Ogres around the world

[Hans Rancke-Madsen]

Originally Posted by The Colonel

...on the other hand there seems to have been a sort of continuum between the Jotunn at one end down to Nisse at the other, through all sorts of things, generally called trolls, some of which were relatively human but might still eat people...

Nordic mythology (well, Danish anyway) lack the ogre as a specific monster. You might find a folk tale or two involving a troll that might, with a little good will, be interpreted as pretty much like an ogre, but when Danish translators have to translate 'ogre', they either use 'trold' or don't translate at all.

(Incidentally, Tolkein lovers just wouldn't recognize our elves. ;-) )


Hans

[malloyd]

Originally Posted by Hans Rancke-Madsen

Nordic mythology (well, Danish anyway) lack the ogre as a specific monster. You might find a folk tale or too involving a troll that might, with a little good will, be interpreted as pretty much like an ogre, but when Danish translators have to translate 'ogre', they either use 'trold' or don't translate at all.

Nobody has a traditional "ogre", since the word was apparently coined by Charles Perrault for his fairy tales, and has no known antecedents even in French. Anything that existed in stories before the 18th century necessarily was called something unrelated.

So yeah, first you need to define "ogre" in a way that lets you decide if some other folkloric monster is one or not.

[alexondria]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futakuchi-onna looks kinda similar, though it looks like the second mouth was used for normal food until more recent depictions. This also might work http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onihitokuchi

[RyanW]

Originally Posted by Astromancer

How do we define Ogre?

That is an issue. It isn't so much that these different tales are the same. It's that many cultures have similar tales (big and scary translate very well), and the name from one such tale is applied to many similar tales, despite the differences in details.

How many roads must an ogre eat someone on, before you call him an ogre?

The same is true of many (perhaps most) terms for creatures from folklore that have been applied beyond their culture of origin: vampire, ghost, zombie. And the terms can even mutate completely. Few people would even recognize a vodou zonbi as a zombie, these days.

[Mailanka]

Originally Posted by Astromancer

How do we define Ogre?

And are we defining it positively ("If you have these traits, you are an ogre") or negatively ("If you are also X, you cannot be an ogre")?

Because both oni and djinn have ogre-like* qualities, but the former has some demonic traits, and the latter has trickster traits.

*often ugly, often eat people, often terribly strong, often have beautiful daughters/wives who are really just shapeshifted monster/ugly things

[tantric]

For this, I would use cannibalism as the defining trait. There seems to be a nearly universal concept of larger-than-life cannibals that are still human-like. For some reason, they often have extra head or faces. The Nordic frost-giant might qualify, or perhaps some more prosaic bit of Nordic mythology. Ogres feature large in Polynesian myth, too.

[Astromancer]

Originally Posted by tantric

For this, I would use cannibalism as the defining trait. There seems to be a nearly universal concept of larger-than-life cannibals that are still human-like. For some reason, they often have extra head or faces. The Nordic frost-giant might qualify, or perhaps some more prosaic bit of Nordic mythology. Ogres feature large in Polynesian myth, too.

Shapeshifting fits with the extra head/face meme. Granny is really a wolf in a nightgown. No one is what they seem. The wilderness of mirrors in spy novels is closely related to the forrest in the fairy tales. Bond villains are modern Ogres.

Thus Ogres would be "Bond villain" types in a modern setting.

[Hans Rancke-Madsen]

Originally Posted by tantric

For this, I would use cannibalism as the defining trait. There seems to be a nearly universal concept of larger-than-life cannibals that are still human-like. For some reason, they often have extra head or faces. The Nordic frost-giant might qualify, or perhaps some more prosaic bit of Nordic mythology.

I disagree. Giants are anthropophagi too, you know.

Ogres feature large in Polynesian myth, too.

So the claim that ogres only go back to an 18th Century book is false?


Hans

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by Hans Rancke-Madsen

I disagree. Giants are anthropophagi too, you know.
...
Hans

So are tigers, and they've been mythologized enough to gain human like characteristics.

That raises the question of how humanoid do they have to be before their eating humans counts as cannibalistic.

[The Colonel]

Originally Posted by Hans Rancke-Madsen

I disagree. Giants are anthropophagi too, you know.


So the claim that ogres only go back to an 18th Century book is false?


Hans

Wikipedia has the word used by Chretien de Troyes in C12AD, so the C18 book is right out. The general description (large, ugly humanoid that eats people) would seem far more widespread.

As for other terminology - technically if it's not a human it doesn't become a cannibal by eating humans, but most people have never heard the word "anthrophage" and so cannibal is used as a general term for "eats humans". And yes, I have even heard it used of wolves...