Okay, the inspiration for this thread comes from a conversation I was having on another thread, but to me it raised an interesting question. Specifically, what does an orc mean to you? However, I also want to hearr what genres people have read and write to see what shapes this image, so, if you have the time, please say so and what the word orc makes you think of.
I don't read much Orc-oriented stuff beyond the basics (LOTR, etc.). For me... Orcs, goblins, trolls... all pretty similar. I'd say Orcs are maybe a bit slower and more familiarly animalistic than the other guys, in my mind? Like, porcine faces (tusks, even? short ones, maybe) burly bodies, primitive weapons, lots of aggression and grunting.
My first contact with Orcs was through Warhammer so to me Orcs (and indeeds Orks) are big, green barbarian types, big on violence, short on brains, very chaotic, very dangerous. That's pretty much the universal depiction of Orks, even when it's a bit more sympathetic (like in D&Ds Forgotten Realms and the Two Worlds series of video games) they still tend to be the noble savages with lots of strength and not much else.
I've read the LotR books, seen the movies, and have never played D&D, WOW, or Warhammer 40K but I've seen the artwork. Orcs are a little taller than humans, a lot heavier, and completely hairless, generally green-skinned with huge tusks but sometimes grey without them. The popular interpretation is that orcs are mindless killing machines, but I feel that says more about real-world human nature than it does about hypothetical orc nature, so I'm not going to be doing that in my books.
My favorite of the Origins that is presented for Orcs is that they were elves that were either corrupted or cursed and raised in bloodshed and battle until from generation to generation.
Here's a link with a LOT of interesting information in it. Basically, Tolkien invented the modern concept of 'orc.' One other more recent author, Stan Nicholls, seems to have written a series about Orcs, but he has changed them considerably from Tolkien's view of them—and they are actually the good guy/protagonists in his stories. (In fact, his series sounds quite interesting.) A few other modern authors have mentioned 'orc' in their work, but these are similar to Tolkien's creation. (Tolkien delves quite deeply into the origin of his brand of orc, not only in the LOTR, but also in the Silmarillion. But Tolkien invented this world, and didn't directly copy any other author. Old sagas and mythology influenced him, though, and he did use a few pre-used names for races or occupations, such as elves and dwarves and wizards.) Another place orcs appear a lot these days are in computer games ...but these are riffing off Tolkien ...or they did when they started. Nothing wrong with riffing off Tolkien, of course. But basically, when I hear the word orc I think: Tolkien. Same as when I hear the word hobbit. Or ent. Or warg. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orc
I would say they would be big, tall (like 8' tall), green, with an under bite and tusks. Long hair, long arms (knuckles almost drag on the ground) with big hands. Not very smart and are always hungry. They are not the most friendly of creatures, but like to fool around with other Orcs. They would be a little slouched over because of there arms. Just my 2 cents
Warcraft orcs have a hunter-gatherer, vagabond, shamanistic sort of origins. You know, before they turn into Tolkien green warmongering monsters.
Large. Green. Cranky. And belonging to Tolkien. I see a work including orcs as essentially fan fiction. I'm not saying that such a work can't be very good, but I will wish that they came up with their own large cranky things.
Challenge Accepted! Spoiler: In my Urban Fantasy world... Humans are the only sentient species who evolved naturally, but for as long as there have been creators of magic and of folklore, there has been a back-and-forth between the two: Sometimes a mage who specializes in shapeshifting would create a new form, this form would catch on among the shapeshifting community (who would then give birth to a generation whose base form would be the new creation), and stories would be told about these creatures in the mortal world, but other times shapeshifting mages would be inspired to recreate the forms that they had heard about in their culture's stories. Most of the sentient non-human species in the world – dragons, mermaids, harpies, kappas, psoglavs – are so well established that there's nobody left alive who remembers if it was the shapeshifting that came first or the stories, but orcs are such a recent species – the first experiments began around 1960, the first successful rituals were developed around 1965, and the first natural orc children were born around 1970 – that everybody still remembers that it was the storyteller who inspired the mages rather than the other way around.
Thanks! I've got an entire timeline set up for when about half a dozen different species of vampire were created, and I'm thinking that when this comes up in one of my books, then a character is going to mention that Edward is not a vampire Seriously: the Carlisle clan are predators – supernaturally strong, fast, and perceptive – who hunt animals but whose species could just as easily prey on humans, they are supernaturally attractive to humans, they are immortal unless you kill them, and can initiate humans into their own immortality (admittedly sounding like vampires so far), but they sparkle in the Sun instead of burning? I'm glad* they made Edward straight, because making him gay/bi it would've been a stereotypical slur because he was a Fey spirit *Though I would've been even more glad if they'd made him Asexual/Aromantic like me. That way the story wouldn't have happened
Can I ask if either of you two of you hold the same for the other fantasy races that appear within the lord of the rings?
I do for the ones Tolkien appears to have invented. Hobbits. Wargs. Ents. And Orcs. How would you feel if somebody started writing books with hobbits in them? Wouldn't you feel that maybe, just maybe, they were riffing off Tolkien, rather than perpetuating ancient folkloric legendary beings like Elves, Dwarves, Trolls and Dragons? Again, I'm not saying this is wrong. But 'ripoff' is certainly what I would think. And my respect for the author would be diminished, unless that author did something really unique with the concept. What if somebody wrote a story containing diminutive but warlike furry forest creatures called Ewoks? Wouldn't you immediately think 'Star Wars?' Just because an imaginary race comes from a work of fantasy doesn't mean it's okay to poach the author's ideas.
The commonly used term is halfling. And not really, no. It's like a sci fi writer having laser guns to me, a genre convention and not something that belongs to a singular author.
So what would you consider a ripoff? Or do you think it's okay to copy any author's idea about anything? Where do you draw a line? Or do you think no line should ever be drawn? I think you might struggle to find the first case of 'laser gun' being used by anybody. It's entered the convention, as 'orc' probably will (or has) as well. But surely there has got to be a point ...or maybe a time limit ...before other authors can start taking creations from published books and passing them off as their own. With all due respect, I think we're producing a race of copycat authors. Authors who can't be bothered to create new ideas, so they just rip off somebody else's. And it's becoming so common, and happens so fast, that it's becoming acceptable. Just think ...if Tolkien hadn't bothered to create hobbits, ents, wargs and orcs and just stuck to fairy tale conventions, how much poorer would we be? I remember when I read LOTR for the first time, back in the mid 1960's, how captivated I was at what he'd created. It felt new.
If there's no change to the traits that is physical or cultural. If a novel has a group of short people who live like in the ground, have happy lives, and are generally adverse to going on adventure, then it's a rip-off. If they say, lived in the jungle and had a strong hunter-gatherer culture, I'd be fine. If they were the equivalent to Mongols, I'd be fine.
Fair enough. But my original complaint about other authors using orcs is that they DO usually contain the same characteristics as Tolkien gave them. In fact, I believe you referred to them in the other thread as 'shorthand' for that kind of creature. (My memory might be faulty on that one, and I haven't gone back to check.) I think if you had a race of people equivalent to Mongols or jungle hunter-gatherers, you'd be unlikely to call them hobbits. You'd invent another name for them. Wouldn't you?
If they're physically the same, I'd likely go with halfling as that's more of the convention than hobbit, though as creatures they're less common in fantasy than say, elves or dwarfs. Even then, I avoid the monoculture that races so often have, and refer to them by either their nationality or cultural group.
I get the sense that Halfling was created because the word hobbit was so closely linked to Tolkien, but the other species pop up much more commonly in myths.
Erm...halfling is an old Scottish word for 'half-grown.' Tolkien didn't create it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halfling
Didn't say Tolkien created it, hobbit was closely related to Tolkien. And with halfling I mean in reference to a fantasy races.