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
- 1695 Views
You should include quotes
12/11/2009 11:42:20 AM
- 879 Views
The angreal magnifies the power of the individual holding it, not that of the entire circle.
12/11/2009 11:57:20 AM
- 939 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
- 867 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
- 842 Views
Please elaborate...
12/11/2009 02:42:17 PM
- 830 Views
On the basis that we dont agree on the use of sa'angreals on a group.
12/11/2009 03:02:29 PM
- 793 Views
OK, I'll humour you. This once.
12/11/2009 05:18:57 PM
- 822 Views
Rand Balefires a whole castle
12/11/2009 01:10:05 PM
- 981 Views
Ever notice the "sa" in sa'angreal?
12/11/2009 03:09:30 PM
- 948 Views
It stands for Super Amazing. *NM*
12/11/2009 04:10:02 PM
- 369 Views
I was under the assumption it was super awesome but oh well. *NM*
13/11/2009 06:08:36 AM
- 423 Views
There's never been any indication that sa'angreal work through a different mechanism to angreal...
12/11/2009 04:51:13 PM
- 887 Views
It has always been a viable theory, and Sanderson seems convincing...EDIT: RJ's take
12/11/2009 08:21:17 PM
- 871 Views
Wrong place *ignore*
12/11/2009 08:45:32 PM
- 772 Views
Do you still stick by the exponential theory?
12/11/2009 08:52:31 PM
- 752 Views
sa'angreal and angreal are only different in terms of the magnitude of their effects *NM*
12/11/2009 06:56:43 PM
- 369 Views
You are missing two important points
12/11/2009 05:09:35 PM
- 988 Views
Response to both points...
12/11/2009 05:57:11 PM
- 874 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
- 757 Views
Re: Look at how similar descriptions of angreal and Sa'angreal affects are in the books.
12/11/2009 07:34:16 PM
- 810 Views
I completely agree with you Shannow
12/11/2009 07:01:29 PM
- 782 Views
Probably
12/11/2009 09:05:31 PM
- 1151 Views
Some ways the fixed amount theory could work...
13/11/2009 12:33:04 AM
- 769 Views
There is an argument for a minimum strength argument in the Great Hunt
13/11/2009 03:26:11 AM
- 796 Views