An interesting line of questioning struck me today.
I've already
pondered the relative merits of rabbits and smeerps. Today, though, it occurred to me that I'm not sure the goblins in my fantasy world are so similar to the goblin archetype - what there is of a goblin archetype, anyway - that calling them that is the best option. So: calling a
(
Read more... )
Alternately, you could always go with "orc" (which the OED defines as "a devouring monster; an ogre; spec. a member of an imaginary race of subhuman creatures, small and human-like in form but having ogreish features and warlike, malevolent characters" - and it more-or-less meant this even before Tolkien, although I'm not sure about the warlike.) By doing that you are certainly not going to escape the shadow of Tolkien, but to be fair if you're going to write about elves, that's sort of a given.
A new word I learned recently and was used to great success in the Lois Bujold series I've been reading is "bogle," which the OED says is "a phantom causing fright; a goblin, bogy, or spectre of the night; an undefined creature of superstitious dread. (Usually supposed to be black, and to have something of human attributes, though spoken of as it.) Also, applied contemptuously to a human being who is ‘a fright to behold’."
My school of thought, as long as you are using traditional folkloric creatures, is to choose a word with a real etymology rather than something that just sounds good! That's really where "smeerp" goes afoul.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment