ToTheWolves Posted May 3, 2015 Share Posted May 3, 2015 Didn't littlefinger give jeyne Poole to the boltons in the book? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ummester Posted May 3, 2015 Share Posted May 3, 2015 Didn't littlefinger give jeyne Poole to the boltons in the book? Exactly, so either book LF knew Ramsay would be cruel to Jeyne, didn't know, or didn't care. It was Jeyne's role in his larger game that was relevant to LF, not Ramsay's personal behavioral traits or Jeyne's safety. The only reason Sansa should be any different to Jeyne, from LFs POV, is that Sansa is a more expensive piece to play with than Jeyne - bigger risk, same game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ellstaysia Posted May 3, 2015 Share Posted May 3, 2015 I figured he was bullshitting, like totally. how could you not have heard about ramsay's evil deeds? everyone has heard of the bastard of bolton. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
of man and wolf Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 Not in the books. There are rumours of how monstrous he is, but that's it. And yeah..show Ramsay is totally different at the moment..calling book Ramsay a bastard is not a good idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StepStark Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 Not in the books. There are rumours of how monstrous he is, but that's it. This is not accurate entirely because as early as second book everyone knows what he did to his poor wife who starved to death after eating her fingers. That is repeated many times throughout that book by many characters and they all call him monster for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ummester Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 This is not accurate entirely because as early as second book everyone knows what he did to his poor wife who starved to death after eating her fingers. That is repeated many times throughout that book by many characters and they all call him monster for that. Was it more Ramsay or Reek 1 behind that? Reek 1 had a thing for corpses, don't forget, so probably had as much desire to see Lady Hornwood dead as Ramsay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StepStark Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 Was it more Ramsay or Reek 1 behind that? Reek 1 had a thing for corpses, don't forget, so probably had as much desire to see Lady Hornwood dead as Ramsay. Ramsay is blamed for that because Reek 1 couldn't starve her to death. And in the books Westeros is not Disneyland like in the show and people are actually held accountable for their deeds and even if Reek 1 contributed to that it is still largely seen as Ramsay's guilt because he is the one who kept Reek 1 in his service. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Damian Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 Yeah, last night he tells Sansa that the Boltons are the most despised family in the North. Currently house Bolton consists of Roose - married to Walda Frey. He has one son - Ramsay. Yet, Littlefinger has no idea what he just dropped his beloved Sansa into? Wow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ummester Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 Ramsay is blamed for that because Reek 1 couldn't starve her to death. And in the books Westeros is not Disneyland like in the show and people are actually held accountable for their deeds and even if Reek 1 contributed to that it is still largely seen as Ramsay's guilt because he is the one who kept Reek 1 in his service. So accountable that Reek 1 got killed for that deed rather than Ramsay :D Though I did think the books were trying to obscure Ramsay and Reek 1 to a degree, so that there is always that little possibility there that Ramsay could be Reek 1 and Reek 1 was kind of an impossible human, or monster, with his smelly blood and so on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StepStark Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 So accountable that Reek 1 got killed for that deed rather than Ramsay :D Though I did think the books were trying to obscure Ramsay and Reek 1 to a degree, so that there is always that little possibility there that Ramsay could be Reek 1 and Reek 1 was kind of an impossible human, or monster, with his smelly blood and so on. What you're trying to do is little absurd because the show really can't hold any candle to the books no matter how hard you're trying to get that effect. Of course that Reek 1 was killed in the books but only because they thought he was Ramsay while Ramsay was disguised as Reek. In the books Ramsay has reputation because the books are set in world that is logical opposite to the show that is set in world that is illogical and because of that Ramsay in the show doesn't have reputation. Maybe you could read the books again and check all the stuff you obviously missed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ummester Posted May 5, 2015 Share Posted May 5, 2015 What you're trying to do is little absurd because the show really can't hold any candle to the books no matter how hard you're trying to get that effect. Of course that Reek 1 was killed in the books but only because they thought he was Ramsay while Ramsay was disguised as Reek. In the books Ramsay has reputation because the books are set in world that is logical opposite to the show that is set in world that is illogical and because of that Ramsay in the show doesn't have reputation. Maybe you could read the books again and check all the stuff you obviously missed. I'm not reading the books again, they are too fucking long and they aren't that exciting. The characterization is great and plotting is good but the description of sex and large scale battles kind of suck - and there are too many descriptions of food. Worst of all though, they resolve nothing and may never do. The books a deliberately crafted to allow multiple interpretations and they are deliberately designed to include conflict that has no right or wrong - it's part of their charm, which also makes arguing any moral viewpoint from them pointless. All I want to know now is the ending - the books and show have gone on long enough, its time to give us all the conclusion, before it gets stale. I was responding to your comment that suggested Westeros was a place where people are held accountable - if you think that is true, I'd say you need to read the books again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StepStark Posted May 5, 2015 Share Posted May 5, 2015 I'm not reading the books again, they are too fucking long and they aren't that exciting. The characterization is great and plotting is good but the description of sex and large scale battles kind of suck - and there are too many descriptions of food. Worst of all though, they resolve nothing and may never do. All I want to know now is the ending - the books and show have gone on long enough, its time to give us all the conclusion, before it gets stale. I was responding to your comment that suggested Westeros was a place where people are held accountable - if you think that is true, I'd say you need to read the books again. Of course that is true in the matter which we discussed. In books if you flay people living people are going to know about it because that is going to be talked about. In the show Ramsay's sadism is apparently mystery for Littlefinger and it means his sadism really doesn't have any consequence to him. Go figure out which version is realistic and which is Disneyland. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ummester Posted May 5, 2015 Share Posted May 5, 2015 Of course that is true in the matter which we discussed. In books if you flay people living people are going to know about it because that is going to be talked about. In the show Ramsay's sadism is apparently mystery for Littlefinger and it means his sadism really doesn't have any consequence to him. Go figure out which version is realistic and which is Disneyland. I don't remember many people talking about Ramsay's flaying in the books. I know he had a bad rep in certain Northern circles, because of his history - but I didn't think anyone outside of the North really gave a toss. It's not like there are 'Ramsay - wanted for flaying' posters all over Westeros, in either books or show, is it? Readers may find flaying yucky and characters in the books may fear it - but I am pretty sure that in Westeros, those with power make the rules - so if the Boltons are in power and they like flaying, flaying is in, whether you like it or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StepStark Posted May 5, 2015 Share Posted May 5, 2015 I don't remember many people talking about Ramsay's flaying in the books. I know he had a bad rep in certain Northern circles, because of his history - but I didn't think anyone outside of the North really gave a toss. It's not like there are 'Ramsay - wanted for flaying' posters all over Westeros, in either books or show, is it? Readers may find flaying yucky and characters in the books may fear it - but I am pretty sure that in Westeros, those with power make the rules - so if the Boltons are in power and they like flaying, flaying is in, whether you like it or not. By simplistic views you have about Westeros it seems that there is lot what you don't remember or don't understand from the books it seems. Just remember that we weren't talking about who knows about flaying but about Ramsay's reputation. Martin established very early that Ramsay is famous for his sadism and he didn't need to repeat that over and over again just so readers that don't pay enough attention would also get it. In the books it would be impossible for Littlefinger not to know how sadist is Ramsay but the show follows its own stupid rules so in the show Littlefinger doesn't know anything that could disturb plot created by D&D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Damian Posted May 5, 2015 Share Posted May 5, 2015 By simplistic views you have about Westeros it seems that there is lot what you don't remember or don't understand from the books it seems. Just remember that we weren't talking about who knows about flaying but about Ramsay's reputation. Martin established very early that Ramsay is famous for his sadism and he didn't need to repeat that over and over again just so readers that don't pay enough attention would also get it. In the books it would be impossible for Littlefinger not to know how sadist is Ramsay but the show follows its own stupid rules so in the show Littlefinger doesn't know anything that could disturb plot created by D&D. Robb mentions while still at Riverrun that he knew of Roose that HAD a bastard that was a MONSTER but it seems Robb thought he had died long ago. Maybe he was confused with Domerick, Rooses trueborn son that was Lady Barbry's nephew. By all accounts, he was well thought of by all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cgf Posted May 5, 2015 Author Share Posted May 5, 2015 He is telling the truth. Or if he isn't then he's bigger monster than anyone thought because he put Sansa in the hands of Ramsay although he knew who is Ramsay. So he is either moron or monster. LF having to be a monster seems a weak argument against him doing something... I am honestly really unsure about if he is telling the truth here or not... On the one hand, Littlefinger usually have good info on most people. On the other hand, Ramsay was up until recently Ramsay Snow, the bastard son of a lord (and not a great lord, at the time, only a vassal). Of course, if anyone bothers to keep an eye on the bastards and seemingly powerless, it's Littlefinger. At the very least he has to have heard of what Ramsay did to the Cerwyns, since that happened before LF had even reached MC, and almost assuredly what Ramsay had done to the Ironmen at MC. I find LF saying something like this to anyone to be extremely out of character. Almost as out of character as Ramsay's response. Anybody else think it's unlikely that Ramsay would ever just blurt out the information that he's a bastard? I know it's common knowledge but he kills people for pointing it out to him. You may be correct about Littlefinger's reasons for his apparently out-of-character action, but I'm still wondering. Could show!LF really be that confident in Sansa's ability to outsmart a house full of sadists that he would knowingly leave her there? It almost makes more sense if he's never heard of Ramsay before. It would be out of character, but at least it wouldn't be cruel. The way Martin has it in the book is much smarter. Stay safe in the Vale and make suitors travel to you. I know what you're getting at, but I don't think it was out of character for Ramsay, at least not from what we've seen on the show. I may be thinking too much about how he played Theon and giving him too much credit as an actor/manipulator. But we saw him play nice very effectively when he thought it could help him break Theon/get info out of him, so this just seems like a parallel of the "good ramsay" character he was playing when we first met the wonderful psycho...I really love that actor, and seeing him as Ramsay after the Misfits made me squeal... With LF it's more out of character, but is also reasonable to me. He rose to power because no one saw him as a threat "it was a grubby job, why not let a grubby man do it". And the scenes with Roose and Ramsay seemed to be that exact dynamic in action; LF playing down what an all-knowing schemer he is and highlighting what a nice ally he could be. Add in some vengeance for the RW and him taking a gamble that Sansa would be able to wrap ramsay around her finger may be cruel, but it doesn't seem out of character for LF, who has reminded us time and again on the show that he is a gambler and that his ambitions have no end. Even if it doesn't work. I can't lie, I like this change, I think Sansa becoming a player in the books is going to be a fascinating development, as no character has made me change my opinions from book/season 1 to now as much as Sansa who's becoming one of my absolute favorite non-dornish/non-ironborn/non-stannis characters. The show accellerating that development makes sense and is something I'm ok with, even if I would've liked a few scenes of her still safe in the vale using some of her new cleverness to show that she's not just become perceptive, but also effective. It makes no sense for him to not be telling the truth, because if he knows what Ramsay's really like his plan goes from being merely dumb to completely insane. It makes absolutely no sense to hand over his prize strategic asset, and put himself in the hands of, a crazy psychopath who has proven that he will gruesomely mutilate and kill people even when it makes absolutely no sense for him to do that. The whole plan for an alliance with the Boltons is premised on the idea that the Boltons are rational actors. This assumes sansa is still a piece and not a player herself. If Sansa can turn ramsay then the plan makes sense. Especially since Ramsay Bolton, husband of Sansa Stark, doesn't need Roose the way Ramsay Snow, the Bastard of the Dreadfort, did. And Ramsay's psychotic tendencies aren't completely irrational. He broke down Theon very effectively and his MC scheme worked wonderfully as well. So while he is without question insane, he's also kinda clever and displays a certain low cunning, to re-appropriate Roose's phrase. So I could see LF/Sansa trying to play up Ramsay's paranoia over future Frey-born siblings in an attempt to turn Ramsay against Roose, if Sansa can replace the Leech Lord as the object of Ramsay's devotion. In which case Ramsay's violence, sadism and temper, play perfectly into the plan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StepStark Posted May 5, 2015 Share Posted May 5, 2015 LF having to be a monster seems a weak argument against him doing something... If Littlefinger knows how sadistic Ramsay is but he goes on and delivers Sansa to Bolton, how would you describe him then? Do you have better word than monster? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cgf Posted May 5, 2015 Author Share Posted May 5, 2015 If Littlefinger knows how sadistic Ramsay is but he goes on and delivers Sansa to Bolton, how would you describe him then? Do you have better word than monster? My point was that I think LF is capable of very monstrous things; as we've already seen with Roz. So yes that would make him a monster, but no I don't think that's a good argument against it being exactly what he's doing. He could be over-estimating Sansa's new skills and under-estimating how much crazier than Joffrey Ramsay is; or Ramsay's craziness could be part of LF's plan now that he's been legitimized and Roose staying alive has become a threat to Ramsay's power should he have any trueborn heirs from his plump frey wife. In any case, I don't see why LF having to be a monster to do this should eliminate it as a possibility. He's shown he can be a monster and he's shown how ambitious he is. I'm with Varys when it comes to how far LF will go, and that's as far as he has to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
starklover Posted May 10, 2015 Share Posted May 10, 2015 I don't pay any attention to anything Littlefinger says because I am literally too busy trying to work out the accent the actor is Irish, so i am guessing it's some type of irish accent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tanacetum Vulgare Posted May 11, 2015 Share Posted May 11, 2015 I actually started a thread about that after episode three because he couldn't not have at least heard about what Ramsay did to the Cerwyns and MC crew. So it shocked me when people took him at his word there. My guess was a combination of under-estimating how much crazier than Joffrey Ramsay is, and over-estimating how far Sansa has come and how quickly she could turn Ramsay against Roose the way Maergary was doing with Joffrey and Cersei. So that if Stannis didn't take care of the Boltons for him he was to confident that Sansa would...plus he didn't know Cersei was going to call him back to King's Landing right fucking away and I think many of us underestimate LF's ambition when Sansa enters the equation. I think he wants her and the power, but if he had to pick he'd pick the throne. Look! I found it. I've been sort of trying to puzzle this out...how LF's claim he knows nothing about Ramsay could be true. I mean, the Cerwyns and Lady Hornwood is a good point but only in book continuity. None of that happened on the show. The hosts of Postshow Recaps Spoiler Edition were claiming that it's possible no one knows how bad Ramsay is because he's killed everyone he's come in contact with in that way. But that's not really true. Even without Miranda, the kennel master would know all about his lady-hunts, which we've seen on the show, and there are so many servants who have to clean up all of his bloody messes who could inevitably gab to Varys' little birds or LF's spies. So when I pull it apart like that, I really can't see LF's claim being true. But I'm still really worried about him leaving Sansa there, and hate him a little bit for doing so knowing what he's leaving her to. I'm going to choose an alternate reality version where LF leaves her there knowing everything, but he's secretly invented this lovely new weapon that employs explosive powder and lead pellets that travel at high speed through a metal tube. How great would it be for Sansa to literally shoot Ramsay in the face on their wedding night? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.