Talk:Incarnations of Immortality

Norton lover of Clotho?
It is stated that "Norton (Chronos, the Incarnation of Time) is the lover of Orlene (who becomes Goddess) as well as the lover of Clotho."

I think it's somewhat misleading since the next line says Niobe is Clotho. I believe we are talking about 2 different Clothos? I.e Norton's lover was not Niobe. Or was she? I admit to be quite confused about the whole Chronos time-line, but it would be very creepy if Chronos was the lover of both Niobe and her grand-daughter! But I wouldn't put it pass Piers Anthony. Aarontay (talk) 01:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

On a Pale Horse
This was another page, dunno why. Had mostly the same text, looks like an earlier version maybe. Anyway, redirected here. While I was at it, I made the other titles as new articles with redirects so hopefully it won't happen again... -- RevRagnarok  Talk Contrib Reverts 22:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC) I think it should be a different page because its not getting the atention it needs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.113.151.80 (talk) 22:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Mention of the Incarnation of Good?
I believe that the statement "The fate of a former Incarnation of Good is never mentioned" is in error, though it's been a long time since I've read them: YHWH is mentioned in "With a tangled skien" User:Psychobunny2412


 * YHVH isn't a former Incarnation of Good, as far as I can tell. As the God of the Jews, he's just one of many (relatively) minor dieties that aren't as powerful as the major Incarnations, and his "office" seems to have always been occupied by the same "person." The Incarnation of Good is apparently a title that properly belongs to the God of the Christians, and they don't say what happened to him when he was replaced. (In For Love of Evil, YHVH says that all gods that people believe in exist, but their power and influence is determined by the number of people that believe in their existance.) - CronoDAS 06:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I think YHVH or Parry stated that in theory YHVH and the Christian God is the same but in practice, the position split off or something. But yes, if we construe "Incarnation of Good" to mean the line of officeholders now held by Orlene, YHVH doesn't count though it is implied that they are related in some way.

Aarontay 20:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * YHVH is said (by Parry/Satan/Natasha) to be able to navigate the Void because He was the former master of the universe, essentially the position now held by God, who is presumably Christian. Whether or not this makes him the Incarnation of Good is debatable, mainly given the differences between the Hebrew and Christian views on God (e.g., vengeful vs. forgiving).

Zane's Whodunnit
This page asserts that it was the Magician who found out Zane to be the prime candidate as the next Death; however, on page 236, Nature states that "I defined the qualities of the person who could and would do what had to be done, and Fate arranged to put him--you--in the proper situation." The Magician was in on their dealings, and may have made a (false) claim earlier on, but it was not he who selected Zane from among the masses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.15.199.171 (talk) 00:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it was meant that Nature defined / picked the qualities needed (rather than creating a person with those qualities), and the magician found someone who fit, and then Fate arranged for him to become Death. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.52.108.195 (talk) 05:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Splits
Please get the novels split off into their own articles. I timed the load time a few minutes ago over a dial-up connection, and it took three minutes to load it. No article should take that long to load. - LA @ 09:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Splits
By splitting the articles up there would also be less opportunity for spoilers further in the series. Furthermore, more focus could be given to each individual page, which would lead someone to actually cite page numbers. At present, even though it is a synopsis, there is no citation to support anything. Not only does that fail to provide verification for any information therein, but it also makes the article useless to someone who requires page numbers (such as if they were making a report on the novel). In addition to these points, splitting the articles for the books into new pages would allow for more room for discussion of not only the series itself (the introduction is fleeting and there is a wealth of undisclosed information available in Piers Anthony's foreclosed Author's Notes) but also of the nature of each book. And, as mentioned above, it would give those wikipediers with slower connections quicker response. - Ristaron (talk) 07:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Over the next week or so I am going to work on splitting this into individual articles for each novel. --Captain-tucker (talk) 17:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Didn't take as long as I thought, split all done...--Captain-tucker (talk) 01:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Elemental associations
With regard to the quote "the five Incarnations are associated with the five elements (Death with Earth, Fate with Water, War with Fire, Nature with Air, and Time with Void)" what is the basis for these assignments? I'm willing to accept that if there are any such assoications, they'd probably go with a Five Rings concept of elements instead of using wood or metal as an element, but is their any source for the Nature being assigned to air instead of earth or water, etc? IMHO (talk) 02:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Mym says so in WaRS.190.74.205.101 (talk) 01:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Book of Five Rings in the "Themes" section?
The "Themes" section refers to "the previously mentioned Book of Five Rings", but there is no other mention of this anywhere else in the article. Was this reference lost somewhere during an earlier edit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:602:8480:3343:1152:B1C2:A630:F865 (talk) 23:16, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Being a Green Mother?
Why are there articles for seven of the eight novels in the series, but not for this one, right in the middle? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.253 (talk) 00:38, 9 August 2023 (UTC)