Active Users:490 Time:27/12/2024 12:02:27 PM
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.
This message last edited by Shannow on 12/11/2009 at 06:07:54 PM
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 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 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 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 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 779 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 750 Views
You are missing two important points - 12/11/2009 05:09:35 PM 868 Views
Response to both points... - 12/11/2009 05:57:11 PM 768 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 668 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 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 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 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