I even think that, for the sake of the next two books, we should compile a list of quotes throughout the book mentioning the effects of angreal and sa'angreal, as well as instances of people using them and the relative amounts of power used.
I believe, although I'm not positive, that a full circle cannot utilize an angreal or sa'angreal--it will only magnify the holder's strength. And by strength, in this case, I mean the amount of power that channer X is capable of wielding at that particular moment. A sa'angreal, while it would change Egwene's trickle into something much marger, may not have been enough to account for the amount of power she wielded. And it certainly should not have multiplied the strength of the entire Link.
I believe, although I'm not positive, that a full circle cannot utilize an angreal or sa'angreal--it will only magnify the holder's strength. And by strength, in this case, I mean the amount of power that channer X is capable of wielding at that particular moment. A sa'angreal, while it would change Egwene's trickle into something much marger, may not have been enough to account for the amount of power she wielded. And it certainly should not have multiplied the strength of the entire Link.
Sanderson's understanding of angreal is totally wrong...
- 12/11/2009 11:10:57 AM
1791 Views
You should include quotes
- 12/11/2009 11:42:20 AM
959 Views
The angreal magnifies the power of the individual holding it, not that of the entire circle.
- 12/11/2009 11:57:20 AM
1024 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
940 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
925 Views
Please elaborate...
- 12/11/2009 02:42:17 PM
910 Views
On the basis that we dont agree on the use of sa'angreals on a group.
- 12/11/2009 03:02:29 PM
886 Views
OK, I'll humour you. This once.
- 12/11/2009 05:18:57 PM
912 Views
Rand Balefires a whole castle
- 12/11/2009 01:10:05 PM
1063 Views
Ever notice the "sa" in sa'angreal?
- 12/11/2009 03:09:30 PM
1046 Views
It stands for Super Amazing. *NM*
- 12/11/2009 04:10:02 PM
413 Views
I was under the assumption it was super awesome but oh well. *NM*
- 13/11/2009 06:08:36 AM
465 Views
There's never been any indication that sa'angreal work through a different mechanism to angreal...
- 12/11/2009 04:51:13 PM
1001 Views
It has always been a viable theory, and Sanderson seems convincing...EDIT: RJ's take
- 12/11/2009 08:21:17 PM
982 Views
Wrong place *ignore*
- 12/11/2009 08:45:32 PM
873 Views
Do you still stick by the exponential theory?
- 12/11/2009 08:52:31 PM
834 Views
sa'angreal and angreal are only different in terms of the magnitude of their effects *NM*
- 12/11/2009 06:56:43 PM
407 Views
You are missing two important points
- 12/11/2009 05:09:35 PM
1104 Views
Response to both points...
- 12/11/2009 05:57:11 PM
965 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
835 Views
Re: Look at how similar descriptions of angreal and Sa'angreal affects are in the books.
- 12/11/2009 07:34:16 PM
911 Views
I completely agree with you Shannow
- 12/11/2009 07:01:29 PM
862 Views
Probably
- 12/11/2009 09:05:31 PM
1253 Views
Some ways the fixed amount theory could work...
- 13/11/2009 12:33:04 AM
876 Views
There is an argument for a minimum strength argument in the Great Hunt
- 13/11/2009 03:26:11 AM
884 Views

*NM*