Active Users:295 Time:05/05/2024 01:48:25 AM
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 1513 Views
You should include quotes - 12/11/2009 11:42:20 AM 701 Views
The angreal magnifies the power of the individual holding it, not that of the entire circle. - 12/11/2009 11:57:20 AM 755 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 688 Views
Sure, I agree... - 12/11/2009 12:45:33 PM 626 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 660 Views
Please elaborate... - 12/11/2009 02:42:17 PM 668 Views
On the basis that we dont agree on the use of sa'angreals on a group. - 12/11/2009 03:02:29 PM 619 Views
OK, I'll humour you. This once. - 12/11/2009 05:18:57 PM 642 Views
How generous of you. - 12/11/2009 07:51:54 PM 721 Views
Scrap that - 12/11/2009 08:32:36 PM 630 Views
Rand Balefires a whole castle - 12/11/2009 01:10:05 PM 806 Views
There is no basis for that conclusion... - 12/11/2009 02:02:37 PM 676 Views
I could have sprayed - 12/11/2009 02:28:41 PM 637 Views
Ever notice the "sa" in sa'angreal? - 12/11/2009 03:09:30 PM 782 Views
It stands for Super Amazing. *NM* - 12/11/2009 04:10:02 PM 295 Views
I was under the assumption it was super awesome but oh well. *NM* - 13/11/2009 06:08:36 AM 319 Views
There's never been any indication that sa'angreal work through a different mechanism to angreal... - 12/11/2009 04:51:13 PM 694 Views
It has always been a viable theory, and Sanderson seems convincing...EDIT: RJ's take - 12/11/2009 08:21:17 PM 690 Views
Wrong place *ignore* - 12/11/2009 08:45:32 PM 594 Views
Do you still stick by the exponential theory? - 12/11/2009 08:52:31 PM 575 Views
I do *NM* - 12/11/2009 09:05:56 PM 259 Views
Good, 'cos it's bloody good. *NM* - 12/11/2009 10:56:30 PM 271 Views
Re: Wrong place *ignore* - 27/12/2009 06:14:51 PM 615 Views
Re: Ever notice the "sa" in sa'angreal? - 12/11/2009 07:48:37 PM 662 Views
You are missing two important points - 12/11/2009 05:09:35 PM 780 Views
Response to both points... - 12/11/2009 05:57:11 PM 681 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 583 Views
I completely agree with you Shannow - 12/11/2009 07:01:29 PM 613 Views
Sidious' "One Power Dynamics" - 12/11/2009 08:10:41 PM 1063 Views
Oh, also - 12/11/2009 08:15:56 PM 651 Views
As long as you reference him, I doubt he'd mind. *NM* - 12/11/2009 08:36:59 PM 281 Views
there's a slight problem with your theory - 12/11/2009 08:19:25 PM 543 Views
Probably - 12/11/2009 09:05:31 PM 971 Views
Agreed, with one point - 12/11/2009 09:25:09 PM 585 Views
Some ways the fixed amount theory could work... - 13/11/2009 12:33:04 AM 594 Views
Re: Some ways the fixed amount theory could work... - 13/11/2009 07:00:15 PM 500 Views
Re: Sanderson's understanding of angreal is totally wrong... - 13/11/2009 07:11:34 PM 583 Views
Yes it's also been mentioned before in earlier books - 19/11/2009 12:51:51 AM 539 Views
Re: Yes it's also been mentioned before in earlier books - 27/12/2009 06:37:47 PM 552 Views

Reply to Message