Oh, hey, a new Nakomi thread!  I haven't lurked here for a while.

I admit that my looney theory no longer makes sense to me, since reading about Brandon's reticence to answer questions about her and how he phrased it.  I guess I just wanted to meet Tigraine (such a cool name)/Shaiel somewhere in the series, in flashback at the very least, so I latched onto Nakomi as the only possibility.  I now believe that if she were Rand's mother returned from the probably-dead, Brandon would have no trouble talking about it.  The same might be said for most of the other theories, even the Jenn Aiel one which is intriguing and has a lot in common with my whacky idea.  

The only reason I can imagine for all this mystery is the "Nakomi represents Harriet" theory.  That would be very Brandon, IMHO, and would explain a lot.  Especially taking into account what Peter has written here, debunking the "deep in the notes" thing.  

But if it turns out that I was somehow originally correct, even though absolutely no one has given it credence,  oh how I will crow!  Fat chance, but, hey . . . .  

I think the problem with it is that it has the term "arab" in it.

 

It should have just been "Ogieresque"

Good one, Tiger!

Brandon's modernisms have bothered me in the past, but remember, this book was sort of "written by committee," so maybe there had to be some give-and-take on the subject.  Maybe a whole lot of worse things were edited out and Team Jordan didn't want to get overly picky and discouraging.  Those who create something from nothing, sometimes just called artists at our best, are a touchy breed sometimes.  Overall, I think the Sanderson modernisms have slowly decreased in all of his works, but he still goes way over the top with the psychological musings for me.  I guess that's another example of "tell instead of show," which is not the ideal, in case any of you were not sure. = ]

Back to Jason's original intent for this thread:  I finished yesterday.  I share so many of the feelings expressed here.  I came to Dragonmount to vent and gripe and share the awe, not really intending to post.  I have no close friends who are reading this, so I join this community for the first time in a loooong time for the shared experience, as so many lurkers seem to be doing.   Thanks, all.

I'm with you, Tialin. Brandon used to reference modern psychology often in his early books, which irked me to no end, but either I'm getting used to it or he has scaled back a bit. Phrases like "deal with. . ." and referring to love affairs as "relationships" are two examples, plus some Psych 101 soul-searching from time to time. I made a note about Rand turning into Alan Alda much too suddenly for my taste on p. 199 of Towers. Ew.

The knife issue didn't bother me. Too much precision in describing details can get tedious, even though this may be a valid omission. Let's just assume that there were multiple bronze knives, at least two.

I think this typo (p. 783) is a new one! I don't have it on my list, anyway.

Oh, and the time line issues did not bother me. I got it. Maybe because I refused to be bothered by it, but it flowed nicely for me despite a tiny bit of clumsiness with Tam seeming to be in two places at once.

 

It didn't bother me either because RJ's been doing this for awhile.

 

I didn't notice the typos either the first time around, but that's mostly because I was completely engrossed in the story.

Isn't it amazing how our brains usually correct as we read, especially if it's enjoyable? I just have one of those brains that doesn't do that quite as easily, so I wrote down what bugged me. Then I went back and eliminated the things that didn't bug me as much the second time through. Or the list would have been a bit longer. I somehow found the patience to read ToM really slowly in order to savor it.

I'm impressed by all who notice errata and story inconsistencies. Enjoy those whip-smart memories while you have them!

Oh, and the time line issues did not bother me. I got it. Maybe because I refused to be bothered by it, but it flowed nicely for me despite a tiny bit of clumsiness with Tam seeming to be in two places at once.

Peter is having login issues, and wanted someone to post this here:

 

Rifle and riffle are two different verbs. Rifle means to search thoroughly, ransack. Riffle means to leaf through hastily or cursorily. I do believe riffle is onomatopoeia. It dates from 1754. Rifle's ransack definition is its oldest, from the 14th century. Oxford Online more or less gives rifle as one definition of riffle, which annoys me. Merriam-Webster keeps them separate.

 

Riffle is a rather calm and orderly activity. Something idly engaged in. To riffle through the pages of a book.

 

Rifle used as something other than a firearm is a more frantic and much more disorderly activity. To rifle a safe ( dig through and possibly scatter the contents of ). If one rifled a book, it would likely indicate that pages were torn free of the binding and scattered.

 

Riffle is idle, rifle is energetic, maybe even frantic.

Teaches me to get the big dictionary down and not rely on whatever is in my Mac. Rifle is very serious violent riffling, then? Cool. I stand corrected.

O.K., Peter, here we go. I've only checked this thread, but these are all new.

US ed., counting all partial paragraphs

p. 46.2 often did plump foreign (I read the word plump as a verb and it confused me the first three times)

90.4 lighting should be lightning

94.9 the winter felt worn away (maybe it's just me, but felt reads as a verb and could be clarified with felt on it or its felt or something)

125.14 but it('s) what I'm doing

202.15 (probably should clarify which beatings Egwene refers to: from Wise Ones or Aes Sedai)

210.12 the remaining seals upon the (on sounds better than upon, which is used again in the same sentence)

211.2 I think removing both instances of the word right in the sentence beginning "But she generally did see. . ." reads much better.

248.7 I would (have) liked

268.4 Ituralde turned (and) looked

305.2 anything specific but (should be except, I think) the number

382.7 Your body and your child (children)

383.13 What are we do to with you

388.12 to tell you that that

398.8 Perrin grew caught up (sounds wrong. . .became?)

403.4 No longer be a symbol (It's no longer a symbol?)

408.8 No, (I) guess that

417.5 Byar said, nudging. . . (Byar said what?)

430.2 There, she sat quietly. (misplaced comma)

434.14 in relative secret (secrecy?)

512.13 sparking should probably be sparkling

574.11 position he('d) been

583.10 Failure needed (need) always be

604.8 Here's the rifling/riffling thing again. Has this been changed in some modern dictionary to reflect common pronunciation?

662.9 Caemlyn is already is buzzing

662.15 in an inn (at sounds better)

669.9 Galad said (,) bowing with an

675.8 fountains flowed now, and though

728.4 When the Aiel had destroyed (better without the had)

739.8 left you to prison (unless this is intended to sound archaic)

762.10 Elayne started, the(n) stepped closer

784.13 set up a little too high up to

788.9 the flute form his lips

827.5 didn't you once tell me once

827.8 Isn't going to happen (intended?)

829.7 rifled/riffled (my dictionary says it's riffled)

852.5 Until after Malkier fell (Yes, I caught one in the glossary! Can't believe it. . .)

Do I win a prize?

I managed to enjoy this book immensely despite taking notes. It's only because I care.