Jon Snow ReRead Project! Part 6! (DwD--Pink Letter!)

[bemused]

Paper Waver.. Yes. that's pretty much as I see it , with perhaps a few differences.

If the northmen convinced Stannis to take Theon to the tree and mentioned their belief that no man can lie before a heart tree, I think he might have held Tycho's party back that long - in case Theon changed or added to his information. (The proper form of execution in the north is to allow the person sentenced to have his last words.)

Because I think the communication between the various elements of northern resistance has been good, I think all the clan leaders and Alysanne know that Bran and Rickon survived . They may not be clamouring for Theon's head and may actually feel he should be sent to the Wall (and Jon). So I think it's entirely possible that Theon is with "Arya" and Tycho. I agree that the letter would have been sent before the battle.

I love the irony in the hint that the letter may actually have been signed in blood when it left Stannis, possibly only to be duplicated in ink by the conspirators. We saw Stannis' ink was frozen -but it could easily have been thawed. I doubt the whole letter would have been written in blood. When you think about it, Roose would know both Ramsay's hand and Tybald's , while Jon would know Stannis' hand. (Jon may only have seen Ramsay's signature, previously).

The best solution for Stannis would be to dictate the letter to the maester and have him approximate Ramsay's signature ( perhaps in blood). Both Theon and Asha have seen Rams' signature before (and so may Stannis, if Jon showed him the first letter) so Tybald couldn't pull a fast one. .. And with 2 ravens available, I wouldn't rule out that a second letter was written intended for Roose.

Obviously, I can't get spoilers to work for more than a paragraph at a time .. sorry if that seemed a bit choppy.

[bemused]

If I can just take us back to the attack ( and my breakdown of it ) for a moment .. just night before last , I was reading at random before I went to bed - Barristan's "Kingbreaker" chapter. He goes to arrest Hizdhar and has to fight Khrazz...

Selmy blocked the cuts at his head and let his armor stop the rest, whilst his own blade opened

the pit fighter’s cheek from ear to mouth, then traced a raw red gash across his chest. Blood welled from Khrazz’s wounds. That only seemed to make him wilder.

Here's another bit of info from Barristan that can apply to Jon.. put that together with his known berserker qualities.. and "Now he was a man, now a wolf, now a man again." from Mel's vision..Increases the feeling he could be about to get up off the ground.

[butterbumps!]

So, yes, I do see the situation as a convergence of various parties and motivations, but the ones I see appear to be different from most people's .

......

I think we're very much on the same page as to the major players' character traits and motivations, from what I've seen .. but I have this Thorne-shaped blip in my thinking that won't go away. I just feel that if the clues that he could be there were designed to be red herrings , they would have been a little more obvious. I mean, the clues in Sam's first AFfC chapter don't relate to anything except Sam at the time, yet they wind up playing no part in what Sam actually does going forward, so they're easy to skim over or read past. We read all the way through that book and well into the next before Jon sends Thorne out ..and we get Thorne's promise/threat that he'll be coming back ... and then we read even further before it becomes apparent he's disappeared.

GRRM could have brought up Sam's fear of his father in many other ways than thoughts of hiding ...and it wasn't until I undertook a reread (or two or three) that I realised the first and last place you'd look for a missing Sam vs a missing Thorne would be the exact opposite of each other. To me, it's just too well hidden to be effective as your standard misdirection.

I guess, what I'm trying to figure out is whether you see how it could be Rams, regardless of whether you actually believe it's Rams. If it's the case that you don't think Rams makes sense as an author, then I could iterate this out in more detail from the Bolton POV, just to show how it works. If it's the case that you do see the Bolton angle, but simply think there's other plausible candidates, then I'm not in major disagreement.

I'm asking it this way because I'm not sure if I should respond with a thorough breakdown of the Bolton's investment in this, or if we're on the same page about that, so that instead I should respond by looking at the plausibility of other candidates.

[Julia H.]

This is a somewhat belated reaction to some points made earlier (I had no time during the week to write any longer posts).

Ghost's reaction could be twofold:

1. Bowen Marsh was probably more fearful and apprehensive than anything regarding the attempt at Jon's life. Animals don't usually growl at fear - if anything they know you are not a threat (submissive) if you fear them they are dominant (my dog anyways). Maybe Ghost could sense fear more than anything on Bowen. Thus he wasn't afraid. Could explain the attempt on Jon's life was more a present opportunity then planned out in advance.

2. Anger or hate is another issue. My dog can sense anger/dislike, he growls and his back hair raises. They instinctively perceive a threat. If someone possed a direct threat to Jon (like entered his chambers with the intent of sabotaging Jon), Ghost probably can sense the difference.

Not that I've been around direwolves, but I'm guessing dogs have the same tendencies.

Interesting observations about Ghost's non-reaction to Bowen Marsh. If I recall some other instances, I'm not sure we can always safely tell what exactly Ghost reacts to. Take for example his attack on Tyrion in AGoT, when Jon, Benjen and Tyrion are on their way towards the Wall and Tyrion is goading Jon about the reality of the Night's Watch. We have Tyrion's POV then, and we know he does not have any murderous feelings towards Jon, yet Ghost attacks him. Does Ghost react to Jon's feelings about Tyrion rather than to Tyrion's towards Jon? If that is the case, Ghost may be prevented from attacking Bowen Marsh simply by Jon's lack of real anger towards Marsh (Jon does feel a certain bitterness or disappointment, but that is all).

It is also possible that Tyrion is perceived by Ghost to be dangerous because his words might dissuade Jon from joining the NW and thus prevent him from finding his life-purpose there. Bowen Marsh, while clearly hostile, is one of Jon's less significant enemies, just a pawn that could easily be replaced, so there is no point in dealing with him prematurely. It would not help Jon much if his wolf started to attack black brothers without any obvious reason. Ghost is agitated though and he does want to go with Jon to the Shield Hall. Jon "wrestled him back inside", and the wording implies quite a struggle, so rather than attacking Marsh seemingly without reason, Ghost may simply want to be by Jon's side when the attack happens.

Well, yes and no about the attempt being spur of the moment. We know Bowen was being vocal in his dissent for a while now (Mance overhears them "conspiring" by the fire in Mel I). But I don't think the idea that they would definitely assassinate Jon had been decided prior to Jon's publicly stating that he'd be choosing the losing side post Pink Letter.

Until the letter comes, there's actually no reason for the Watchmen to turn Jon over or kill him. Stannis is the one who initially decreed that the wildlings would settle in the Gift. As long as Stannis is in the picture, taking out Jon would not solve their problems with wildling relocation. And I'd further posit that news of Stannis' defeat wasn't in and of itself the rationale for the assassination. It's Jon's announcement of his intention to keep fighting Boltons that cements the plot against him. I'd bet that these guys had had a contingency like this for a while; something like "if Jon directly endangers the Watch, we must take him out." That moment happens when Jon announces he's marching south to fight Boltons.

The Watchmen certainly deduced that the Watch could receive blowback for their aid of Stannis, but that blowback would occur in the event Stannis lost. The Pink Letter is necessary not for merely showing the Watchmen that the Boltons are angry with Jon, but rather, announcing that Stannis is defeated, and that the day for blowback has arrived. It's showing the Watchmen that they are cornered-- no more Stannis as a buffer.

I'd suspect that Jon was always on Bolton radar as a piece that would eventually have to be taken out, just to shore up their dominance. But Jon doesn't become a tangible problem until fake Arya escapes, apparently headed for the Wall. Bolton motivation to launch "operation take Jon out" becomes more solidified once they lose their Stark lure, and it seems likely the fake and Jon will be face to face. I'm not entirely opposed to the idea that someone at the Wall has been communicating with the Boltons; I'm saying that it's not a necessary condition, as the loss of the fake is what accelerates their interest in Jon. Generally though, I'm inclined to believe that the Boltons aren't being informed by someone at CB largely because Cregan's imprisonment is omitted (the Boltons would probably like to get their hands on him for assorted reasons).

I guess you're asking whether this was a coordination effort between Boltons and Watchmen, or just an independent convergence, right?

Without negating the possibility for coordination, I think we're seeing simple convergence. There's 3 ways to neutralize Jon as a result of the letter. One way is to get the Watchmen against Jon. If that fails, the letters sets it up such that civil war up at the Wall might logically follow. The letter asks for hostages from 2 of the 3 factions up there. Two sides would be unwilling to turn these people over, while the Watchmen would advocate for the hostage swap. It creates the conditions for discord. Even if an all-out war did not ensue up there, this would be more than a bit distracting for Jon, and it weakens him in this time of Bolton vulnerability (losing the fake). If this fails, and Jon maintains control, and manages to turn over all these hostages to the Boltons, no one in the North will ever follow him. He'd be the bastard that turned over Arya to the Boltons. The risk of having Jon become a Northern leader would be fairly eliminated.

No matter how this plays out, Jon would be weakened from the Bolton POV. Manipulating the Watchmen into taking out Jon would be the surest bet, but the Boltons benefit from any of these outcomes. It doesn't have to be an assassination for this to work.

I should add that I don't believe that Bowen + Co chose to assassinate Jon for the precise reasons that the letter set up. I think Bowen's motivation was more politically charged (i.e. choosing the losing side), whereas the letter appeals to an LC breaking neutrality (Arya mission) and doublecrossing the other Watchmen (not killing Mance).

I can see your point... But I still think that as long as the Boltons don't know anything about the actual political situation on the Wall, they should take a fourth possibility into consideration with regard to what all the people on the Wall could do: They might unite against the Boltons.

Even if no hostages are demanded from the Watch, the "black crows" are threatened in the letter. Now, the Watch is known to have chosen Jon over the Lannisters' candidate once. What if Jon is such a charismatic and popular leader that the Watch will follow him whatever he does? Not all watchmen are from the North – for them the Boltons may mean much less than their own Lord Commander, whose orders they are used to obeying on an everyday basis, and the Lannisters are far away. The northern watchmen, on the other hand, may see Jon both as their LC and the son of Eddard Stark. Besides, most of these people are on the Wall because they have got in trouble with the law before. Even Jon thinks that most of them have pasts as black as their cloaks. How can the Boltons be sure (without reliable information on the situation) that Jon cannot use the Watch against the Boltons?

When Benjen explains to Jon why CB must be indefensible from the South, it is clear that it is not the Lord Commander alone that the lords of the realm fear but the fact that the Lord Commander may use the Watch against the realm, which indeed has happened before (more than once). The Watch defied the Lannisters when they chose Jon their Lord Commander and Jon defied the Lannisters by helping Stannis. Just how strong is the anti-Lannister (and anti-Bolton) feeling on the Wall? How many watchmen have a grudge against the current regime, seeing that 1) most of them ended up on the Wall against their will and 2) the lords of the realm have clearly abandoned them, with the single exception of Stannis, who alone gave them help as they were facing an attack by a huge wildling army?

IMO, it is not at all unrealistic that Jon could turn the Watch against the Boltons if he wanted to. If he had kept his closest and most trusted allies by his side instead of sending them away from CB, if he had tried to manipulate the feelings of the people who do have a reason to feel hostile towards the lords of the realm, if he had tried to gain some easy popularity and if he had promised them a better life than the one they have on the Wall, how many would follow him to war against the Boltons?

The Queen's men could be Jon's natural allies because of Stannis – they have no hope of being forgiven now, so their only choice might be to continue fighting (to avenge Stannis and to protect the Queen and her daughter). As for the wildlings, they have always wanted to raid the Seven Kingdoms, haven't they, and now it turns out that their former king is alive but held captive in Winterfell by the Boltons. The letter specifically accuses Jon of personally sparing Mance's life, which could mean Jon will earn some brownie points with the wildlings as soon as they find it out.

Mance and especially the captured spearwives could hardly give the Boltons the necessary (and reliable) reassurance that such an alliance is not likely to be formed on the Wall, so the Boltons are taking a considerable risk.

Good find, I forgot about those instances…that pretty much makes the whole "crow" epithet useless in narrowing down who wrote it.

Just for the record, yes, crow is frequently used, but black crow is apparently used by wildlings only, that was the point of the thread I was referring to. The difference may or may not be significant, but I found it interesting (partly because it was a research-based argument).


On another note, if the letter was written by Ramsay, demanding the return of Ramsay's bride lends some credibility to the claim that Ramsay has defeated Stannis in battle, or at least it suggests that they have some captives (not mentioned in the letter) from the Stannis-camp. After all, why would the Boltons think that fake-Arya is heading for the Wall? Mance and the spearwives would want to take her to the Wall, but they are not with her now. Would Jeyne Poole dare to appear in front of Jon on her own? Would Theon take her there, knowing full well what she is? Would Theon himself want to face Jon after what he did to the Starks? What do the Boltons think of that?

There is little reason to suppose that either Jeyne or Theon would voluntarily seek out Jon, so if Ramsay thinks they are going to the Wall, it may mean

he knows that Stannis has sent Jeyne to Jon, which he can only know through some captives (or perhaps through some spies, but that seems less likely).

Since he also demands his Reek back, it implies (in this context) that

at some point after Theon's chapter in TWOW, Theon may also join the party going to the Wall - and Ramsay finds that out, too.

[bemused]

I guess, what I'm trying to figure out is whether you see how it could be Rams, regardless of whether you actually believe it's Rams. If it's the case that you don't think Rams makes sense as an author, then I could iterate this out in more detail from the Bolton POV, just to show how it works. If it's the case that you do see the Bolton angle, but simply think there's other plausible candidates, then I'm not in major disagreement.

I'm asking it this way because I'm not sure if I should respond with a thorough breakdown of the Bolton's investment in this, or if we're on the same page about that, so that instead I should respond by looking at the plausibility of other candidates.

Yes , I do see how it could be Ramsay. When you say...

"No matter what direction Jon chooses-- to level with the Watchmen (Watchmen will be against him), try to turn over hostages (the wildlings and Queensmen will put up a fight), or have Jon actually turn over all these hostages (the Northmen will never, ever follow Jon as a leader if he's turned over "Arya" to the Boltons)-- Jon is trapped, and taken out of the game."

I agree that's a very logical distillation of what the Bolton thinking could be , probably the most appealing I've seen. But as with all of the top 3 candidates - Rams, Mance and Stannis , it would require a specific set of circumstances to have fallen into place - for either the Boltons or Mance , the battle with Stannis has to be over ( either won or thought to have been won ), for Stannis,

Theon has to have been taken before the tree, and sent on to Jon

And of course , the thinking you laid out would not be incompatible with the conspirators who may have read and altered the letter, though they would still have their own motivations, as well.

I'm always interested in your posts, and I'd like to know your thoughts on the plausibility of the other candidates as well .. or if you want to discuss the Bolton angle more fully, that would be good too . ;)

ETA: I don't have time to respond fully , now, but I think Julia H makes some very good points, too, in her post above. With all the candidates , even if we're right about their thinking, doesn't mean they have it all figured correctly...and any of them would be making a Hail Mary pass in one way or another.

[Kingmonkey]

Just for the record, yes, crow is frequently used, but black crow is apparently used by wildlings only, that was the point of the thread I was referring to. The difference may or may not be significant, but I found it interesting (partly because it was a research-based argument).

On the other hand, we have "I want this wildling princess", and we're told that it's Stannis' men who call her that, and that Wildlings don't think of her that way. If "black crows" hints at a wildling source for the letter, "wildling princess" is a stronger hint against it. Ramsey might have picked up "black crows" from Mance if it's not actually a phrase used south of the wall, but where did he pick up "wildling princess" from?

That might hint at Stannis being the origin, but then we've got the "I will have my bride back... and I want my Reek" part.

Surely Stannis wouldn't think there was any chance Jayne would have reached the wall before the letter did, so that would be confusing and meaningless to Jon. As you say, this may suggest that Theon joins the party heading to the wall after the WoW chapter, and the writer of the letter heard about that somehow.

Which brings us back to Ramsey assuming that Theon and Jayne had fled to the wall, and wondering where he got wildling princess from -- an informer on the wall? Not Ramsay at all, but written by someone on the wall, who somehow knew about Theon and Jayne?

Just for fun, WILD CRACKPOT UNJUSTIFIED SPECULATION TIME! (with WoW spoilers)

Frey forces fall into Stannis' ice trap, and then Manderly's men fall on them from behind. Frey forces are slaughtered and Manderly's force teams up with Stannis.

Mance has been captured, but Roose won't let Ramsay flay him with the gathered lords watching. Ramsay is very annoyed.

Some Manderly men return to Winterfell with Stannis' sword, claiming to have killed Stannis and smashed his forces, saying the army is still mopping up. Roose leads a force from Winterfell to lead the mop-up operation and claim the glory, walking into the Manderly/Stannis trap. Ramsay is ordered to remain behind and hunt down Umbers in the Winterfell vicinity. Ramsay is even more annoyed.

Ramsay mounts Umber heads on spikes, which he enjoys, but is increasingly frustrated by Mance's refusal to give much information, or possibly Mance escapes. Ramsay is fuming mad.

The messengers from Manderly's forces casually tell Ramsay that they have some information that might help him get leverage over Mance. They mention having bumped into Nestoris and co., who told them about Mance's son and the wildling princess. They casually mention he was taking Jayne and Theon (whether he was actually in the party or not) to Jon at the wall, hoping that Ramsay will lead a force to the wall to confront Jon, the NW and the Wildling Army, splitting Bolton forces even thinner. Ramsay goes full-on berserk.

Even berserk Ramsay isn't dumb enough to march on the Wall against Roose's express order to stay at Winterfell, so this part backfires somewhat. Instead he writes the Pink Letter, trying hard not to drool froth onto the paper, and smears pink wax on and presses it with his thumb because he's hard and a TRUEBORN BOLTON, and hot wax doesn't hurt a bit, and he's got better things to do that find stupid seals, and additionally, RAAAAAAAAR!

[horizon]

Melissandre wrote it. She persuaded Bowen & co to do it. That is why he was crying. She made them do it so Jon would finally listen to her...

Mance wrote it. Because he has something up his sleeve, the stabbing has nothing to do with all of it and is just a coincedince to happen at that point.

Qyburn & Cersei promissed the Watch a lot of things if Jon was removed.

Stannis wrote it because of a tactical master plan.

Ramsey wrote it because he likes to flay.

A question begets: why Ramsay and not Roose as sender of the letter. Everyone knows that Roose is the real boss.

[John Courage]

I think it was Ramsay who wrote the letter. I think he found out that Robb legitimized Jon and he is trying to lure him out in order to kill him. Especially considering there are northern lords who are still loyal to house Stark, as Lyanna Mormont put it in her letter to Stannis, "Bear Island knows no king but the King in the North, whose name is STARK." Also, Ramsay demand's his Reek back, who else would put that in the letter? Its not like Jon or anyone at the wall knows who Reek is, it just doesn't make sense to me for anyone other than Ramsay to include that demand in the letter, unless I'm missing something which I very well could be.

[butterbumps!]

I can see your point... But I still think that as long as the Boltons don't know anything about the actual political situation on the Wall, they should take a fourth possibility into consideration with regard to what all the people on the Wall could do: They might unite against the Boltons.

Even if no hostages are demanded from the Watch, the "black crows" are threatened in the letter. Now, the Watch is known to have chosen Jon over the Lannisters' candidate once. What if Jon is such a charismatic and popular leader that the Watch will follow him whatever he does? Not all watchmen are from the North – for them the Boltons may mean much less than their own Lord Commander, whose orders they are used to obeying on an everyday basis, and the Lannisters are far away. The northern watchmen, on the other hand, may see Jon both as their LC and the son of Eddard Stark. Besides, most of these people are on the Wall because they have got in trouble with the law before. Even Jon thinks that most of them have pasts as black as their cloaks. How can the Boltons be sure (without reliable information on the situation) that Jon cannot use the Watch against the Boltons?

When Benjen explains to Jon why CB must be indefensible from the South, it is clear that it is not the Lord Commander alone that the lords of the realm fear but the fact that the Lord Commander may use the Watch against the realm, which indeed has happened before (more than once). The Watch defied the Lannisters when they chose Jon their Lord Commander and Jon defied the Lannisters by helping Stannis. Just how strong is the anti-Lannister (and anti-Bolton) feeling on the Wall? How many watchmen have a grudge against the current regime, seeing that 1) most of them ended up on the Wall against their will and 2) the lords of the realm have clearly abandoned them, with the single exception of Stannis, who alone gave them help as they were facing an attack by a huge wildling army?

IMO, it is not at all unrealistic that Jon could turn the Watch against the Boltons if he wanted to. If he had kept his closest and most trusted allies by his side instead of sending them away from CB, if he had tried to manipulate the feelings of the people who do have a reason to feel hostile towards the lords of the realm, if he had tried to gain some easy popularity and if he had promised them a better life than the one they have on the Wall, how many would follow him to war against the Boltons?

The Queen's men could be Jon's natural allies because of Stannis – they have no hope of being forgiven now, so their only choice might be to continue fighting (to avenge Stannis and to protect the Queen and her daughter). As for the wildlings, they have always wanted to raid the Seven Kingdoms, haven't they, and now it turns out that their former king is alive but held captive in Winterfell by the Boltons. The letter specifically accuses Jon of personally sparing Mance's life, which could mean Jon will earn some brownie points with the wildlings as soon as they find it out.

Mance and especially the captured spearwives could hardly give the Boltons the necessary (and reliable) reassurance that such an alliance is not likely to be formed on the Wall, so the Boltons are taking a considerable risk.

Just for the record, yes, crow is frequently used, but black crow is apparently used by wildlings only, that was the point of the thread I was referring to. The difference may or may not be significant, but I found it interesting (partly because it was a research-based argument).

On another note, if the letter was written by Ramsay, demanding the return of Ramsay's bride lends some credibility to the claim that Ramsay has defeated Stannis in battle, or at least it suggests that they have some captives (not mentioned in the letter) from the Stannis-camp. After all, why would the Boltons think that fake-Arya is heading for the Wall? Mance and the spearwives would want to take her to the Wall, but they are not with her now. Would Jeyne Poole dare to appear in front of Jon on her own? Would Theon take her there, knowing full well what she is? Would Theon himself want to face Jon after what he did to the Starks? What do the Boltons think of that?

There is little reason to suppose that either Jeyne or Theon would voluntarily seek out Jon, so if Ramsay thinks they are going to the Wall, it may mean

Well, I think the letter makes it very difficult for all 3 factions to unite at the Wall and go against the Boltons. The letter announces that the Boltons are angry with Jon for going against tradition and involving himself with Arya and Mance; that serves to put him on weak footing with the Watchmen. As in, he's the problem that's brought the Watch to Bolton attention.

Then the letter sets up a dilemma with unaligned self interests of various parties. For example, let's say there's a bully who torments 5 people. The bully sets the following demand: "I will kill all 5 of you unless 2 of you turn over your siblings to me. Resist and you'll all be destroyed." The two being asked for their siblings would want to fight against the bully, while the 3 who have no imperative will want to simply turn them over. It automatically creates discord, and induces civil war amongst them. It's such a fundamental manipulation tactic that negates the need for deep knowledge of the politics, as it's imposing division in the imperative presented.

The letter gives the Watch no reason to turn on the Boltons. It really gives them the opposite. In its full composition, it gives the Watch incentive to turn on the wildlings, Queensmen and Jon. The Watch is only being threatened in the event that they do not turn over those listed hostages. Further, the letter announces that Stannis-- with a larger army than Queensmen, Watch fighters and presumed number of wildlings-- had been defeated. This tells those at the Wall that resistance is futile; uniting against the Boltons is a suicide mission. The Watch has no incentive to even try-- they're the ones with presumably everything to lose by doing so.

I think it's fair to think that the Boltons would have either heard that Stannis sent Arya and Theon to Jon before he "died," or that the Boltons would assume they'd been picked up by Northmen and would be heading to Jon logically.

[butterbumps!]

Yes , I do see how it could be Ramsay. When you say...

"No matter what direction Jon chooses-- to level with the Watchmen (Watchmen will be against him), try to turn over hostages (the wildlings and Queensmen will put up a fight), or have Jon actually turn over all these hostages (the Northmen will never, ever follow Jon as a leader if he's turned over "Arya" to the Boltons)-- Jon is trapped, and taken out of the game."

I agree that's a very logical distillation of what the Bolton thinking could be , probably the most appealing I've seen. But as with all of the top 3 candidates - Rams, Mance and Stannis , it would require a specific set of circumstances to have fallen into place - for either the Boltons or Mance , the battle with Stannis has to be over ( either won or thought to have been won ), for Stannis,

Theon has to have been taken before the tree, and sent on to Jon

And of course , the thinking you laid out would not be incompatible with the conspirators who may have read and altered the letter, though they would still have their own motivations, as well.

I'm always interested in your posts, and I'd like to know your thoughts on the plausibility of the other candidates as well .. or if you want to discuss the Bolton angle more fully, that would be good too . ;)

ETA: I don't have time to respond fully , now, but I think Julia H makes some very good points, too, in her post above. With all the candidates , even if we're right about their thinking, doesn't mean they have it all figured correctly...and any of them would be making a Hail Mary pass in one way or another.

oh, lol, thanks. It looks like we're on the same page about the plausibility of the Boltons. I mean, I need very little excuse to carry on about the Boltons, but didn't want to bore you by arguing points that weren't in contention.

The alternative I've been a vocal supporter of is the Mel-Mance angle. In light of what the letter's actually saying, Mel is really the only person whose motive aligns with what's written (other than the Boltons, I mean). A one-word summary of the letter is: "Checkmate." No matter who wrote it.

Now, Mel has been trying to get Jon to see her as his "only hope," for some time now. The letter sets up this automatically discordant dilemma, and reinforces the point that Jon is completely cornered. However, where Rams would be inciting discord and alienation, anticipating that Jon would start reacting to the letter, Mel would want Jon to bypass that and come to her as a first step. There's instructions to go to Mel in the first paragraph ("tell his red whore"). She also tells him to come to her earlier that chapter when he receives this letter she miraculously predicts would arrive correctly.

She has reason to want Jon to believe he's alienated, cornered and in a hopeless situation. She also wants him to stay at the Wall and not go to Hardhome. The letter delivers on all of this. It presents such a dismal scenario that he might be finally tempted to go to her as a first measure. This only works, however, if Mance (or, I suppose someone inside Winterfell, but Mance would be logical since he's the one working with her) is her inside man. The mention of my Reek tells us it can't be her alone. They might have cooked up this idea prior to Mance's leaving the Wall or something, where the basic gist of "tell Jon it's truly hopeless" was the directive, and Mance filled in the details accordingly.

I don't think this version is quite as streamlined as the Boltons as authors, though. It necessarily involves coordination between 2 parties that aren't in close proximity, and would require Mance to have some kind of access to ravens, and specifically ravens trained to home in on the Wall. It also makes the letter's packaging a bit suspect; why make the exterior such a curiosity that Watchmen would be tempted to know what's inside? They'd strongly want only Jon to see the contents, so you'd think a more sober exterior might be preferable.

To be thoroughly honest, I think Stannis as the author makes no sense. I really don't see what he could possibly think he's gaining from this letter. The letter completely undermines his base of operations, and puts Jon in a position to be caught in a civil war up there. That's like, the last thing Stannis would want. The letter doesn't draw him out from the Wall, tricking him into giving backup or anything. If Stannis is the author, and the intention is to get Jon to lend a hand in some capacity, then writing a real letter would accomplish far more than the letter Jon receives, and this pretense would be kind of dumb, to put it mildly.

[bemused]

Butterbumps!.. re: ^^ Stannis...

Ah, but that's not what I think at all... Let me leave Mel and the others aside for the moment and deal with Stannis. ( And let me ask that you allow, at least in theory , that if the conspirators would open the letter , they would not be above altering it to suit their wishes , no matter who sent it. )

I think Stannis has three main pieces of information he wants to get to Jon.

1. "Arya" and Reek have been sent to him.

2. Mance and the spearwives have been captured .. some killed (as far as he can guess).

3. And most importantly , to Stannis' mind, Ramsay is also on his way, wanting his bride and his Reek back at any cost.

He's not asking for reinforcements, or for Jon to come to Winterfell. He just wants Jon to defend CB (and his heir) against Ramsay. In his letter from Deepwood, he told Jon , You and your brothers must hold the Wall until I can return. ...and I don't think he would have changed his mind on that. "Must" is his imperative to Jon (if one was needed). Jon must hold the wall against all comers , wildlings , Others or Ramsay. Stannis set his own imperative as .. He (Roose) must not be allowed to restore the castle to its former strength.We march against him.

Reading the Theon chapter convinces me that Stannis has the information and the means to attempt to send the letter. Reading the letter tells me that although Stannis is convinced the letter could get to Jon ( convinced enough to be worth a try ), there's still a chance it could go to WF .. hence the need for disguise...

In the Theon chapter ,

it's hinted that Stannis intends to fake his death in some sort of Trojan horse move to get his forces inside WF. He accepts Theon's assessment that Ramsay will be joining the battle... and I think anyone - Stannis, Roose , we readers - would

predict that if Ramsay got to the battlefield to find Stannis dead , but "Arya" and Reek on their way to Jon , he wouldn't go back to WF first , but carry on after his quarry ( to preserve the Bolton subterfuge and satisfy his own sadistic urges). But he would notify Roose of the situation by raven, if one was available, or have Maester Tybald do so for him. If Roose recieved a second raven , he would just assume it was a mistake , or that it was intended to be relayed to Jon from WF ( Roose might or might not do it )... But because Roose might receive the letter, Stannis needs to include the claim of his own death. It's unfortunate for those who would receive it at CB , but that wouldn't affect Jon's need to mount a defense, and could be cleared up later, or via Mel's flames. And as Stannis tells Massey.. "It may even be true".

Even as an impersonation of Ramsay, I don't think the letter Jon received was entirely as Stannis sent it. ... e.g. I doubt Stannis would have addressed it "Bastard"... e.g. the 7 days of battle is some sort of timing clue for Jon, and though unbelievable at face value, could pass for a boast , for Roose.. Probably the best way to explain fully, is to reproduce the letter showing what I think Stannis would have written in black and marking the conspirator's (Thorne's) changes and additions in red. There's also a few changes in where the paragraph breaks fall marked (ch).

"Bastard"

"Your false king is dead, bastard. He and all his host were smashed in seven days of battle. I have his magic sword. Tell his red witch whore.

Your false king’s friends are dead. Their heads upon the walls of Winterfell. Come see them, bastard. Your false king lied, and so did you. He You told the world he you burned the King-Beyond-the-Wall. Instead he you sent him to Winterfell to steal my bride from me.

I will have my bride back. (ch)

If you want Mance Rayder back, come and get him. I have Mance Rayder him in a cage for all the north to see, proof of his your lies. The cage is cold, but I have made him a warm cloak from the skins of the six whores who came with him to Winterfell.

I want the false king’s queen. I want his daughter and his red witch. I want his wildling princess.I want his little prince, the wildling babe. (ch)

I want my bride back (ch) and I want my Reek. Send them to me, bastard, and I will not trouble you or your black crows. Keep them from me, and I will cut out your bastard’s heart and eat it."

..There are a couple of sentences that I think could go either way (one in red, one in black ) "Your false King's friends are dead" ...could fit for Stannis or the conspirators , and... "Keep them from me, and I will cut out your bastard’s heart and eat it." ... This last one contains the kind of commonplace threat we've seen from various characters and Stannis might well use it. ..and maybe , he might have used another bastard , somewhere ( Send them to me bastard ?) ... But really , there are no less than five uses of bastard in the letter and to me, that says Thorne. There's no doubt he would revel in that last threat , so it might be his as well.

I no longer think that Stannis would implicate Jon at all in the sparing of Mance, and would be willing to take credit / blame for the "Arya" mission, in hope of preventing problems for Jon with the watch( problems for Jon mean problems for his people as well ) - as a King he's much better situated to take the backlash. ( And why Jon thought Stannis could spare Mance in the first place). .. And I don't think he'd use "red whore", because he always wants to contain gossip ( especially if damaging to his kingliness). Wildling use of "black crow" would be familiar to him.

From the conspirator's perspective , if Jon takes their bait to go south ,it cancels Hardhome, sparing them a dangerous mission beyond the wall, makes their "treason" claim seem more credible to other NW members, which would be one immediate concern, while Jon's support among the wildlings might be seriously eroded. (Followed by a split or complete desertion once they learned Mance was alive.)

I have to hold it there for now , but I'll add more later.

Edit for clarity ;)

[horizon]

Actually.

How would Ramsey know that Jon/Stannis/Melissande burned Mance(fake) at the wall?

That's a gap in the Ramsey wrote it story.

Also: how would someone of the Watch know? I guess Mance left in secrecy.

That rules out Alistair as well imo.

Only three people know for sure:

Melissandre, Jon, Mance

Stannis could be in on it as well.

Ramsey only if he really captered Mance + spearwives and tortured them really hard.

[butterbumps!]

snip

So, the idea is that Stannis wrote the letter, pretending to be Rams, in order to warn Jon and pretend he's dead, but then the conspirators (namely Thorne) intercepted it and made it more incendiary? Doesn't that seem a bit inelegant as an explanation?

Why wouldn't Stannis simply write this as "Stannis" if the point is to warn Jon? A simple, "I'm sending Theon (not "Reek," so that Jon would know wtf he's talking about) and Arya to you, about to fight a battle, I'm not sure of the outcome, if I die, protect Shireen" would have been far more logical and effective. I know that Stannis is going to pretend he's dead. The smart thing to do is to tell Jon how to proceed prior to pretending to die. Word would get to Jon anyway if Stannis "dies," so it's not like this letter is crucial to the ruse.

Actually.

How would Ramsey know that Jon/Stannis/Melissande burned Mance(fake) at the wall?

That's a gap in the Ramsey wrote it story.

Also: how would someone of the Watch know? I guess Mance left in secrecy.

That rules out Alistair as well imo.

Only three people know for sure:

Melissandre, Jon, Mance

Stannis could be in on it as well.

Ramsey only if he really captered Mance + spearwives and tortured them really hard.

Burning Mance was a major public display. Mors Umber and various clansmen knew that "Mance" was burned thusly (remember how the clansmen send two wetnurses up to the Wall for "Mance's" son), plus anyone in Stannis' army. It's not a secret that "Mance" burned.

All it would take is one live spearwife to explain to Ramsay under torture that a fake was burned. This isn't problematic for Rams to have written the letter.

[Mithras]

Just a little point, I am not sure that even Stannis understood what

Reek is. He seems like he used the phrase almost exactly the same as Theon used, if he is the author.

[Mithras]

Another point:

Jon asked Mel whether she would knew if Stannis dies. I think Stannis and Mel talked about similar things before Stanis left. And above else, Stannis trusts the visions of Mel. Therefore, Mel would know if he dies or fakes his death acording to Stannis. The PL curiously provokes Jon to "ask the red whore".

[horizon]

So, the idea is that Stannis wrote the letter, pretending to be Rams, in order to warn Jon and pretend he's dead, but then the conspirators (namely Thorne) intercepted it and made it more incendiary? Doesn't that seem a bit inelegant as an explanation?

Why wouldn't Stannis simply write this as "Stannis" if the point is to warn Jon? A simple, "I'm sending Theon (not "Reek," so that Jon would know wtf he's talking about) and Arya to you, about to fight a battle, I'm not sure of the outcome, if I die, protect Shireen" would have been far more logical and effective. I know that Stannis is going to pretend he's dead. The smart thing to do is to tell Jon how to proceed prior to pretending to die. Word would get to Jon anyway if Stannis "dies," so it's not like this letter is crucial to the ruse.

Burning Mance was a major public display. Mors Umber and various clansmen knew that "Mance" was burned thusly (remember how the clansmen send two wetnurses up to the Wall for "Mance's" son), plus anyone in Stannis' army. It's not a secret that "Mance" burned.

All it would take is one live spearwife to explain to Ramsay under torture that a fake was burned. This isn't problematic for Rams to have written the letter.

Then what a flawed plan it was! Ofcourse Melissande couldn't keep up Mance's Rattleshirt "skin" when he would go to winterfel, or could she?

[bemused]

So, the idea is that Stannis wrote the letter, pretending to be Rams, in order to warn Jon and pretend he's dead, but then the conspirators (namely Thorne) intercepted it and made it more incendiary? Doesn't that seem a bit inelegant as an explanation?

Why wouldn't Stannis simply write this as "Stannis" if the point is to warn Jon? A simple, "I'm sending Theon (not "Reek," so that Jon would know wtf he's talking about) and Arya to you, about to fight a battle, I'm not sure of the outcome, if I die, protect Shireen" would have been far more logical and effective. I know that Stannis is going to pretend he's dead. The smart thing to do is to tell Jon how to proceed prior to pretending to die. Word would get to Jon anyway if Stannis "dies," so it's not like this letter is crucial to the ruse.

Burning Mance was a major public display. Mors Umber and various clansmen knew that "Mance" was burned thusly (remember how the clansmen send two wetnurses up to the Wall for "Mance's" son), plus anyone in Stannis' army. It's not a secret that "Mance" burned.

All it would take is one live spearwife to explain to Ramsay under torture that a fake was burned. This isn't problematic for Rams to have written the letter.

Well , let's leave elegance out of it, for now.. :laugh: .. We're in the middle of one of GRRM's puzzles and whether the solution is elegant will only be seen when he reveals how the damn thing works.. None of the answers to who wrote the letter seem elegant to me yet, given what we know.

And I'd put your distllation a different way... Stannis wrote the letter in order to warn Jon. As a safety measure against Roose intercepting "Arya's party", and in support of his "ruse", he pretends to be Ramsay. The conspirators (namely Thorne) intercepted it , making it more incendiary and adding extra hostages, creating a more difficult situation for Jon.

I'm sure Stannis would like to have the luxury of writing to Jon as himself. It would be so much simpler.

He has a big problem in the ravens .. what if , in the end, the letter goes to Roose ? ... Now we see Stannis trying to make the best of a bad situation. Pretending he's dead is for Roose's consumption, but he immediately directs Jon to ask Mel , who he trusts will see the truth of the matter. ( News of Stannis "death" will reach Jon anyway , true or not, but advance true knowledge would be helpful to Jon in damage control.)

I agree the letter is not crucial to the matter of his ruse , but it supports it if the bird goes to Roose.

The letter would be critical to Jon, though, hopefully giving him time to mount a defense against Ramsay, and..

to scoop up "Arya's" party .Let's not forget that it's essential to Stannis that

Tycho and Massey get safely on their way to Braavos. So when I say "Arya's" party, that would be "Tycho's party" in Stannis' mind. Saving Arya is not his priority, that's just , "If I can."..

...Those are the most important things he wants the letter to achieve , but it's almost equally important give Jon a heads up about Mance. ( Because Stannis thinks Jon is the best leadership the Wall could have at the moment and the closest thing to an ally he's likely to get at the Wall)

If "Arya's" party reaches Jon , Jon will know Mance is either captured or dead , and eventually the story will be common knowledge. It appears to me ( as per my version ) that Stannis tried to provide Jon with some deniability by placing the blame for the Mance scenario on himself ( which is subsequently reversed by Thorne).

Tycho's mission is more important to Stannis than Arya

... but recovering "Arya" is very important to Roose. Thinking that the battle is won and Ramsay is in pursuit, Roose would be less likely to send more men after her than he would if Stannis himself said (before the battle) that she was on her way . That would leave open the possibility that if Ramsay should be killed in battle, no-one would be after her...But if the battle is won and Ramsay is on the case, Roose knows that Ramsay is relentless and overwhelmingly successful in his "hunts"... (as does the North, and therefore, probably, Stannis)

And really,

finding himself in possession of 2 WF ravens, Stannis would either try to use them to his advantage

or destroy them, to prevent anyone else sending a message or setting them loose - to arrive without messages and arouse suspicions. When he says "Leave the ravens" , it seems clear he intends to use them. Of course, he'd only need one to send a misleading message meant for Roose

... we just have to wait to see what he does , but I think he'd use them both.

I'm coming back to the Boltons, Mel and Mance later..

ETA: I meant to say, Reek is only mentioned at the end of the letter , and I imagine Theon has been panicking , repeating "He wants his bride, he wants his Reek".

[butterbumps!]

Well , let's leave elegance out of it, for now.. :laugh: .. We're in the middle of one of GRRM's puzzles and whether the solution is elegant will only be seen when he reveals how the damn thing works.. None of the answers to who wrote the letter seem elegant to me yet, given what we know.

And I'd put your distllation a different way... Stannis wrote the letter in order to warn Jon. As a safety measure against Roose intercepting "Arya's party", and in support of his "ruse", he pretends to be Ramsay. The conspirators (namely Thorne) intercepted it , making it more incendiary and adding extra hostages, creating a more difficult situation for Jon.

I'm sure Stannis would like to have the luxury of writing to Jon as himself. It would be so much simpler.

He has a big problem in the ravens .. what if , in the end, the letter goes to Roose ? ... Now we see Stannis trying to make the best of a bad situation. Pretending he's dead is for Roose's consumption, but he immediately directs Jon to ask Mel , who he trusts will see the truth of the matter. ( News of Stannis "death" will reach Jon anyway , true or not, but advance true knowledge would be helpful to Jon in damage control.)

I agree the letter is not crucial to the matter of his ruse , but it supports it if the bird goes to Roose.

The letter would be critical to Jon, though, hopefully giving him time to mount a defense against Ramsay, and..

to scoop up "Arya's" party .Let's not forget that it's essential to Stannis that

Tycho and Massey get safely on their way to Braavos. So when I say "Arya's" party, that would be "Tycho's party" in Stannis' mind. Saving Arya is not his priority, that's just , "If I can."..

...Those are the most important things he wants the letter to achieve , but it's almost equally important give Jon a heads up about Mance. ( Because Stannis thinks Jon is the best leadership the Wall could have at the moment and the closest thing to an ally he's likely to get at the Wall)

If "Arya's" party reaches Jon , Jon will know Mance is either captured or dead , and eventually the story will be common knowledge. It appears to me ( as per my version ) that Stannis tried to provide Jon with some deniability by placing the blame for the Mance scenario on himself ( which is subsequently reversed by Thorne).

Tycho's mission is more important to Stannis than Arya

... but recovering "Arya" is very important to Roose. Thinking that the battle is won and Ramsay is in pursuit, Roose would be less likely to send more men after her than he would if Stannis himself said (before the battle) that she was on her way . That would leave open the possibility that if Ramsay should be killed in battle, no-one would be after her...But if the battle is won and Ramsay is on the case, Roose knows that Ramsay is relentless and overwhelmingly successful in his "hunts"... (as does the North, and therefore, probably, Stannis)

And really,

finding himself in possession of 2 WF ravens, Stannis would either try to use them to his advantage

or destroy them, to prevent anyone else sending a message or setting them loose - to arrive without messages and arouse suspicions. When he says "Leave the ravens" , it seems clear he intends to use them. Of course, he'd only need one to send a misleading message meant for Roose

... we just have to wait to see what he does , but I think he'd use them both.

I'm coming back to the Boltons, Mel and Mance later..

ETA: I meant to say, Reek is only mentioned at the end of the letter , and I imagine Theon has been panicking , repeating "He wants his bride, he wants his Reek".

If this is Stannis' way of warning Jon and leaving it open to fake his death, then regardless of the chance for interception by Roose, the logical thing is for Stannis to simply write the letter as himself, say that he believes he's outnumbered and won't survive, and to put his faith in Mel to know the outcome and guide his actions. Even if Roose might intercept this letter, conveying this does not compromise Stannis' faking his own death ruse. In other words, the minimal risk of interception (it's the middle of a snowstorm, so how are the Boltons going to be shooting down ravens?) does not really answer why the letter would be written so obtusely. It's very counterproductive from the Stannis angle. Why ask Jon for hostages the Watch would be tempted to actually turn over when faced with the apparent choice between turning them over and total destruction?

I'm not sure that having Thorne intercept the letter and adding to it/ rewriting it makes the letter any more explicable. I mean, on a purely practical level, the letter would have to be rewritten (you can't exactly add in all this text to an existing letter). If Thorne's involved in rewriting the letter from a more incendiary tone, why would he keep in the Reek parts (and why would Stannis be calling Theon "Reek" in the first version of the letter?) And the motive you give for Thorne's doing this is basically to have Jon taken out of the game, right? You say that Thorne would have added more hostages in order to make this harder for Jon. That's exactly why Rams as the author makes so much sense. Rams, unlike Thorne, wouldn't care if the Watch destroyed itself by infighting. Thorne might want Jon taken out, but he wouldn't want anarchy up there-- like, he wouldn't want the Watch to fall. Plus, if Thorne wanted to tell the other Watchmen about Jon's Mance mission and accuse Jon of saving Mance, then he should just tell them (provided he actually knows of these things), not write a fake letter from Rams' POV. Or if he must write a letter from Rams' POV, then address it to the Watch rather than Jon.

[Ghost's Shadow]

Thorne is on the other side of the Wall. If he's not, then did he get away from his 'fellow' rangers, with Dywen in there, by killing them? Thorne doesn't have the experience necessary to fool seasoned rangers. And if he killed them, he can't be doing things 'for the Watch', if it means killing the people who are pro-Jon.

[Julia H.]

Well, I think the letter makes it very difficult for all 3 factions to unite at the Wall and go against the Boltons. The letter announces that the Boltons are angry with Jon for going against tradition and involving himself with Arya and Mance; that serves to put him on weak footing with the Watchmen. As in, he's the problem that's brought the Watch to Bolton attention.

Then the letter sets up a dilemma with unaligned self interests of various parties. For example, let's say there's a bully who torments 5 people. The bully sets the following demand: "I will kill all 5 of you unless 2 of you turn over your siblings to me. Resist and you'll all be destroyed." The two being asked for their siblings would want to fight against the bully, while the 3 who have no imperative will want to simply turn them over. It automatically creates discord, and induces civil war amongst them. It's such a fundamental manipulation tactic that negates the need for deep knowledge of the politics, as it's imposing division in the imperative presented.

The letter gives the Watch no reason to turn on the Boltons. It really gives them the opposite. In its full composition, it gives the Watch incentive to turn on the wildlings, Queensmen and Jon. The Watch is only being threatened in the event that they do not turn over those listed hostages. Further, the letter announces that Stannis-- with a larger army than Queensmen, Watch fighters and presumed number of wildlings-- had been defeated. This tells those at the Wall that resistance is futile; uniting against the Boltons is a suicide mission. The Watch has no incentive to even try-- they're the ones with presumably everything to lose by doing so.

I think it's fair to think that the Boltons would have either heard that Stannis sent Arya and Theon to Jon before he "died," or that the Boltons would assume they'd been picked up by Northmen and would be heading to Jon logically.

I understand your argument. I even like it. But I still wonder... There have been LC's who managed to use the NW for their own purposes. For all that the Boltons know, all the NW might have converted to R'hllorism (along with the wildlings), which would mean the different factions have already been united.

On the basis of the premise that the Boltons want to take Jon out because they think they have reason to be afraid of him (and of the northmen who might rally behind him), I still think the Boltons' plan depended too much on mere chance (despite the manipulation) without an insider ally / informant. They could not be sure that the NW would definitely learn the contents of the letter to start with. If a very loyal maester takes the letter immediately to Jon, who then reads it and burns it (or perhaps alters it, LOL), then Jon will be able to say anything to the NW about the letter. The existing group dynamics on the Wall should also matter. I'm trying to imagine a similar letter arriving at the meeting where Robb has just been chosen king. Would Robb's fierce supporters turn on him suddenly? I doubt. How can the Boltons be sure that Jon does not know how to manipulate his own men or even that he did not prepare for a conflict before (or after) sending out Mance and the spearwives to Winterfell? If Jon feels threatened by the Boltons, his best idea or, alternatively, his most desperate idea might be to try to use the army at hand. Do the Boltons want to risk that? The letter may not give the Watch reason to turn on the Boltons but Jon might. After all, the NW is a collection of outcasts who already live fighting for their lives on a daily basis, abandoned by the realm, and who have already allied themselves with Stannis. What more can they lose if they support their own (beloved? respected?) chosen LC instead of the Boltons, especially if Jon has allies among the northern houses as well?