Active Users:7372 Time:25/03/2026 06:04:29 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 1841 Views
You should include quotes - 12/11/2009 11:42:20 AM 1013 Views
The angreal magnifies the power of the individual holding it, not that of the entire circle. - 12/11/2009 11:57:20 AM 1090 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 985 Views
Sure, I agree... - 12/11/2009 12:45:33 PM 947 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 971 Views
Please elaborate... - 12/11/2009 02:42:17 PM 949 Views
On the basis that we dont agree on the use of sa'angreals on a group. - 12/11/2009 03:02:29 PM 940 Views
OK, I'll humour you. This once. - 12/11/2009 05:18:57 PM 963 Views
How generous of you. - 12/11/2009 07:51:54 PM 1038 Views
Scrap that - 12/11/2009 08:32:36 PM 923 Views
Rand Balefires a whole castle - 12/11/2009 01:10:05 PM 1118 Views
There is no basis for that conclusion... - 12/11/2009 02:02:37 PM 984 Views
I could have sprayed - 12/11/2009 02:28:41 PM 944 Views
Ever notice the "sa" in sa'angreal? - 12/11/2009 03:09:30 PM 1102 Views
It stands for Super Amazing. *NM* - 12/11/2009 04:10:02 PM 441 Views
I was under the assumption it was super awesome but oh well. *NM* - 13/11/2009 06:08:36 AM 491 Views
There's never been any indication that sa'angreal work through a different mechanism to angreal... - 12/11/2009 04:51:13 PM 1057 Views
It has always been a viable theory, and Sanderson seems convincing...EDIT: RJ's take - 12/11/2009 08:21:17 PM 1036 Views
Wrong place *ignore* - 12/11/2009 08:45:32 PM 926 Views
Do you still stick by the exponential theory? - 12/11/2009 08:52:31 PM 884 Views
I do *NM* - 12/11/2009 09:05:56 PM 393 Views
Good, 'cos it's bloody good. *NM* - 12/11/2009 10:56:30 PM 407 Views
Re: Wrong place *ignore* - 27/12/2009 06:14:51 PM 925 Views
Re: Ever notice the "sa" in sa'angreal? - 12/11/2009 07:48:37 PM 973 Views
You are missing two important points - 12/11/2009 05:09:35 PM 1166 Views
I completely agree with you Shannow - 12/11/2009 07:01:29 PM 916 Views
Sidious' "One Power Dynamics" - 12/11/2009 08:10:41 PM 1438 Views
Oh, also - 12/11/2009 08:15:56 PM 967 Views
As long as you reference him, I doubt he'd mind. *NM* - 12/11/2009 08:36:59 PM 425 Views
there's a slight problem with your theory - 12/11/2009 08:19:25 PM 858 Views
Probably - 12/11/2009 09:05:31 PM 1304 Views
Agreed, with one point - 12/11/2009 09:25:09 PM 877 Views
Some ways the fixed amount theory could work... - 13/11/2009 12:33:04 AM 935 Views
Re: Some ways the fixed amount theory could work... - 13/11/2009 07:00:15 PM 836 Views
Re: Sanderson's understanding of angreal is totally wrong... - 13/11/2009 07:11:34 PM 925 Views
Yes it's also been mentioned before in earlier books - 19/11/2009 12:51:51 AM 842 Views
Re: Yes it's also been mentioned before in earlier books - 27/12/2009 06:37:47 PM 865 Views

Reply to Message