It has always been a viable theory, and Sanderson seems convincing...EDIT: RJ's take
fionwe1987 Send a noteboard - 12/11/2009 08:21:17 PM
Sa'angreal merely take the effect of angreal to a much higher level.
There is zero evidence to confirm this. Yes, this is a sensible theory, one that I gave quite a bit of support when these matters were discussed in wotmania. But the other alternative was always there, and I'm not so blinded by my theories to think that the author and the research specialist who worked on this book have to be wrong, because I cannot be wrong.
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.
First... no, the angreal does not make him that powerful.
As for exhaustion... there is no comparison to Forkroot. Exhaustion doesn't just limit the amount of Power you can draw (in a very arbitrary manner. Nynaeve says in tGS that she cannot channel one more thread after Healing Kerb, then promptly does much more.), it also makes it tougher for you to weave. If Forkroot were similar to exhaustion, Egwene would never have been able to make fourteen weaves at once and have them dance around like she did in KoD.
Also, notice that when Rand is exhausted, he says using an angreal is okay, but if he used the CK, he'd be fried. Again showing a difference from Forkroot.
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.
There is indication for that, yes. But it was never set in stone.
The one thing going for Brandon's view is the difference in naming. Why call them by different names if they perform the same function, but only to a greater magnitude?
Brandon also has this to say (from the same signing):
But I’m reasonably sure on that one, the reasons being things that are talked about in the notes mixed with the way an’greal and sa’angreal worked previously in the books mixed with two specific things that he talked about in the notes when people using an’greal and sa’angreal after they become very weak or after they are weak.
Seems clear that there were specific notes on this that Brandon has read. Why even discuss this separately if weaker channelers get less out of the sa'angreal? That seems intuitive enough, if sa'angreal merely multiply your power.
There is still one problem, though. Siuan says a strong Aes Sedai can use Vora's sa'angreal to crumple the walls of Tar Valon. If it is not a multiplier, who in the world was Siuan, who is weak, able to use it?
Could it be that weaker channelers can use the super powerful sa'angreal, but if they try to draw in the theoretical maximum it will allow, they will get burned out? Maybe the buffer for that amount being safe needs to be reinforced by a very strong ability to channel in the first place.
This message last edited by fionwe1987 on 12/11/2009 at 08:31:22 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
- 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
- 749 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
- 871 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
- 660 Views
Do you still stick by the exponential theory?
12/11/2009 08:52:31 PM
- 645 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
- 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
- 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