Active Users:2014 Time:18/06/2026 01:01:05 PM
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 2015 Views
He didn't say if she did or did not. - 11/11/2009 05:27:34 PM 946 Views
I definately did not see conclusive evidence; in fact... - 11/11/2009 05:32:20 PM 1000 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 499 Views
That still doesn't say if she did or did not. - 11/11/2009 05:39:12 PM 989 Views
It eliminates for the following - 11/11/2009 05:44:29 PM 1005 Views
That's quite a leap of logic... - 11/11/2009 06:31:21 PM 1056 Views
Re: - 11/11/2009 07:46:15 PM 1030 Views
You make a faulty assumption - 11/11/2009 08:06:52 PM 973 Views
NO! - 11/11/2009 09:07:39 PM 874 Views
Why? - 11/11/2009 06:32:10 PM 846 Views
Re: Why? - 11/11/2009 07:48:14 PM 889 Views
Logical? - 11/11/2009 09:16:18 PM 883 Views
Er? I think you're reading it wrong. - 11/11/2009 06:32:17 PM 886 Views
I can't follow your logic - 11/11/2009 06:33:41 PM 825 Views
Re: I can't follow your logic - 11/11/2009 07:47:27 PM 920 Views
I'm sorry but you are terribly wrong. - 11/11/2009 08:34:56 PM 869 Views
That is a fallacious leap of logic. - 11/11/2009 06:50:13 PM 902 Views
Yes, but... - 11/11/2009 07:49:39 PM 884 Views
That is still erroneous. - 11/11/2009 08:10:15 PM 851 Views
your interpretation is wrong - 11/11/2009 05:47:53 PM 891 Views
Re: your interpretation is wrong - 11/11/2009 07:51:01 PM 899 Views
I repeat, your interpretation is wrong. - 11/11/2009 08:15:43 PM 911 Views
I generally agree... - 11/11/2009 06:11:46 PM 979 Views
Re: I generally agree... - 11/11/2009 08:01:31 PM 958 Views
I'm not a writer... - 11/11/2009 08:48:25 PM 903 Views
Agree - 18/11/2009 11:22:09 PM 842 Views
There's nothing in those quotes that even touches on who killed Asmodean. - 11/11/2009 06:40:31 PM 913 Views
This logic is lacking as well - 11/11/2009 10:17:48 PM 949 Views
Your comments make sense. - 11/11/2009 11:29:29 PM 820 Views
Re: Your comments make sense. - 12/11/2009 04:48:19 AM 790 Views
Two Things - 11/11/2009 07:58:11 PM 846 Views
Re: Sanderson eliminates a particular somebody from consideration as Asmodean's killer - 11/11/2009 07:59:32 PM 910 Views
But do you agree that Graendal cannot reveal herself if she got balefired? *NM* - 11/11/2009 08:07:53 PM 452 Views
Sure she can reveal herself! Even if she got Balefired! - 11/11/2009 08:52:49 PM 950 Views
this is what happens when you get interrupted in the middle of a post *NM* - 11/11/2009 09:28:01 PM 444 Views
What? Did you double post? - 11/11/2009 09:49:15 PM 818 Views
According to Etzel, this is impossible - 12/11/2009 04:14:47 AM 883 Views
Why is it impossible? You can't have parallel timelines? *NM* - 12/11/2009 11:29:45 AM 440 Views
I don't say it's impossible... - 12/11/2009 03:11:17 PM 901 Views
This was done in the series before... - 12/11/2009 03:40:58 PM 818 Views
I meant... - 12/11/2009 04:02:33 PM 884 Views
Re: Sure she can reveal herself! Even if she got Balefired! - 18/11/2009 11:32:03 PM 846 Views
Re: Sure she can reveal herself! Even if she got Balefired! - 19/11/2009 01:57:48 AM 865 Views
that proved nothing. *NM* - 11/11/2009 10:46:15 PM 418 Views
Rather pointless, really. *NM* - 12/11/2009 01:08:14 AM 376 Views
Uh, I read the exact opposite - 12/11/2009 04:13:45 AM 866 Views
Re: Uh, I read the exact opposite - 12/11/2009 04:53:39 AM 870 Views
there was a bit more before it - 12/11/2009 05:03:20 AM 808 Views
Not so suspicious if he's read some fan reactions/theories. - 12/11/2009 11:48:30 AM 852 Views
Which he clearly said he did and LOL'd at. *NM* - 18/11/2009 11:33:58 PM 442 Views
Maybe I missed something. - 12/11/2009 03:02:59 PM 835 Views
Yeah, BS will reveal it either in ToM or AMoL. *NM* - 12/11/2009 03:12:16 PM 406 Views

Reply to Message