A Game of Thrones a tad bit Orientalist?

[Oreo Crumbs]

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.

I too wish we could see more through another POV, but I can't imagine GRRM hasn't thought of that. I think it's intentional because it REALLY drives home the idea that Dany is alone. Every time I read a Dany chapter I have this overarching feeling of discomfort and being-out-of-my-element, which in my imagination Dany has too. It seems to me that's the point.

[Lady Blackfish]

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

Hrm, I would prefer it if it's something intentional about Dany than if it was just there with no reason. A remnant of Viserys' insistence that they hold themselves higher than the east?

If there are some plot points once she lands on Westeros that deliberately parallel some of her earlier ones, but with important differences that reflect the effect of a much more complicated set of enemies, that could be interesting. Maybe.

Oreo - agreed that GRRM just had his hands tied about the number of POV's thing, Dany is isolated quite on purpose. But Datepalm's point that the western characters are more real feeling than the eastern ones rings true to me, I always felt like Jorah was the most interesting side character in Dany's POVs. Why would she feel less alienated from them? Just her own value of the west as superior?

[Datepalm]

Hrm, I would prefer it if it's something intentional about Dany than if it was just there with no reason. A remnant of Viserys' insistence that they hold themselves higher than the east?

Very possible. If he wasn't an imperialist, I don't know who is. She shaped by the way Viserys set her on this quest for something she might never have wanted herself, and it will destroy her (and a lot of other things) yet, starting with her ability to connect to people (who don't serve the quest) ?

Though I'm worried that all the POV's heading Danys way are westerners too, and so theres really not a lot of room for any eastern character to gain prominence.

[Oreo Crumbs]

Oreo - agreed that GRRM just had his hands tied about the number of POV's thing, Dany is isolated quite on purpose. But Datepalm's point that the western characters are more real feeling than the eastern ones rings true to me, I always felt like Jorah was the most interesting side character in Dany's POVs. Why would she feel less alienated from them? Just her own value of the west as superior?

I totally agree the eastern characters aren't as fleshed out, so maybe GRRM can be pinned down on that. But it makes sense that Dany would understand Jorah more, fewer barriers of language or culture.

[King Hodor]

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.

As a clarifier, "noble savage" isn't my term. It was a term created largely in reaction to the Hobbesian view that the life of primitive man was "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." Hobbes' most influential and effective opponent in the last decade of the seventeenth century was Shaftesbury. Shaftesbury countered that, contrary to Hobbes, humans in a state of nature were neither good nor bad, but that they possessed a moral sense based on the emotion of sympathy, and that this emotion was the source and foundation of human goodness and benevolence. It isn't a racial term, but rather a postulation of the "natural state" of man, be he European or Asiatic, Westerosi or Dothraki, to borrow your parallels.

The Dothraki's view of murder and rape comes from their Social Darwinist existence; they are almost perpetually at war. The Westerosi may not rape when at peace, but at war, they will do it as much as the Dothraki. I don't think it has anything to do with a lack of Political Correctness on Martin's part, but rather realism. Additionally, the Dothraki view themselves as the pinnacle of humanity; anything not Dothraki is basically chattel. To borrow from RL, that was the same view that many American slave owners had of Africans; and what followed? Rape, violence. Why one would expect the racist Dothraki (and they are) to think any differently is perplexing.

The elderly (esp. women) seem to be quite revered in Dothraki culture, and I'm sure young boys are, to a degree.

Also I have trouble with your assertion that the Dothraki are "obsessed with rape and murder" and that eating hearts paints them as "barbaric." It reflects the same thing of you (a lack of cultural sensitivity) that you are trying to pin on Martin. Even northern Canadian tribes today eat seal hearts. Ostensibly, it is good meat. Cured, uncooked sheep heart is popular in China. How are eating these things as a delicacy not barbaric, but doing it for the purpose of a religious ceremony is?

The sacredness of Vaes Dothrak is a testament of the fact that Dothraki culture isn't "obsessed with rape and murder." So too does their dealings with the Free Cities, which are largely peaceable (albeit because of Dothraki hard power.) I'm just not buying the Orientalist thing. As I stated, I think the lack of Dothraki POVs may contribute to the static nature (real or perceived) of the Dothraki. No culture is monolithic, and I'm sure there would be subtleties between different khals, etc. But I still don't buy the assertion that ASoIaF or GRRM is orientalist.

[Acid Rainbow]

But the Dothraki characters have an obsession with murdering and raping. The only decent Dothraki man was Khal Drogo, and maybe Dany's bloodriders. Their entire culture revolves around violence (and they're not like the American South who demonized other races and felt comfortable enslaving them - the Dothraki make slaves of other Dothraki). They're stupid, boring and, like another poster said, placeholders for a culture instead of developed characters.

The Ghis slavers had the same thing in ASOS. Instead of making them more humanized slave traders like Jorah, GRRM turned them into ridiculous evil caricatures so we'll cheer when the wise kid heroine takes them down.

Towards the end of AGOT, it says that the younger Dothraki yelled insults at Jorah for wearing armor, but they all went quiet when Jorah killed one of them. This is mentioned casually, in one sentence. Khal Drogo is apparently cool with this, that one of his own tribesmen was killed by a random white guy who tagged along with the khalasar.

[Yakman]

But the Dothraki characters have an obsession with murdering and raping. The only decent Dothraki man was Khal Drogo, and maybe Dany's bloodriders. Their entire culture revolves around violence (and they're not like the American South who demonized other races and felt comfortable enslaving them - the Dothraki make slaves of other Dothraki). They're stupid, boring and, like another poster said, placeholders for a culture instead of developed characters.

No. We only know the Dothraki from one perspective--that of Dany. And she's a terrified 13 year-old-girl. She's in the Dothraki Sea for maybe a year before Drogo dies. And we are reminded, over and over again, that things are extremely complicated with the Dothraki. Jorah and Illyrio, and their relationships with the riders are proof of that.

The Ghis slavers had the same thing in ASOS. Instead of making them more humanized slave traders like Jorah, GRRM turned them into ridiculous evil caricatures so we'll cheer when the wise kid heroine takes them down.

and? Remember, these are people who abduct and castrate thousands of boys to turn into hired killers. Dany's interactions with the Ghiscari are overwhelmingly with the slave masters who rule their societies by fear and steel. The common people, who make up the bulk of the slave populations, are oppressed and are shown in a much more favorable light, because they aren't doing terrible things to children.

To show the Old Masters as "humanized slave traders" is to do what the producers of Gone with the Wind did, and make it look like the wrong side won the civil war. there's clearly a right and a wrong side here.

Towards the end of AGOT, it says that the younger Dothraki yelled insults at Jorah for wearing armor, but they all went quiet when Jorah killed one of them. This is mentioned casually, in one sentence. Khal Drogo is apparently cool with this, that one of his own tribesmen was killed by a random white guy who tagged along with the khalasar.

Drogo's culture--and remember, this A WORK OF FICTION--is associated with a general rule of "might makes right." Dothraki are murdering each other over the right to rape this or that slave, to prove their power, and Drogo got to his position on a pile of bodies. Jorah, if anything, is proving himself within the rules of the Dothraki culture. In Westeros, knights are routinely insulted, but they don't murder each other over it. Jorah wouldn't have acted as he did back home, but in the Dothraki Sea, this is how a man is expected to act.

The point of the passage, i think, is to contrast Jorah with Viserys. Jorah remains a knight, but is accepted by the Dothraki. Viserys acts like an ass, and is rejected, and ultimately executed by them.

Above all, THIS IS A WORK OF FICTION. As such, arguments of "Orientalism" are a tad facetious.

[Ran]

There have certainly been a lot of cultures in the past where if you get insulted, you fight, and the survivor was in the right. Duelling culture in southern Europe, the endless insults and consequent feuds in Iceland, etc. So that's not really unrealistic at all, that no one minds very much if a Dothraki warrior who insisted on picking a fight with Drogo gets himself killed. That's Darwin in action. ;)

[Oreo Crumbs]

But the Dothraki characters have an obsession with murdering and raping. The only decent Dothraki man was Khal Drogo, and maybe Dany's bloodriders. Their entire culture revolves around violence (and they're not like the American South who demonized other races and felt comfortable enslaving them - the Dothraki make slaves of other Dothraki). They're stupid, boring and, like another poster said, placeholders for a culture instead of developed characters.

These are inaccurate generalizations. I would phrase it like this:

The Dothraki characters have learned murder and rape as part of their culture, but they don't conceive it as murder and rape. The only decent Dothraki man that we know was Khal Drogo, and maybe Dany's bloodriders, and Drogo's bloodriders, and the crones, and Irri & Jhiqui...decent can be defined many ways. Part of their entire culture revolves around violence (and they're not like the American South who demonized other races and felt comfortable enslaving them - the Dothraki make slaves of other Dothraki). They're stupid intelligent, boringfascinating and, like another poster said, arguably placeholders for a culture instead of developed characters.

[Alexia]

Drogo's bloodriders were not all decent. One of them had a habit of abusing Dany's slave, Doreah IIRC, at night, making her cry and leaving her bruised.

[Oreo Crumbs]

Drogo's bloodriders were not all decent. One of them had a habit of abusing Dany's slave, Doreah IIRC, at night, making her cry and leaving her bruised.

Agreed, my bad. I'm just saying Drogo isn't the only decent Dothraki person.

[Datepalm]

Agreed, my bad. I'm just saying Drogo isn't the only decent Dothraki person.

We just don't know. Danys bloodriders? I can barely remember their names. Are they decent guys? Probably, but maybe they aren't, we dont know. What were they doing while Dany was in Quarth? Maybe they were terrorizing the city like Tyrions clansmen. Maybe they were awed by the city, maybe they were contemptous. How do they feel about what Dany is doing? Are they blindly loyal? Are they hoping for some king of compensation down the line? Are they looking forward to going to westeros? We have NO IDEA.

There is virtually no characterization for any dothraki except Drogo, and even he remains much more distant and obscure to the reader than much more minor characters in other POVs. We know way more about people like Bronn and Taena and Tormund and so on, who are realtively minor presences in the lives of Tyrion or Cercei or Jon, compared to Dany's husband and the people she is surrounded by all day, every day.

[jurble]

My problem with the Dothraki chapters was the fact that the horde never seemed to stop moving and settle in. It just seemed like it was this monstrous beast that came to pick up Dany, turned around, went to the capital city for the marriage or whatever, and then turned south to go pillaging them sheeples or whatever they were. I'm fairly certain nomadic people are only nomadic when their pastures are used up, they aren't constantly moving. Moreover, the horde seemed to be in marching army mode at all times. I'm pretty sure Mongols and Turks when they're not fighting would break down into family bands and scatter. They only assembled into full tribes and then hordes when they were actually at war. The perpetual warmachine of the Dothraki confused me.

But the rest of the East seems to be a Marco Polo wonder-land.

And on the Ghiscari slave cities, GRRM really seems to hate Carthage?

But at least the Dothraki aren't Scylvendi.

[Mandurang]

I'm fairly certain nomadic people are only nomadic when their pastures are used up, they aren't constantly moving. Moreover, the horde seemed to be in marching army mode at all times. I'm pretty sure Mongols and Turks when they're not fighting would break down into family bands and scatter. They only assembled into full tribes and then hordes when they were actually at war.

All this is, shall we say, not strictly true. Ancient Tatars and Uyghurs, for instance, often very closely followed a tribal structure, and moved according to epochal weather - winter somewhere and spring somewhere else. Also, contrary to what has been mentioned in this thread (I forget who said it), they were very accomplished smiths owing to the abundance of iron ores in the Yenisei river watercourse.

Also, some Native American tribes followed bison herds. The logistics are far more readily plausible then the mentality, in my opinion, but I also think the latter is well-crafted and realistic as well. I'm having a hard time seeing how any of the shortcomings that are described are not simply due to the lack of POV chapters we get, compared to Westeros.

[jurble]

All this is, shall we say, not strictly true. Ancient Tatars and Uyghurs, for instance, often very closely followed a tribal structure, and moved according to epochal weather - winter somewhere and spring somewhere else. Also, contrary to what has been mentioned in this thread (I forget who said it), they were very accomplished smiths owing to the abundance of iron ores in the Yenisei river watercourse.

I remember reading from the Secret History of the Mongols, and watching its movie adaptation, the Mongol families, while part of the tribe, would still range pretty far apart from each other, within that tribes lands. And yeah, staying winter here, spring there, is what I meant. The Dothraki seem to be moving CONSTANTLY without ever stopping.

[Ser_not_appearing_yet]

Some good points here, though I feel most are overlooking one VERY important aspect of this side of the series.

We, as the readers, view the 'east' almost totally from the perspective of Dany, a young girl with some strange ideas (many of which are black and white). I don't think this can be ignored. Its really impossible to delve any deeper into these societies and cultures with one (rather childish) perspective. Martin could've created a swathe of new perspectives for this very purpose, but that would've made the books inconceivably long.

Its also a mistake to compare certain cultures in the series with our own cultures, at least directly. For example, certainly the Dothraki have many Mongol aspects about them, but they are not entirely the same. They are, (all of the soiaf cultures that is) ultimately fantastical.

[Liadin]

Some good points here, though I feel most are overlooking one VERY important aspect of this side of the series.

We, as the readers, view the 'east' almost totally from the perspective of Dany, a young girl with some strange ideas (many of which are black and white). I don't think this can be ignored. Its really impossible to delve any deeper into these societies and cultures with one (rather childish) perspective. Martin could've created a swathe of new perspectives for this very purpose, but that would've made the books inconceivably long.

Its also a mistake to compare certain cultures in the series with our own cultures, at least directly. For example, certainly the Dothraki have many Mongol aspects about them, but they are not entirely the same. They are, (all of the soiaf cultures that is) ultimately fantastical.

Overlooked? Seems like it's been said a dozen times already.

The problem with that argument is that while the use of one limited POV might (and I emphasize might--there are still some unfortunate implications involved) excuse our not understanding much about the logistics, or the fact that the culture seems simplistic, it doesn't have anything to do with the lack of personality on the part of the Dothraki characters. Dany's handmaids and bloodriders surround her on a day-to-day basis, yet they still lack distinguishing characteristics. I don't believe we're meant to think that Dany is so childish that she completely overlooks the very complex and unique personalities of those closest to her. As has been said, Drogo is the only Dothraki who gets much of anything in the way of character development. His bloodriders have one characteristic each, and Dany's bloodriders not even that.

I agree that the fact that some aspect of Dothraki culture being different from Mongol culture isn't on its own grounds for criticizing the Dothraki. They might be inspired by Mongols, but they aren't Mongols. On the other hand, if the cultural aspects in question have to do with realism--i.e. logistical capabilities--or with stereotyping--for instance, whether it would really be acceptable to murder people at weddings in any real-life culture--then it's legitimate to bring up the issue.

[Mandurang]

Overlooked? Seems like it's been said a dozen times already.

The problem with that argument is that while the use of one limited POV might (and I emphasize might--there are still some unfortunate implications involved) excuse our not understanding much about the logistics, or the fact that the culture seems simplistic, it doesn't have anything to do with the lack of personality on the part of the Dothraki characters. Dany's handmaids and bloodriders surround her on a day-to-day basis, yet they still lack distinguishing characteristics. I don't believe we're meant to think that Dany is so childish that she completely overlooks the very complex and unique personalities of those closest to her. As has been said, Drogo is the only Dothraki who gets much of anything in the way of character development. His bloodriders have one characteristic each, and Dany's bloodriders not even that.

I agree that the fact that some aspect of Dothraki culture being different from Mongol culture isn't on its own grounds for criticizing the Dothraki. They might be inspired by Mongols, but they aren't Mongols. On the other hand, if the cultural aspects in question have to do with realism--i.e. logistical capabilities--or with stereotyping--for instance, whether it would really be acceptable to murder people at weddings in any real-life culture--then it's legitimate to bring up the issue.

I'm leaning more towards the assumption that it's a theme of the POV of Dany more than anything else. Her bloodriders, the Unsullied with their faces of stone, it's as if everyone loses their distinguishing characteristics and is reduced to a soldier in her cause, isn't it?

And yes. We are not trying to identify a fantastical culture and a real-world one. We are not asking "did this ever happen?", but rather "could this ever happen?", which is a question that has merit. Though my one objection to this pseudo-historical analysis of the Dothraki (or any other element) is, that we aren't capable of evaluating the role of magic (magic in ASoIaF, that is) in the formation of social or political structure with any degree of certainty. Any comparison with the real world will by definition lack something, so we must make allowances for it.

[Liadin]

I'm leaning more towards the assumption that it's a theme of the POV of Dany more than anything else. Her bloodriders, the Unsullied with their faces of stone, it's as if everyone loses their distinguishing characteristics and is reduced to a soldier in her cause, isn't it?

Only the Dothraki didn't have more distinguishing characteristics prior to becoming Dany partisans, so they didn't really "lose" them. And Jorah, despite being Dany's strongest partisan, was always very individual.

And yes. We are not trying to identify a fantastical culture and a real-world one. We are not asking "did this ever happen?", but rather "could this ever happen?", which is a question that has merit. Though my one objection to this pseudo-historical analysis of the Dothraki (or any other element) is, that we aren't capable of evaluating the role of magic (magic in ASoIaF, that is) in the formation of social or political structure with any degree of certainty. Any comparison with the real world will by definition lack something, so we must make allowances for it.

Fair enough. I haven't seen any evidence that magic has anything to do with the Dothraki, though, and I hope Martin doesn't go that route; I like the way he keeps it on the down-low.

[Mandurang]

Only the Dothraki didn't have more distinguishing characteristics prior to becoming Dany partisans, so they didn't really "lose" them. And Jorah, despite being Dany's strongest partisan, was always very individual.

How do you know?

And about Jorah, sure, but, and this is important, he left.

Fair enough. I haven't seen any evidence that magic has anything to do with the Dothraki, though, and I hope Martin doesn't go that route; I like the way he keeps it on the down-low.

Yes - not currently, but who's to say what influence Valyria had on the Dothraki, for instance? We can't know, but not just because we lack information. That's my point. I like the down-low as well, definitely, but there is bound to be some influence from magic - take the seasons, for an obvious example.