Active Users:1184 Time:23/11/2024 01:42:25 AM
Re: your interpretation is wrong Logain Send a noteboard - 11/11/2009 07:51:01 PM
The only thing this confirms is that balefire can only remove a thread up to a few days/maybe a week. And that Asomodean died long enough ago that if his killer were balefired he wouldn't come back to life.

This in no way comments about whether Graendal was the killer or not - you can tell very much by Sanderson's reaction. He wasn't going to let this question lead him down that road.


Can Graendal reveal herself as Asmodean's killer in the next two books?

Answer: NO, because she got balefired and we will not see her anymore.

Therefore, someone else will reveal themselves as Asmodean's killer.
Reply to message
Sanderson eliminates a particular somebody from consideration as Asmodean's killer - 11/11/2009 05:18:48 PM 1656 Views
He didn't say if she did or did not. - 11/11/2009 05:27:34 PM 634 Views
I definately did not see conclusive evidence; in fact... - 11/11/2009 05:32:20 PM 702 Views
Yes, Brandon did. I edited my original message to add in another quote from Brandon...see above *NM* - 11/11/2009 05:33:27 PM 335 Views
That still doesn't say if she did or did not. - 11/11/2009 05:39:12 PM 614 Views
It eliminates for the following - 11/11/2009 05:44:29 PM 643 Views
That's quite a leap of logic... - 11/11/2009 06:31:21 PM 752 Views
Re: - 11/11/2009 07:46:15 PM 700 Views
You make a faulty assumption - 11/11/2009 08:06:52 PM 657 Views
NO! - 11/11/2009 09:07:39 PM 565 Views
Why? - 11/11/2009 06:32:10 PM 553 Views
Re: Why? - 11/11/2009 07:48:14 PM 572 Views
Logical? - 11/11/2009 09:16:18 PM 580 Views
Er? I think you're reading it wrong. - 11/11/2009 06:32:17 PM 573 Views
I can't follow your logic - 11/11/2009 06:33:41 PM 531 Views
Re: I can't follow your logic - 11/11/2009 07:47:27 PM 614 Views
I'm sorry but you are terribly wrong. - 11/11/2009 08:34:56 PM 565 Views
That is a fallacious leap of logic. - 11/11/2009 06:50:13 PM 581 Views
Yes, but... - 11/11/2009 07:49:39 PM 558 Views
That is still erroneous. - 11/11/2009 08:10:15 PM 536 Views
your interpretation is wrong - 11/11/2009 05:47:53 PM 599 Views
Re: your interpretation is wrong - 11/11/2009 07:51:01 PM 573 Views
I repeat, your interpretation is wrong. - 11/11/2009 08:15:43 PM 569 Views
I generally agree... - 11/11/2009 06:11:46 PM 656 Views
Re: I generally agree... - 11/11/2009 08:01:31 PM 639 Views
I'm not a writer... - 11/11/2009 08:48:25 PM 611 Views
Agree - 18/11/2009 11:22:09 PM 496 Views
There's nothing in those quotes that even touches on who killed Asmodean. - 11/11/2009 06:40:31 PM 570 Views
This logic is lacking as well - 11/11/2009 10:17:48 PM 614 Views
Your comments make sense. - 11/11/2009 11:29:29 PM 486 Views
Re: Your comments make sense. - 12/11/2009 04:48:19 AM 485 Views
Two Things - 11/11/2009 07:58:11 PM 531 Views
Re: Sanderson eliminates a particular somebody from consideration as Asmodean's killer - 11/11/2009 07:59:32 PM 592 Views
But do you agree that Graendal cannot reveal herself if she got balefired? *NM* - 11/11/2009 08:07:53 PM 308 Views
Sure she can reveal herself! Even if she got Balefired! - 11/11/2009 08:52:49 PM 619 Views
this is what happens when you get interrupted in the middle of a post *NM* - 11/11/2009 09:28:01 PM 298 Views
What? Did you double post? - 11/11/2009 09:49:15 PM 508 Views
According to Etzel, this is impossible - 12/11/2009 04:14:47 AM 555 Views
Why is it impossible? You can't have parallel timelines? *NM* - 12/11/2009 11:29:45 AM 283 Views
I don't say it's impossible... - 12/11/2009 03:11:17 PM 555 Views
This was done in the series before... - 12/11/2009 03:40:58 PM 501 Views
I meant... - 12/11/2009 04:02:33 PM 586 Views
Re: Sure she can reveal herself! Even if she got Balefired! - 18/11/2009 11:32:03 PM 543 Views
Re: Sure she can reveal herself! Even if she got Balefired! - 19/11/2009 01:57:48 AM 541 Views
that proved nothing. *NM* - 11/11/2009 10:46:15 PM 262 Views
Rather pointless, really. *NM* - 12/11/2009 01:08:14 AM 241 Views
Uh, I read the exact opposite - 12/11/2009 04:13:45 AM 544 Views
Re: Uh, I read the exact opposite - 12/11/2009 04:53:39 AM 538 Views
there was a bit more before it - 12/11/2009 05:03:20 AM 497 Views
Not so suspicious if he's read some fan reactions/theories. - 12/11/2009 11:48:30 AM 523 Views
Which he clearly said he did and LOL'd at. *NM* - 18/11/2009 11:33:58 PM 287 Views
Maybe I missed something. - 12/11/2009 03:02:59 PM 506 Views
Yeah, BS will reveal it either in ToM or AMoL. *NM* - 12/11/2009 03:12:16 PM 237 Views

Reply to Message