From the way I see it there are two representations of orcs, Tolkien and Warhammer. Tolkien orcs, to me, serve the purpose of the Picts from the Howard's Conan stories. Reprobate savages lurking in the shadows of civilization. Warhammer orcs, on the other hand, I believe are influenced by the pre-christian Germanic tribes. The noble savage fighting defiantly against the civilize world. Godspeed!
I grew up with Warhammer 40k and Lord of the Rings. So an Ork can be either an elf revived by black magic (if I remember correctly) or a race of fungus that keeps growing the more it fights and kills.
As I said before on this thread, it's not a black and white issue. Tolkien is as guilty as anybody of knowing about legends, etc, and using some legendary creatures as the basis for charcter types in his story. What he was NOT guilty of was taking terms that were COINED by a named author who died 40 years earlier and using them as if they were his own. I would not consider it a rip-off if a new author created a race of Devils, with particular characteristics—such as blue eyeballs, long green tails and a tendency to sit in the sun and chew on burnt sausages when they were bored. Devil is a word that has been in usage for a long time, and nobody knows exactly who came up with it in the first place. If, however, another author came along a few years later and wrote about a race of Devils with orange eyeballs, long green tails and a tendency to sit in the sun and chew burnt muffins whenever they were bored ...then I'd consider that a rip-off. I keep saying, where do you draw the line? Ewoks? Hobbits? Wookies? A flying animal large enough to carry a crew through space, referred to as a Leviathan? A cyborg referred to as a Cylon or a Replicant? Apparently some people have no 'line.' Anything that has ever been written (even by authors who are still living) is fair game to appropriate whenever you want, simply because people have 'heard of it, so it's part of the language?' The TV show @Wreybies mentioned, that uses JK Rowling's word "muggles" to describe non-magic people—I was totally shocked by that one, actually. I wouldn't have thought JK Rowling would have tolerated that level of rip-off. Wonder if she's even aware of it. Maybe she gets paid a royalty for it? That's actually possible. All I know is when I encounter 'orcs' or 'muggles' in stories not written by Tolkien or JK Rowling, I have a negative reaction to that writer's work. I can forgive them if they're young and didn't know it was a rip-off when they wrote it. But once they're told who created the concept and named it, and they still refuse to change theirs? Another story.
For me the difference is if the author uses it knowing that where the term comes from (as a homage), or if he or she just copies blankly. Terry Pratchett wrote fantastic books with a lot of layers, books that get funnier and more interresting the more you know about his background material. Every time I re-read his books, I find a new reference to the Bible, Shakespeare, some old, obscure folk song, a strange historical fact, or a modern book.
I guess noble is in the eye of the beholder. I always thought the Warhammer orcs, of the main races, were the only honest race out there. I mean, who would you want to hang out and party with?
Wow, I am impresse I am impressed with the quality of responses here. You, my man, have nailed the conversation. It is an issue that is dealt with in business all the time. For example, Coca-Cola was at one time so popular that every soda became a 'coke'. They had to actively plan and market their product in way to keep the 'coke' identity used for their product instead of being lost to general use. I'm currently working on a Forgotten Realms project and D&D is an empire built on the appropriation of other concepts and properties. That has been the rat crawling around in the walls of my mind that you have forced out into the open for me to deal with. Godspeed!
Yeah, but you'll struggle to find a Wookie or a Hobbit in there. Or a muggle. Or an orc. Speaking of Pratchett, do you think it would be okay for everybody to start writing books with Feegles in them? As I keep asking, but nobody seems to want to answer: where do you draw the line? Because I know Feegles come from Terry Pratchett and I want to do him homage, it's okay if I write a book with Feegles in it as well? I'm also pretty fond of Star Wars, so it's okay if I write about a Wookie who uses the Force? And that's not a rip-off? By the way, referring to something like the Bible or Shakespeare isn't pretending you've created these things yourself. Nor is basing a story on a strange historical fact, a beast from Greek mythology or an obscure folk song. Nor would me writing a book that includes a character who loves the Star Wars movies be considered a rip-off of Star Wars. However, writing a supposedly original pop song about a lonely woman named Eleanor Rigby might not go down well with Paul McCartney. Even though Eleanor and Rigby are both names we've all heard about—and nobody has a patent on loneliness.
@jannert You're right: I think it's absolutely possible to go to far in that direction. I just think it's also possible to go to far in the other direction. Is every vampire story in the world "a John Polidori ripoff"?
But neither Jan not I are arguing the things that fall to the far sides of either take on the matter. Orc (and absolutely muggle) feel very close to the middle of the argument for us. John Polidori died in 1821. Most of his vampire stories are from the mid part of the 1700's. Meanwhile... Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them is literally still playing in theaters where I live.
So is this an intellectual property argument? Like, we're worried about the original creators' ideas being used without permission? Or is it an "originality" argument, like it's lazy for writers to use ideas they didn't come up with themselves? I feel like the age/remoteness of the original material may have bearing on the intellectual property argument (is something in public domain or not) but I can't really see the relevance of how old the original material is if we're just looking at this as an originality issue. If it's lazy for a writer to borrow from another writer, then it's lazy regardless of how old the original material is, right? ETA: And if it's a copyright/intellectual property issue, I wonder how much it's our business. I mean, as someone said, JK Rowling may have licensed or otherwise permitted the use of the word "muggles". If she did, then... is it still an issue?
I would say it becomes an issue if/when - argumentatively speaking - we take the assumed idea that she has granted this license as a blanket permission to do same in all occasions without that all-important meeting between her people and our people. Looks like Rowling granted permission to use her words ≠ All things written are fair game to repurpose. And yes, there have been comments prior arguing this very idea. ETA: And to re-reiterate my previous words. I'm talking about my personal engagement of these terms, these words. Again, clearly non-magicals will pop up in stories with magicals and Orc-like creatures are everywhere in Fantasy. I'm talking about the words, the letters in a particular order to create particular phonemes.
The line between being inspired and stealing is blurry, and I suspect we all draw it at different points. It sounds like some of you draw it according to the copyright laws (70 years after the author's death)? My concern is that it would be a shame if only the first person who digs up an idea/fairy tale/old word should have opportunity to use it. Some of these old stories and words are very obscure, and most people would connect them to the stories written by a different author. There are very few completely original ideas left in the world. The name "Nac mac Feegle" is from Pratchett, but the concept of little blue men with Scottish accents aren't. There are some Shetland fairy tales about picts and trows that come very close to how Pratchett describe the Feegle. I would therefore have no problem writing about little blue supernatural beings with inspiration from both the original tales and Pratchett's world. But I wouldn't use the term "Feegle" (although it has some similarity to the Shetland concept of Finns), and I would definetly not place them on a flat earth like Discworld without calling it fan fiction.
*shrug* For me, it's about the way I engage these things. Clearly if these words and ideas are being used and published, then someone in a legal office somewhere has done their homework, but that really doesn't have anything to do with the way I engage the work. That's a personal thing. Like, for those who are closer to my age, do you remember the year that suddenly a bunch of Ford models - in both Europe and the U.S. - started sporting grilles that looked identical to the iconic Aston Martin grille? Suddenly all these inexpensive little Fords were rolling around pretending to be DB9's. For anyone who knows cars, there was no way to see that grille as anything other. Did Ford have the right to do this? It's arguable. But the legalities of the matter don't matter to car people. The fact that the two Callum brothers each worked at Aston Martin and Ford, respectively, the explanations and deductions and arguments over what is patentable and what's not don't alter the engagement of car enthusiasts. That grille shape belongs to Aston Martin even if, in a legal sense, the idea of a grille shape cannot belong to anyone. The end result of how we, enthusiasts, see it is unaltered by any of the aforementioned. Our engagement is still the same: "One day all these little plastic Fords started pretending they were Aston Martins. The cheek of it all."
We all know that old saying "The good copy but the great steal". But, it is a valid point that some people merely imitate whiles other take something and make it their own. I believe Warhammer did this Tolkien's orcs. And, to a certain degree, Warcraft have taken the Warhammer orc and made it something special to them. Bram Stoker did not invent the vampire, but, his creation of Dracula from the bits and pieces of vampire lore is inspired. As I am writing in the fantasy genre, I see this whole conversation as a challenge for me to step back and look at what I am doing. To ask that question, "am I being inspired or am I simply imitating". Godspeed!
Ok, am I not remembering the movie correctly, but weren't Orcs the smaller worker guys that were eventually transformed into the larger warrior Ogres? I'm confused.
In the LotR films, Orcs are originally Elves twisted by the dark lord. They are the smaller guys who are "crossed" with goblin men to create the big Uruk Hai. In the books, the genesis of the bigger Uruk Hai plays out a little differently.
Yeah I thought they were dipped in some stuff and then placed in cocoons then reborn as the big Ogre guys that were the warriors.
