Talk:Orc (Middle-earth)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Middle-earth Wikiproject This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle-earth, which aims to build an encyclopedic guide to J. R. R. Tolkien, his legendarium, and related topics. Please visit the project talk page for suggestions and ideas on how you can improve this and other articles.
Note: Though it states in the Guide to writing better articles that generally fictional articles should be written in present tense, all Tolkien legendarium-related articles that cover in-universe material must be written in past tense. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earth/Standards for more information about this and other article standards.
Assessment
A
This article has been rated as A-Class on the quality scale.
High
This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

Article Grading:
The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Contents

[edit] Origin

δI changed the origin of the word. The article had 'orc' being a Latin word for creatures of the underworld, which is wrong in itself, and as well 'Orcus' has no connection to Tolkien's 'orcs.' The latter were derived from 'orc-neas' in Beowulf, as Tolkiens says in Letters. - September 14, 2004

Klaeber says "orc-neas" in Beowulf is derived from Orcus. The sense of the expression is corpses from the underworld that walk the earth. Tolkien derived the word "orc" from this expression, as you say, but the word "orc-" is borrowed from Latin-- not an Old English word itself (as "neas" is, for example). "Orc-neas" appears to be a kenning using a loanword.
The word "orc-neas" appears only in line 112 of Beowulf, and nowhere else in Anglo-Saxon literature, per Klaeber's glossary entry. It is one element in a list of monsters that sprang from Cain. Grendel is not specifically referred to as an "orc-neas," and Grendel's mother should not be mistaken for an example of a "female orc".
The modern term "orc" is better described as an invention on Tolkien's part, inspired by the term "orc-neas". He did not revive a previous use of the word. As used in Beowulf, it is a reference to the evil powers of the underworld unleashed by Cain's ancient crime, not to a specific type of creature or monster.
Silarius 01:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Orc-neas is not a kenning, but rather a simple compound term. It comes from 'Orcus' and 'neas' ('corpses'). 'Orcus', a straight borrowing from Latin, was defined in OE lexicons as a 'giant' or 'hell-devil', so the term 'orc-neas' can be taken to mean 'hell-corpses' (cf. Zombie). Tolkien may have also been exposed to 'Orke', which is a word appearing in an English publication in 1656, and used of something we might call an Ogre. The term 'Ogre' itself comes also from 'Orcus'. See main article Orc for expanded etymology. - black thorn of brethil 16:54, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, I won't fight for the kenning, and sure, "orcneas" is a compound word. Google book searches for 'anglo saxon orcus' and 'old english orcus' do not support the use of "orcus" as a general term meaning "giant" or "hell devil"; "Orcus" seems to mean, well, Orcus-- death, hell, the personification of the underworld. There is "orcthyrs" [sorry, I don't see the 'eth' character to insert], defined as "hell devil". So the "orc-" element in these words appears to be related to the Latin word "Orcus," and to mean "hell," not "giant." Reference is "A Concise Anglo-Saxon Dictionary by J R Clark Hall."
  • Moved all short articles on individual orcs here, for easier reference (per WP:FICT). If this article gets too long, please separate into one background article, and one list of individual orcs. Radiant_* 10:45, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)


What's missing -- linguistic info on Orkish language

Asides from two different interpretations of the same Orkish curse, no info exists other than the vague notion that it is "debased speech" (we must assume debased Westron is used, but it may also refer to debased Black Speech). The Orkish used in the movies was based on the same language patterns, but is not from the books. I believe David Salo wrote most of it. Jordi·✆ 18:08, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
I added a section about the Orkish language using information found in Appendix F of The Lord of the Rings. Marksman45 00:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

The little blue image in this section is next to useless. Far too small to even make out what it's a picture of.

[edit] Historical Notes

I added a little theoretical note regarding the overall allegiance of the orcs, especially in relation to the Last Alliance, where page 364 of the Silmarillion implies that at least some orcs were aligned against Sauron. Swiftbow 06:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Individual Orcs

Should this be its own article? Ydirbut 22:32, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gorbag & Shagrat

This is a minor detail, but bear with me here.

The article states that in the book, Gorbag was an Uruk-Hai and Shagrat an orc, but that in the Peter Jackson film, Gorbag was portrayed as an orc.

However, in the film, the two characters that fight over the mithril shirt consist of an orc and an Uruk. The Uruk demands the "shiny shirt," and the orc insists that the shirt is going to Sauron.
Now, I don't know which name the filmmakers applied to which character, and it seems to me that there is a possibility that the identities were switched in the film, giving rise to the above statement from the article.
Does anyone know which it is?
Marksman45 11:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The whole thing is rather confused. The word 'Uruk' is simply Sindarin for 'Orc'... just as 'Goblin' is an 'Anglic translation' for Orc. Uruk-hai means 'Orc folk' and is a plural of 'Uruk', apparently synonymous with the anglicization 'Uruks' (though some dispute this). The term 'Uruks' was reserved for the large soldier Orcs of Mordor and Isengard (presumably by the Uruks themselves) with the smaller breeds often being called 'snaga' ('slave'). So all this about how a particular individual is an Uruk rather than an Orc or Goblin has little meaning in terms of Tolkien's stories. In the Peter Jackson movies the different types of Orcs seem to have been given different names - leading to this increased confusion. All that said, it was Gorbag of Minas Morgul who wanted the shirt and Shagrat of Cirith Ungol who wanted it to go to Sauron. In the book they were both 'Uruks', but in the movie the 'Uruks / Uruk-hai' were apparently found only in Saruman's forces and Gorbag and Shagrat were both smaller Orcs. --CBD ☎ ✉ 13:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Ah, I see. I noticed that in the film, the brawl that breaks out due to the struggle over the shirt is depicted as Uruks/Saruman's orcs versus Mordor orcs. It would seem that the filmmakers intended to portray a rivalry between Mordor orcs ("old" orcs, so to speak) and Isengard orcs ("new orcs). Hm. I wonder if the filmmakers have said anything about such a rivalry, 'cause it seems to me that if otherwise any mention of such a supposed rivalry would be too much speculation for inclusion in the article.

Marksman45 21:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute:Some cross-bred with Men

Were has it been said that Sauron crossbred Orcs with Men? Are we totally sure that the Uruk-Hai are really the result of the Crossbreeding? The Tolkein encyclopedia lists the Ururk-Hai and Half-Orcs as different Orc groups, and make no hits that Uruk-hai are Half-men, although it has been speculated by many fans. I wish for a discussion and review of canon matiral to supportfacts or make edits. --143.200.225.101 10:50, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Sauron? It isn't and he probably didn't. However, if you meant Saruman;

"There is no doubt that long afterwards, in the Third Age, Saruman rediscovered this, or learned of it in lore, and in his lust for mastery committed this, his wickedest deed: the interbreeding of Orcs and Men, producing both Men-orcs large and cunning, and Orc-men treacherous and vile." - MR, Myths Transformed - Text X

It is not specifically stated, but seems to me inescapable that the 'Men-orcs large and cunning' are Saruman's Uruk-hai and the 'Orc-men treacherous and vile' Bill Ferny and his ilk. --CBD ☎ ✉ 16:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
From what I can tell, it's never been specificaly stated that the Urk-hai were Orc/Human hybirds. It's been speculated that Saruman's Urk-hai were the Men-orcs hybirds, but never stated specifically in LOTR. It's only been speculated or hinted at. Wait,I am also not familar with MR, Myths Transformed - Text X, which book was that from? --Eldarone 20:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
MR stands for 'Morgoth's Ring', the tenth book in the 'History of Middle-earth' series. --CBD ☎ ✉ 20:07, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Ah, yes. thanks. I'm still somewhat bothered by the article claims Sauron had crossbredOrc/Human hybrids. It could have been, but the article priovides suggests it was from ancient lore. Is there anything suggesting Sauron doing anything like this?

As for Saruman's Half-Orc program, since it's never been stated the Urk-hai were the Men-ors, but the article seems to suggest that, I suggest this:

"Although never stated in the Lord of the Rings, the Uruk-hai are speculated to be one of the results of the crossbreding of men and orcs. One passage in Morgoth's Ring suggest that Saruman's program created both "Men-orcs" anmd "Orc-men", hinting to this. However, The Tolkein Encyclopedia and The Guide to Middle Earth, make no references to Urk-hai as the results of crossbreding, and have listed Half-Orcs for the Human-orcs." --Eldarone 00:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tolkien Scholars?

A scholar (in the sense used in this article) is a person who has completed advanced study in specific field or discipline. That is, s/he is someone who has undergone rigorous training and formal education under the eye of persons or systems recognized as authorities in the field. One might accept self-education, or informal communal co-education, but only if the products of that education result in academic scrutiny. As it deals with a literary artefact, Tolkien scholarship must also involve a measure of formal training and/or recognition in literary criticism and theory. If Messrs. Jensen and Martinez have obtained such credentials, please announce them. If not, then the paragraphs in question are highly suspicious. While fan essays and 'books' aren't by definition worthless, it is important to remember that anyone can publish anything anytime nowadays, and it is not necessarily the same as 'getting published' in the scholarly sense. A better word for contemporary indie publishing, or fannish self-publication, might be 'free-printing' (or some such). - black thorn of brethil 16:36, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Steuard and Michael are both well known in the internet Tolkien community. Neither has a formal background in literature (Steuard is a physicist and Michael a programmer), but they have both written a great deal on the subject and are often considered 'experts' based on their experience with the topic, however informal it is. That said, when the anon added the material I thought it could have been better worded to just include the relevant details about Orcs without reference to who discussed what when. If references are needed the primary source texts are still available. I've seen a few other scattered mentions of each in similar vein that I think could similarly be adjusted. I haven't done so myself because I've known them both for many years and thus think it should be left to uninvolved parties. --CBDunkerson 07:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't aware that there were formal criteria that had to be satisfied to be called a "scholar" of some topic. I'm sure that nobody has tried to suggest that I (or Michael) has an accredited degree in this subject. But is the term "scholar" in this context really synonymous with "literary degree", or even "literary criticism and theory"? (That's not at all how I would describe the story-internal discussions that I have specialized in: such "logic games" seem to be quite rare in formal literature scholarship, though I have seem similar things in published articles on Chaucer.) Still, I make no strong claims to the label, and I won't argue with others if common usage here means it shouldn't apply to hobbyists like me.
In any case, though, I too would like to see this article cleaned up a bit. I'm glad to see some of my arguments included here (and happy for the attribution), but it certainly feels a bit odd to see such substantial quotes. It doesn't really feel right for Wikipedia to me. However, I probably shouldn't be the one to do the editing! (Not only am I one of its subjects, but I've had a somewhat touchy relationship with Michael for many years: I don't want to open the article to claims of bias by editing material regarding his and my views myself.)--Steuard (talk) 20:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orcs and Goblins

I am not an expert but it seems to me that there is a major problem with the article. They are saying goblins and orcs are the same. Goblins are the evil imitation of dwarves, orcs the evil imitation of elves. I have not read Tolkein in decades, but I remember clearly that with exception of hobbits all races had their evil form or imitation.

Orcs often used bows the favorite weapon of the elves, I do not remember them using a battle ax the favorite weapon of the dwarves.

The goblins in The Hobbit live underground like dwarves, not in the forest like elves.

Perhaps Tolkein was not consistent on this, but I do remember that he wrote something about it. If he was inconsistent perhaps the article needs to deal with the topic.

The above was contributed by Richard Bruce

No, Tolkien said specifically on many occasions that Orcs and Goblins were two different terms for the same thing. If you recall the sword 'Orcrist' from The Hobbit and it's meaning 'Goblin-cleaver' the 'Orc' = 'Goblin' translation is clear. The orcs/goblins were in some texts said to be corrupted elves (though Tolkien considered other origins for them as well)... and Treebeard said that 'trolls were bred in mockery of Ents', but not from Ents. You are probably remembering those as the basis of your idea that there was an 'evil form' of all the races, but that isn't really born out by the texts. There is certainly nothing about there being an 'evil form' of Dwarves. --CBD 02:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
While there is little to no differences in the books, (a group of uruks was called goblins at one point for example), many games (Battle for Middle Earth, War of the Ring, etc.), the Jackson movies, and fanstories seem to make goblins as the smaller cave-dwelling creatures such as in moria, orcs as the more common variety, whom are bigger than goblins but smaller than Uruk-Hai, and Uruk-hai being the large kind, as was used by saruman. This isn't to say that this interpretation is canonical; rather, it's just an explanation of why people might mistake it in such a way.
As for evil dwarves, there were dwarves who chose to fight for Morgoth/Sauron, but the texts didn't say they were deformed in any way. --Melissia 13:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
After reading, re-reading & God knows re-re-reading enough times, I am of the opinion that both arguments are at least partially correct. This seems strongly conveyed by his literature. How is that possible? Think - a square is always a rectangle, but a rectangle isn't always a square. Thus, it seems to me that Orcs are always Goblins, but Goblins aren't always Orcs. In other words, the term 'Goblin' is more inclusive, Orc more exclusive. Feedback encouraged--Snideology 21:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
From "The Hobbit" (page 87 of 'Riddles in the Dark'): "'A bit low for goblins, at least the big ones,' thought Bilbo, not knowing that even the big ones, the orcs of the mountains, go along at a great speed...". I believe this indicates the wide use of the term 'goblin'. --Snideology 02:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New article for individual orcs

How do you guys think making a new article for the orc individuals would be? Dhawk1964 03:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

There is so little information about individual orcs that there is no need for each to have his own article.
—Asatruer 16:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
There seems to be more infomation of the orcs in this article than the hobbits in List of Hobbits.Dhawk1964 20:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orcish Diet

We know Orcs eat flesh, but do they also eat the bread (or whatever) that was cultivated by Sauron's slaves? Or was that food only to provide for Sauron's human armies? The movies mention "maggoty bread," but I don't know about the original books.

[edit] Physical appearance

This section kind of goes off on a tangent. I suggest we cut out all the racism stuff that doesn't have to do with the orcs. --Imp88 22:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Better picture

We need a better picture for the top of the article; possibly some Howe or Lee artwork. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici 15:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spearhead

According to this site (Spearhead magazine) Tolkien subscribed to Candour, a right-wing magazine, and highlighted, not wrote the quotes below in copies now owned by the article writer. Information from it, incorrectly attributing them to Tolkien himself, had been added to the Orc (Middle-earth) article, but it's been removed with VandalProof.

The dissolution of the British Empire was viewed by Tolkien as a tragedy, which would have permanent negative consequences for its indigenous populations:

‘Africa is not peopled by Black Europeans, but it is a continent full of tribes mentally and morally at the dawn of history.

‘Self-government does not mean democracy - Liberia and Abyssinia are two warning lights. African hegemony would lead to the suicide of the White community in East and Central Africa and to the ruin of African hopes of sustained progress.’ (3/10 August 1956, page 44)

I (Uthanc 03:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)) brought this up to User:Csernica and he replied:

He was concerned not about racial issues there, but about political issues and monetary policy. In terms of the politics, that view was largely borne out anyway if one is to be perfectly honest. "At the dawn of history" in context is talking about the continent's political institutions, not their status as human beings.

The first version of the article containing these quotes accuse him of "denigrating blacks". But as Csernica says, the original Candour quotes were not about race per se, so the Wikipedia editor who added them put them out of context.

I also brought this up to User:CBDunkerson and he replied:

I agree that the text is clearly dealing with political and social issues rather than racial, and attributing anything to Tolkien based on lines is clearly a stretch. Even assuming he made the underlinings in question we have no idea what he was thinking in doing so... these could have been passages he meant to challenge the veracity of as easily as ones which he agreed with. --CBD 13:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

So I removed it again, just now. Repeat: He _didn't write that himself_. The original editor messed that up. He only _underlined_ it. We have _no idea_ what he thought of it - agreeing or disagreeing. And it's taken _out of context._ Uthanc 03:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Old deletion discussions

I've been tidying up the talk pages of Middle-earth orcs that redirect here, and I'm leaving links to two old deletion discussions here:

Just for the record. Carcharoth 05:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Orccannibalism.jpg

Image:Orccannibalism.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orkish=Orkhun

in the physical app. part of the page tolkien wanted to say something. search about Old Turkic script, and you can see something clearly.--Orkh (talk) 02:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

What exactly? Physical appearance - the Orcs (Orks) look like European stereotypes of (i.e. demonized) Mongols/Huns (being archetypal raiders/pillagers, etc. in the European psyche) but even uglier-to-European-eyes (than the stereotypes). Possible "true representatives" of Mongols/Huns are the Easterling humans. As for the word "Orc", the author said it's Old English for "demon". What little we know of Orkish points to Hittite/Hurrian influence. Not a game of "sound-alike". Uthanc (talk) 11:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Sharku 2.jpg

Image:Sharku 2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The pigmentation issue

The uruks are described in the LOTR as "black uruks of Mordor" at one point, this wording implies that some orcs were not 'black.' The uruks of Saruman call the Misty Mountain orcs "maggots," to me this implies two things - that they live underground and are pale-skinned - I have never seen a black maggot.

This being the case the orcs have a range of skin colour and Tolkien is not being racist at all. In fact the elite of the orcish world are black while the lesser 'maggot-folk' are paler-skinned.

On a related topic Tolkien states (in the prologue to LOTR) that the Harfoots, by far the most numerous type of Hobbit, are "brown-skinned" (nut-brown if memory serves). An aspect of Tolkien's creation which is not often commented on. The majority of Tolkien's "hero-folk par-excellence" the Hobbits are therefore dark skinned not pale.

PS There is a failure of logic in Tolkien's description of the pigmentation of orcs, they are given black blood and red tongues. These are mutually incompatible, people (and cows and doggies etc etc) have pink tongues because they have red blood. Orcs with black blood should have grey tongues!

Urselius (talk) 11:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)