To be fair to Sanderson I have seen a few transcripts where before giving answeers to fan questions he says that this is his understanding and he is open to correction on the mechanics of the one power, or in order places he says that he needs to check with Maria or team Jordan.
Given the amount of notes that RJ left (which has been said to be more that the number of pages in all the books) I would give him a break when it comes to answeering technical quesions eg. how does such a weave work or how do angreal work.
Again from what I've read when it comes to him putting something in the novel before it goes to publishing it goes to team Jordan who check the notes RJ left.
Given the amount of notes that RJ left (which has been said to be more that the number of pages in all the books) I would give him a break when it comes to answeering technical quesions eg. how does such a weave work or how do angreal work.
Again from what I've read when it comes to him putting something in the novel before it goes to publishing it goes to team Jordan who check the notes RJ left.
But to someone who likes to use every scrap of evidence in the books for one purpose and one purpose only - namely to build a comprehensive model of the relative strength of all channelers - such discrepancies can jeopardize years of model building and research.
Sanderson's understanding of angreal is totally wrong...
- 12/11/2009 11:10:57 AM
1708 Views
You should include quotes
- 12/11/2009 11:42:20 AM
894 Views
The angreal magnifies the power of the individual holding it, not that of the entire circle.
- 12/11/2009 11:57:20 AM
955 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
882 Views
Sure, I agree...
- 12/11/2009 12:45:33 PM
819 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
856 Views
Please elaborate...
- 12/11/2009 02:42:17 PM
843 Views
On the basis that we dont agree on the use of sa'angreals on a group.
- 12/11/2009 03:02:29 PM
808 Views
OK, I'll humour you. This once.
- 12/11/2009 05:18:57 PM
839 Views
Rand Balefires a whole castle
- 12/11/2009 01:10:05 PM
994 Views
Ever notice the "sa" in sa'angreal?
- 12/11/2009 03:09:30 PM
960 Views
It stands for Super Amazing. *NM*
- 12/11/2009 04:10:02 PM
377 Views
I was under the assumption it was super awesome but oh well. *NM*
- 13/11/2009 06:08:36 AM
432 Views
There's never been any indication that sa'angreal work through a different mechanism to angreal...
- 12/11/2009 04:51:13 PM
901 Views
It has always been a viable theory, and Sanderson seems convincing...EDIT: RJ's take
- 12/11/2009 08:21:17 PM
888 Views
Wrong place *ignore*
- 12/11/2009 08:45:32 PM
788 Views
Do you still stick by the exponential theory?
- 12/11/2009 08:52:31 PM
765 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
375 Views
You are missing two important points
- 12/11/2009 05:09:35 PM
1007 Views
Response to both points...
- 12/11/2009 05:57:11 PM
889 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
770 Views
Re: Look at how similar descriptions of angreal and Sa'angreal affects are in the books.
- 12/11/2009 07:34:16 PM
826 Views
Probably
- 12/11/2009 09:05:31 PM
1164 Views
Some ways the fixed amount theory could work...
- 13/11/2009 12:33:04 AM
782 Views
There is an argument for a minimum strength argument in the Great Hunt
- 13/11/2009 03:26:11 AM
810 Views