[BOOK/TV SPOILERS] The Dothraki, Orientalism, and Race

[Kalbear]

That's Asshai you're thinking of (and the masked woman is Ashara Dayne. It is known). Qartheen are the characters who almost entirely populate Dany's story in ACoK -- Xaro Xhoan Daxos, Pyat Pree, the Pureborn, the Sorrowful Men...

The first person to ever try to murder Dany in AGoT? A blond, blue-eyed Lyseni.

You're right, I completely misremembered that.

Again, it doesn't really matter, Ran. It doesn't matter if GRRM doesn't do it consistently everywhere or he's good in one place; it still matters if he's bad in another. Does it mean that it's not all about whitey? Probably - but honestly, I don't think that GRRM thinks that and I don't think that the books do that.

But I do think that GRRM does a pretty piss-poor job with the Dothraki as far as fleshing them out. As we get into Qarth we get a lot more nuanced characters, and that's great. (Hmm. Maybe that's not a great argument as far as having good fleshed-out characters that aren't white-skinned). That doesn't make the Dothraki any better. In ASOS we don't get a lot of characters that are particularly interesting outside of the white-skinned cultures (or the free cities) either, though there it's pretty clear that the race, culture, or really anything matters compared to "Slavery is Bad and Wrong and Icky".

If it bothers you that GRRM's getting pilloried about the Dothraki, I'm sorry - but they're the weakest part of the story for me, by far. And that's little to do with their race, or their culture - it's that they're just mockups of a world. Same with a lot of Dany's story, honestly, and that's probably why Dany's story appeals to me so little; it's simply not fleshed out compared to the rest of the world. Does it make sense that it's not as fleshed out? Kinda. Kinda not; he fleshes out far more minor characters and cultures with much more aplomb than he does the Dothraki, and at least with the Dothraki we're with them for all of one book and a few characters linger well into ADWD. they really should be a bit more interesting than they are as far as time spent on them; I feel like we know a lot more about Braavosian culture than we do Dothraki at this point,, even though we've barely spent any time in Braavos and met barely any Braavosi.

I also disagree with Kat that it's about culture and not race. It's about a dark-skinned group of people having few well-defined characters and being basically relegated to caricature status. It stands out because GRRM is so good with writing characters that their caricature is blunt.

[ja4161]

All great points, Terra. If we are forced to stick with this one first episode, then yes, I guess we can draw a possible correlation. I just think it's a bit unfair given that that's where the story happens to start.

The Dothraki are modeled after the Mongols of the 13th and 14th centuries. Has Genghis Khan returned to dispute Martin's representation? There is nobody alive today who represents 13th or 14th century Mongolia. The problem with this type of thinking is that it's always a lose-lose situation. If you don't model characters or cultures after ones that we're familiar with, then you risk confusing viewers / readers. This is why nearly every alien species in film have human qualities / features. Even Ridley Scott's Aliens are largely humanoid..., two arms, two legs, a head, a mouth, teeth, etc. On the other hand, when you do model characters and/or cultures off ones we're familiar with, then someone will always cry racism. If you don't include a culture, then someone will object to that as well, taking offense at the exclusion. As bad as the movie was, M. Night decided to use non-Asian actors in his adaptation of Avatar and people cried foul. Other people were outraged at Cameron's Avatar, claiming the Na'vi misrepresented native peoples. Forget the fact that the Na'vi look nothing like any native people I've ever seen on Earth. Offense will ALWAYS be taken.

Similarly, there are people in "A Game of Thrones" who mistreat women. There are people who respect women. There are women who are whores. There are women who are leaders. There are women who follow paradigms and there are women who choose their own paths. There's even a woman who commands an army of Mongolian-like warriors! Regardless of how many types of women there are though, people will always object to the stereotypes and the version of women who are less empowered. Offense will ALWAYS be taken.

My response to this is to take your politically correct revisionist argument and shove it where the sun don't shine. Is there really a story on Earth that doesn't offend someone?!!!

[TrueMetis]

The Dothraki are modeled after the Mongols of the 13th and 14th centuries.

They are also modelled after the Comanche people, who were pretty hardcore when it came to disputes.

[Tywin's bastard]

And not talking about race does.....what, exactly? In general, unless you think the world's status quo is perfect equality already, simply ignoring it on the pretense of colorblindness accomplishes nothing at all other than making sure that the status quo is maintained. To avoid derailing this thread with racism 101 stuff, I suggest you Google 'colorblind racism' (ETA: here's a good article to start with) and read some of the first articles that pop up. If you want to have a discussion on racism & discourse in general, start a thread in General Chatter on it.

I must have somehow missed, or forgotten, this reply to me. I never said that the world's current status quo is equality, I said that getting hung up on racism when there's no intent on that whatsoever is making the lack of balance worse, rather than helping. What I suggested was to focus on the actual racism we already have in abundance and help those subjected to that instead of hunting allegory where there none has been intended. I'm not more sensitive about what I say about any of my friends' skin colors because I see them as equals and won't single anyone out as different just because there's others that would do so and they agree that if I had treated them different like that, they would have become different. I've explained my previous post a bit more now and I won't continue arguing so we won't derail the thread as you said.

[Tywin's bastard]

What does bother me about HBO's take on the Dothraki is that their culture is purposely made to look primitive compared to how it was described in the books. Look at the crude and minimalistic costumes, some of the nonsense wedding gifts (snakes?)...it's almost as if depicting them realistically was a mere afterthought. Where are the beautifully painted vests, leather work, horsehair garments etc. ? This *not* some tribe out of 'Clan of The Cave Bear'! By contrast, look at how much time was obviously spent on the nice duds of the Westerosii. IRL a good many nomadic peoples have rather ornate garb and/or handicrafts. I would even expect Dothraki to make decorative bridles for their horses much like the folk of Turkmenistan etc. There is little mention of their stories, songs etc. when we know for a fact that a rich oral tradition is of extreme importance in such societies. When I pointed out that Dothraki music would probably sound like so I had one person claim that it wouldn't work in the TV adaptation because it would be too 'ethnic'. What exactly is that supposed to mean?

I would also argue that mid to high-ranking Dothraki should have a more uniform appearance, the child of a foreign slave would stand out to some extent. Rhaego would have been an exception as the son of a princess.

As for the part I put in bold that has nothing to do with the Dothraki, that's the gift of the Dornish people. Another dark skinned people who happens to be the only ones that could defeat the Targaryan conquest and not primitive by any means (said due to the nature of the thread, rather than just what you wrote). Not that it's apparent to any non-reader of course.

They've left out the painted vests but several things you mention weren't in the book either and you said what bothered you was that they were more primitive than the book version.

[Kalbear]

Even Ridley Scott's Aliens are largely humanoid..., two arms, two legs, a head, a mouth, teeth, etc.

That's because it comes from the host's DNA. That's the whole point. Sigh.

. What I suggested was to focus on the actual racism we already have in abundance and help those subjected to that instead of hunting allegory where there none has been intended.

You say this like it's a zero-sum game: we can both look at the racism in our current culture AND look at racist occurrences in real life. We can even do both of these things and watch football! It's crazy, but true.

Is the Dothraki portrayal the same as a lynching or racial slurs written in graffitti on a school? No.

Is it worth discussing why it's acceptable to portray racial stereotypes in fantasy? Yes.

Does one take away anything from the other? No.

[Ran]

Kal,

If my Concordance is any guide, we know about half again as many facts about the Dothraki as we do about either the Qartheen or Braavosi...

If you've forgotten those details, or they didn't make an impression on you, that's okay, but this just highlights the extreme subjectivity with which this subject matter is often approached. One can't check one's biases at the door, but one can't expect others to particularly care about your biases, either.

[Kalbear]

If you've forgotten those details, or they didn't make an impression on you, that's okay, but this just highlights the extreme subjectivity with which this subject matter is often approached. One can't check one's biases at the door, but one can't expect others to particularly care about your biases, either.

I think that's a completely naive approach to viewing racism that comes largely from the privilege of not having to give a fuck.

But it's an interesting idea: let's just go through and determine objectively how many 'facts' we know about a culture and then decide whether or not it's racist. That's a nice counterargument to my feeling that we know more about the Braavosi than the Dothraki, but ultimately that's just part of the argument.

[Ran]

It is just part of the argument, true. But you wouldn't include it in the argument if you didn't feel it supported the argument. But if your objective claim to fact is wrong... might the argument its trying to support not be all that it seems?

Here's why I think you feel like you know the Braavosi better than the Dothraki: Renaissance Italy. It's so clearly an underlying culture, and you probably know much more about that time and place (through Assassin's Creed II, if nothing else) than you do about the Sioux and the Mongols. You're subconsciously filling in facts.

What would an expert of Native American or Asiatic steppe cultures make of the Dothraki? Can we say they, too, couldn't fill in the blanks of the culture GRRM has outlined, and get a richer experience out of it?

This is why a lot of this comes down to subjectivity. It's orientalist because it's sketchy to you -- maybe a Mongolian reader will feel it's occidentalist because Westeros seems so damned sketchy and inexplicable to them?

It all feels very relative and subjective, in the end, and it's hard to muster great enthusiasm trying to persuade one another that our subjective perceptions are wrong. Which is why I generally stick to just noting the objective details -- it's up to the individual to make what they want out of it.

[Kalbear]

It is just part of the argument, true. But you wouldn't include it in the argument if you didn't feel it supported the argument. But if your objective claim to fact is wrong... might the argument its trying to support not be all that it seems?

What objective claim to fact? I said 'it feels like we know more about the Braavosi than the Dothraki' - what part of 'feel' is objective?

Also note that I didn't claim we had more facts about the Braavosians; I felt that we knew more about them. Knowing something and the number of 'facts' we have are not the same thing; not all facts are equally valuable in knowing something.

Here's why I think you feel like you know the Braavosi better than the Dothraki: Renaissance Italy. It's so clearly an underlying culture, and you probably know much more about that time and place (through Assassin's Creed II, if nothing else) than you do about the Sioux and the Mongols. You're subconsciously filling in facts.

What would an expert of Native American or Asiatic steppe cultures make of the Dothraki? Can we say they, too, couldn't fill in the blanks of the culture GRRM has outlined, and get a richer experience out of it?

My gut feeling is that it's because I read AFFC a lot more recently than I did AGOT - and that Braavos has a lot more solid culture than Dothraki do. We get things like actual historical events in Braavosian culture; the biggest 'event' the Dothraki have had is their loss to the unsullied. We get descriptions of Braavos; Vaes Dothraki, by comparison, isn't a city and the only permanent markings of it are the horse statues and the fairly meh places where the crones live. The Dothraki just don't have that many artifacts by description. We don't get into the specific look of the painted saddles or their epic poems, likely because Dany doesn't. And that makes sense - but it also makes it feel a lot more empty.

What would an expert of Native American or Asiatic steppe cultures make of the Dothraki? Can we say they, too, couldn't fill in the blanks of the culture GRRM has outlined, and get a richer experience out of it?

This is why a lot of this comes down to subjectivity. It's orientalist because it's sketchy to you -- maybe a Mongolian reader will feel it's occidentalist because Westeros seems so damned sketchy and inexplicable to them?

I think that is a particularly bad way to look at it.

It's orientalist because it uses stereotypes of orientals. It's not because it's unclear to me what's going on, it's because the details are ripped off from those places. The Braavosians feel more fleshed out because the Braavosi characters I've met do compared to Dothraki; regardless of facts of how many Dothraki bits we know, the actual characters are still bland compared to the Braavosi. It's not because I don't know a lot about the mongols or that's not my culture; it's not like renaissance Italy is my culture either, and I've seen a hell of a lot more movies about the Mongol hordes compared to Da Vinci.

You can keep coming up with excuses as to why I (and other people) see issue with it, but ultimately I think the better question is why you do not. Why, for example, do Dany's bloodriders not have any description past what weapon they favor? Why are there no remotely sympathetic Dothraki characters?

You are right that it is subjective, as all interpretation is. That does not make it wrong, nor does it make your interpretation of it more right by fiat.

[Xenophon]

Yeah, I agree with Ran re Bravos vs. the Dothraki. I don't think any of the societies on Essos are very developed. But my issue is less with the sheer amount of detail we have about the various societies, so much as what those details are. Are there interesting characters, believable social structures, etc., or are they all 2-dimensional personalities, and exotic cliches. As Eponine said:

A while back, someone commented that the Dothraki riders have much less personality and are much less memorable than the equivalently minor Northmen. I wondered if that were true or if it might have as much to do with reader bias, so I searched for all the places that specific Dothraki are mentioned (mainly Jhogo, Arro, Cohollo and Rakharo) and they really are a pretty dull bunch. Jhogo has the whip, but until Drogo's bloodriders leave Dany, they only react to things that the main characters do and tell them to do. Also, it's not explained that Jhogo, Arro and Rakharo have any special significance to Dany until almost the end of the book. They aren't introduced in any special way. Jhogo's appearance is mentioned once about 3/4 of the way through the book. By contrast, Bran gives a very specific account of every Northern bannerman, what their house banner looks like, what kind of personality several of them have, and their personal appearance.

IMO, the Dothraki are the weakest part of the book because their characters are almost without exception undeveloped, and while we do learn more about their culture, much of it falls straight into noble-savage/proud-warrior-race-guy cliches--they're so brave they don't wear armor, they pillage rather than creating their own art, their commanders must lead from the saddle, etc. Moreover, whereas in Westeros, we meet enough people to see the interesting contradiction within their culture, and have plenty of highly individual characters, the Dothraki are pretty much all the same.

Now, that makes a certain amount of sense given their role in the story, but it leaves them (and pretty much all of Essos) as little more than a stock "Other", which serves only as a foil for Westeros and the Westerosi characters. This, I think, what Kat meant when she said that ASOIF sometimes feels like it's All About Whitey. And, sure, maybe it isn't all about skin-color, but it's pretty noticeable that the wildlings, who initially seem like just another "Other" that will serve as the background to Jon's plot, end up getting well-developed characters. The brown savages remain savage, exotic, Other, while the white ones end up being not-so-savage after all.

The Dothraki are modeled after the Mongols of the 13th and 14th centuries. ...

If you don't include a culture, then someone will object to that as well, taking offense at the exclusion. As bad as the movie was, M. Night decided to use non-Asian actors in his adaptation of Avatar and people cried foul. ...

My response to this is to take your politically correct revisionist argument and shove it where the sun don't shine. Is there really a story on Earth that doesn't offend someone?!!!

1) Welcome to the boards! I hope you're usually a bit more polite, but I understand this is a heated issue. (oops, I see you're been here a while. well, welcome anyway)

2) The Dothraki are not Mongols! Other than their skin-color and the fact that both ride horses, they are very little alike. Look at the numerous post up-thread about this if you want more details.

3) You seem to be completely missing the point. People aren't complaining because the Dothraki are brown people who do nasty things, they're complaining because, having included a bunch of brown people in his story, GRRM proceeded to barely develop them, giving them none of the complexity of his white characters, and seemingly using them as nothing more than an exotic background for his heroine's journey. Why not give them some more complexity? Why not have some brown characters with more personality? In fact, why make them brown in the first place? Why not have everyone in the story be white? Was it perhaps because brown = shorthand for exotic and other?

I don't read enough fantasy to speak to the literature with much authority, but non-white people get very few positive role-models in mainstream North American pop-culture fantasy. Both brown people and white people can be horrible and oppressive, but somehow when it comes to being awesome and heroic, brown people disappear. That's why people were pissed off about Avatar: The Last Airbender. Here's a story about a non-white hero, but surprise, surprise, he's white for the movie version.