Active Users:348 Time:05/04/2025 03:26:33 AM
NO! fionwe1987 Send a noteboard - 11/11/2009 09:07:39 PM
Graendal cannot comment later that she killed Asmodean if she is dead by balefire.

If she is dead, she cannot comment later anyway, barring her resurrection by the DO.
But that means squat for ToM. A lot of it will focus on timelines before Graendal's death. We may see her PoV then.

More importantly, someone else may reveal that she killed Asmodean.

3. The only possible way to still implicate Graendal as Asmodean's killer is if somehow Asmodean were to reappear in the series (i.e. if Graendal were the killer and she was balefired back far enough, then Asmo might reappear)

WRONG. There are other ways to implicate her. Her own PoV or someone else's.
Reply to message
Sanderson eliminates a particular somebody from consideration as Asmodean's killer - 11/11/2009 05:18:48 PM 1737 Views
He didn't say if she did or did not. - 11/11/2009 05:27:34 PM 710 Views
I definately did not see conclusive evidence; in fact... - 11/11/2009 05:32:20 PM 783 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 370 Views
That still doesn't say if she did or did not. - 11/11/2009 05:39:12 PM 698 Views
It eliminates for the following - 11/11/2009 05:44:29 PM 723 Views
That's quite a leap of logic... - 11/11/2009 06:31:21 PM 833 Views
Re: - 11/11/2009 07:46:15 PM 788 Views
You make a faulty assumption - 11/11/2009 08:06:52 PM 734 Views
NO! - 11/11/2009 09:07:39 PM 621 Views
Why? - 11/11/2009 06:32:10 PM 635 Views
Re: Why? - 11/11/2009 07:48:14 PM 655 Views
Logical? - 11/11/2009 09:16:18 PM 652 Views
Er? I think you're reading it wrong. - 11/11/2009 06:32:17 PM 663 Views
I can't follow your logic - 11/11/2009 06:33:41 PM 620 Views
Re: I can't follow your logic - 11/11/2009 07:47:27 PM 701 Views
I'm sorry but you are terribly wrong. - 11/11/2009 08:34:56 PM 646 Views
That is a fallacious leap of logic. - 11/11/2009 06:50:13 PM 661 Views
Yes, but... - 11/11/2009 07:49:39 PM 642 Views
That is still erroneous. - 11/11/2009 08:10:15 PM 622 Views
your interpretation is wrong - 11/11/2009 05:47:53 PM 680 Views
Re: your interpretation is wrong - 11/11/2009 07:51:01 PM 653 Views
I repeat, your interpretation is wrong. - 11/11/2009 08:15:43 PM 659 Views
I generally agree... - 11/11/2009 06:11:46 PM 743 Views
Re: I generally agree... - 11/11/2009 08:01:31 PM 691 Views
I'm not a writer... - 11/11/2009 08:48:25 PM 700 Views
Agree - 18/11/2009 11:22:09 PM 617 Views
There's nothing in those quotes that even touches on who killed Asmodean. - 11/11/2009 06:40:31 PM 657 Views
This logic is lacking as well - 11/11/2009 10:17:48 PM 694 Views
Your comments make sense. - 11/11/2009 11:29:29 PM 558 Views
Re: Your comments make sense. - 12/11/2009 04:48:19 AM 558 Views
Two Things - 11/11/2009 07:58:11 PM 612 Views
Re: Sanderson eliminates a particular somebody from consideration as Asmodean's killer - 11/11/2009 07:59:32 PM 671 Views
But do you agree that Graendal cannot reveal herself if she got balefired? *NM* - 11/11/2009 08:07:53 PM 343 Views
Sure she can reveal herself! Even if she got Balefired! - 11/11/2009 08:52:49 PM 692 Views
this is what happens when you get interrupted in the middle of a post *NM* - 11/11/2009 09:28:01 PM 330 Views
What? Did you double post? - 11/11/2009 09:49:15 PM 590 Views
According to Etzel, this is impossible - 12/11/2009 04:14:47 AM 639 Views
Why is it impossible? You can't have parallel timelines? *NM* - 12/11/2009 11:29:45 AM 321 Views
I don't say it's impossible... - 12/11/2009 03:11:17 PM 647 Views
This was done in the series before... - 12/11/2009 03:40:58 PM 578 Views
I meant... - 12/11/2009 04:02:33 PM 672 Views
Re: Sure she can reveal herself! Even if she got Balefired! - 18/11/2009 11:32:03 PM 616 Views
Re: Sure she can reveal herself! Even if she got Balefired! - 19/11/2009 01:57:48 AM 622 Views
that proved nothing. *NM* - 11/11/2009 10:46:15 PM 299 Views
Rather pointless, really. *NM* - 12/11/2009 01:08:14 AM 279 Views
Uh, I read the exact opposite - 12/11/2009 04:13:45 AM 633 Views
Re: Uh, I read the exact opposite - 12/11/2009 04:53:39 AM 623 Views
there was a bit more before it - 12/11/2009 05:03:20 AM 576 Views
Not so suspicious if he's read some fan reactions/theories. - 12/11/2009 11:48:30 AM 607 Views
Which he clearly said he did and LOL'd at. *NM* - 18/11/2009 11:33:58 PM 323 Views
Maybe I missed something. - 12/11/2009 03:02:59 PM 587 Views
Yeah, BS will reveal it either in ToM or AMoL. *NM* - 12/11/2009 03:12:16 PM 272 Views

Reply to Message