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
1269 Views
I don't see any reason the Graendal theory is wrong from that.
- 14/11/2009 02:53:25 PM
717 Views
He has stated that they will put the mystery to rest in the final books...
- 14/11/2009 04:02:53 PM
832 Views
I actually figured a way that this could come up quite naturally without Graendal
- 14/11/2009 04:11:24 PM
823 Views
RJ said it will probably revealed in the killer's PoV
- 14/11/2009 04:46:20 PM
674 Views
And Brandon said Harriet gave him the freedom to tell the story as he wishes.
- 14/11/2009 06:05:40 PM
636 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
646 Views
Wait...wait...this is funny.
- 20/11/2009 02:05:26 AM
562 Views
I often explained it, because many don't seem to get it
- 20/11/2009 12:17:21 PM
521 Views
So maybe Graendal didn't care enough about Asmodean, either.
- 20/11/2009 02:07:02 PM
549 Views
Neither Graendal nor Slayer mention killing Asmo...
- 20/11/2009 02:46:40 PM
689 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
616 Views
That's wrong
- 14/11/2009 04:45:02 PM
733 Views
Not one word of what I wrote is wrong.
- 15/11/2009 01:41:18 AM
685 Views
right here
- 15/11/2009 03:04:57 AM
610 Views
If Graendal's name is mentioned, then "Graendal" is in the book. *NM*
- 15/11/2009 12:13:57 PM
273 Views
BS just said that Graendal will be mentioned, not appear as a character in ToM. *NM*
- 15/11/2009 09:58:53 AM
264 Views
I never said "appear as a character." *NM*
- 15/11/2009 12:14:16 PM
244 Views
- 15/11/2009 12:44:07 PM
693 Views
- 15/11/2009 12:44:07 PM
693 Views
BS never would have figured it out himself that Graendal did it? *NM*
- 14/11/2009 05:20:19 PM
260 Views
Re: I don't see any reason the Graendal theory is wrong from that.
- 19/11/2009 12:07:25 AM
824 Views
I don't agree with this interpretation at all - your grasping for straws...
- 14/11/2009 07:34:58 PM
621 Views
Only if you make the assumption that she was the most obvious to Sanderson.
- 14/11/2009 07:37:39 PM
681 Views
No. Try again.
- 14/11/2009 11:35:59 PM
690 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
241 Views
*NM*
- 15/11/2009 10:02:26 AM
241 Views
Actually this is more against the Slayer theory
- 15/11/2009 01:49:08 PM
612 Views
Nonsense...
- 15/11/2009 02:06:04 PM
582 Views
Your tenacity is impressive. 
- 15/11/2009 03:14:50 PM
638 Views
- 15/11/2009 03:14:50 PM
638 Views
Absolut statements in such discussions...
- 15/11/2009 03:53:22 PM
570 Views
Re: Absolut statements in such discussions...
- 15/11/2009 05:57:25 PM
512 Views