic peoples and in particular the Gokturks and other such collections of tribes over the centuries, were not particularly averse to slaughter, genocide, or enslavement of their rivals. Witness their conflicts with the Rouran and the Uyghurs. Also, this is just an inference, but George RR Martin has often stated that history is a favorite pastime of his, and it wouldn't be safe to assume that he is well-versed in Medieval European history but not another kind, since he has chosen to use a historical basis for his world.

All this is not to say that everything about the Dothraki is automatically sound and believable, but the general outlook is. Ran brought up some interesting points related to logistics:

But the Sioux didn't roam in tribes made up of 80,000+ individuals. You need a lot more advancement in terms of organization to do this. Now, Drogo's khalasar is said to be by far the largest and most powerful. Perhaps this is due to some sort of governmental innovations Drogo introduced. But there's no hint of it, and instead I think we're just supposed to take it as a matter of force of personality and his string of victories. But that doesn't surmount organizational problems.

Were Drogo's khalasar a tenth of its size, the Dothraki would feel much more plausible. Or if there was any hint of advanced organization -- including labor specialization beyond warrior, too old/young/weak-to-be-warrior, slave (where are the smiths? I can buy that the Dothraki largely produce their own goods, but smithing requires a high investment in equipment and knowledge) -- it would be more plausible.

I still can't help but think it's still just a problem arising from the lack of information we are getting from Dany's POV. If you look at these same considerations later on, when Dany becomes the decision-maker of her army and tribe, there is considerably more detailed description of organizational and logistical matters.

If you are interested, I can suggest reading up on pre-Genghis Khan Mongols (or similar cultures like the Tatars) and the concept of endemic warfare. Another motivating example is that of North American Plains Indians, if you are more familiar with that particular history (which I am not).

Edit: I see the Native American example has been already brought up, now that I read the whole thread, so I'll let that last comment stand as emphasis rather than new information.

[Liadin]

I think a lot of the points being made about orientalism are very valid, although it's not something I noticed before coming to the board. What bothers me more about the East is the lack of distinguishing characterization. I can't tell Irri and Jhiqui apart (except I remember Irri is the one Dany has sex with), nor can I distinguish between Dany's three bloodriders. That applies to basically all Eastern characters, none of whom seem intelligent besides. The characterizations tend more toward "A Dothraki"--there isn't the variation we see in Westeros between the civilized and the uncivilized, the honorable and the dishonorable, the intelligent and the stupid, and so on. The characters seem more like placeholders for their culture than real people. Now, yes, the same can be said to some extent of other "savage tribes," but I see a lot more diffentiation between the wildlings than I do among the Dothraki, Qartheen, etc. The mountain clans, like the Dothraki, are rather cartoonish--I always found the clans comical in their mindless savagery, simply because they're so over-the-top.

Not sure the single POV view is a justification for this, really: we see the wildlings almost entirely through Jon's perspective, and that doesn't stop them from being a lot more interesting and better-developed than the Dothraki. If GRRM wants to show us that he made the Dothraki flat on purpose because Dany doesn't have a very nuanced way of looking at them, he'd have to spend a lot more time on them, showing us how they really are through someone else's POV, and I doubt that will happen.

[Spring Bass]

Were Drogo's khalasar a tenth of its size, the Dothraki would feel much more plausible. Or if there was any hint of advanced organization -- including labor specialization beyond warrior, too old/young/weak-to-be-warrior, slave (where are the smiths? I can buy that the Dothraki largely produce their own goods, but smithing requires a high investment in equipment and knowledge) -- it would be more plausible.

Are you sure those numbers are accurate? It might be like Dorne, where they're lying about their strength of armies - certainly any particular Khalasar would have an incentive to exaggerate their numbers, if only to be more intimidating and to deter rivals.

As for the specialization, they seem to have a big role in the slave trade with the Ghis area, and they have the tribute paid them by the Free Cities to use and trade for weapons and the like.

They never came across as caricatures to me. They're nomadic tribes spread out over a vast area (the Dothraki sea), and they actually have some serious religious rites at their holy site. That said, pretty much any culture in a fantasy novel is going to come across as more simplistic than a real world one (unless the author spends Tolkienesque periods of time on creating it, or copies a real world culture with a thin disguise).

The fact that you even use the term "noble savages" reeks of orientalism itself and I think the fact that you thought that I wanted some sort of Avatar/Native American belief system says a lot about your own perspectives as that sort of culture isn't remotely like that of nomadic tribesmen.

You realize he was using hyperbole, right?

Among the Dothraki, there is no variance of opinion, everyone is static, etc. And, of course, there are the other reasons I cited, such as the bothersome, broken-English used when the Dothraki speak their own language.

I'm pretty sure they're not speaking their own language when talking in the broken english - most of it is to Daenerys, whose normal language is probably some version of the High Valyrian spoken in the Free Cities.

And as others have pointed out, we don't actually meet a lot of the Dothraki via Daenerys - we basically meet Khal Drogo and his bodyguards. It's not surprising that they'll be alike.

Do you really think the Mongols pre-Genghis really went around attacking every single settlement and preforming whole scale slaughter?

We only get snap shots of what the Khalasar is doing in the Daenerys chapters - there are large stretches of time when they're probably just traveling.

As for "whole scale slaughter", keep in mind that they've actually been sparing the Free Cities for a long time in exchange for tribute.

[schpat]

scpat,

No. She has no tongue, but she's a slave from the east that Euron gave to him.

As far as the Dothraki goes, it's true that GRRM said that the Dothraki are a mix of things with some fantasy thrown in. One of those things is the Native Americans (presumably, he means the post-Colombus plains tribes that took to horses and used them extensively as part of a nomadic lifestyle, such as the Sioux). I think he was looking at the relatively primitive culture and organization of the Sioux (as compared to the Mongols and Turks) for the Dothraki...

But the Sioux didn't roam in tribes made up of 80,000+ individuals. You need a lot more advancement in terms of organization to do this. Now, Drogo's khalasar is said to be by far the largest and most powerful. Perhaps this is due to some sort of governmental innovations Drogo introduced. But there's no hint of it, and instead I think we're just supposed to take it as a matter of force of personality and his string of victories. But that doesn't surmount organizational problems.

Were Drogo's khalasar a tenth of its size, the Dothraki would feel much more plausible. Or if there was any hint of advanced organization -- including labor specialization beyond warrior, too old/young/weak-to-be-warrior, slave (where are the smiths? I can buy that the Dothraki largely produce their own goods, but smithing requires a high investment in equipment and knowledge) -- it would be more plausible.

Thanks for clarifying about the tounge Ran.

I agree that 80k people going everywhere is going to be a logistical nightmare, however that doesn't mean that it can't happen, but we havn't had any explanations of how it does yet either.

Not sure the single POV view is a justification for this, really: we see the wildlings almost entirely through Jon's perspective, and that doesn't stop them from being a lot more interesting and better-developed than the Dothraki. If GRRM wants to show us that he made the Dothraki flat on purpose because Dany doesn't have a very nuanced way of looking at them, he'd have to spend a lot more time on them, showing us how they really are through someone else's POV, and I doubt that will happen.

I think you're right about the single POV thing, but if you check out page time I think you'll probably find that the wildlings are dealt with for much longer.

[Oreo Crumbs]

I think when one talks of Orientalism, particularly with regard to a fictional subject, one must at some point look inward. If you would claim the Dothraki to be simple, savage, unintelligent, unduly uniform, etc then how much of this is GRRM's writing and how much is it your own interpretation? Given that GRRM fails to develop the Dothraki to the degree of say Westeros, then that leaves a LOT to the reader's imagination, which means we're assuming an awful lot about a culture that's nothing like our own. In reality we know virtually nothing about the Dothraki, so who do you think you are to judge? (just playing devil's advocate here)

To answer my own question, we're the readers which makes us intended judges, but that doesn't mean we do it well or without prejudice.

My own opinion is the Dothraki do some sh*t that I think is pretty f*cked up, i.e. the customary rape after battle. But as a contrasting example, making love in the open under the sky in front of everyone else frankly doesn't seem all that strange, and the Dothraki' reason for it is sensible and even respectable (something like "all things important must be done under the open sky"). I like Drogo, I hate Qotho's crass temper but he's right about Mirri Maz Duur, I like the culture's respect for nature, I like their respect for truth, I hate their disrespect for other people but like their ability to totally change gears and interact with others peacefully, I like their amazing adaptability to new surroundings, their humor and penchant for celebration. Vaes Dothrak is a fascinating place. Often the Dothraki people seem to have a deep understanding of what truly matters in life...until they go to war and they lose all perspective.

My point is the Dothraki don't seem flat to me at all, but I'm also taking GRRM's holes and filling them with a positive interpretation.

As far as language goes, maybe Dothraki just doesn't translate into English very well because of its structure. GRRM could be doing a literal transation which makes the English look funny. Again, you can choose to see GRRM as an orientalist, yourself as an orientalist, or you can use your imagination.

Lastly, I don't give a flying ferret how the Dothraki compare to Mongols or Turks or Sioux, or how logistically realistic a khalasar is. As far as I'm concerned, once GRRM's inspirations hit the page then I sever all links with the real world. I read the story for the fun of the FICTION.

[Datepalm]

I think a lot of the points being made about orientalism are very valid, although it's not something I noticed before coming to the board. What bothers me more about the East is the lack of distinguishing characterization.

Yeah, this.

I don't mind somewhat unrealistic cultures, though I occasionally enjoy nitpicking the Northern economy or whatnot, i'll take fantastical over historically drab when it comes to worldbuilding anyday. I like ridiculously decadent Quarth and the logistically impossible Dothraki. Westeros is similarly over-epic in its history and worldbuilding in some ways (6000 years of recorded family trees?!)

The western characters are well fleshed out and nuanced though, while the eastern ones...are not. I really do want to know more about Dany's bloodriders, for example, and I hope characters like Grey Worm and Missandei are going to be more prominent. The way all the Dothraki blend together is somethign I view as a failure, and giving them more character would have made a stronger story, imo. These are the people Dany is surrounded by constantly, after all, much more even than Tyrion by the clansmen - instead, however, the single most important character in her story is Jorah Mormont, whom i've always found frankly slightly odious to read about, but who gets way, way, more attention than any eastern character. Even Drogo remains pretty distant to the reader.

And I actually really loved the descriptions of Quarth, but again there wasn't a single character there where we were given any sense of their own life and story, which is what Martin usually does so well elsewhere - take a trope - the Noble Bastard, the Evil Queen, etc - and imbue it with a real person. I don't see why the same couldn't have been done with Xaro Xhoan Daxos or the Warlocks, etc.

Someone mentioned the idea that the flatness of the east is on purpose, a sort of commentary on Orientalist stories of the plucky white child who roams through an exotic, barbaric east - I find this interesting. I think theres a sort of tension about Danys return to Westeros, and how much it is actually a good thing, and how much its something she really wants - how much is westeros nothing more than her own 'occidentalist' fantasy? How much is it really her home, how much is she shaped by a different place and how much is her fixation on westeros nothing more than a projected wish fulfillment. I still think it would all work better if we had stronger eastern characters though. (The best is maybe Varys.)

[Lady Blackfish]

I still think it would all work better if we had stronger eastern characters though. (The best is maybe Varys.)

I think it would be better if we had some sort of switch that we could flip so that we could tell that the flatness is due to some kind of meta commentary, basically if we had some other more dimensional viewpoint to compare it to, as someone else already said.

[Datepalm]

I think it would be better if we had some sort of switch that we could flip so that we could tell that the flatness is due to some kind of meta commentary, basically if we had some other more dimensional viewpoint to compare it to, as someone else already said.

Lacking a local, native POV:dunno:....I think Danys pov is strangely flat with regard to the East, but not with regard to Western characters in it - the way Drogo always remains strangely distanced, but not Mormont or Barristan. I think the way we see Dany, she really does relate to the Dothraki (and other eastern characters, to a lesser degree) in a different way than she does to westerners, and its both strange and dissapointing to me - unless its a sort of critical usage of an orientalist trope to highlight Danys alienation from her surroundings, but I half think thats just wishful thinking.