While this may be applying a Victorian
era viewpoint to the novel, one can assume that marriage was used as a means of
creating familiar ties to strengthen political/social status and keep money or
power appropriately allocated, which can be seen through the marriage of Khal
Drogo and Daenerys Targaryen. As is mentioned in the novel, Targaryens typically
married strictly within the family, brother and sister. Yet in an attempt to
regain the 7 kingdoms that the Targaryens once ruled, Daenerys’ older brother Viserys
marries her to the Dothraki prince to establish allies. And while Dany had
little to no say in the final decision, marriage has long been a vehicle for
women to assert what little female agency they possessed. Through marriage, a
woman could rise in the ranks of class and gain more powerful positions in
society. And while this is not discussed in the sections of the book we have
read for class, in the GOT HBO adaptation, we know that Dany goes on the use the power she
receives through her marriage and of course those dragon eggs, to reclaim the
land once ruled by her family. Yet it is interesting in the portrayal of the
Dothraki people and Khal as the perceived “other” creates a reversal of
standard gender roles, which facilitates Dany’s female agency.
There are multiple mentions throughout Daenerys’ early chapters of her light skin, violet eyes, and long silver hair which starkly contrasts with that of the appearance of Khal Drogo’s with his long braid “as dark as midnight and heavy with scented oil, hung with tiny bells that rang softly as he moved (Martin 30). The contrast of lightness and darkness creates a sense of sin versus purity, which is reminiscent of the familiar savage versus civilized trope which is also represented in the marriage of Constance to the Muslim Sultan in “A Man Of Laws Tale.”
Before Dany and Khal Drogo wed, she
is very frightened of him, unable to communicate through a common language; he thus
remains a mysterious and unknown threat. On their wedding night, 12 men are killed,
as a mark of celebration, which we can assume from Dany’s reaction, was not a widely received notion. On page 28, when speaking of the Dothraki
people, Viserys states “ the savages have queer tastes. Boys, horses,
sheep…” and while we discussed in class that there was no concept of
homosexuality during the time, it's implied here that was a behavior different
from the “norm.” The Dothraki in this initial description seem to be barbarous
and animalistic, lesser beings to that of the Targaryens, which creates a sense
of otherness. However, after the wedding ceremony, when the two are to consummate
the marriage, Khal reveals a more affectionate side, and his description is
changed to features that are seemingly more female, with his long flowing hair
and gentle caresses.
To make a long something that needs
more explanation short, by portraying Khal Drogo as first barbarous and beastly
and then effeminate: typical factors commonly used for subordinating “others,” Daenerys
asserts her dominance and finds female agency through the power of
marriage.
I like your comment on how marriage is a way for females to assert agency. I feel like this was often the only way for females to gain power. In art history, we discussed how women were seldom able to rise in the ranking as painters, because they were not allowed apprenticeship under male painters (it was inappropriate for them to room with a man). However, women could gain agency through marriage. Isabelle d'Este became one of the most powerful Renaissance women of the 1500's through her marriage to the marquis of Mantua. This partnership gave her a position of wealth and power that allowed her to become a major art patron. Therefore, even though Renaissance art was overwhelmingly male dominated, women were able to secure positions of power and authority through the act of marriage, similar to that of Daenerys through Drogo.
ReplyDeleteYou make a great point concerning the linguistic separation in Dany's and Drogo's relationship, and this key element in developing a sense of otherness seems to revitalize and renovate a sort of take on the Noble Savage trope. Whether intentional or not, the book's detailing of Dothraki culture seems to hint at a sort of barbarous exterior hiding a genuineness unmatched by the corrupt political schemings of Westeros. Seems strikingly similar to the idea of a "native" being at once uncivilized and somehow better than the established hierarchy of power as was demonstrated in the colonial periods of European expansion.
ReplyDelete