To be fair to Sanderson I have seen a few transcripts where before giving answeers to fan questions he says that this is his understanding and he is open to correction on the mechanics of the one power, or in order places he says that he needs to check with Maria or team Jordan.
Given the amount of notes that RJ left (which has been said to be more that the number of pages in all the books) I would give him a break when it comes to answeering technical quesions eg. how does such a weave work or how do angreal work.
Again from what I've read when it comes to him putting something in the novel before it goes to publishing it goes to team Jordan who check the notes RJ left.
Given the amount of notes that RJ left (which has been said to be more that the number of pages in all the books) I would give him a break when it comes to answeering technical quesions eg. how does such a weave work or how do angreal work.
Again from what I've read when it comes to him putting something in the novel before it goes to publishing it goes to team Jordan who check the notes RJ left.
But to someone who likes to use every scrap of evidence in the books for one purpose and one purpose only - namely to build a comprehensive model of the relative strength of all channelers - such discrepancies can jeopardize years of model building and research.
Sanderson's understanding of angreal is totally wrong...
- 12/11/2009 11:10:57 AM
1581 Views
You should include quotes
- 12/11/2009 11:42:20 AM
767 Views
The angreal magnifies the power of the individual holding it, not that of the entire circle.
- 12/11/2009 11:57:20 AM
823 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
750 Views
Sure, I agree...
- 12/11/2009 12:45:33 PM
692 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
729 Views
Please elaborate...
- 12/11/2009 02:42:17 PM
734 Views
On the basis that we dont agree on the use of sa'angreals on a group.
- 12/11/2009 03:02:29 PM
689 Views
OK, I'll humour you. This once.
- 12/11/2009 05:18:57 PM
711 Views
Rand Balefires a whole castle
- 12/11/2009 01:10:05 PM
873 Views
Ever notice the "sa" in sa'angreal?
- 12/11/2009 03:09:30 PM
850 Views
It stands for Super Amazing. *NM*
- 12/11/2009 04:10:02 PM
328 Views
I was under the assumption it was super awesome but oh well. *NM*
- 13/11/2009 06:08:36 AM
363 Views
There's never been any indication that sa'angreal work through a different mechanism to angreal...
- 12/11/2009 04:51:13 PM
765 Views
It has always been a viable theory, and Sanderson seems convincing...EDIT: RJ's take
- 12/11/2009 08:21:17 PM
758 Views
Wrong place *ignore*
- 12/11/2009 08:45:32 PM
661 Views
Do you still stick by the exponential theory?
- 12/11/2009 08:52:31 PM
645 Views
*NM*
sa'angreal and angreal are only different in terms of the magnitude of their effects *NM*
- 12/11/2009 06:56:43 PM
325 Views
You are missing two important points
- 12/11/2009 05:09:35 PM
852 Views
Response to both points...
- 12/11/2009 05:57:11 PM
750 Views
In fact, I've just read the actual report, and Sanderson didn't say anything near what you quoted.
- 12/11/2009 06:06:39 PM
652 Views
Re: Look at how similar descriptions of angreal and Sa'angreal affects are in the books.
- 12/11/2009 07:34:16 PM
701 Views
Probably
- 12/11/2009 09:05:31 PM
1040 Views
Some ways the fixed amount theory could work...
- 13/11/2009 12:33:04 AM
658 Views
There is an argument for a minimum strength argument in the Great Hunt
- 13/11/2009 03:26:11 AM
674 Views