He has stated that they will put the mystery to rest in the final books...
ursidae Send a noteboard - 14/11/2009 04:02:53 PM
It is probably hard to do that if Graendal did it considering that she is now dead. (Not too likely that some other person than the murderer would think about Asmodean at this point.)
That being said, I read somewhere that Graendal may still be in the prologue of ToM, since the prologues usually takes place before the ending of the previous book.
That being said, I read somewhere that Graendal may still be in the prologue of ToM, since the prologues usually takes place before the ending of the previous book.
If anything, the lack of shock indicates that Graendal is more likely. Of course, I still think it was Lanfear.
This message last edited by ursidae on 14/11/2009 at 04:03:58 PM
Another blow to the Graendaldunnit-theory
- 14/11/2009 10:41:32 AM
1252 Views
I don't see any reason the Graendal theory is wrong from that.
- 14/11/2009 02:53:25 PM
701 Views
He has stated that they will put the mystery to rest in the final books...
- 14/11/2009 04:02:53 PM
812 Views
I actually figured a way that this could come up quite naturally without Graendal
- 14/11/2009 04:11:24 PM
811 Views
RJ said it will probably revealed in the killer's PoV
- 14/11/2009 04:46:20 PM
655 Views
And Brandon said Harriet gave him the freedom to tell the story as he wishes.
- 14/11/2009 06:05:40 PM
621 Views
We (you, me & RJ) agree that it would be best to reveal it in the killer's PoV
- 14/11/2009 06:40:33 PM
631 Views
Wait...wait...this is funny.
- 20/11/2009 02:05:26 AM
549 Views
I often explained it, because many don't seem to get it
- 20/11/2009 12:17:21 PM
500 Views
So maybe Graendal didn't care enough about Asmodean, either.
- 20/11/2009 02:07:02 PM
538 Views
Neither Graendal nor Slayer mention killing Asmo...
- 20/11/2009 02:46:40 PM
676 Views
It seems you think I don't read any posts and you certainly haven't read this board much.
- 14/11/2009 04:30:06 PM
609 Views
That's wrong
- 14/11/2009 04:45:02 PM
719 Views
Not one word of what I wrote is wrong.
- 15/11/2009 01:41:18 AM
643 Views
right here
- 15/11/2009 03:04:57 AM
591 Views
If Graendal's name is mentioned, then "Graendal" is in the book. *NM*
- 15/11/2009 12:13:57 PM
268 Views
BS just said that Graendal will be mentioned, not appear as a character in ToM. *NM*
- 15/11/2009 09:58:53 AM
259 Views
I never said "appear as a character." *NM*
- 15/11/2009 12:14:16 PM
238 Views
- 15/11/2009 12:44:07 PM
680 Views
- 15/11/2009 12:44:07 PM
680 Views
BS never would have figured it out himself that Graendal did it? *NM*
- 14/11/2009 05:20:19 PM
255 Views
Re: I don't see any reason the Graendal theory is wrong from that.
- 19/11/2009 12:07:25 AM
813 Views
I don't agree with this interpretation at all - your grasping for straws...
- 14/11/2009 07:34:58 PM
605 Views
Only if you make the assumption that she was the most obvious to Sanderson.
- 14/11/2009 07:37:39 PM
669 Views
No. Try again.
- 14/11/2009 11:35:59 PM
676 Views
Ok, I will stay alert for further blows to Graendaldunnit, if this didn't already convince you! 
*NM*
- 15/11/2009 10:02:26 AM
235 Views
*NM*
- 15/11/2009 10:02:26 AM
235 Views
Actually this is more against the Slayer theory
- 15/11/2009 01:49:08 PM
599 Views
Nonsense...
- 15/11/2009 02:06:04 PM
572 Views
Your tenacity is impressive. 
- 15/11/2009 03:14:50 PM
625 Views
- 15/11/2009 03:14:50 PM
625 Views
Absolut statements in such discussions...
- 15/11/2009 03:53:22 PM
553 Views
Re: Absolut statements in such discussions...
- 15/11/2009 05:57:25 PM
500 Views