Istar
MinstrelWow that is very nice! See if I can find it somewhere without paying too much (maybe in the library)
Funny, I had something something exactly similar to that snippet of text in mind. I have a girlfriend who loves wolves for example, and identifies with them very muchThis is a quote from the book, and I whole heartedly agree with it. All of my female protagonists embody this as it’s important to me to honour the female experience in my own writing, and I bid you to delve deep in order to convey authenticity and believability in your female orc characters.
If you read what I have said what looking for, the orcs are not evil or globs of bloo or "human in the orc" they are basically human. Like woodwoses, but not hary and with green skin. (Or maybe, who knows, hairy humans with normal skin tone, called "orks" would be interesting. And the females with no body hair)
Really? I thought that was exactly what I was saying, just those things, and not at all "how would a wild woman be?"
Sage
MinstrelInteresting."Various languages and traditions include names suggesting affinities with Orcus, a Roman and Italic god of death.[2] For many years people in Tyrol called the wild man Orke, Lorke, or Noerglein, while in parts of Italy he was the orco or huorco.[10] The French ogre has the same derivation,[10] as do modern literary orcs.[11] Importantly, Orcus is associated with Maia in a dance celebrated late enough to be condemned in a 9th- or 10th-century Spanish penitential.[12]"Wild man - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
I found this before. A god of death = human being, the ancient civilizations didn't have lovercraftian gods.
Using the word orc for them doesn't require the reader to start imagining what type of creature it is. As in Malazan book of the fallen, where there are lots of races and you have no idea if the writer is talking about a nationality/subrace of human or a different humanoid species all together. "Barghast, am, ok, so a man from Barhistan then?" or "The napan's blue skin, oh ok, so I guess....like a goblin maybe?" it requires lots of descriptions. And the reader will not get it until the second book. Even using a dictionary doesn't do much until their appearences are described in the story.
"Ork" on the other hand, people will know straight away. And if they are not evil and maybe don't look like what you first see in your mind when you think of that word, it adds something interesting to it. But you will not be all confused and not able to fully concentrate on the story, like "the trell hunter picked up his bonemace and walked off without saying a word" wtf is a "trell"??!! Some kind of lizard? Dictionary says....wait....okay, a nomadic people from the south western steppes of the Seven Cities continent" and then two pages later "the trell waa sharpening his fangs" what?! So not a human then?
Istar
TroubadourFWIW I read Napan, Seti, Bhargast, Trell and Imrass as races of humans, but Jhek, Jhag, as different species. I kind of like having the space to imagine them 'my way' - as BK might say."Various languages and traditions include names suggesting affinities with Orcus, a Roman and Italic god of death.[2] For many years people in Tyrol called the wild man Orke, Lorke, or Noerglein, while in parts of Italy he was the orco or huorco.[10] The French ogre has the same derivation,[10] as do modern literary orcs.[11] Importantly, Orcus is associated with Maia in a dance celebrated late enough to be condemned in a 9th- or 10th-century Spanish penitential.[12]"Wild man - Wikipedia
I found this before. A god of death = human being, the ancient civilizations didn't have lovercraftian gods.
Using the word orc for them doesn't require the reader to start imagining what type of creature it is. As in Malazan book of the fallen, where there are lots of races and you have no idea if the writer is talking about a nationality/subrace of human or a different humanoid species all together. "Barghast, am, ok, so a man from Barhistan then?" or "The napan's blue skin, oh ok, so I guess....like a goblin maybe?" it requires lots of descriptions. And the reader will not get it until the second book. Even using a dictionary doesn't do much until their appearences are described in the story.
"Ork" on the other hand, people will know straight away. And if they are not evil and maybe don't look like what you first see in your mind when you think of that word, it adds something interesting to it. But you will not be all confused and not able to fully concentrate on the story, like "the trell hunter picked up his bonemace and walked off without saying a word" wtf is a "trell"??!! Some kind of lizard? Dictionary says....wait....okay, a nomadic people from the south western steppes of the Seven Cities continent" and then two pages later "the trell waa sharpening his fangs" what?! So not a human then?
Myth Weaver
IstarOh really? I had to look in the dictionary when I was reading. According to that Napan and Seti are humans, but Bhargast and Imass are a separate species, or might be human precursor race (neanderthals) Trell I think are a mix of Teblor and Bhargast, while Jhag are immortal orc wizards (green and tusks and all) and Tiste are elves. I had to catalogue them like that (the elves and orcs) I don't really know why, though. I guess because Tolkien was the first fantasy I read so it's my filter somehow.
