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

[Guest cwestervelt]

And Rand, thus LTT, was meeting with Davram Bashere at the time.

 

There is no time for LTT to have taken over Rand and done the killing.  Rand is in a window watching Aveiendha and Mat in the courtyard when Davram comes in.  Asmodean leaves that same courtyard for his appointment with the Grim Reaper when it is apparent that Mat and Aviendha are too preocuppied with other matters (Mat on his own death, Aviendha on water) to appreciate his playing. 

[callandor]

also, rand didnt know that asmo was dead. he had thought that asmo had ran off, and im pretty sure that rand can still see when LTT has taken over soo...

[eug33]

LTT might of wanted asmo dead but he is stuck with rand. even if he did manage to take over won't it simiply be LTT in rands body so Asmo won't be shocked.

 

i think seeing one of the chosen would be more of a surprise. it was like wha was said before where tthere was a meeting betweeen the forsaken to let rand attack sammuael and have the rest of them to be there for him. during that meeting sammuael asked granael where asmo was. that means thoses 2 were up to something to try locate and kill him.

[chawthor]

Cyndane(sp?) using mask of mirrors to show she was lanfear?? it lends itself to some forshadow that Lanfear and Mor still live..

 

The trouble with this is that Cyndane says she was "held" by the Finns...in order for her to be at the palace in time to kill Asmo (as Cyndane that is), the "holding" would have to have been very short (although time in Finnland could be similar to time in TAR, so it could have been a long time in Finnland, and very short in Randland).

 

That being said:

This doesn't rule out that Lanfear did it.  As I've said before, she was my initial suspect, and I still like her for the deed.  It just means she was able to come and do it as Lanfear before being held - perhaps she used one of her wishes to be given the chance to off Asmo

 

"Why?" you ask?  Well, as long as she was around to supervise, she could be sure that Asmo taught Rand exactly as she wanted - she was in control - but, once in Finnland, things could get beyond her, so she decided to nip it in the bud - and the battle at the riverside showed her that Rand's teaching was further along than she thought (a similar argument could be made in favour of Moiraine - she knew who Asmo was, but did nothing while she was around and had some measure of control, but once falling into Finnland, she had to take action to end it).

 

 

I've said all along that the Foresaken PoV's indicate none of them were involoved.  Most people won't accept that because they can't accept what it says about who killed Asmodean.

 

This isn't entirely accurate - it doesn't indicate that none were involved - if I remember correctly, we haven't had a Cyndane POV where she's thought about Asmo, or even someone else's POV where Cyndane has commented on it (if I'm wrong about that, someone please give a reference).  So it doesn't rule out that Lanfear could be the culprit.

[RobertAlexWillis]

I've said all along that the Foresaken PoV's indicate none of them were involoved.  Most people won't accept that because they can't accept what it says about who killed Asmodean.

 

If you can find a reference where Graendal's thoughts to herself indicate any uncertainty as to Asmodean's fate, I'd dearly love to see it.  Not her statement's to others, mind; she and Sammael were both lying and hiding things from each other even in the "closest" moments of their alliance, and she certainly hasn't been closer to anyone else.  Not something she said, something from her internal dialogue, something where we can be confident she's being honest.

 

As I say, I would dearly love to see it, although honestly, I don't expect you to be able to find it.

[GrandpaG]

I'm sure RJ knows about all of the discussion on this topic here and elsewhere.  It will be interesting to see how he fits it into the 2000+ pages of AMoL to let us know what really happened.  It wouldn't surprise me to see an open-ended explaination that doesn't really spell it out so people will argue about it indefinitely.  :)

[Ashaman Kovan]

I've said all along that the Foresaken PoV's indicate none of them were involoved.  Most people won't accept that because they can't accept what it says about who killed Asmodean.

 

If you can find a reference where Graendal's thoughts to herself indicate any uncertainty as to Asmodean's fate, I'd dearly love to see it.  Not her statement's to others, mind; she and Sammael were both lying and hiding things from each other even in the "closest" moments of their alliance, and she certainly hasn't been closer to anyone else.  Not something she said, something from her internal dialogue, something where we can be confident she's being honest.

 

As I say, I would dearly love to see it, although honestly, I don't expect you to be able to find it.

 

Not that im completely sure on who I think it was but why if Graendal did do it would she even bother hiding it. All of the other Forsaken (at least the left over males) have declared they would kill Asmodean if they found him so I don't see what Graendal has to lose or gain by admitting that she did it. I don't see it as some sort of "Let the others stew in it and worry" strategy. Because Asmodean was obviously one of if not the weakest of the forsaken so they don't exactly have much to fear from him.

[Darth_Andrea]

Not that im completely sure on who I think it was but why if Graendal did do it would she even bother hiding it. All of the other Forsaken (at least the left over males) have declared they would kill Asmodean if they found him so I don't see what Graendal has to lose or gain by admitting that she did it. I don't see it as some sort of "Let the others stew in it and worry" strategy. Because Asmodean was obviously one of if not the weakest of the forsaken so they don't exactly have much to fear from him.

 

 

It might be a make them worry about what he's teaching Rand. If Rand is taught everything that Asmo can teach him they will be alot more weary about how they approach him and gives her more time to lay whatever plans she has. Given she is the one who killed him.

 

 

Darth_Andrea

 

 

[Ashaman Kovan]

Not that im completely sure on who I think it was but why if Graendal did do it would she even bother hiding it. All of the other Forsaken (at least the left over males) have declared they would kill Asmodean if they found him so I don't see what Graendal has to lose or gain by admitting that she did it. I don't see it as some sort of "Let the others stew in it and worry" strategy. Because Asmodean was obviously one of if not the weakest of the forsaken so they don't exactly have much to fear from him.

 

 

It might be a make them worry about what he's teaching Rand. If Rand is taught everything that Asmo can teach him they will be alot more weary about how they approach him and gives her more time to lay whatever plans she has. Given she is the one who killed him.

 

 

Darth_Andrea

 

 

 

That could be true. But at the same time, obviously the DO has to know that Asmo is dead and so by extension i'm sure Morridin and SH must know as well. And if the whole Taim being a darkfriend is true (even more so if Demandred is acutally Taim) then Demandred must also know that Asmo isn't around anymore. So at this stage in the book the people that really matter must know that he's dead and so I can't see graendal still trying to hide the fact with so many people knowing that he's dead now. Even if he was still alive, at this point I think he would have taught Rand all he could have, and the others would have realized this. If they just didn't already assume that Rand killed him out of hand just for being who he was.

[RobertAlexWillis]

I don't see it as some sort of "Let the others stew in it and worry" strategy.

 

I'm sorry, but why can't it be exactly that?  It makes more sense than anyone else's motive for keeping the murder secret.

 

I mean, if it was Sammael, why wouldn't he just say it?  Or Slayer, to himself as he recounts his "greatest hits"?  We know from their own thoughts that Semirhage and Demandred didn't do it.  Why wouldn't Mesaana gloat?

 

None of the Forsaken or Darkfriends has a reason to keep it secret better than the one you just named.  And all the other "suspects" have much larger problems with the theories implicating them.

[Majsju]

KOD definitly clears LTT from the list of suspects.

 

And why is it so hard to look for a reason for Graendal to not gloat about it? We know that the forsaken all strive to be Nae'blis, and before Moridin shows up, the chance for the rest is increased a lot. We have a POV from Graendal where she thinks the DO has all but promised her the position.

 

Now, gloating about killing Asmo would also be gloating about having gained some major points with the DO, ie an increased threat for all the othrer forsakens aspirations to become Nae'blis. Someone as cautious as Graendal would definitly not want to set herself up as a target for the others.

[Graendals favourite]

I don't know if this needs a third answer, but the question "why didn't Graendal tell folks what she did?" is misleading. It implies that Graendal would normally tell folks what she does. Which is not true. Normally Graendal does not tell anyone what she does. If she tells someone something, it is because she thinks it will gain her something. She may tell the Dark One what she does, but the other Forsaken are not her friends any more than anyone of the Light is, they are weak allies at best. Gloating serves no real purpose other than self-indulgence, which is a flaw. As Graendal has not denied killing Asmodean either, she can always reveal what she has not yet spilled out if she has a reason to do so.

 

Besides which, Graendal telling others she killed Asmo would be in conflict with one of the major themes in the series, that no one ever tells anyone else anything of consequence if they can but help it.

[Jonn]

I don't know if this needs a third answer, but the question "why didn't Graendal tell folks what she did?" is misleading. It implies that Graendal would normally tell folks what she does. Which is not true. Normally Graendal does not tell anyone what she does. If she tells someone something, it is because she thinks it will gain her something. She may tell the Dark One what she does, but the other Forsaken are not her friends any more than anyone of the Light is, they are weak allies at best. Gloating serves no real purpose other than self-indulgence, which is a flaw. As Graendal has not denied killing Asmodean either, she can always reveal what she has not yet spilled out if she has a reason to do so.

 

Besides which, Graendal telling others she killed Asmo would be in conflict with one of the major themes in the series, that no one ever tells anyone else anything of consequence if they can but help it.

 

I actually think that the latter part of what you say is misleading.

 

That is the perception of some readers when it comes to this series. Some readers think that the difficulty in sharing information is a theme in the series. Egwene should talk to Rand more openly but doesn't, as is the same with any other semi-relationship in the series, right? I think this is true to an extent, but not in the context of how you're applying it.

 

The characters in the books have particular resons for not disclosing information to one another and this fact is gone into at length...GREAT length.

 

Example: Perrin and Faile...This is a the poster relationship for holding back pertinent information from someone who might want to hear it.

 

The fact is though, when we have a situation where FAile is holding something back from Perrin, there is usually a long discourse in Faile's POV why she won't tell Perrin, whatever she is not telling him.

 

This is a vague example because in this relationship, it happens a lot. One character doesn't tell another what is going on for whatever reason, and it is either kept a secret or it eventually is revealed. STILL WE the readers have a good idea what is being held back and by whom. If we don't know, well, it's usually explained who is holding what information back from whom and the why of it.

 

So...convoluted as this sounds, Greandal not revealing herself as killer doesn't fit the usual mold of witholding information in that she hasn't even revealed in her own thoughts what it is she might be witholding. Or why.

 

A shorter way to look at it is...if there were information to hold back, it wouldn't be a secret to us so much as it is to the other characters in the books.

 

If there is a theme, then that is it. Characters hold information back from other characters, but generally, it is for the audience to come to know what is going on and feel frustration that the characters in the book aren't so lucky to have semi-omniscience in matters.

 

Graendal, if she is the killer, has a reason for not revealing it other than the generally vague reason that she's one of the Forsaken and doesn't talk to anyone. In this series, if people fail to talk to others or give information, there is a reason given and that reason becomes a character note. In Graendal's case, there is no note, no conclusion to come to about her in sure terms, no inner thought process that illuminates us about her particular personality. There's just the assumption of a character note that Graendal theorists cling to rather ardently, which I don't blame them for.

I too would like to know that there is more to Graendal than what we've been given, but I can't make assumptions other than what is in the book, meaning things that she actually does in the book, and subjective things given by other characters when they talk about her in the book.

[Graendals favourite]

What I wrote was not misleading, it was an answer to an argument. A question can be misleading, if it cannot be answered without addressing the false premises in it. Ask for example, why didn't the rabbit eat this particular horse? To be informative, one must point out that rabbits do not eat horses, while answering that the rabbit did not ever meet the horse will be unsatisfactory, the answer will imply back that the rabbit really usually ate horses. In order to learn, one must know which questions to ask, this is a theme in the series, too.

 

Jonn, the audience is not written in the series. You assume it has a role, but it isn't written in. Never does RJ mention the reader in the books.

 

We do not have an idea what is held back and from whom. What is Verin's mission. Which remaining Aes Sedai are Black? What are Alaine Chuliandred's plans? Where is Demandred? I do not feel omniscient when reading WoT. Graendal has no more need to entrust her life story on people than Galina Casban, Lelaine Akashi or Suana Dragand.

 

 

[Jonn]

What I wrote was not misleading, it was an answer to an argument. A question can be misleading, if it cannot be answered without addressing the false premises in it. Ask for example, why didn't the rabbit eat this particular horse? To be informative, one must point out that rabbits do not eat horses, while answering that the rabbit did not ever meet the horse will be unsatisfactory, the answer will imply back that the rabbit really usually ate horses. In order to learn, one must know which questions to ask, this is a theme in the series, too.

 

Jonn, the audience is not written in the series. You assume it has a role, but it isn't written in. Never does RJ mention the reader in the books.

 

We do not have an idea what is held back and from whom. What is Verin's mission. Which remaining Aes Sedai are Black? What are Alaine Chuliandred's plans? Where is Demandred? I do not feel omniscient when reading WoT. Graendal has no more need to entrust her life story on people than Galina Casban, Lelaine Akashi or Suana Dragand.

 

 

 

I thought that your suggestion that people don't say anything important to one another, if they can help it, being a theme...I think that is misleading.

 

It's not a theme. It's an element of drama and reality. RJ isn't paying any special attention to it, trying to shove it down our throats as a prevailing theme. I disagree with that particular perception that some people hold to.

 

I read a lot of moaning and groaning, complaining as to why this person doesn't just tell this other person some piece of information then everything will be solved...That's not reality. Ever read Shakespeare? Greek tragedy? It's not a theme. It's just how DRAMA is created.

 

My point though is that WE THE AUDIENCE have to know the particular piece of information that is being held back and that someone else should know to solve a particular scenario. We have to know that there IS a scenario to be solved in the first place.

 

No, there is no audience written into the story, but this answer as you call it, is in fact misleading as well. Of course there is no audience written into the story, that's just common sense. There need be no explanation of that point. It's a matter of course. THere IS an audience though. We are it. We read and come to conclusions or formulate thoughts based on the material we are given. That is a matter of course. It's distracting that people have to explain things that should be evident like this. That is what makes some statements misleading. Like your assertion that misinformation is a theme. It's not a forced theme. It's a common element in the storytelling process. The actual theme revolves around how this element is being used and to what purpose. That is the question that is important. This is the heart of what makes people curious about Asmodean's departure.

 

To the point about Graendal:

 

Do we know that she is withholding anything beyond trying to psyche out Sammael? Has she revealed to the audience that there is something of substance behind her general vagueness about the subject? If there is something behind what she says and does concerning Asmodean's murder and dissapearance, why hasn't it been explained to us? It's not that point that she should keep something secret, it's WHY she would keep it secret.

 

There appears to be no real reason beyond the mundane reason that she wants to be secretive. That simply doesn't read well. Asmodean dissappears without a trace and no one openly claims the kill. Why?

 

when a faction or certain terrorist groups perform an assasination of a notable adversary, the general action afterwards is to claim the hit as a message sent to their rivals. It makes sense.If no one claims it, and in fact that person eliminated is made to disappear...there is a reason behind that. There is a different message sent by this action but a message nonetheless, a more subtle message. The killer has something to hide and that person needs to disappear, not just die, in order to hide it.

 

This is the heart of the doubt surrounding Graendal as the killer, up to this point.

 

What are her true reasons for killing Asmodean and concealing the act from others? there has been no explanation given in the decade following the publishing of the incident, and scant few items that could be called real clues.

 

Now to say that Graendal is truly the most probable candidate with this glaring point of doubt on hand; that's misleading.

[lou]

graendal shares nothing

LOC threads woven of shadow:

"the lord ituralde has come, great mistress" graendal set the goblet atop a that at first glance seemed to be inlaid with ivory dancers."then he shall speak with the lady basene"

 

as for demandred and semirhage and messaana.....only she herself knew she had made her own journey to shayol ghul and down to the lake of fire. only she herself knew that the great lord had all but promised to name her nae'blis, a promise sure to be fulfilled with al'thor out of the way."

 

later, after the initial meeting with SH, graendal decides to withhold information of her schemes with SH.

it is not out of character for graendal to withhold pertinant information.

also n LOC the first message demandred notes that the "DO already knew how rahvin died and seemed to know more of asmodean than he"

 

pure speculation, but perhaps this was a reason for graendal's secret meeting with the DO, the one that got her an all but named nae'blis......i am sure she wasnt favored because she gives the DO the warm fuzzies.

[Jonn]

graendal shares nothing

LOC threads woven of shadow:

"the lord ituralde has come, great mistress" graendal set the goblet atop a that at first glance seemed to be inlaid with ivory dancers."then he shall speak with the lady basene"

 

as for demandred and semirhage and messaana.....only she herself knew she had made her own journey to shayol ghul and down to the lake of fire. only she herself knew that the great lord had all but promised to name her nae'blis, a promise sure to be fulfilled with al'thor out of the way."

 

later, after the initial meeting with SH, graendal decides to withhold information of her schemes with SH.

it is not out of character for graendal to withhold pertinant information.

also n LOC the first message demandred notes that the "DO already knew how rahvin died and seemed to know more of asmodean than he"

 

pure speculation, but perhaps this was a reason for graendal's secret meeting with the DO, the one that got her an all but named nae'blis......i am sure she wasnt favored because she gives the DO the warm fuzzies.

 

The Dark One hints to all of them that they could be named nae'blis, if such and such were to be done. That's how he gets them to serve right? He promises them power and anyone who is spoken to about being named nae'blis, they generally are told in "secret" because it's a carrot.

 

If Graendal was so sure she was to be named nae blis becuase of her supposed role in what happened in CAemlyn, why is she spooked by Sammael when he tells her that he's to be nae'blis?

 

Was she promised or not really...just another carrot to keep her plodding along.

 

note that the words are "all but" promising to name her nae blis.

 

My general thought is that the Dark One has no intention of sharing power at all. He uses up his rooks as well as his pawns, and even a queen is just another piece that can be sacrificed to secure the endgame.

 

He will tell his pieces whatever he feels he needs to to motivate them to his ends.

 

Demandred, Sammael, Semhirage...all od them think that they have a chance, and it's always Ishamael who gets the prize. These people are deluded. It's their nature.

 

Again, Graendal shows as much as she conceals. her contemporaries know where she generally is operating out of. She makes a show of it and she puts up a false front that says as much about her as it masks. Sammael has some frank thoughts about it, that she thinks she's slicker than she actually is. He's under the impression that she thinks that he doesn't look beyond her facade, and that is her weakness.

 

Also, all of these things that you've mentioned that Graendal is hiding...we the audience have general knowledge of it. Her role in Asmodean's demise, she thinks little bout that.

 

And if you contend that her meeting with the DO has something to do with Asmodean, she doesn't even think about it even while she is thinking about her meeting in Shayol Ghul.

 

That's a suspicious ommission being that the assassination of the traitor would be the main basis of the favor bestowed upon her.

 

 

[lou]

the ommision is there simply because rj wanted us to figure it out.

[Jonn]

If he did want us to figure it out, he's broken from his usual custom of presenting a problem, laying out misdirection and clues in kind and then finally giving the answer.

He's given plenty of misdirection. He's not given many good clues besides what he's curiously stated off the pages of the book. And finally, he's not given an answer to the problem.

 

Adeleas's killer. several books, but solved. Careane.

The Black ajah killer in Tear, solved. It was Slayer. Also took a few books.

Who sent the trollocs to aid Rand in Tear? Solved a few books later. It was semirhage.

Who was Dashiva? solved in a couple of books.

 

The only other big mystery I can think of that matches Asmodean's murder in length is what is up with Taim, but that is an obviously big plot point that wouldn't be revealed for obvious reasons.

 

Asmodean's killer...if it is who everyone says it is, I see no reason for not revealing it, that even approaches plausibility. Why wouldn't it be revealed to us, the readers? There's no good reason. Well, teh only good reason would be that there is something important surrounding Asmodean's death that has yet to be revealed.

[Graendals favourite]

Jonn, I meant it as a theme to the extent as is evident from these blog entries. I suppose the more general theme would be simply human communication or human nature. RJ commenting on how much we tell one another. Then you have someone like one of the Forsaken.

 

Now as to communications and the lack thereof, these things are not commentaries on any sort of technologies.  They are a commentary on the human navel.  Do you really know anybody who actually tells everything he or she knows to everybody?  Even when they really need to know?  Maybe especially when they really need to know.  Do you really trust people who think they always know what other people really need to know?  May I postulate that this person has few close friends, those quite quiet when around him or her?  There are a thousand reasons why we don’t tell everything to everybody, including often things that we should tell.  Maybe the information puts us in a bad light, so we withhold information, or perhaps shade the truth a bit.  That’s one of the most common.  Or maybe we think the other person must already know because it is so obvious.  Which can add the factor that we don’t want to appear foolish for pointing out that the sky seems to be blue today.  Or maybe we just didn’t bloody well think of it.  It has always struck me how unrealistic, how incredibly fortuitous — you think ta’veren are centers of unrealistic coincidence?  Huh! — books are where almost everybody learns everything they need to know as soon as they need to know it, where almost nobody of any note or importance ever has to make decisions based on incomplete information, information that the reader may know is at least partly wrong.  Lord, even when they just learn almost everything they need to know exactly when they need to know it, matters seem just too far-fetched.  No, it isn’t a commentary on technology.  Just people.

 

The Forsaken are a group of power hungry people who don’t like one another and vie with one another for power as much as they vie with the forces of the Light.  Much like the internal politicking in Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.  But look at the situation in the world as it actually stands, from the White Tower divided to crop failures caused by a too-long winter and a too-long summer and people fleeing their farms because the Dragon Reborn has broken all bonds, meaning still less food, and that spoiling at a fearsome rate, from chaos in Arad Doman to a large part of the Borderland armies out of position, from the arrival of the Seanchan focusing too many eyes on them instead of the Shadow to the strongest single nation, Andor, riven by civil war in all but name and Tear split by open warfare, from….  Well, take your pick.  There are lots more to chose from.  Take a step back and look at what the forces of the Shadow have wrought.  The world and the forces of the Light are in bad shape.  At this point, boys and girls, the Shadow is winning.  There are glimmers of hope, but only glimmers, and they MUST pay off for the Light to win.  All the Shadow needs for victory is for matters to keep on as they have been going thus far and one or two of those glimmers to fade or be extinguished.  The forces of the Light are on the ropes, and they don’t even know everything the Dark One has up his sleeve.

 

As to the rest, I remember I refused to address this argument aside from pointing out the argument has no grounds, and I will do so now. It it nothing but subjective speculation, there is no reason you should know the killer's reasons for doing anything except that you must be able to figure out who it was. It is completely irrelevant why the killer didn't announce the deed to the world; however, if you think there must be a reason, you would do better in finding it out if you thought about what it might be, instead of thinking it cannot exist because you don't know what it is.

 

So Jonn it's your opinion it would make sense to reveal the murder, but you are wrong and that is that. There's nothing to discuss there.

[Jonn]

Jonn, I meant it as a theme to the extent as is evident from these blog entries. I suppose the more general theme would be simply human communication or human nature. RJ commenting on how much we tell one another. Then you have someone like one of the Forsaken.

 

 

As to the rest, I remember I refused to address this argument aside from pointing out the argument has no grounds, and I will do so now. It it nothing but subjective speculation, there is no reason you should know the killer's reasons for doing anything except that you must be able to figure out who it was. It is completely irrelevant why the killer didn't announce the deed to the world; however, if you think there must be a reason, you would do better in finding it out if you thought about what it might be, instead of thinking it cannot exist because you don't know what it is.

 

So Jonn it's your opinion it would make sense to reveal the murder, but you are wrong and that is that. There's nothing to discuss there.

 

You're being rather ignorant of other people's doubts, and just because it is my opinion and you don't hold it in that high of a regard, you must not dismiss it simply because it exists in counterpoint to yours.

 

I look at your points rather carefully and though some things are pretty contrary to my point of view, I note where you are coming from.

 

You refuse to address the argument? Really? Refuse why exactly? It's a valid doubt.

 

The pattern of mystery and revelation in these books is laid out clear as day. Asmodean's murder is something that goes against the pattern in a number of ways. I am trying to point that out and you would just dismiss it because you don't feel like discussing it? You simply refuse? I'm sorry, but that's beyond arrogant.

 

Every point anyone has ever brought up counter to my arguments, I have and will continue to take note of and address with as much seriousness as I can. It's the respectful thing to do.

 

All the examples I've given are mysteries in the novel that have been addressed. The ones that haven't been answered have some important part to play in the last chapter of the series. Herid Fel's secret? Well it only has to do with Rand's hopes for victory at the Last Battle. Easy to see why this is not elaborated on, but we can see that. Taim? Well his story is still in progress and we don't know for sure how it's going to end with him, so obviously that mystery is still a mystery. Mesaana? Who is she in the tower? Again, it's a plotline that has not seen its course run and is also obvious that we will have to wait on it. Who betrays Egwene...same deal. In progress. What is up with Verin?

 

All of these things are pretty straight forward cliffhanger plot lines and they must see their end come the end of the series. Now, to those who haven't settled on who killed Asmodean, it is pretty obvious that this is a mystery that should be resolved in like manner. With no clear answer given, it's a "duh" situation as to whether or not it's an unresloved mystery. I don't know why this is so hard of a concept to grasp. Then again, you could simply refuse to acknowledge certain things as a reality...I guess that's simpler to aproach things that way in the very short term.

[Graendals favourite]

I do not notice any arrogance, but we do all have our faults, of course.

 

Because of the longevity of this discussion, I will explain my reasons, which I  am not in the habit of doing these recent years. I could mention RJ's intention of leaving plotlines unfinished in the end, and I could mention this and that, but it is irrelevant to Asmodean's fate, so I do not do that. It would only confuse the matter.

 

I do not regard the argument as valid, and thus I cannot discuss it. I cannot sacrifice the truth. Otherwise I would be implying the contrary, which naturally would put my own position into doubt, as if I did not know what I was speaking about. Whether or not RJ should or would reveal the mystery in the books has nothing to do with the murder. The argument is subjective, it is based on your opinion of RJ's prose and literature in general; the argument is irrelevant because it concerns itself with what happened after the murder, while everything needed for the solving is written before the murder; irrespective of the killer, there are always reasons for things to have happened the way they have happened.

 

It goes the other way: the question is not, that the killer, whoever it was, must have had a reason for hiding the deed; the question is, that the killer, whose name we know, did had a reason for hiding the deed, or at least they succeeded in it, whether through effort or happenstance.

 

There can be no doubt about the killer's identity, (really it wasn't Semirhage or Mesaana so it must be Graendal, for reasons I've been through myriad times) so obviously Graendal had her reasons for all she did, and obviously RJ has intentionally written the way he has written. You want to grasp at straws, well I now explained why I will not discuss them but only point out they are nothing but straws. You must discuss them with someone who has doubts concerning the matter. I can only speak the truth.

[Mr Ares]

At the moment, the focus of this discussion is the reason for secrecy, as if this alone will solve the murder. There are 8 basic points needed for someone to be the killer: means, motive, opportunity, the ability to dispose of the body, the ability to induce Asmo's "You? No!" reaction, a reason for secrecy, both on the part of the author and on the part of the killer, knowledge of the murder (or a lack of ignorance of his fate), and finally "intuitive obviousness". A focus on one factor of the 8, and one of the most minor? We should look at the problem as a whole. The killer may not reveal it in his/her/its/their POV for the simple reason that he/she/it/they have no reason, and no wish, to dwell on it. It could be kept secret by the author for no greater reason than the author desires to keep it a secret. No greater reason is needed, although one could feel free to question the author's judgement in keeping it a secret for no reason at all, but it's a minor point, of interest to none but a few hardcore fans - a minor niggle, a point of trivia to most everyone else. As for the other 7 points, who do we know has the most, who needs the most and fewest assumptions. Graendal's favourite has made known his (her? Sorry if I get it wrong) support of Graendal, and the reasoning behind that support, in the past, and whether or not anyone agrees that it is necessary for Granedal to have travelled to be the killer is ultimately irrelevant. Graendal is the candidate for whom the fewest assumptions are required, everything else is just details. To lay out the case, again, in brief: Graendal, being a channeler, has the means; Graendal, being one of the Chosen, seeing the traitor make Rand stronger, and thus more of a threat to her, has motive; Graendal, being well known to Asmo, and being a rather unexpected presence in the Caemlyn Palace at that time (at least in Asmo's view) can induce the reaction; she expresses no lack of knowledge in POV as to Asmo's fate (i.e, she doesn't think that he may still be alive, she expresses no doubt that he is dead, and never expresses a doubt as to who killed him), even if she doesn't say "it was me"; she can be considered intuitively obvious (but so can a lot of people depending on criteria - but if we separate the wood from the trees, we see she is the leading candidate); and Graendal, being a channeler, can dispose of the body quickly and completely, leaving no trace of the murder. All she lacks is opportunity, but we know of nothing else she is doing - she lacks the prior engagements we see in, for example, Rand or Davram Bashere - and thus we know of no reason why she would be unable to get there. all she needs is a good enough reason to get there, and she is thus there, and thus is the killer. (7/8)

 

On the other hand, Moiraine (you do still support her, don't you Jonn? I'm not confusing you with someone else, am I?) has the following going for her: she was last seen falling into an violently malfunctioning ter'angreal, something we are told is dangerous - even normal ter'angreal can result in stilling or death - and she seen in the company of Lanfear, who next reappears at a lesser strength - something only known to be caused by same sex Healing of severing - and her warder bond passed to myrelle, something we had specifically been told would happen on her death, and severing having the same effect upon the bond as death, and Lan clearly not being in the best of mental health in later appearances, consistent with a warder bond snapping, it is thus reasonable to assume that she is stilled (and that's quite a long sentence, isn't it?) and therefore lacks the means to kill a channeler in the cicumstances we see; she had specifically stated that she knew who Asmo was, and warned rand that he hadn't changed - in short, she said, quite clearly, that Asmo was Rand's problem, not hers, and that rand should be the one to deal with him, and thus she lacks motive; she is the prisoner of the Finn, who have no reason to bargain with her, and have no ability to put her in the palace as they cannot affect the outside world at all, (RJs own words, in reference to their powers - they are capable of walking through a doorway (Mat) but not making one and dumping someone through it) incapable of bringing someone back through if they could  make such a doorway, except by physical force (so why didn't she run away? It just gets more and more ridiculous to make it her.), so she is therefore completely lacking in the opportunity (considering that MMO are probably among the first things to look at when establishing a killer, her lacking these shoots her way down the list of candidates); she could indeed induce that reation, although a "you're alive!! might be more reasonable - but then again, people don't always react the same, so Asmo could indeed have reacted in the way we see if confronted by Moiraine; she would have difficulty clearing up the body without being noticed (Finn Corpse Removal Ltd.?) and so without access to the power (as mentioned above) she thus cannot reasonably be expected to have the ability to do this; she cannot be proved to know Asmo's fate as yet - we have seen no POV, so we do not even know if she is aware of his death (in short, she hasn't said that she knows he is dead, therfore cannot be assumed to know that he is dead); and if we are to trust cwestervelt's recounting of his recollections she was intuitively obvious to him as of the death scene, and so we can consider her to be intuitively obvious (everyone is, depending on criteria, so this is only a minor point); and secrecy, which, admittedly, is where her case is strongest - no POVs and no comment from the author all work towards the reveal that she is alive. (3/8) She therefore is not the best candidate put forward, scoring only 3/8, compared to Graendal's 7/8. That's quite a difference, and if anyone can put forward a better candidate that Graendal (better being the operative word) we could accept that person as a suspect. otherwise, we must accept Graendal as the best candidate on offer, regardless of any minor quibbles over details.

 

All this talk of Moiraine does, of course, gloss over the arguments over the Oaths - does Moiraine consider darkfriends to be shadowspawn, and thus fair game? Well, she makes no mention, that I remember (please correct me if I am wrong), of darkfriend when she swore the Oath, and I don't recall any occasion when she has killed a darkfriend outside of "last extreme defence of her life, her warder, or that of another sister" (again, correct me if I've forgotten something, nobody has a perfect memory (at least, not on here.)), and therefore, she couldn't be the killer, as Asmo was not a threat - so even if she wasn't stilled she still can't be the killer. What a wonderful candidate she is. Now is there anyone else someone would like me to disprove, anyone else who has had their case destroyed time and again, but someone still wants to see go down again? if not, I rest my case - it was Graendal, the only quibbles are minor details.

[Jonn]

I do not notice any arrogance, but we do all have our faults, of course.

 

Because of the longevity of this discussion, I will explain my reasons, which I  am not in the habit of doing these recent years. I could mention RJ's intention of leaving plotlines unfinished in the end, and I could mention this and that, but it is irrelevant to Asmodean's fate, so I do not do that. It would only confuse the matter.

 

I do not regard the argument as valid, and thus I cannot discuss it. I cannot sacrifice the truth. Otherwise I would be implying the contrary, which naturally would put my own position into doubt, as if I did not know what I was speaking about. Whether or not RJ should or would reveal the mystery in the books has nothing to do with the murder. The argument is subjective, it is based on your opinion of RJ's prose and literature in general; the argument is irrelevant because it concerns itself with what happened after the murder, while everything needed for the solving is written before the murder; irrespective of the killer, there are always reasons for things to have happened the way they have happened.

 

It goes the other way: the question is not, that the killer, whoever it was, must have had a reason for hiding the deed; the question is, that the killer, whose name we know, did had a reason for hiding the deed, or at least they succeeded in it, whether through effort or happenstance.

 

There can be no doubt about the killer's identity, (really it wasn't Semirhage or Mesaana so it must be Graendal, for reasons I've been through myriad times) so obviously Graendal had her reasons for all she did, and obviously RJ has intentionally written the way he has written. You want to grasp at straws, well I now explained why I will not discuss them but only point out they are nothing but straws. You must discuss them with someone who has doubts concerning the matter. I can only speak the truth.

 

Truth. Now THAT is an underlying theme in RJ's work. Truth to you is not necessarily the same truth to someone else, especially if their perspective is different from yours. You can say this is true, that is true, whatever you like, it doesn't make it so just by virtue of stating it more than once.

 

You have to explain. You have to provide evidence, proof, validation, logic, reason and persuasion. You can give examples. You can give all of this and still someone will not see that it is "truth". Truth requires a form of acceptance. So, if you are entirely sure about something and you can accept no alternative answer to a particular question or statement, then this is the truth...to you. Of course transversely, because it is a truth to you beyond a doubt, there is no room for further examination or exploration or questions...you close yourself off from any alternative answer. Regardless of doubts, inconsistencies, and skews of logic, there is a LACK of acceptance for anything other than your relative truth.

 

This is what blows my roof off when it comes to haughty tauty some Graendal theorists. They are so sure, despite thousands of people having doubts of varying degrees. Many people think it probable and even likely that Graendal could have done it, but still they reserve their doubts as well because there is cause in the absence of a real answer. Yet many like yourself GF simply close the book on doubt...ignore other ideas. Refuse to examine other theories or thoughts.

 

I don't get why you would do that. A doubt is an opportunity to solidify your point of view, to examine your own ideas and maybe sell it to someone who has trouble understanding where you are coming from.

 

[i refuse to discuss it.]

 

  Jeez, you're right, how can saying something like that sound arrogant?

 

Anyhow, you've explained how it's Graendal only so far as it works by process of elimination. It strictly circumstantial.

 

You have no proof of whether or not Graendal was in the right place at the right time. You have no proof of her having enough information to even figure out that Asmodean was going to be on the crime scene. The entire thing sounds nothing like her MO, which points to her using Compulsion rather than killing the man. We have no proof that she would even dare to use balefire, which is the likely weapon that totally erased any trace of the man.

 

You say RJ just wrote it that way because that's how he wanted to write it. You easily dismiss that the only time he ever omits an answer to a mystery is because he plans to reveal it later. The murder of Asmodean having no further elaboration...this is not RJ's writing style and that is not just my opinion. I have given my examples of cliffhangers and mysteries many times, how RJ handles them, the structure or pattern of how RJ writes these passages. Is there any contesting of these patterns I bring up? Well I haven't read any. All I get when I bring these points up is that vague sort of backtrack that skirts around the point I'm making.

 

Take a look at every mystery in the books, every cliffhanger and tell me that Asmodean's murder fits that pattern. Every mystery that isn't still in progress, has been eventually solved or resolved.

 

Asmodean's death is the only one that is totally up in the air. Even people who are sure they know, can't explain very well how it is they know and be definitive about it.

[Jonn]

 

On the other hand, Moiraine (you do still support her, don't you Jonn? I'm not confusing you with someone else, am I?) has the following going for her: she was last seen falling into an violently malfunctioning ter'angreal, something we are told is dangerous - even normal ter'angreal can result in stilling or death - and she seen in the company of Lanfear, who next reappears at a lesser strength - something only known to be caused by same sex Healing of severing - and her warder bond passed to myrelle, something we had specifically been told would happen on her death, and severing having the same effect upon the bond as death, and Lan clearly not being in the best of mental health in later appearances, consistent with a warder bond snapping, it is thus reasonable to assume that she is stilled (and that's quite a long sentence, isn't it?) and therefore lacks the means to kill a channeler in the cicumstances we see; she had specifically stated that she knew who Asmo was, and warned rand that he hadn't changed - in short, she said, quite clearly, that Asmo was Rand's problem, not hers, and that rand should be the one to deal with him, and thus she lacks motive; she is the prisoner of the Finn, who have no reason to bargain with her, and have no ability to put her in the palace as they cannot affect the outside world at all, (RJs own words, in reference to their powers - they are capable of walking through a doorway (Mat) but not making one and dumping someone through it) incapable of bringing someone back through if they could  make such a doorway, except by physical force (so why didn't she run away? It just gets more and more ridiculous to make it her.), so she is therefore completely lacking in the opportunity (considering that MMO are probably among the first things to look at when establishing a killer, her lacking these shoots her way down the list of candidates); she could indeed induce that reation, although a "you're alive!! might be more reasonable - but then again, people don't always react the same, so Asmo could indeed have reacted in the way we see if confronted by Moiraine; she would have difficulty clearing up the body without being noticed (Finn Corpse Removal Ltd.?) and so without access to the power (as mentioned above) she thus cannot reasonably be expected to have the ability to do this; she cannot be proved to know Asmo's fate as yet - we have seen no POV, so we do not even know if she is aware of his death (in short, she hasn't said that she knows he is dead, therfore cannot be assumed to know that he is dead); and if we are to trust cwestervelt's recounting of his recollections she was intuitively obvious to him as of the death scene, and so we can consider her to be intuitively obvious (everyone is, depending on criteria, so this is only a minor point); and secrecy, which, admittedly, is where her case is strongest - no POVs and no comment from the author all work towards the reveal that she is alive. (3/8) She therefore is not the best candidate put forward, scoring only 3/8, compared to Graendal's 7/8. That's quite a difference, and if anyone can put forward a better candidate that Graendal (better being the operative word) we could accept that person as a suspect. otherwise, we must accept Graendal as the best candidate on offer, regardless of any minor quibbles over details.

 

 

 

I'll be more than happy to go after your whole scoring system and Graendal (again) some other time. I have for been examining the graendal thing for years now, so it's not that big a deal to me.

 

The point I'd like to make now is about what a reader is supposed to think when they read the words on the page. Now, a writer has to obsess over this very thing over and over when they write because it is the nature of the medium. You are trying to, as a writer, send a message that other people can interpret and relate to to such a degree that you almost share the same thought. The point is that there is always a reason to write something in a certain way for a certain reason. There is no "I wrote it like that because I felt like it, that's why." Even doing it for that reason implies that the author wants to be selfish and is challenging the reader in a way that basically amounts to telling them; "Eat sh*t, I'm doing it this way and that's that, jerk." In RJ's case this is totally opposite from the way he usually writes which is very detailed and almost longing to give the reader a totally immersing experience. It's out of character and it bothers me as a reader.

 

I don't believe that he just wrote it that way thinking we could just figure it out and be done with it. He can spend two paragraphs describing the tea people are drinking, and that is all by design. If he can leave out enough details to create such doubt as to who killed Asmodean, there is a reason behind it and not just because he felt like laughing at us.

 

Now, you don't write the sum total of two lines about Graendal prior to Asmodean getting offed and then expect the readers to make a character decision about her and make this vague connection linking her as the murderer. That makes even less sense than RJ's breaking of character. It's not funny, nor is it clever. It's bad storytelling.

 

Some people liken the situation to a minor "niggle". Not a big deal. It's just a minor detail. We create the obsession. I disagree. If we were watching a movie and there was a dinner scene in the movie, a minor lack of detail would be if there was a cup on the right side of the table when the scene began and in the next frame it was on the other side of the table. Well, it's an editing mistake, it's a directing mistake, a simple small mistake, period. People are acting like Asmodean's death is like that little mistake, a tiny detail. I actually think it's closer to the main characters in a movie are in a dinner scene and in one frame all of a sudden that tablecloth is gone, or suddenly all of the silver ware is gone. It's so distracting that the characters in the film in a puzzled manner, mention it, as if they don't know they're in a movie...all of a sudden this element of reality is just abruptly removed...minor as it is to not have a tablecloth, this detail draws notice and it could mean many things, none of which is very comforting. Just as Rand and several of the Forsaken mention Asmodean (including Moiraine), before and after his death and disappearance, all wondering what became of him, they are like the people in the movie we're watching wondering where the tablecloth went. Well, the audience watching that movie would be confused as well. Let alone being curious as to why the tablecloth is gone abruptly, they are even more baffled when even the characters on screen cannot say.

 

I don't know if you get my point or not, but what I'm trying to say is, there is a valid reason to have doubt. It's written that way. For a reason.