Active Users:877 Time:07/02/2026 06:56:08 PM
Re: Wrong place *ignore* taura-tierno Send a noteboard - 27/12/2009 06:14:51 PM

I also don't agree with this. The first evidence we have of this is Siuan saying that a strong Aes Sedai could crumple the walls of Tar Valon with Vora's sa'angreal. That means that a weak one would not, and therefore not all channelers gain the same amount of saidar from the sa'angreal, which strongly indicates that Vora's wand is a multiplier.


Siuan's statement does not mean that a weak Aes Sedai could not. It's an indication of that, but it might also mean a number of other things. She could mean that a weak Aes Sedai would not be able to use it at all (like the Choedan Kal, although I believe this is unlikely). Also, saying "a weak novice could use it to crumple the walls" might reduce the mysterious reputation of the Aes Sedai. Indicating that only an Aes Sedai could use such a powerful artefact makes them seem more powerful than they are, and as such, it seems like something they would teach novices, since some of those who do learn might leave the tower before attaining the shawl. Or there might be another reason for her wording altogether.

My point is that Siuan claims a strong sister could do something - she does not say that a weak could not. It's an indication of that, but that sort of "truth" is exactly what Aes Sedai are famous for.


Secondly, when Elza draws on Callandor through Narishma, it glows like a flame. When Rand uses it, it is so bright that you can't even see that it's a sword. It's another indication that Rand gains more from Callandor.


Does Elza draw on the full potential of Callandor? We don't know.

Also, it's quite possible that since Callandor is flawed, it doesn't work like other sa'angreal. I've always assumed that you could draw a specific amount of power from Callandor safely - and then draw an infinite amount more from it, but since it's not safe, you'd die before you could unleash something even close to the strength of the Choedan Kal. If Rand used too much Power with Callandor - but not enough to burn himself out - that might be why it shines brighter when he uses it.
Reply to message
Sanderson's understanding of angreal is totally wrong... - 12/11/2009 11:10:57 AM 1814 Views
You should include quotes - 12/11/2009 11:42:20 AM 984 Views
The angreal magnifies the power of the individual holding it, not that of the entire circle. - 12/11/2009 11:57:20 AM 1058 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 961 Views
Sure, I agree... - 12/11/2009 12:45:33 PM 921 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 949 Views
Please elaborate... - 12/11/2009 02:42:17 PM 931 Views
On the basis that we dont agree on the use of sa'angreals on a group. - 12/11/2009 03:02:29 PM 915 Views
OK, I'll humour you. This once. - 12/11/2009 05:18:57 PM 939 Views
How generous of you. - 12/11/2009 07:51:54 PM 1017 Views
Scrap that - 12/11/2009 08:32:36 PM 903 Views
Rand Balefires a whole castle - 12/11/2009 01:10:05 PM 1084 Views
There is no basis for that conclusion... - 12/11/2009 02:02:37 PM 963 Views
I could have sprayed - 12/11/2009 02:28:41 PM 922 Views
Ever notice the "sa" in sa'angreal? - 12/11/2009 03:09:30 PM 1072 Views
It stands for Super Amazing. *NM* - 12/11/2009 04:10:02 PM 430 Views
I was under the assumption it was super awesome but oh well. *NM* - 13/11/2009 06:08:36 AM 478 Views
There's never been any indication that sa'angreal work through a different mechanism to angreal... - 12/11/2009 04:51:13 PM 1029 Views
It has always been a viable theory, and Sanderson seems convincing...EDIT: RJ's take - 12/11/2009 08:21:17 PM 1010 Views
Wrong place *ignore* - 12/11/2009 08:45:32 PM 902 Views
Do you still stick by the exponential theory? - 12/11/2009 08:52:31 PM 856 Views
I do *NM* - 12/11/2009 09:05:56 PM 384 Views
Good, 'cos it's bloody good. *NM* - 12/11/2009 10:56:30 PM 401 Views
Re: Wrong place *ignore* - 27/12/2009 06:14:51 PM 906 Views
Re: Ever notice the "sa" in sa'angreal? - 12/11/2009 07:48:37 PM 950 Views
You are missing two important points - 12/11/2009 05:09:35 PM 1134 Views
I completely agree with you Shannow - 12/11/2009 07:01:29 PM 887 Views
Sidious' "One Power Dynamics" - 12/11/2009 08:10:41 PM 1409 Views
Oh, also - 12/11/2009 08:15:56 PM 937 Views
As long as you reference him, I doubt he'd mind. *NM* - 12/11/2009 08:36:59 PM 418 Views
there's a slight problem with your theory - 12/11/2009 08:19:25 PM 833 Views
Probably - 12/11/2009 09:05:31 PM 1279 Views
Agreed, with one point - 12/11/2009 09:25:09 PM 861 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 813 Views
Re: Sanderson's understanding of angreal is totally wrong... - 13/11/2009 07:11:34 PM 900 Views
Yes it's also been mentioned before in earlier books - 19/11/2009 12:51:51 AM 811 Views
Re: Yes it's also been mentioned before in earlier books - 27/12/2009 06:37:47 PM 838 Views

Reply to Message