one word....Asmodean..... ;-)

[Bob T Dwarf]

SinisterDeath -

 

You didn't even bother to show up until we were 34 pages into this discussion. You might want to go back and read what everybody had posted long before you got here.

 

You might find fader's post at the bottom of page 5 informative. There are dozens of others, as well.

[SinisterDeath]

Why? As far as I'm concerned. You have no oppinion. All you have managed to do, since page 34, is tell everyone how they are wrong because one minute detail may not have been known to us as a reader, even though that detail is pointless. Then you go on about how even though WE were right about that detail, it's pointless because it's a speculation. And then it goes that all speculation = not good enough for you..

If we had video camera evidence with the kiler holding there Id card there, stilled, and asmodean there to identify the witness, as well as a full confessoin. I still don't think you would admit that is the kiler, because RJ hasnt said it was.

[Bob T Dwarf]

OK. So, you're content to be both ignorant and lazy. Your loss.

[Graendals favourite]

I'm not certain if that was directed to me, since I'd already answered that twice. Well, to say something new, I've never implied Graendal should have gone to Caemlyn with the intention of killing Asmodean, so I don't see how that is relevant, it being a roadkill.

[Jonn_2]

I'm not certain if that was directed to me' date=' since I'd already answered that twice. Well, to say something new, I've never implied Graendal should have gone to Caemlyn with the intention of killing Asmodean, so I don't see how that is relevant, it being a roadkill.[/quote']

 

Yeah, sorry if I don't read all 46 pages of responses, and having been around for a while, I'm pretty sure nothing new (to me at least) has come up, so I'll just start here. Feel free to clue me in if someone has already made the point.

 

The point you make here just adds more doubt, to me. If Graendal just saw the opportunity to kill Asmodean and did so, why does it have to be kept a secret? Why is she keeping it a secret? Why be so evasive about what happened? There is no reason for it and there has been no reason given.

 

Basic logic tells us that if it's supposed to be plain to us, then there should be no suggestion of the action, no allusion, no implication. It should be stated with whatever art that's required: "(Blank) did (blank)."

 

If we needed clues and such to figure it out, then it defeats the whole concept of it being obvious.

 

Now throwing that out the window, we should be looking into what is more artful, impactful and what serves the plot. Asmodean died. check. It's dramatic, it shifts the plot and it catches the interest of the audience. Now...

Who did it, why, and how? If it is supposed to be plain for everyone to see and nothing is required for us to know besides someone did it and it's obvious, then there is no need for the subterfuge, the RAFOs, the hints. Even within the universe that it takes place, there should be someone who knows what happened and relates to the audience what they know. That's also how an obvious detail is shared. The fact that no one has done this leads us to believe that there is indeed more to the event than what RJ would like us to believe.

 

The fact that Graendal evades revealing that she killed Asmodean actually hurts the case against her. There is no logic or plot served by her denial or lack of disclosure. There has to be a clear reason given as to why she chooses not to reveal herself. Otherwise just dropping "subtle" hints is actually just a waste of time. RJ would have us believe that there is no point in saying it, then in later books he makes a point of giving further clues, supposedly.

 

My proposal is that this was meant to be a mystery from the beginning, and the revelation will be important before the tale is done. Graendal is a red herring. The real killer will come to light in dramatic fashion and it will serve the plot in a way that is more impactful than simply getting rid of Asmodean.

 

I voted for Moiraine BTW. She would be the most dynamic as she has not been around to explain anything for about ten years now. Her character would be perfect to be the one to explain mysteries as that's been the direction she has been going in since the beginning. Verin, by contrast, only seems to create more mystery. I'm talking about archetypes in characters and how their arcs serve the story. Moiraine would be a good candidate to shed light on something for us once she re-enters the main arc.

[Mugah]

Bob, dont get insulting. It is wrong.

 

We are given insufisent information to prove our selves. So what if all we have is theory and speculation. All we are doing is putting forth our ideas and looking for input. I have heard nobody claim thier idea as fact. If you want to tell somebody they dont have proof, wait for them to say they have proof or or use the word fact.

 

Somebody just used the word "red herring". Heh, that sounds like something RJ would do. All we know for sure is that Asmodean died, and if somebody wanted to they could argue against that due to unusual wording.

[Graendals favourite]

Jonn_2, there actually is new stuff. I introduced this scheme in the autumn, but I've updated it since the upgrade of DM, now I also completely discard a random meeting behind the door. The essentials are on last page. Essentially it needs Glowing Embers and the then knowledge of people abilities as sources.

 

There's loads of explanations why this would have happened or that, but I don't care to start listing them, because it easily comes across that the thing would hinge upon the explanations, which it doesn't, as long as there is at least one explanation for events that makes sense. It's the killer's identity that needs to be figured out, not the details or what went on in her head. Those are theories of their own.

 

An observation of the solution is, that since it doesn't use much else than Glowing Embers, with the killer known, a lot of interesting theories, namely about Cairhien and Mat, can be built, though those are theories of their own.

 

Mugah, I did claim to have solved it, even offered to eat a hat if I were wrong(CW kindly offered to get me one), so as much as I appreciate what you wrote, I can't take that stance. Call it arrogant, but I can take no other route.

 

However, using evidence against a claim I have not made, as Bob apparently did, to discard the solution, does not make me enthusiastic to reply. Especially since he was the one I'd already answered that twice to. (Well, it was around pages 8 and 30, but I remember what I wrote well.) Also, when the critisism is based on his interpretation of a clue by RJ.

[Graendals favourite]

Oh, Jonn_2, I forgot what I was going to say. To the keeping it secret. Well, isn't the Dark One the only one who really needs to know who did it? So, why not tell the other forsaken, is equal to why tell the other forsaken. Does it profit her any, that she should tell them she has done this great thing? She hasn't denied doing it either.

[Jonn_2]

It actually is important to buy into your own theory if you want to convince others that it is correct. It isn't arrogance so much as it's technique for debate. That said, the whole point of an idea being a theory is that it is unproven and shouldn't be used as hard evidence. It is a supposition. To attempt to prove an argument (which is a vague concept by itself), you have to build on a set of suppositions using logic, evidence and presentation techniques. Even achieving some form of concensus that your theories are acceptable, it doesn't exactly make it true.

Well, I digress. I never believed that Asmodean's death was due to a chance encounter, an accident or "road kill". The evidence of the text suggests that Asmodean saw his killer, meaning as soon as he saw this person he felt threatened, and soon after was killed. It should be clear that this person had a motive and intent to kill Asmodean as soon as he walked into that doorway. This is very important. This means that the killer's motivation is key to who killed Asmodean. It was not a random encounter. It was premeditated and done with a purpose. The purpose and the motivation are key to revealing the killer.

How are we to know these things then? There you are...We have to be told as the audience, what a person's motivations are for doing things. Not so much told plainly; "I did blank because of blank.", nothing so lacking in art as that...The evidence we require is that it makes sense and there is a purpose behind the specific action.

I think it's false to refute the importance of what the killer was thinking because that ties into motivation. Motive is a tool used to prove the identity of a killer. There is no way to discard the motive as being unimportant. In this I'd have to argue against the assumption that it isn't important to know what went on in the killer's head.

 

I'll take a step away, tempting my own contextual fallacy. In the first set of arguments I can remember about this topic someone made the point that just because a situation had the elements to create a specific result, it doesn't mean that it specifically happened that way.

I think you may still be able to find it on wotmania or someplace. I think it had something to do with someone eating a hamburger and there are several people who could have, but just because they all could have doesn't necessarily mean that any of them actually did. Occum's Razor aside, it was a decent point, although in hindsight it had absolutely nothing to do with the Asmodean murder.

This is exactly why motive is just as important as means. Could Graendal have killed Asmodean? Of course, but that in itself is not enough to prove that she actually did. When you're dealing with a narrative, something has to happen for a reason, and a specific one, otherwise, why write it? The opportunity was there to enhance the Graendal character be affirming her as the killer in some way. We didn't need her to jump up and down and have lightning and thunder toll as she shouted that it was her "MWUAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!"...Just a quick passage as to how she had come to do it and how it has affected her character and status. It's not much to do really. Yet, Jordan has opted not to do anything like that. He has her being hesitant to speak openly about the event, and she is vague and misleading about her involvement. That paints her as a true red herring. If it isn't such a big deal to reveal the identity then..well, it wouldn't be a big deal. A red herring obscures truth and leads you off the trail of what you seek.

I have the feeling that Asmodean's killer is part of something bigger, a larger picture. The reason that it is being dealt to us this way is because the entire episode is a red herring that's supposed to mislead us from something more important that is to happen or even has happened. I gotta say that the build-up has been rather nice. Hopefully the hype won't diminish the shock or sense of impact once the secret is revealed.

[Graendals favourite]

Good points there. For the first time in ages I feel constrained in writing in English (not my first language): have to be exact, and remember all you said. So, pardon if some things come off as vague or going around what you said. (I'll reply to your paragraphs.)

 

Quite so, there's no point is presenting a case if you don't do your best to make it known. As it's said, if the presenter doesn't look to believe in what he says, the audience certainly will not. Still, I feel this is so strong that the best way is to convey the ideas as accurately as possible, and leave the rest to others; people can think the rest just as well as I can. I only have the advantage of having thought on this since autumn. On the other hand, if people don't think on it, they will not realise the strength of the arguments.

 

Here's where I think people have not considered some very important aspects of the murder. First of all, the killing happened very quickly: Asmodean took only one step after opening the door; He was killed immediately. The other: To kill Asmodean immediately, the killer had to know he was alone; even someone who wanted Asmo dead wouldn't have killed him if it meant fighting Rand. Also, there are very few ways of the murder being premeditated in the sense that it was intended before the door. The only way I can think of is a female forsaken following Asmodean, and it becoming apparent he is going to take a small door, ambush him by travelling behind it.

 

Yes, the motive is important, and as for Graendal: a traitor teaching the enemy, doing the Dark One a favour while about it. But there's good explanations for each step of why the ambush makes sense, but stating them, as I've noticed, brings about replies that I should prove them, which misses the point, because the point is that the explanations exist: the thing isn't counter-intuitive. But to be able to prove what Graendal thought, or her exact reasons, is trying to do something that probably can't be done. RJ has said the murderer can be figured out, but it doesn't mean everything related to the murder can.

 

In this instance, I've reduced the suspects down to Graendal, Mesaana and Semirhage, the available female forsaken. Those are the people who could have killed Asmodean. Since Asmodean did die, it is immediately safe to say Graendal killed him. The two others are removed as possiblities in later books, but even without that, there can be little doubt it was Graendal. The simplest answer is best, except that when the simplest is discarded as impossible, the single remaining alternative must be true.

 

Since only three suspects remain, motive and opportunity become more questions of did they not have motive or opportunity. For the other two it is hard to say since we haven't seen them yet at that point. Graendal had the opportunity, since she was competely capable of going to Caemlyn, seeing Asmo in the garden, and following with the kill. She had the motive to kill him. And, she had the motive to find out what happened with Rand and Rahvin, she is one of the people who should be most concerned about what actually took place. Going there in person would give her the most accurate account. I'd say that the definite answer is there, in Glowing Embers, so it isn't necessary for RJ to give more info.

 

I too, think so, I feel it underlines Graendal's off-scene activities, which she has hinted of in her povs, but we haven't explicitly seen.

[Jedimuppet]

It actually is important to buy into your own theory if you want to convince others that it is correct. It isn't arrogance so much as it's technique for debate. That said' date=' the whole point of an idea being a theory is that it is unproven and shouldn't be used as hard evidence. It is a supposition. To attempt to prove an argument (which is a vague concept by itself), you have to build on a set of suppositions using logic, evidence and presentation techniques. Even achieving some form of concensus that your theories are acceptable, it doesn't exactly make it true.

Well, I digress. I never believed that Asmodean's death was due to a chance encounter, an accident or "road kill". The evidence of the text suggests that Asmodean saw his killer, meaning as soon as he saw this person he felt threatened, and soon after was killed. It should be clear that this person had a motive and intent to kill Asmodean as soon as he walked into that doorway. This is very important. This means that the killer's motivation is key to who killed Asmodean. It was not a random encounter. It was premeditated and done with a purpose. The purpose and the motivation are key to revealing the killer.

How are we to know these things then? There you are...We have to be told as the audience, what a person's motivations are for doing things. Not so much told plainly; "I did blank because of blank.", nothing so lacking in art as that...The evidence we require is that it makes sense and there is a purpose behind the specific action.

I think it's false to refute the importance of what the killer was thinking because that ties into motivation. Motive is a tool used to prove the identity of a killer. There is no way to discard the motive as being unimportant. In this I'd have to argue against the assumption that it isn't important to know what went on in the killer's head.

 

I'll take a step away, tempting my own contextual fallacy. In the first set of arguments I can remember about this topic someone made the point that just because a situation had the elements to create a specific result, it doesn't mean that it specifically happened that way.

I think you may still be able to find it on wotmania or someplace. I think it had something to do with someone eating a hamburger and there are several people who could have, but just because they all could have doesn't necessarily mean that any of them actually did. Occum's Razor aside, it was a decent point, although in hindsight it had absolutely nothing to do with the Asmodean murder.

This is exactly why motive is just as important as means. Could Graendal have killed Asmodean? Of course, but that in itself is not enough to prove that she actually did. When you're dealing with a narrative, something has to happen for a reason, and a specific one, otherwise, why write it? The opportunity was there to enhance the Graendal character be affirming her as the killer in some way. We didn't need her to jump up and down and have lightning and thunder toll as she shouted that it was her "MWUAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!"...Just a quick passage as to how she had come to do it and how it has affected her character and status. It's not much to do really. Yet, Jordan has opted not to do anything like that. He has her being hesitant to speak openly about the event, and she is vague and misleading about her involvement. That paints her as a true red herring. If it isn't such a big deal to reveal the identity then..well, it wouldn't be a big deal. A red herring obscures truth and leads you off the trail of what you seek.

I have the feeling that Asmodean's killer is part of something bigger, a larger picture. The reason that it is being dealt to us this way is because the entire episode is a red herring that's supposed to mislead us from something more important that is to happen or even has happened. I gotta say that the build-up has been rather nice. Hopefully the hype won't diminish the shock or sense of impact once the secret is revealed.[/quote']

 

I'm not sure that Asmo recognizing his killer is proof that it wasn't a chance encounter. That being said, if you want to make it an intentional encounter, it gets a little tricky placing someone in Caemlyn at precisely that time.

J

[Paradoxic]

Hello again John.

 

As I've argued in the past (previous threads on this issue that is), I don't think the murder of Asmodean is significant beyond the actual removal of Asmodean. Furthermore, I believe RJ is enjoying the fact that the fanbase has turned this into such a giant mystery... it maintains continued interest in the story and keeps people talking. Thus, constraining the attacker to those who would make for an interesting story/plot twist/etc is limiting ourselves with artificial boundaries.

 

I posted earlier regarding how Graendal does not tell anyone about her killing Asmodean. She doesn't want to appear dangerous. She does not want to stand out. She does not want to be noticed. She wants to remain a spider on a web. She killed Asmodean because they accidentally ran into each other and she simply could not pass up the opportunity. However, she's not about to brag to the forsaken about how she killed one of them. That would, for one, ruin her relationship with the ever-paranoid Sammael. She is refered to as the spider, sitting and watching and waiting.

 

Now, as I state for all newly joined members to the debate. Graendal's Favorite and I agree that it was Graendal, why she was in the palace, and why she doesn't talk about it... but I do still maintain the 'accidental encounter' as opposed to the 'assassination'. I also maintain all the same issues with Moiraine being the killer (how'd she get out of Finnland, how'd she get sucked back in, why'd she kill Asmodean, why didn't she kill anyone else, etc) as always.

[Jedimuppet]

Hello again John.

 

As I've argued in the past (previous threads on this issue that is)' date=' I don't think the murder of Asmodean is significant beyond the actual removal of Asmodean. Furthermore, I believe RJ is enjoying the fact that the fanbase has turned this into such a giant mystery... it maintains continued interest in the story and keeps people talking. Thus, constraining the attacker to those who would make for an interesting story/plot twist/etc is limiting ourselves with artificial boundaries.

 

I posted earlier regarding how Graendal does not tell anyone about her killing Asmodean. She doesn't want to appear dangerous. She does not want to stand out. She does not want to be noticed. She wants to remain a spider on a web. She killed Asmodean because they accidentally ran into each other and she simply could not pass up the opportunity. However, she's not about to brag to the forsaken about how she killed one of them. That would, for one, ruin her relationship with the ever-paranoid Sammael. She is refered to as the spider, sitting and watching and waiting.

 

Now, as I state for all newly joined members to the debate. Graendal's Favorite and I agree that it was Graendal, why she was in the palace, and why she doesn't talk about it... but I do still maintain the 'accidental encounter' as opposed to the 'assassination'. I also maintain all the same issues with Moiraine being the killer (how'd she get out of Finnland, how'd she get sucked back in, why'd she kill Asmodean, why didn't she kill anyone else, etc) as always.[/quote']

 

I mostly agree with what you said, but Moghedien is the spider.

J

[Bob T Dwarf]

Since nobody wants to go back and read things that were established in the very beginning of this debate, I'll simply repeat the salient points of fader's post on page 5.

 

Fader has researched what Jordan has said regarding Asmo's murder. What he learned was that "over the course of the series, only TWO people have sucessfully guessed who it was, and had evidence to prove it."

 

Further, "RJ's later quotes confirmed that Graendal was not the killer, nor was Lanfear (as she was dead), Ishamael, Rahvin, Be'lal, Shaidar Haran and a few others that it could have been."

 

Now, since Graendal has always been the favorite suspect, and Jordan has specifically said it was not Graendal, can we please stop chasing down this dead-end, and begin considering who it could really be?

[Guest Majsju]

Further' date=' [b']"RJ's later quotes confirmed that Graendal was not the killer, nor was Lanfear (as she was dead), Ishamael, Rahvin, Be'lal, Shaidar Haran and a few others that it could have been."[/b]

 

Now, since Graendal has always been the favorite suspect, and Jordan has specifically said it was not Graendal, can we please stop chasing down this dead-end, and begin considering who it could really be?

 

That is quite simply not true. RJ has named ONE character that didn't do it, Fain.

[Jedimuppet]

Since nobody wants to go back and read things that were established in the very beginning of this debate' date=' I'll simply repeat the salient points of fader's post on page 5.

 

Fader has researched what Jordan has said regarding Asmo's murder. What he learned was that [b']"over the course of the series, only TWO people have sucessfully guessed who it was, and had evidence to prove it."[/b]

 

Further, "RJ's later quotes confirmed that Graendal was not the killer, nor was Lanfear (as she was dead), Ishamael, Rahvin, Be'lal, Shaidar Haran and a few others that it could have been."

 

 

 

Now, since Graendal has always been the favorite suspect, and Jordan has specifically said it was not Graendal, can we please stop chasing down this dead-end, and begin considering who it could really be?

 

Can you point me to the quote where he says that? It's not that I'm not reading what you write, it's that I just pretty much think you're coming out of left field with your I'm the only one who's allowed to speculate, so it must be a saldaean darkfriend.

 

You're entitled to your ideas, but you seem not to return that courtesy at times.

J

[Bob T Dwarf]

You need to take that up with Fader.

 

As one of the site admin's, I'm forced to conclude that he would only post something that he knew to be true.

[Jedimuppet]

Then you need to take that up with Fader.

 

As one of the site admin's' date=' I'm forced to conclude that he would not post something that he did not know to be true.[/quote']

 

He stated his opinion, Bob. You can't regurgitate someone's opinion and then call it fact. Read the text again, this time critically, and you'll see that he is stating his personal conclusion.

 

You have to stop assuming that we're unaware because we don't agree with you.

J

[Bob T Dwarf]

There's nothing of opinion in: "only TWO people have sucessfully guessed who it was."

 

Nor in: "RJ's later quotes confirmed that Graendal was not the killer."

 

Those are statements of plain fact.

 

The only opinion in his post is his theory about who the killer might be.

[Guest Majsju]

No, he's stating his interpretation of RJ's quotes.

[Jedimuppet]

No' date=' he's stating his interpretation of RJ's quotes.[/quote']

 

Exactly. Nuff said..

 

Anyway, Graendel is still in it, and I still favor accidental meeting until someone can convince me of why she (or whomever your favorite suspect is) was in that pantry.

 

J

[Bob T Dwarf]

Maj, his statements read as fact. I have to take them as facts.

 

Perhaps you might persuade the man to clarify what he wrote? I'd prefer to hear from him that he mispoke.

[Graendals favourite]

:) , Graendal was in that pantry, because she saw him, decided to try to kill him, and followed him there. When she saw him approach the panty door, she saw a good opportunity, and Travelled behind the door to both surprise Asmo and deliver a close quick killing weave.

 

If we're now allowed to speculate, I say she used reversed compulsion, in the fine degree Sammael thought Graendal was perhaps the best ever, to induce in Asmodean the sense of boredom that made him leave and wander off alone.

[Graendals favourite]

It would be great to hear where and when those quotes were from, and if they are accurate.

[Guest Majsju]

It would be great to hear where and when those quotes were from' date=' and if they are accurate.[/quote']

 

They're not accurate. Bob is just getting desperate.