Active Users:497 Time:27/12/2024 11:45:21 AM
Sanderson's understanding of angreal is totally wrong... Shannow Send a noteboard - 12/11/2009 11:10:57 AM
In a recent comment attributed to Sanderson (see post on the messageboard by Logain entitled "Sanderson elminates a certain someone as Asmodean's killer" ), he states that he believes sa'angreal do not magnify your power, but that they are instead a "reservoir of the Power", with a finite amount of the Power that you can draw from.

He goes on to say that weak people are still very strong when using sa'angreal, which to him means that we are not talking about a magnifying effect here.

Sanderson then stresses that this is his opinion only, and that he doesn't know what the true answer is.

In my view, Sanderson's opinion is incorrect. RJ has clearly stated that stronger people get more benefit from angreal than weaker people.

Sanderson's weakness in this case, is that he doesn't truly comprehend the scale of strength differences between people.

If a sa'angreal multiplies your strength by 10, then Alanna will still be vastly stronger than any living channeler when using the sa'angreal, despite not getting as much from it as Alivia would have.

Also, I believe Sanderson's lack of understanding in this regard is a basis for the Tower scene where Egwene is able to utilize the sa'angreal despite not being able to channel more than a trickle due to the effect of forkroot.

He thinks that Egwene will still have the entire potential of the sa'angreal at her disposal, since it is in his view a reservoir of the Power.

Basically, Sanderson is confused between an angreal and a well, as used by Nynaeve in Far Madding. A well is a reservoir of the Power, while an angreal is a magnifyer.

Lastly, I believe Sanderson's lack of understanding relating to the scale of One Power strength is revealed in his repeated comments about the Choedan Kal and the length of time Rand's balefire could retroactively erase Graendal from the Pattern.

He uses the example of the Choedan Kal being 100 times stronger than Rand on his own. Then, in another book signing, he stretches it to 1000 times. Then he uses this to indicate that Rand could only remove a couple of hours from Graendal's life, as his balefire on Rahvin only removed about 15 minutes.

In truth, the ENTIRE WHITE TOWER, using every angreal and sa'angreal in its possession, could only channel a FRACTION of the amount Nynaeve used at the Cleansing.

That means that the Choedan Kal are probably many millions of times as powerful as a single channeler.

If Rand could take 15 minutes out of Rahvin's life, with an angreal that at most doubled his strength, then the Choedan Kal should enable balefire that can reverse tens of millions of minutes out of the Pattern.

15 Million minutes equate to 250 000 hours. Divide that by 24, and you get over 10 000 DAYS. That equals about 28 YEARS!

Therefore, balefire powered by the Choedan Kal is MORE THAN powerful enough to reverse everything back to the Aiel War, possibly even the entire Aiel War as well!

Therefore, Sanderson is totally incorrect. Rand's balefire is more than strong enough to erase Graendal's killing of Asmodean, which happened at most a few months ago.

More importantly, this makes me concerned about what else Sanderson may get wrong if he doesn't fully familiarize himself with RJ's One Power notes.
This message last edited by Shannow on 12/11/2009 at 11:33:20 AM
Reply to message
Sanderson's understanding of angreal is totally wrong... - 12/11/2009 11:10:57 AM 1596 Views
You should include quotes - 12/11/2009 11:42:20 AM 783 Views
The angreal magnifies the power of the individual holding it, not that of the entire circle. - 12/11/2009 11:57:20 AM 839 Views
Re: The angreal magnifies the power of the individual holding it, not that of the entire circle. - 12/11/2009 12:37:46 PM 767 Views
Sure, I agree... - 12/11/2009 12:45:33 PM 708 Views
Re: The angreal magnifies the power of the individual holding it, not that of the entire circle. - 12/11/2009 02:27:41 PM 743 Views
Please elaborate... - 12/11/2009 02:42:17 PM 746 Views
On the basis that we dont agree on the use of sa'angreals on a group. - 12/11/2009 03:02:29 PM 701 Views
OK, I'll humour you. This once. - 12/11/2009 05:18:57 PM 726 Views
How generous of you. - 12/11/2009 07:51:54 PM 802 Views
Scrap that - 12/11/2009 08:32:36 PM 715 Views
Rand Balefires a whole castle - 12/11/2009 01:10:05 PM 887 Views
There is no basis for that conclusion... - 12/11/2009 02:02:37 PM 759 Views
I could have sprayed - 12/11/2009 02:28:41 PM 719 Views
Ever notice the "sa" in sa'angreal? - 12/11/2009 03:09:30 PM 866 Views
It stands for Super Amazing. *NM* - 12/11/2009 04:10:02 PM 334 Views
I was under the assumption it was super awesome but oh well. *NM* - 13/11/2009 06:08:36 AM 370 Views
There's never been any indication that sa'angreal work through a different mechanism to angreal... - 12/11/2009 04:51:13 PM 780 Views
It has always been a viable theory, and Sanderson seems convincing...EDIT: RJ's take - 12/11/2009 08:21:17 PM 778 Views
Wrong place *ignore* - 12/11/2009 08:45:32 PM 677 Views
Do you still stick by the exponential theory? - 12/11/2009 08:52:31 PM 663 Views
I do *NM* - 12/11/2009 09:05:56 PM 293 Views
Good, 'cos it's bloody good. *NM* - 12/11/2009 10:56:30 PM 310 Views
Re: Wrong place *ignore* - 27/12/2009 06:14:51 PM 699 Views
Re: Ever notice the "sa" in sa'angreal? - 12/11/2009 07:48:37 PM 749 Views
You are missing two important points - 12/11/2009 05:09:35 PM 868 Views
I completely agree with you Shannow - 12/11/2009 07:01:29 PM 695 Views
Sidious' "One Power Dynamics" - 12/11/2009 08:10:41 PM 1153 Views
Oh, also - 12/11/2009 08:15:56 PM 732 Views
As long as you reference him, I doubt he'd mind. *NM* - 12/11/2009 08:36:59 PM 322 Views
there's a slight problem with your theory - 12/11/2009 08:19:25 PM 634 Views
Probably - 12/11/2009 09:05:31 PM 1054 Views
Agreed, with one point - 12/11/2009 09:25:09 PM 666 Views
Some ways the fixed amount theory could work... - 13/11/2009 12:33:04 AM 673 Views
Re: Some ways the fixed amount theory could work... - 13/11/2009 07:00:15 PM 578 Views
Re: Sanderson's understanding of angreal is totally wrong... - 13/11/2009 07:11:34 PM 679 Views
Yes it's also been mentioned before in earlier books - 19/11/2009 12:51:51 AM 624 Views
Re: Yes it's also been mentioned before in earlier books - 27/12/2009 06:37:47 PM 642 Views

Reply to Message