Talk:The Fool - Revision history

Mervi at 09:59, 1 September 2010

2010-09-01T09:59:28Z

Farseer at 10:58, 29 August 2010

2010-08-29T10:58:41Z

85.194.208.106: do/does who/whom - which should it be?

2008-12-05T20:52:44Z

do/does who/whom - which should it be?

Mervi at 18:57, 8 May 2006

2006-05-08T18:57:51Z

Adamjhall at 15:15, 8 May 2006

2006-05-08T15:15:44Z

Voici at 11:42, 2 May 2006

2006-05-02T11:42:56Z

Mervi: the truth about the fathers?

2006-05-01T23:40:40Z

the truth about the fathers?

Mervi: need to divide information between articles

2006-04-27T15:12:17Z

need to divide information between articles

Voici at 14:09, 21 April 2006

2006-04-21T14:09:46Z

Mervi at 23:12, 20 April 2006

2006-04-20T23:12:19Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:59, 1 September 2010
Line 33:		Line 33:

	::Though they were only fleeting names given to Fool in AQ, should the Toymaker (name he took for himself while in the Mountain Kingdom) and even Holy One (name given to him, as the White Prophet, by certain Mountain folk/pilgrims also while in the Mountains) be added to his list of names? --[[User:Farseer\|Farseer]] 10:58, 29 August 2010 (UTC)		::Though they were only fleeting names given to Fool in AQ, should the Toymaker (name he took for himself while in the Mountain Kingdom) and even Holy One (name given to him, as the White Prophet, by certain Mountain folk/pilgrims also while in the Mountains) be added to his list of names? --[[User:Farseer\|Farseer]] 10:58, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
		+
		+	::: Absolutely! :) --[[User:Mervi\|Mervi]] 09:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:58, 29 August 2010
Line 29:		Line 29:
	I'd like to revert one of the sub-headers of this article. I do realize that "What does whom call me when?" might be more grammatically correct, but it's not what the Fool actually says. He says		I'd like to revert one of the sub-headers of this article. I do realize that "What does whom call me when?" might be more grammatically correct, but it's not what the Fool actually says. He says
	"What do who call me when?" so that's how I put it here originally as well. Any thoughts? --Mervi		"What do who call me when?" so that's how I put it here originally as well. Any thoughts? --Mervi
		+
		+	----
		+
		+	::Though they were only fleeting names given to Fool in AQ, should the Toymaker (name he took for himself while in the Mountain Kingdom) and even Holy One (name given to him, as the White Prophet, by certain Mountain folk/pilgrims also while in the Mountains) be added to his list of names? --[[User:Farseer\|Farseer]] 10:58, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:52, 5 December 2008
Line 25:		Line 25:
	pg 698 UK hardback Assasin's Quest "she reminds mw of my older sister"--[[User:Adamjhall\|adamjhall]] 18:15, 8 May 2006 (EEST)		pg 698 UK hardback Assasin's Quest "she reminds mw of my older sister"--[[User:Adamjhall\|adamjhall]] 18:15, 8 May 2006 (EEST)
	: Wow, that is certainly an interesting bit of trivia I didn't remember! [[User:Mervi\|Mervi]] 21:57, 8 May 2006 (EEST)		: Wow, that is certainly an interesting bit of trivia I didn't remember! [[User:Mervi\|Mervi]] 21:57, 8 May 2006 (EEST)
		+
		+	----
		+	I'd like to revert one of the sub-headers of this article. I do realize that "What does whom call me when?" might be more grammatically correct, but it's not what the Fool actually says. He says
		+	"What do who call me when?" so that's how I put it here originally as well. Any thoughts? --Mervi

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:57, 8 May 2006
Line 24:		Line 24:
	----		----
	pg 698 UK hardback Assasin's Quest "she reminds mw of my older sister"--[[User:Adamjhall\|adamjhall]] 18:15, 8 May 2006 (EEST)		pg 698 UK hardback Assasin's Quest "she reminds mw of my older sister"--[[User:Adamjhall\|adamjhall]] 18:15, 8 May 2006 (EEST)
		+	: Wow, that is certainly an interesting bit of trivia I didn't remember! [[User:Mervi\|Mervi]] 21:57, 8 May 2006 (EEST)

@@ Line 15: / Line 15: @@
 ----
-I think the article is starting to look quite long already, and we're just in the beginning. :) IMO from now on, anything related to [[Amber]]¬†and [[Lord Golden]] should be put to those two articles instead of this one. Let's keep this for the Fool of King Shrewd and the companion of Fitz, ok? :)
+I think the article is starting to look quite long already, and we're just in the beginning. :) IMO from now on, anything related to [[Amber]] and [[Lord Golden]] should be put to those two articles instead of this one. Let's keep this for the Fool of King Shrewd and the companion of Fitz, ok? :)
@@ Line 21: / Line 21: @@
 The Fool says in AQ (p. 335 UK paperback, chapter "Secrets") that his fathers were two cousins. In my copy of FE (also UK edition) he says they were brothers. I'm wondering if this is an error that might be corrected in other editions.
 : I wondered about that on my first readthrough. I think it says 'cousins'in the UK edition AQ hardback, but I'd have to double check. [[User:Voici|Voici]] 14:42, 2 May 2006 (EEST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:42, 2 May 2006
Line 20:		Line 20:
	----		----
	The Fool says in AQ (p. 335 UK paperback, chapter "Secrets") that his fathers were two cousins. In my copy of FE (also UK edition) he says they were brothers. I'm wondering if this is an error that might be corrected in other editions.		The Fool says in AQ (p. 335 UK paperback, chapter "Secrets") that his fathers were two cousins. In my copy of FE (also UK edition) he says they were brothers. I'm wondering if this is an error that might be corrected in other editions.
		+	: I wondered about that on my first readthrough. I think it says 'cousins'in the UK edition AQ hardback, but I'd have to double check. [[User:Voici\|Voici]] 14:42, 2 May 2006 (EEST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:40, 1 May 2006
Line 16:		Line 16:
	----		----
	I think the article is starting to look quite long already, and we're just in the beginning. :) IMO from now on, anything related to [[Amber]]¬†and [[Lord Golden]] should be put to those two articles instead of this one. Let's keep this for the Fool of King Shrewd and the companion of Fitz, ok? :)		I think the article is starting to look quite long already, and we're just in the beginning. :) IMO from now on, anything related to [[Amber]]¬†and [[Lord Golden]] should be put to those two articles instead of this one. Let's keep this for the Fool of King Shrewd and the companion of Fitz, ok? :)
		+
		+
		+	----
		+	The Fool says in AQ (p. 335 UK paperback, chapter "Secrets") that his fathers were two cousins. In my copy of FE (also UK edition) he says they were brothers. I'm wondering if this is an error that might be corrected in other editions.

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:12, 27 April 2006
Line 13:		Line 13:
	: I think we should try to include all the different view points from which to consider the Fool, so I'd say definitely yes. I think it would also be important to mention the paradox of two White Prophets at the same time, because that's not supposed to happen. Either one of them must be "false", but still they both exist and have at least the physical appearance of a WP. Although some of this might be more appropriate for the Pale Woman article or an article about the White Prophets, I guess. --[[User:Mervi\|Mervi]] 02:12, 21 April 2006 (EEST)		: I think we should try to include all the different view points from which to consider the Fool, so I'd say definitely yes. I think it would also be important to mention the paradox of two White Prophets at the same time, because that's not supposed to happen. Either one of them must be "false", but still they both exist and have at least the physical appearance of a WP. Although some of this might be more appropriate for the Pale Woman article or an article about the White Prophets, I guess. --[[User:Mervi\|Mervi]] 02:12, 21 April 2006 (EEST)
	:: I keep running into this problem. It needs to be mentioned in passing, at least. I think the only way to combat 'how much is too much' is by adding and editing until we get it right... [[User:Voici\|Voici]] 17:09, 21 April 2006 (EEST)		:: I keep running into this problem. It needs to be mentioned in passing, at least. I think the only way to combat 'how much is too much' is by adding and editing until we get it right... [[User:Voici\|Voici]] 17:09, 21 April 2006 (EEST)
		+
		+	----
		+	I think the article is starting to look quite long already, and we're just in the beginning. :) IMO from now on, anything related to [[Amber]]¬†and [[Lord Golden]] should be put to those two articles instead of this one. Let's keep this for the Fool of King Shrewd and the companion of Fitz, ok? :)

@@ Line 6: / Line 6: @@
 :: I actually ended up starting a page for [[Tom Badgerlock]] because re-reading FE for indexing the characters etc I realized that most of the other characters do not know the truth about TB, *and* for many years Fitz really tried to convince even himself that FitzChivalry was dead and he was now Tom Badgerlock. The character only starts to appear as a "ruse" when he comes back to Buckkeep and has to live among all those people who once knew Fitz. It's only then when he starts to slip back to being Fitz, and then continues to "play the role" of TB. --[[User:Mervi|Mervi]] 02:12, 21 April 2006 (EEST)
 ----
 I think we should mention some of the Pale Women's comments, especially baring in mind she knew the Fool when he was a child. I'd have to get the book to confirm, but doesn't she go on about if she were with the Fitz they'd be man and women, hinting that Fitz and the Fool weren't? Maybe this is me just being weird and speculative. [[User:Voici|Voici]] 00:32, 21 April 2006 (EEST)
 : I think we should try to include all the different view points from which to consider the Fool, so I'd say definitely yes. I think it would also be important to mention the paradox of two White Prophets at the same time, because that's not supposed to happen. Either one of them must be "false", but still they both exist and have at least the physical appearance of a WP. Although some of this might be more appropriate for the Pale Woman article or an article about the White Prophets, I guess. --[[User:Mervi|Mervi]] 02:12, 21 April 2006 (EEST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:12, 20 April 2006
Line 9:		Line 9:

	I think we should mention some of the Pale Women's comments, especially baring in mind she knew the Fool when he was a child. I'd have to get the book to confirm, but doesn't she go on about if she were with the Fitz they'd be man and women, hinting that Fitz and the Fool weren't? Maybe this is me just being weird and speculative. [[User:Voici\|Voici]] 00:32, 21 April 2006 (EEST)		I think we should mention some of the Pale Women's comments, especially baring in mind she knew the Fool when he was a child. I'd have to get the book to confirm, but doesn't she go on about if she were with the Fitz they'd be man and women, hinting that Fitz and the Fool weren't? Maybe this is me just being weird and speculative. [[User:Voici\|Voici]] 00:32, 21 April 2006 (EEST)
−	: I think we should try to include all the different view points from which to consider the Fool, so I'd say definitely yes. I think it would also be important to mention the paradox of two White Prophets at the same time, because that's not supposed to happen. Either one of them must be "false", but still they both exist and have at least the physical appearance of a WP. Although some of this might be more appropriate for the Pale Woman article or an article about the White Prophets, I guess.	+	: I think we should try to include all the different view points from which to consider the Fool, so I'd say definitely yes. I think it would also be important to mention the paradox of two White Prophets at the same time, because that's not supposed to happen. Either one of them must be "false", but still they both exist and have at least the physical appearance of a WP. Although some of this might be more appropriate for the Pale Woman article or an article about the White Prophets, I guess. --[[User:Mervi\|Mervi]] 02:12, 21 April 2006 (EEST)