Jump to content

DRAGONMOUNT

A WHEEL OF TIME COMMUNITY
Luckers

A Luckers Teaser

Recommended Posts

So, I'm under a fairly strict non-disclosure agreement, which means in general i can't take part in the fun teaser discussion of those who get the book early--which is absolutely fine, I was shocked and beyond happy when I was told Peter was organising an early copy for me, especially given the positions I've taken.

 

So, I can't tease you about, really, anything.

 

Except this, because it came via something other than the book, or my reading of it, and has no place in my nda, and i figured the answer out completely without any aMoL information.

 

There is a thing in aMoL that may look like a mistake to some, but is not to any. The answer is clearly stated in tDR, and you can work out both what the issue is and what the answer is from that and what you know.

 

Have fun!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like a mistake, answer is in TDR, you can work out the issue and the answer...

 

Might as well just ask: What is in my pocket?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going with the Sa'Angrel stronger than Calandor. Not sure how that showing up could be seen as a mistake, but it is a Chekhov's Gun that's been on the mantle for a long while now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fairly sure that one wasn't mentioned until TSR. During Lanfear and Rands conversation in his bedchamber

 

No, it's mentioned in TDR. Siuan tells Nyn about it in ch 29. But it's pretty clear that she means the two Choedan Kal.

Edited by herid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Luckers said "mistake" - and can be figured out from what we already know. The biggest "mistake" I have seen from the AMOL material is the bonding scene. Perhaps there is something in tDR that helps there? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Fairly sure that one wasn't mentioned until TSR. During Lanfear and Rands conversation in his bedchamber

 

No, it's mentioned in TDR. Siuan tells Nyn about it in ch 29. But it's pretty clear that she means the two Choedan Kal.

That is different. There she was obviously referring to the Choedan Kal. What Lanfear said was that only two more powerful were made that a man can use. That's the Chekov's gun. Because obviously Siuan didn't know of this other one Lanfear referred to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like a mistake, answer is in TDR, you can work out the issue and the answer...

 

Might as well just ask: What is in my pocket?

My Preciousssss... :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Fairly sure that one wasn't mentioned until TSR. During Lanfear and Rands conversation in his bedchamber

 

No, it's mentioned in TDR. Siuan tells Nyn about it in ch 29. But it's pretty clear that she means the two Choedan Kal.

That is different. There she was obviously referring to the Choedan Kal. What Lanfear said was that only two more powerful were made that a man can use. That's the Chekov's gun. Because obviously Siuan didn't know of this other one Lanfear referred to.

sorry, you are right.  then this is not what Luckers meant as Manscher said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, I was definately off there, for some reason I always bleed the Tear portion of TSR into TDR in my mind. If I don't consciously place the books I just tend to associate book three with the full Callandor story and start book four with the heading into the waste. Wierd, I know.

 

Will have to poor through TDR again tonight and see what I can find about rings and bagginsess

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it the Chekhov's gun?

 

 

Luckers said "mistake" - and can be figured out from what we already know. The biggest "mistake" I have seen from the AMOL material is the bonding scene. Perhaps there is something in tDR that helps there? 

 

 

Both good questions to see if Luckers will give us a direct answer on.

 

Looking through the provided quotes, I have been interested to see if the bonding scene was a flub. I think only one quote out of about 4 or 5 dealing with linking is really convincing on that front. And don't think it's out of the question that what happened is just one of those things we assumed but never knew for sure. Don't recall any info on it in TDR, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something to do with Min's visions? She explains a great deal to Perrin at the beginning of TDR but its been a while.

Edited by mbuehner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He already said that he can't do it. Nothing that stems from his being given the book, not until Jan 8. Them's the terms of the NDA, apparently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, I was definately off there, for some reason I always bleed the Tear portion of TSR into TDR in my mind. If I don't consciously place the books I just tend to associate book three with the full Callandor story and start book four with the heading into the waste. Wierd, I know.

 

Will have to poor through TDR again tonight and see what I can find about rings and bagginsess

"Rings and Bagginsess" LMAO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...