Difference Between Ogre and Troll
Ogre vs Troll
Ogres and trolls are both fairy tale creatures. Their appearance, characteristics, and their origin are different from each other.
Ogre
When we say “ogre,” the first image that comes to mind is that of the post popular and loved ogre of all times, Shrek. The characteristics of ogres are also very well described through the medium of his story and description. Traditionally, ogres are humanoid monsters. They are large, hideous, cruel, and monstrous. They are usually featured in folklore, fiction, and mythology. They are depicted in folklore and fairy tales as obnoxious, humanoid monsters who feed on human beings, and in literature it is a metaphor for people who have disgusting habits. People who brutalize, exploit, and are cruel are also considered as intelligent as ogres. By appearance they are depicted as creatures with strong bodies, voracious appetites, and a lot of hair on their body.
“Ogre” is a word which originated from the French language. The first time the word was used was in the 12th century by Chretien de Troyes in his verse romance named Perceval le Conte Du Graal. Later, it was widely used by Charles Perrault and Marie-Catherine who were both French. Some believe that the myth of ogres originated from the real-life crimes of Gilles de Rais.
Some believe that this word originated from the word “Hongrois” which meant “Hungarian” because the western cultures considered them a monstrosity. The word “ogre” became most popular by the work of an Italian author Giambattista Basile who used the word “orco.” The first mention of a female ogre is found in the story “Sleeping Beauty” spelled “ogress.”
Troll
Trolls are considered to be supernatural creatures in Scandinavian folklore and Norse mythology. They are depicted as dangerous, cunning, and capable of magically cursing people and also eating them up when it suited them. They are considered to be more reasonable than ogres and could be reasoned with unlike ogres. It is believed that they would turn to stone in the sunlight, so they lived in dark caves in isolation in mountains in small family-like units. They are depicted to be living far away from any human population. Their appearance is more varied than ogres. Trolls could either be very ugly creatures and slow witted or could look like humans and could be very cunning and intelligent.
The origin of the word “troll” is not certain, but an author John Lindow depicted and described trolls as natural beings in Swedish Folklore.
Summary:
1.Ogres are depicted as humanoid monsters; they are large, hideous, and cruel and are considered to feed on humans. 2.Their physical appearance includes large heads and abundant hair. They are considered humanly intelligent. Trolls are depicted as supernatural creatures. They are small in size and of varied appearances including ugly or human-like forms and sometimes dim-witted or very cunning.
3.Ogres originated from French folklore. Trolls originated from Scandinavian folklore.
4.Ogres are not considered to change into stones when in contact with sunlight; trolls are depicted to change to stone in the sunlight.
5.Ogres were considered unreasonable and murderous; trolls could be reasoned with and may or may not feed on humans.
- Difference Between Data Mining and Data Warehousing - October 21, 2012
- Difference Between 7-Keto DHEA and DHEA - October 20, 2012
- Difference Between Tamil and Malayalam - October 18, 2012
Search DifferenceBetween.net :
Email This Post
: If you like this article or our site. Please spread the word. Share it with your friends/family.
Thank You! 🙂
thanks… but dos that meen that tolkin made a new kinde of troll?
i first thot that oger where more humen and troll more like a animel.
and just to say im swedish and i thot that oger and troll hade the same word here but two diffrent in english.
So with this in mind dos this meen tolkin’s trolls are ogers?
“…They are small in size…”
The stories I have heard as a kid i Norway often depict Trolls as big, sometimes just 3 or 4 times as big as a human, and sometimes as big as the mountains themselves, hurling huge stones down to the village below. Just as an FYI from a local.
@Mass.
As you may remember in the first Hobbit film, “An Unexpected Journey”, the Trolls there, do turn into stone. Tolkien was very much inspired by Norse mythology when he wrote his books.
This made me laugh…Ogres are monsters…and their monsterous.
Control cuz I’m Harry and I mean oh I’m not a troll on the ogre
These are arcane depictions of Ogres/ Trolls… The modern depiction should include modernized versions of not just formerly grotesque Ogres/ Trolls, but also the Fairy, The Gnome, and Elf!
I thought long and hard over why only five of these types of creations exist, suffice to say that five seems to be an eschatonic number, even within humanoid taxonomy. The size and habits of them may be rooted in some macabre fact, facts that were more prevalent in former eras of strife and travesties of emergent civilizations. Still that doesn’t take away from the present surplus of living mythos right here in the present.
I used to shy away from the idea that I might be an Ogre… Thinking that these were merely indulgences on the moras of age and development within human generations… but now, I embrace the fact that I am a living humanoid. Not that human evolution is a lie, but that evolution does not exile the sub cultural roots that arise from time to time in less and less obvious forms.
The idea is to pit nurture against nature and to give in, to nature. That being humans entails a lot of servitude and obligatory conviction, is too much for me and most at one with ourselves from birth individuals, in which case, there is no hope of ever improving beyond our beset permanence. We love each other for being the way we are, accepting it without trying to be better than we are, and in the way we so choose. It makes us out to be extremely average, and in this modern world, that old school average is actually downright unique.
Being unique is the most attractive quality in any potential mate. What makes beauty blind, is that individuality of style is not confirmable from the other more popular or less different particulars of enherited chance. The more alike we are, the less in disagreement the judgment is… The less alike we are, the more likely that same judgement is led to exclude us as beautiful.
This is of course extremely ironic, since the basic module of similarity is utterly boring and even if well endowed to whatever gender, still unsurprising if not annoyingly persistent. The person itself, a commercial symbiont and slave to elite opinion.
That is all.
So you are a humanoid? Come on, you need help!