Re: Some ways the fixed amount theory could work...
Tedtheman Send a noteboard - 13/11/2009 07:00:15 PM
I nearly made a post about this, but decided not to because Brandon himself said he was unsure how they worked. According to Brandon angreal may be multipliers but sa'angreal provide a fixed amount of the One Power.
I'd agree with you and Shannow that sa'angreal are multipliers too, not granters of fixed amounts of power. However, if RJ's notes state otherwise, I don't think anything in the text exists to prove it wrong.
I also don't agree with this. The first evidence we have of this is Siuan saying that a strong Aes Sedai could crumple the walls of Tar Valon with Vora's sa'angreal. That means that a weak one would not, and therefore not all channelers gain the same amount of saidar from the sa'angreal, which strongly indicates that Vora's wand is a multiplier.
Or it could mean that a weak Aes Sedai could not use the sa'angreal at all.
I considered this, then dismissed it since the weakened Siuan used it in tGS.
I can come up with two explanations for why weak-Siuan could use it, and still not crumple the walls of Tar Valon:
1) Maybe RJ had it that if a channelers strength is reduced by means like forkroot, shields, stilling, etc., it does not change what sa'angreal they can use or not use. Given that Brandon said there were specific notes about sa'angreal useage by people made weaker, this may well be true.
2) This is more convoluted. It may be that a sa'angreal will allow anyone to draw amount X of the power. However, for each sa'angreal, a user has to be of a certain strength to be able to draw X amount without their connection to the source being destroyed. Thus, a weak woman like Siuan can use these sa'angreal, but if she attempts to draw its full strength, she will be burned out. It could be that the same is the case with the CK.
Secondly, when Elza draws on Callandor through Narishma, it glows like a flame. When Rand uses it, it is so bright that you can't even see that it's a sword. It's another indication that Rand gains more from Callandor.
This could simply be because Rand is drawing through Callandor minus a buffer, so he's overdrawing, whereas in a circle, Narishma can only draw to its set amount.
As for Egwene, it's possible that if the leader of the circle gets hold of a sa'angreal or angreal, the whole circle is augmented. This is further substantiated by the scene where Siuan Heals Mat while using Vora's wand, and in the end every Aes Sedai is tired and sweating - another indication that they all drew on great amounts of saidar for a prolonged time. I'm not sticking up for this theory too much, but I do think it's a possibility.
Can't agree with this.If this were the case, Elayne would have had Nynaeve hand over her angreal to Caire for using the Bowl. The strength multiplication would have been much greater in that case.
there is also the fact that the bowl is the first scene of multiple 'angreal' usage weve seen. They may not have thought about it to that logical end, IE amplifying the circle.
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
- 767 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
- 750 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
- 873 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
- 766 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
- 661 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
- 1040 Views
Some ways the fixed amount theory could work...
13/11/2009 12:33:04 AM
- 659 Views
There is an argument for a minimum strength argument in the Great Hunt
13/11/2009 03:26:11 AM
- 674 Views
Re: Some ways the fixed amount theory could work...
13/11/2009 07:00:15 PM
- 565 Views