Skip to main content

history of - Who invented orcs?


When telling my less than fantasy-savvy friend about a book I've been reading, she asked a question I could not answer: who came up first with these "orcs" I was talking about?


There are at least three dimensions to this question, and they may have different answers.




  1. The term orc itself.


  2. The concept of a generally despicable, probably inherently evil race of foot soldiers.


    I consider this mostly a narrative tool: give the heroes something to slay without any ethical or moral ramifications.



  3. A violence-loving, usually sub-intellectual race/society that is not evil per se.


In particular, there are instances of 1. and 3. that are not instances of 2. (e.g. Warcraft orcs). There are also orcs that are presented as "just another race" (e.g. Shadowrun or Nicholl's orcs, even though the latter partly fit 3.).


There are also examples for 2. and 3. where the term orc is not used (e.g. Jordan's Trollocs or Abercrombie's Shanka).



Clearly the three ideas are heavily used in "modern" fantasy (and sci-fi) literature. The earliest reference I know is Tolkien (for 1. and 2.), but he may not have invented either. I struggle to find examples in mythology, but I have only partial knowledge in that area.


So when and where did orcs (the term and the concept) originate?



Answer



Tolkien invented neither orcs, nor the term "orc". The word "orc", related to the term "orkney", is from Beowulf "Þanon untydras ealle onwocon,/eotenas ond ylfe, ond orcneas."


"The concept of a generally despicable, probably inherently evil race of foot soldiers,"1 probably extends back to antiquity. For example, the Rakshasa demons commanded by Lord Ravana in the Ramayana fit such a description.


Tolkien's conception of orcs/goblins was borrowed more or less directly from George MacDonald's The Princess and the Goblin. A point Tolkien is explicit about in Letter #144:



They are not based on direct experience of mine; but owe, I suppose, a good deal to the goblin tradition ... especially as it appears in George MacDonald, except for the soft feet which I never believed in.



The concept of "A violence-loving, usually sub-intellectual race/society that is not evil per se," seems too broad a question to answer definitively as conceptions of "intellectual" and "evil" depend on cultural specifics, such as the societal prevalence of literacy, and conceptions of violence as pertaining to evil.



1 Monster Man, a podcast in which James Holloway critically appraises the history, mythology, etc. of 1st edition Advanced Dungeons & Dragons monsters frequently notes entries which fit the "generally despicable, probably inherently evil race of foot soldiers" bill: orcs, hobgoblins, bugbears, bullywugs, gnolls, kobolds, goblins, crab men, fire newts, lizard men, etc., etc. ad nauseum well demonstrates that the concept is widely prevalent via the historical and fictional origins of many of these monster entries.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Was the "pure soul" of Harry's what had really hurt Voldemort?

In the Order of the Phoenix, Voldemort possesses Harry, and it hurts. Greatly. I think that Dumbledore explained that it was because Voldemort's rotten soul was incapable of assimilating Harry's pure soul, that Voldemort didn't understand the love and friendship etc that Harry has in his heart. But, I think it was a lie. Remember that in Deathly Hallows, while looking for information regarding Horcruxes, it is discovered that it is in fact possible to merge a soul fragment back, but that the process was extremely painful. Now then, if Voldemort tried to possess Harry, and Harry had a fragment of Voldemort's soul, I think that it could have been the true cause of Voldemort's pain: the fact of having his soul so close of another fragment. I think that Dumbledore knew that fact, but had to lie to Harry because it was inappropriate to let him know that he had one of Voldemort's soul fragments at the moment. Is that right? Or was it truly the pure soul of Harry's...

languages - Do we ever see written English in the Star Wars films?

In Empire Strikes Back , we see a transcription of what R2's beeps and bloops mean, but it's not English (sorry for the low quality, it's from the 2004 DVDs): I'd assume it's what Basic looks like when written, but is there some point in the the Star Wars films we see written English instead? (This sort of spun off from a discussion in How do people understand astromech droids? .) Answer At one point there was English but it has been phased out in subsequent versions of the films. Chris Gould at DVD Active did a comparison of all versions of each of the Star Wars films, and in his comparison of Episode 4 , there are a couple of screenshots showing how the power gauge for the Death Star tractor beam was changed. I imagine there are probably more to be found in his other comparisons but I haven't got around to reading those yet.

star wars - What "exactly" happens when someone turns to the Dark Side?

When I saw the original Star Wars saga as a kid, the concept of the Dark Side imprinted in me was quite simple. You did a bad thing, so you're a bad person so you go to the Dark Side and keep doing bad things. Now, obviously this doesn't hold true in reality. In my mind it is perfectly reasonable for Luke to kill the Emperor and Vader and then just flee the Death Star and rejoin the Alliance. After all they are at war, those are enemy officers that have captured him and are taunting him by threatening with death of all loved ones and the whole operation was intended to kill the Emperor anyway. The same would hold true for Anakin. He could have killed Mace Windu to save the Chancellor and Padme but that doesn't mean he's going to then go mad and kill all Jedis including children. It doesn't add up from a merely psychological point of view. He had a set of objectives and that made him want to keep the Chancellor alive (quite valid by the way, Mace Windu is quite clums...

star trek - Warning regarding forward saucer section in Nemesis?

In Star Trek: Nemesis , just before the Enterprise rams into the Scimitar, Picard sends a text message from his captain's chair arm pad to Troi — who is manning the helm in lieu of the crewman who was just blown out through what was once the view screen — indicating that she should put full impulse on standby. (Literally, if you watch the scene closely, Troi's console prefaces the order with "TXT MSG" !) My question is: Did Picard also somehow warn crew members in the forward saucer section about what was about to happen? The ramming of the Scimitar was a heat of the moment decision. Considering that he also resorted to calling the auto-destruct sequence shortly after (which ended up being offline), he probably was of the mindset that any losses would be acceptable in order to hault Shinzon's march to Earth. Still, I'm curious. Answer The original script indicates that he called for the crew to " brace for impact ". Whether that call (or the comma...