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!

Wow im confused, Thats not alot to go on, but let the thinkign begin.

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?

one has to read the book first to know the questio and the answer.

 

 

Im going to shoot for 42

Im going to shoot for 42

 

 

The meaning of life is not the question. :P

Is it the Chekhov's gun?

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.

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

Hm I can't remember seeing anything like that yet, and I'm at chapter 21.

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.

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? 

 

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.

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... :)

 

 

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.

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

Misheru, please keep this thread restricted to pre-release spoilers.

Apologies, I didn't realize that would be seen as a spoiler.

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.

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

Luckers, can you please post your reaction (nothing specific, but more like "wow" or "blaahhh" etc)? 

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.

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

Luckers; May I ask you if you liked the ending?

Pretty sure his NDA is along the lines of 'you can't say anything that came from reading the book'. So you can ask but he can't answer.

SIGHT!!!!eleven days left.