Active Users:328 Time:04/05/2024 10:26:29 PM
Response to both points... Shannow Send a noteboard - 12/11/2009 05:57:11 PM
In a recent comment attributed to Sanderson ... he states that he believes sa'angreal do not magnify your power, but that they are instead a "reservoir of the Power", with a finite amount of the Power that you can draw from.


First of all, you mischaracterize what he said. He never used the word "finite". You ASSUMED that he meant finite and then said he is totally wrong based on that. What he actually said at the SLC Q&A, in response to a question about whether the Choedan Kal magnifies the user's power (see link below), is that "my understanding is that it is a reservoir of power. It is not necessarily a magnification. A very weak person with a very powerful sa’angreal is very powerful." So rather than magnifying the channeler's power, a sa'angreal seems to allow the channeler to hold a total amount of power. That is, a sa'angreal grants the same amount of saidar/saidin to the user regardless of the user's strength. In contrast, an angreal seems to magnify the power available to the user.

This would make sense given that Rand and Asmodean each got equal amounts of saidin from the Choedan Kal in Rhuidean. This is also corroborated by the actions with the bowl of winds when they gave the angreal to the most powerful channelers. Actually, this even makes sense of why Egwene could keep the sa'angreal during the Tower raid.

Think of every channeler as having a "hose" which allows them access to a certain amount of saidar/saidin. An angreal gives you more hoses of the same size (a multiplier). A sa'angreal gives you a really big hose (but everyone gets the same really big hose, regardless of how big their own hose is). A well gives you a bucket that you can stick your own hose into.

Lastly, I believe Sanderson's lack of understanding relating to the scale of One Power strength is revealed in his repeated comments about the Choedan Kal and the length of time Rand's balefire could retroactively erase Graendal from the Pattern.

He uses the example of the Choedan Kal being 100 times stronger than Rand on his own. Then, in another book signing, he stretches it to 1000 times. Then he uses this to indicate that Rand could only remove a couple of hours from Graendal's life, as his balefire on Rahvin only removed about 15 minutes.

In truth, the ENTIRE WHITE TOWER, using every angreal and sa'angreal in its possession, could only channel a FRACTION of the amount Nynaeve used at the Cleansing.

That means that the Choedan Kal are probably many millions of times as powerful as a single channeler.

If Rand could take 15 minutes out of Rahvin's life, with an angreal that at most doubled his strength, then the Choedan Kal should enable balefire that can reverse tens of millions of minutes out of the Pattern.

15 Million minutes equate to 250 000 hours. Divide that by 24, and you get over 10 000 DAYS. That equals about 28 YEARS!

Therefore, balefire powered by the Choedan Kal is MORE THAN powerful enough to reverse everything back to the Aiel War, possibly even the entire Aiel War as well!


This is your second mistake. Even if the Choedan Kal did allow Rand the power to balefire someone back that far you are ignoring the fact that it would destroy the Pattern. He says "I just laughed...c'mon lets run the math on this." (As a side note, this is not the response you would expect if the notes indicated that this is what happens (remember he has a lot of ToM written, and knows how the series turns out, including the reveal of Asmo's killer)). Brandon says "I think that if you did that to the Pattern the ramifications would be so dramatic you'd see the Pattern unraveling hardcore at that point, it's like balefiring an entire city." This is the ramification of balefiring ONE person back ONE year. There was something like 100-200 people in the fortress IIRC. 150 people back 1 year is the same as 1.3 million people back 1 hour (150 people*1 year*365 days/year*24 hours/day = 1,314,000 people hours) and the same as balefiring 5,256,000 people back 15 minutes (the more realistic assumption for how far the strongest channeler in the world can balefire unaided). The Pattern may have unraveled under the strain of that many people being balefired back 1 year. Using your number of 28 years it would be like balefiring 147,168,000 back 15 minutes. This is more than all but six COUNTRIES in the world. The Pattern wouldn't hold up.

Remember that RJ said numerous times that we can't trust the characters to get everything right. Perhaps he has introduced elements on purpose within the books where characters have misunderstood how angreal/sa'angreal work. Even the glossaries and BWB have been wrong at times.


Point 1: Did Sanderson HIMSELF provide the contrast between how angreal and sa'angreal work? That angreal mulitply strength, while sa'angreal provide a fixed total of strength? If so, that is the first time this has ever been mentioned in the series, and is a significant step forward in our understanding.

However, if Sanderson did NOT say that, and if it is instead the interpretation of whoever reported what he had said, then I strongly disagree with it. As in, never before has there been any indication that sa'angreal operate on a different principle to angreal.

I would appreciate it if you could clarify whether Sanderson's quote includes the bit that says:

"That is, a sa'angreal grants the same amount of saidar/saidin to the user regardless of the user's strength. In contrast, an angreal seems to magnify the power available to the user."

Regarding point two. You seem to suggest that just because it would unravel the Pattern to wipe out 28 years of the castle's existence, that it therefore is not possible to do so.

My understanding - in fact the fundamental reason why balefire is so dangerous - is that this is EXACTLY why even the Forsaken are afraid to use it.

To put it differently, just because the consequences of wiping thousands of threads out of the Pattern are so dire, does not mean that this is not EXACTLY what will happen if you use balefire on the Choedan Kal level of magnitude.

I stand by the 28 years calculation. In fact, that's a conservative estimate. More likely, the Choedan Kal can wipe centuries worth of threads out of the Pattern.

Reply to message
Sanderson's understanding of angreal is totally wrong... - 12/11/2009 11:10:57 AM 1509 Views
You should include quotes - 12/11/2009 11:42:20 AM 698 Views
The angreal magnifies the power of the individual holding it, not that of the entire circle. - 12/11/2009 11:57:20 AM 752 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 685 Views
Sure, I agree... - 12/11/2009 12:45:33 PM 622 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 657 Views
Please elaborate... - 12/11/2009 02:42:17 PM 665 Views
On the basis that we dont agree on the use of sa'angreals on a group. - 12/11/2009 03:02:29 PM 616 Views
OK, I'll humour you. This once. - 12/11/2009 05:18:57 PM 639 Views
How generous of you. - 12/11/2009 07:51:54 PM 718 Views
Scrap that - 12/11/2009 08:32:36 PM 626 Views
Rand Balefires a whole castle - 12/11/2009 01:10:05 PM 803 Views
There is no basis for that conclusion... - 12/11/2009 02:02:37 PM 672 Views
I could have sprayed - 12/11/2009 02:28:41 PM 634 Views
Ever notice the "sa" in sa'angreal? - 12/11/2009 03:09:30 PM 779 Views
It stands for Super Amazing. *NM* - 12/11/2009 04:10:02 PM 294 Views
I was under the assumption it was super awesome but oh well. *NM* - 13/11/2009 06:08:36 AM 318 Views
There's never been any indication that sa'angreal work through a different mechanism to angreal... - 12/11/2009 04:51:13 PM 691 Views
It has always been a viable theory, and Sanderson seems convincing...EDIT: RJ's take - 12/11/2009 08:21:17 PM 687 Views
Wrong place *ignore* - 12/11/2009 08:45:32 PM 591 Views
Do you still stick by the exponential theory? - 12/11/2009 08:52:31 PM 572 Views
I do *NM* - 12/11/2009 09:05:56 PM 258 Views
Good, 'cos it's bloody good. *NM* - 12/11/2009 10:56:30 PM 270 Views
Re: Wrong place *ignore* - 27/12/2009 06:14:51 PM 612 Views
Re: Ever notice the "sa" in sa'angreal? - 12/11/2009 07:48:37 PM 658 Views
You are missing two important points - 12/11/2009 05:09:35 PM 777 Views
Response to both points... - 12/11/2009 05:57:11 PM 678 Views
I completely agree with you Shannow - 12/11/2009 07:01:29 PM 610 Views
Sidious' "One Power Dynamics" - 12/11/2009 08:10:41 PM 1059 Views
Oh, also - 12/11/2009 08:15:56 PM 648 Views
As long as you reference him, I doubt he'd mind. *NM* - 12/11/2009 08:36:59 PM 279 Views
there's a slight problem with your theory - 12/11/2009 08:19:25 PM 540 Views
Probably - 12/11/2009 09:05:31 PM 968 Views
Agreed, with one point - 12/11/2009 09:25:09 PM 582 Views
Some ways the fixed amount theory could work... - 13/11/2009 12:33:04 AM 590 Views
Re: Some ways the fixed amount theory could work... - 13/11/2009 07:00:15 PM 496 Views
Re: Sanderson's understanding of angreal is totally wrong... - 13/11/2009 07:11:34 PM 580 Views
Yes it's also been mentioned before in earlier books - 19/11/2009 12:51:51 AM 536 Views
Re: Yes it's also been mentioned before in earlier books - 27/12/2009 06:37:47 PM 549 Views

Reply to Message