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.
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.
Sanderson's understanding of angreal is totally wrong...
- 12/11/2009 11:10:57 AM
1752 Views
You should include quotes
- 12/11/2009 11:42:20 AM
926 Views
The angreal magnifies the power of the individual holding it, not that of the entire circle.
- 12/11/2009 11:57:20 AM
988 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
913 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
891 Views
Please elaborate...
- 12/11/2009 02:42:17 PM
878 Views
On the basis that we dont agree on the use of sa'angreals on a group.
- 12/11/2009 03:02:29 PM
849 Views
OK, I'll humour you. This once.
- 12/11/2009 05:18:57 PM
876 Views
Rand Balefires a whole castle
- 12/11/2009 01:10:05 PM
1025 Views
Ever notice the "sa" in sa'angreal?
- 12/11/2009 03:09:30 PM
1000 Views
It stands for Super Amazing. *NM*
- 12/11/2009 04:10:02 PM
394 Views
I was under the assumption it was super awesome but oh well. *NM*
- 13/11/2009 06:08:36 AM
451 Views
There's never been any indication that sa'angreal work through a different mechanism to angreal...
- 12/11/2009 04:51:13 PM
951 Views
It has always been a viable theory, and Sanderson seems convincing...EDIT: RJ's take
- 12/11/2009 08:21:17 PM
937 Views
Wrong place *ignore*
- 12/11/2009 08:45:32 PM
829 Views
Do you still stick by the exponential theory?
- 12/11/2009 08:52:31 PM
800 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
394 Views
You are missing two important points
- 12/11/2009 05:09:35 PM
1044 Views
Response to both points...
- 12/11/2009 05:57:11 PM
926 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
801 Views
Re: Look at how similar descriptions of angreal and Sa'angreal affects are in the books.
- 12/11/2009 07:34:16 PM
865 Views
Probably
- 12/11/2009 09:05:31 PM
1201 Views
Some ways the fixed amount theory could work...
- 13/11/2009 12:33:04 AM
826 Views
There is an argument for a minimum strength argument in the Great Hunt
- 13/11/2009 03:26:11 AM
845 Views