Active Users:903 Time:08/02/2026 12:50:22 AM
It has always been a viable theory, and Sanderson seems convincing...EDIT: RJ's take fionwe1987 Send a noteboard - 12/11/2009 08:21:17 PM

Sa'angreal merely take the effect of angreal to a much higher level.

There is zero evidence to confirm this. Yes, this is a sensible theory, one that I gave quite a bit of support when these matters were discussed in wotmania. But the other alternative was always there, and I'm not so blinded by my theories to think that the author and the research specialist who worked on this book have to be wrong, because I cannot be wrong.
As for Egwene under forkroot's influence, I refer to Rand who - when exhausted is barely able to channel a single sheet of flame using his angreal. When he is at his full capability, he can crumple a city's walls with that angreal.

First... no, the angreal does not make him that powerful.

As for exhaustion... there is no comparison to Forkroot. Exhaustion doesn't just limit the amount of Power you can draw (in a very arbitrary manner. Nynaeve says in tGS that she cannot channel one more thread after Healing Kerb, then promptly does much more.), it also makes it tougher for you to weave. If Forkroot were similar to exhaustion, Egwene would never have been able to make fourteen weaves at once and have them dance around like she did in KoD.

Also, notice that when Rand is exhausted, he says using an angreal is okay, but if he used the CK, he'd be fried. Again showing a difference from Forkroot.

The basis of your argument is that sa'angreal increase your strength according to a different mechanism than angreal. There is no evidence for that whatsoever. In fact, the opposite has been indicated up to now. Sa'angreal are simply much more potent forms of angreal.

There is indication for that, yes. But it was never set in stone.

The one thing going for Brandon's view is the difference in naming. Why call them by different names if they perform the same function, but only to a greater magnitude?

Brandon also has this to say (from the same signing):
But I’m reasonably sure on that one, the reasons being things that are talked about in the notes mixed with the way an’greal and sa’angreal worked previously in the books mixed with two specific things that he talked about in the notes when people using an’greal and sa’angreal after they become very weak or after they are weak.

Seems clear that there were specific notes on this that Brandon has read. Why even discuss this separately if weaker channelers get less out of the sa'angreal? That seems intuitive enough, if sa'angreal merely multiply your power.

There is still one problem, though. Siuan says a strong Aes Sedai can use Vora's sa'angreal to crumple the walls of Tar Valon. If it is not a multiplier, who in the world was Siuan, who is weak, able to use it?

Could it be that weaker channelers can use the super powerful sa'angreal, but if they try to draw in the theoretical maximum it will allow, they will get burned out? Maybe the buffer for that amount being safe needs to be reinforced by a very strong ability to channel in the first place.
This message last edited by fionwe1987 on 12/11/2009 at 08:31:22 PM
Reply to message
Sanderson's understanding of angreal is totally wrong... - 12/11/2009 11:10:57 AM 1819 Views
You should include quotes - 12/11/2009 11:42:20 AM 990 Views
The angreal magnifies the power of the individual holding it, not that of the entire circle. - 12/11/2009 11:57:20 AM 1063 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 965 Views
Sure, I agree... - 12/11/2009 12:45:33 PM 926 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 953 Views
Please elaborate... - 12/11/2009 02:42:17 PM 936 Views
On the basis that we dont agree on the use of sa'angreals on a group. - 12/11/2009 03:02:29 PM 918 Views
OK, I'll humour you. This once. - 12/11/2009 05:18:57 PM 943 Views
How generous of you. - 12/11/2009 07:51:54 PM 1021 Views
Scrap that - 12/11/2009 08:32:36 PM 907 Views
Rand Balefires a whole castle - 12/11/2009 01:10:05 PM 1090 Views
There is no basis for that conclusion... - 12/11/2009 02:02:37 PM 969 Views
I could have sprayed - 12/11/2009 02:28:41 PM 926 Views
Ever notice the "sa" in sa'angreal? - 12/11/2009 03:09:30 PM 1078 Views
It stands for Super Amazing. *NM* - 12/11/2009 04:10:02 PM 432 Views
I was under the assumption it was super awesome but oh well. *NM* - 13/11/2009 06:08:36 AM 479 Views
There's never been any indication that sa'angreal work through a different mechanism to angreal... - 12/11/2009 04:51:13 PM 1033 Views
It has always been a viable theory, and Sanderson seems convincing...EDIT: RJ's take - 12/11/2009 08:21:17 PM 1016 Views
Wrong place *ignore* - 12/11/2009 08:45:32 PM 907 Views
Do you still stick by the exponential theory? - 12/11/2009 08:52:31 PM 862 Views
I do *NM* - 12/11/2009 09:05:56 PM 386 Views
Good, 'cos it's bloody good. *NM* - 12/11/2009 10:56:30 PM 403 Views
Re: Wrong place *ignore* - 27/12/2009 06:14:51 PM 908 Views
Re: Ever notice the "sa" in sa'angreal? - 12/11/2009 07:48:37 PM 954 Views
You are missing two important points - 12/11/2009 05:09:35 PM 1141 Views
I completely agree with you Shannow - 12/11/2009 07:01:29 PM 893 Views
Sidious' "One Power Dynamics" - 12/11/2009 08:10:41 PM 1412 Views
Oh, also - 12/11/2009 08:15:56 PM 942 Views
As long as you reference him, I doubt he'd mind. *NM* - 12/11/2009 08:36:59 PM 420 Views
there's a slight problem with your theory - 12/11/2009 08:19:25 PM 839 Views
Probably - 12/11/2009 09:05:31 PM 1283 Views
Agreed, with one point - 12/11/2009 09:25:09 PM 865 Views
Some ways the fixed amount theory could work... - 13/11/2009 12:33:04 AM 914 Views
Re: Some ways the fixed amount theory could work... - 13/11/2009 07:00:15 PM 816 Views
Re: Sanderson's understanding of angreal is totally wrong... - 13/11/2009 07:11:34 PM 903 Views
Yes it's also been mentioned before in earlier books - 19/11/2009 12:51:51 AM 815 Views
Re: Yes it's also been mentioned before in earlier books - 27/12/2009 06:37:47 PM 841 Views

Reply to Message