In fact, I've just read the actual report, and Sanderson didn't say anything near what you quoted.
Shannow Send a noteboard - 12/11/2009 06:06:39 PM
Nowhere does Sanderson say that angreal work differently to sa'angreal.
And even regarding the reservoir statement, he says he will have to check the notes to make sure he knows what he's talking about.
As for the Choedan Kal, he doesn't even know how many times it magnifies Rand's strength. He uses the example of 100, which is ridiculous, as we have a quote in CoT, that the entire White Tower, using every angreal and sa'angreal in their possession, couldn't channel even a fraction of what Nynaeve was channeling through the Choedan Kal. And the amount of saidar used by Nynaeve was called a foothill next to Dragonmount, compared to what Rand used through the male access key.
So basically, we are talking about the order of a million times magnification, not 100 times.
Sanderson doesn't really know the answer to this. He was making it up as he went along during that Storm Leader discussion.
He didn't even know definitively how far back Rand's balefire burned Rahvin's thread out of the Pattern. Some reader had to correct him, saying that it was probably closer to an hour, rather than 15 minutes.
And Sanderson didn't even realise that Rand was using his small man angreal at the time, which probably halves the calculation again.
My point is, Sanderson is not as clear on many of these things as you might think. And it does come through in the writing, from time to time.
And even regarding the reservoir statement, he says he will have to check the notes to make sure he knows what he's talking about.
As for the Choedan Kal, he doesn't even know how many times it magnifies Rand's strength. He uses the example of 100, which is ridiculous, as we have a quote in CoT, that the entire White Tower, using every angreal and sa'angreal in their possession, couldn't channel even a fraction of what Nynaeve was channeling through the Choedan Kal. And the amount of saidar used by Nynaeve was called a foothill next to Dragonmount, compared to what Rand used through the male access key.
So basically, we are talking about the order of a million times magnification, not 100 times.
Sanderson doesn't really know the answer to this. He was making it up as he went along during that Storm Leader discussion.
He didn't even know definitively how far back Rand's balefire burned Rahvin's thread out of the Pattern. Some reader had to correct him, saying that it was probably closer to an hour, rather than 15 minutes.
And Sanderson didn't even realise that Rand was using his small man angreal at the time, which probably halves the calculation again.
My point is, Sanderson is not as clear on many of these things as you might think. And it does come through in the writing, from time to time.
This message last edited by Shannow on 12/11/2009 at 06:07:54 PM
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
- 766 Views
The angreal magnifies the power of the individual holding it, not that of the entire circle.
12/11/2009 11:57:20 AM
- 822 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
- 748 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
- 688 Views
OK, I'll humour you. This once.
12/11/2009 05:18:57 PM
- 710 Views
Rand Balefires a whole castle
12/11/2009 01:10:05 PM
- 871 Views
Ever notice the "sa" in sa'angreal?
12/11/2009 03:09:30 PM
- 849 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
- 757 Views
Wrong place *ignore*
12/11/2009 08:45:32 PM
- 660 Views
Do you still stick by the exponential theory?
12/11/2009 08:52:31 PM
- 644 Views
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
- 851 Views
Response to both points...
12/11/2009 05:57:11 PM
- 749 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
- 700 Views
Probably
12/11/2009 09:05:31 PM
- 1038 Views
Some ways the fixed amount theory could work...
13/11/2009 12:33:04 AM
- 657 Views
There is an argument for a minimum strength argument in the Great Hunt
13/11/2009 03:26:11 AM
- 673 Views