Active Users:508 Time:27/12/2024 12:57:56 PM
There's never been any indication that sa'angreal work through a different mechanism to angreal... Shannow Send a noteboard - 12/11/2009 04:51:13 PM

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

And what is the relevance of this quote in discussing sa'angreal? The two are not the same, you know. The text is pretty clear that angreal multiply your strength in the power. Sa'angreal may not. They may allow you to channel X amount, which is vastly greater than what you can unaided or with an angreal.
This has always been a legitimate possibility, with the only thing against it being Siuan's statement that with Vora's sa'angreal, a strong sister could crumple the walls of Tar Valon. Why not any sister?
One possible answer is that all or many sa'angreal can be used only by people above a set strength.

Sanderson's statement may well be right, and we may soon find out if Maria concurs.

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.

Says who? Even if he sa'angreal is a multiplier, there is absolutely no indication that it caes about or responds to forkroot. A sa'angreal may well banish the interference of forkroot, just like it can blast away a shield placed on a channeler if the channeler attempts to draw through it when shielded.

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.

Here I agree. If Rand had used the full power, or even close to the full power of the CK, Asmo might even have come alive. But, we do not know that he did. Rand is not a total nincompoop, even in this stage of the book. I think he used great strength to destroy Natrin's Barrow, but in the end, even less than he could have using Callandor.
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.

I think you should consider that there were alternate theories to your own, and Sanderson may not be wrong at all.


Sa'angreal merely take the effect of angreal to a much higher level.

As for Egwene under forkroot's influence, I refer to Rand who - when exhausted is barely able to channel a single sheet of flame using his angreal. When he is at his full capability, he can crumple a city's walls with that angreal.

The basis of your argument is that sa'angreal increase your strength according to a different mechanism than angreal. There is no evidence for that whatsoever. In fact, the opposite has been indicated up to now. Sa'angreal are simply much more potent forms of angreal.

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 784 Views
The angreal magnifies the power of the individual holding it, not that of the entire circle. - 12/11/2009 11:57:20 AM 840 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 744 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 702 Views
OK, I'll humour you. This once. - 12/11/2009 05:18:57 PM 727 Views
How generous of you. - 12/11/2009 07:51:54 PM 803 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 760 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 335 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 781 Views
It has always been a viable theory, and Sanderson seems convincing...EDIT: RJ's take - 12/11/2009 08:21:17 PM 779 Views
Wrong place *ignore* - 12/11/2009 08:45:32 PM 678 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 311 Views
Re: Wrong place *ignore* - 27/12/2009 06:14:51 PM 700 Views
Re: Ever notice the "sa" in sa'angreal? - 12/11/2009 07:48:37 PM 750 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 696 Views
Sidious' "One Power Dynamics" - 12/11/2009 08:10:41 PM 1154 Views
Oh, also - 12/11/2009 08:15:56 PM 733 Views
As long as you reference him, I doubt he'd mind. *NM* - 12/11/2009 08:36:59 PM 323 Views
there's a slight problem with your theory - 12/11/2009 08:19:25 PM 635 Views
Probably - 12/11/2009 09:05:31 PM 1055 Views
Agreed, with one point - 12/11/2009 09:25:09 PM 667 Views
Some ways the fixed amount theory could work... - 13/11/2009 12:33:04 AM 674 Views
Re: Some ways the fixed amount theory could work... - 13/11/2009 07:00:15 PM 579 Views
Re: Sanderson's understanding of angreal is totally wrong... - 13/11/2009 07:11:34 PM 680 Views
Yes it's also been mentioned before in earlier books - 19/11/2009 12:51:51 AM 625 Views
Re: Yes it's also been mentioned before in earlier books - 27/12/2009 06:37:47 PM 643 Views

Reply to Message