I'm sure it's been posted at the BarrowDowns already, but a letter came up for sale at an auction on 11 and 12 July, 2002. It's dated 21 October 1963, and is addressed to a Mrs Munby in response to a number of questions posed by her son Stephen about
The Lord of the Rings. The letter is long, but in one place it reads as follows:
Quote:
'There must have been orc-women. But in stories that seldom if ever see the Orcs except as soldiers of armies in the service of the evil lords we naturally would not learn much about their lives. Not much was known'.
JRRT, 1963
|
As William Hicklin noted, once Tolkien decided that Morgoth could not 'create' but must pervert something into orcs, he seemed pretty consistent that orcs reproduced sexually, despite that he waffled about stock. For myself, I would need more proof than this person's description (quoted by Rumil above) -- noting that we would here have an unpublished paper (or notes) that Hammond and Scull for example, had yet to see.
And for those who give great weight to 'latest if unpublished' these notes (if truly extant) should also date to after 1963-ish, considering the letter above.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Galadriel55
The argument I have for Bolg son of Azog is that they were goblins. I think that goblins have a different origin than orcs, and they might breed differently.
|
This is a nomenclature issue though. Not only is 'goblin' said to be used as a translation for orc (same things, two different words), but Azog himself is referred to as an orc in the Appendices to
The Lord of the Rings.
By the way, from what other forum does Rumil's quote come from?