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
1127 Views
I don't see any reason the Graendal theory is wrong from that.
- 14/11/2009 02:53:25 PM
570 Views
He has stated that they will put the mystery to rest in the final books...
- 14/11/2009 04:02:53 PM
672 Views
I actually figured a way that this could come up quite naturally without Graendal
- 14/11/2009 04:11:24 PM
682 Views
RJ said it will probably revealed in the killer's PoV
- 14/11/2009 04:46:20 PM
517 Views
And Brandon said Harriet gave him the freedom to tell the story as he wishes.
- 14/11/2009 06:05:40 PM
499 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
501 Views
Wait...wait...this is funny.
- 20/11/2009 02:05:26 AM
416 Views
I often explained it, because many don't seem to get it
- 20/11/2009 12:17:21 PM
370 Views
So maybe Graendal didn't care enough about Asmodean, either.
- 20/11/2009 02:07:02 PM
394 Views
Neither Graendal nor Slayer mention killing Asmo...
- 20/11/2009 02:46:40 PM
546 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
480 Views
That's wrong
- 14/11/2009 04:45:02 PM
594 Views
Not one word of what I wrote is wrong.
- 15/11/2009 01:41:18 AM
485 Views
right here
- 15/11/2009 03:04:57 AM
455 Views
If Graendal's name is mentioned, then "Graendal" is in the book. *NM*
- 15/11/2009 12:13:57 PM
211 Views
BS just said that Graendal will be mentioned, not appear as a character in ToM. *NM*
- 15/11/2009 09:58:53 AM
202 Views
I never said "appear as a character." *NM*
- 15/11/2009 12:14:16 PM
185 Views
- 15/11/2009 12:44:07 PM
554 Views
- 15/11/2009 12:44:07 PM
554 Views
BS never would have figured it out himself that Graendal did it? *NM*
- 14/11/2009 05:20:19 PM
198 Views
Re: I don't see any reason the Graendal theory is wrong from that.
- 19/11/2009 12:07:25 AM
688 Views
I don't agree with this interpretation at all - your grasping for straws...
- 14/11/2009 07:34:58 PM
475 Views
Only if you make the assumption that she was the most obvious to Sanderson.
- 14/11/2009 07:37:39 PM
530 Views
No. Try again.
- 14/11/2009 11:35:59 PM
550 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
192 Views
*NM*
- 15/11/2009 10:02:26 AM
192 Views
Actually this is more against the Slayer theory
- 15/11/2009 01:49:08 PM
463 Views
Nonsense...
- 15/11/2009 02:06:04 PM
446 Views
Your tenacity is impressive. 
- 15/11/2009 03:14:50 PM
492 Views
- 15/11/2009 03:14:50 PM
492 Views
Absolut statements in such discussions...
- 15/11/2009 03:53:22 PM
425 Views
Re: Absolut statements in such discussions...
- 15/11/2009 05:57:25 PM
381 Views