How do some people honestly think Ramsay wrote the pink letter?

[Lord Varys]

@Greg B

I'd say that you might be right that Jon might believe that Stannis is dead. But that is not necessarily the deciding factor why he decides to march, is it? It could just as much being the threats made against the Watch and himself not to mention the whole Arya situation he might want to sort out.

But I actually don't think Jon is really convinced that Stannis is dead. That could be a slip by George or a hint that Jon is - in the very moment he thinks about Selyse - pretty convinced that Stannis is dead.

@Free Northman Reborn

George actually has confirmed that we'll see the Land of Always Winter. That necessitates a POV showing it do us. Since Bran cannot possibly physically travel there the only other option would be to see it through the eyes of some animal Bran controls. But I'm not sure if I like that idea very much - and more than observe could a raven most likely not do. Especially not if it is really, really cold up there. I mean, the Others live up in the frozen north, if there is a place where they live and plan and harness their powers it would be there, and subsequently it is pretty likely that anyone hoping to oppose them might be force to investigate those places and/or do something there.

Sure, you most likely could use those places on dragonback as well but it should take some time until a dragon has reached the shores of Westeros. Perhaps something like that is only done then but it should be done one way or the other, and the next book should finally begin to give us some information on the Others.

Since we know the Last Hero had to search out the Children of the Forest Jon Snow might be forced to do a similar thing.

[The Drunkard]

4 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Sending out letters to northern lords and building alliances for 5 years pretty much equates to "nothing of note  happening". But we are actually in agreement here. I have stated that the current events are clearly meant to have occurred after the 5 year gap.

The purpose of Stannis going North was for him to bring Mellisandre to meet Jon - thus fulfilling her misinterpreted vision that Stannis would bring her to Azor Ahai, and giving the Boltons pause for a 5 year period while the Stark kids and Dany's dragons all grew up, and while Jon settled the wildlings in the Gift and gradually repopulated and rebuilt the abandoned Night's Watch castles.

Most simply put: The Starks weren't meant to return to power again until after the 5 year gap. But at the same time, something had to stop the Boltons from completely taking over during that interval and stopping Jon's settlement of the wildlings South of the Wall. And Stannis going North and hanging at the Wall while building a kind of Northern counter alliance to Bolton was that plot device.

That is now behind us, as events have now moved beyond that point with the march on Winterfell and Jon's assassination.

Well, I disagree about that constituting "nothing", and thus find it unlikely GRRM planned it that way. 

As to the purpose of Stannis - it's clearly more than that. He's an important character in his own right (GRRM wouldn't have spent so much time on Stannis deliberating over his relationships, kingship, sacrifice, etc if he wasn't), and he'll have a role to play in the story beyond stalling the Boltons for Jon. He's only just been given the means to defeat the Boltons and become a power again (ravens, Iron Bank), his final decision regarding Shireen seems a long way off given 1) their locations 2) there's no upcoming situation severe enough for him to burn her, and there's his role in the slayer of lies prophecy that can't happen until Dany arrives.

So, while I agree about the eventual comeback, I disagree on the timescale. I don't see Stannis and co. being swept away quickly with Jon seizing control and leading a Stark restoration by the end of the book. That hugely undervalues the importance of everyone who isn't Jon and is an unrealistic turn of events besides. Rather I imagine Stannis will lead the war against the Others for a time and Jon will take the reins when he fails/Dany kills him.

[sweetsunray]

2 hours ago, butterbumps! said:

Isn't the way you're explaining this a point in favor of why Rams would choose a disrespectful word in this scenario?   As in, why would he be "honoring" this woman by referring to her by name?  He hasn't hunted her (it's the successful hunt that's the context for Rams' "honor"), and she belongs/ belonged to Stannis, not Rams.'   Why wouldn't a misogynistic sicko like Rams refer to a woman in a scenario where he was being derisive as a "whore?"

I get that we don't see him literally say "whore" on page in front of Theon or Bran (I'm taking your word on this, I haven't checked).  But can you point to a passage where it would have made sense for Rams to use that word, the absence of which becomes highly conspicuous in relation to this letter?   

There are certainly three opportunities that Ramsay could have used the word "whore"

• As Reek when asking for the kennel's daughter, and when he returns as Ramsay and Theon tells him he can get his reward, and Ramsay waves that offer off
• In Theon's memory of the hunt of him and Kyra (who was after all Theon's bedwarmer in WF after he conquered it)
• When he talks ill of Lady Dustin

But nope... no "whore". I suspect it's a word he disliked for the possible connotation with his mother, who raised him as a single mother and had Roose's bastard. But that's me filling it in why he does not use that word at all and not a fact. It is a fact though that he does not use it anywhere in the books when we see him, while he has no issue showing his contempt for women in other ways, including verbally. Just not that word, not a once. Kindof like Jon Snow in that, who only uses that word (in thought) when it is about a professional prostitute.

[DasallmaechtigeJ]

I don't consider both cases likely. Why on earth would Stannis want his hostages, family etc. sent to him during a blizzard when they are safe in Winterfell? And write a fake letter in the first place, he could also ask jon that himself or give meaningful instructions, f.e. where to send his sellsword army.  Also, why would Mance bother with writing an encrypted letter? He has nothing to lose and when the raven flies off it does and the letter is out of reach. Writing a fake letter makes zero sense, if he wants help he needs to ask directly. Furthermore, I doubt that from his cage, he has access to the specific bird that flies to the Wall. 

I mean, why not Ramsay? Alright, it is not written in blood. But it's freezing cold, getting your hand on fresh blood and keeping yourself warm enough to write a letter would be a huge drag. I like parts of the linguistic profile, but Ramsay is vulgar to the bone, that he hasn't used the word whore etc. yet does not mean it is not part of his vocabulary. After all, he is a sexual sadist. Other parts of the profile perfectly fit, styling himself as trueborn and calling Jon a bastard is exactly what Ramsay would do. Also, the pink pergament might as well be made from human skin. the Battle in the Ice is created so openly by GRRM, that Ramsay wins is far from impossible.

[Lord Varys]

@sweetsunray

Come on, Ramsay not using a word in the letter he doesn't use elsewhere is completely irrelevant. It is not a valid argument unless you actually can show that George intentionally put them that in there and used the 'whore clue' as a hint to give a way the true writer of the letter. Just pointing out 'Hey, it 

I'm also not sure why Stannis wouldn't actually name Melisandre of Asshai, Queen Selyse Florent Baratheon, Princess Shireen by name.

Not to mention that Stannis has neither a reason nor any motivation to try to imitate Ramsay's style (or insulting Jon Snow). He could actually write a letter in the manner he would write it and just sign it 'Ramsay Bolton'. Stannis would most likely not use a code based on insults and swearing. The man has issues with women but he wouldn't refer to his lover, Melisandre of Asshai, as a whore. Not even in some coded letter. After all, anyone secretly reading the letter without Jon Snow's permission would most certainly be convinced by the pink wax and the signature and not jump to the conclusion (or even entertain the idea) that Stannis was writing this letter.

By the way - didn't you get the hideous (and quite obvious) truth behind Roose's casual comment about skin not being good material for a cloak? That means Roose actually has experience with skin cloaks - most likely from wearing the ones the Boltons still have stored at the Dreadfort. The average guy most likely doesn't have any real experience with cloaks made from human skin - not to mention that the point of the Boltons skinning their enemies and making cloaks from the skin isn't to keep warm but to celebrate your victory and humiliating their memory. They wouldn't wear them out there in the cold.

But it would be completely in-character for Ramsay to make Mance a cloak from the skin of the spear-wives and throw it into his cage to 'keep him warm'. The fact that this certainly wouldn't work would make it even more funny. Just think about the satisfaction Ramsay would get if Mance was freezing so much that he actually would try to make himself warm by putting the skin cloak on...

@Free Northman Reborn

Stannis certainly is more than a plot device. And there is really no reason why Stannis or Mel had to come all the way to the Wall. Stannis could have been put down either in ACoK or ASoS, and whatever Mel may or may not be doing at the Wall could have been done by some other character. Hell, even the wildlings/NW battle/war could have been resolved peacefully without Stannis.

And if we wanted to set up Jon as the new great leader guy in the North one would expect this would have worked much better if Robb's testament had been delivered as quickly as possible to the Wall.

[sweetsunray]

4 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Come on, Ramsay not using a word in the letter he doesn't use elsewhere is completely irrelevant.

And this is why we compeltely disagree with each other. My post yesterday:

Quote

George is a deliberate writer. He does not do off-page characterization, not for any character main, POV, secondary, tertiary or nthiary. Not every character might be fleshed out much, but he does not do characterization off-page. When a character avoids certain phrases or vocabulary on-page or engages in a particular type of conversation, then assuming a character would use a different language off-page can be counted as bad writing by George. Stuff happens off-page, but not characteriation. And when stuff happens off-page we are explicitly told that something went down behind closed doors or something is up in a different location where we don't have eyes. More, he gives the readers clues that something is happening off-page, so that when the event is revealed those clues are actually understood to have been hints. George simply doesn't write in a way that the reader must fill in the gaps afterwards. When the author avoids the verb "said" in a conversation about "seeing something" for a whole page, and then uses the same verb "said" 7 times in a row in the continued conversation that moved on to "saying/telling something", even in the characters' speech (even though 'writes' would be more apt and would promote vocabulary variation), then George writes deliberately*. When the author alters the tone and focus of chapters fitting that particular POV, then George writes deliberately.

And in relation to the example I gave (no said, and then 7 times), I advize you to go to Catelyn II of aGoT, and reread 2 pages of the scene starting with the Myrish looking glass. You can divide the scene into "things shown", "things said", "things done" and "all three are unspeakable, punishable by death".

[butterbumps!]

1 hour ago, sweetsunray said:

There are certainly three opportunities that Ramsay could have used the word "whore"

• As Reek when asking for the kennel's daughter, and when he returns as Ramsay and Theon tells him he can get his reward, and Ramsay waves that offer off
• In Theon's memory of the hunt of him and Kyra (who was after all Theon's bedwarmer in WF after he conquered it)
• When he talks ill of Lady Dustin

But nope... no "whore". I suspect it's a word he disliked for the possible connotation with his mother, who raised him as a single mother and had Roose's bastard. But that's me filling it in why he does not use that word at all and not a fact. It is a fact though that he does not use it anywhere in the books when we see him, while he has no issue showing his contempt for women in other ways, including verbally. Just not that word, not a once. Kindof like Jon Snow in that, who only uses that word (in thought) when it is about a professional prostitute.

Going off memory, the one regarding the kennel girl might be the likeliest of the scenarios where "whore" could have been thrown around (because Rams himself would not be with her), but I just don't see the fact that he didn't use that word to be poignant at all.  Is there a direct quote that leads you to believe the omission means the word is not in his vocabulary?

Regarding the other examples, why would Rams have referred to Kyra-- who was one of Rams' "girls" and a hunted (i.e. "honored") party-- as a "whore?"   Rams' doesn't call the women he's with "whores," ostensibly because it has a negative connotation about the men who's with them/ "owns" them in his view.  

Further, I don't see his not calling Lady Dustin a "whore" during that discussion with Roose to be a conspicuous omission either.   Isn't this where Rams complains that she's haughty toward him, so he wonders aloud if she'd remain so haughty after he cuts off her breasts and feeds them to his "girls," as well as jokes about turning her into a(n inferior) pair of boots?  idk, I kind of think that insult/ threat is way more relevant to the context and much stronger than flippantly calling her "whore."

Whereas Mel is seen by many in story to be basically Stannis' concubine.  He's not calling for anyone but Reek by name in that letter (everyone is asked for in relation to being Stannis', including the baby and Val), so he'd hardly do so in the case of Mel.  How else would he describe her?  Perhaps "His red witch,"  (which is also used), but  "whore" delivers more of an insult, and probably gets closer to what he'd believe her function actually was, wouldn't it?

I'd also argue that in this series "whore" is such a throwaway word that it just doesn't seem like a significant clue.

4 hours ago, Jo Maltese said:

Good to see you are still around b!

lol, I still can't resist the dulcet siren song of a pink letter thread.

 

@Lord Varys

Doesn't Stannis refer to Gilly as a "whore"?  or am I misremembering.

[Lord Varys]

@sweetsunray

So Ramsay doesn't use 'whore', apparently? How often does Stannis use the word 'whore' in the entire context and in what context exactly? Have you checked that?

[sweetsunray]

10 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

@sweetsunray

So Ramsay doesn't use whore, apparently? How often does Stannis use the word 'whore' in the entire context and in what context exactly? Have you checked that?

Yup, not once either. Have you read the long post I posted yesterday?

I cover the issues with the letter in relation to Ramsay and see how other characters solve those issues one by one or not (Ramsay, Roose, Mance, Stannis, Theon; I'll do two other left-field candidates that popped into my head just to be fair this weekend). I also checked whether there were additional supportive details for that candidate, as well as whether other issues arose with it that do not arise with Ramsay. I played around with arguments pro and contra, and scenarios to try and fix the issues, or come up with scenarios that could fix the issues for that particular character. I know it's a long read, but I would ask you to patiently read it, before setting up a strawman argument about Stannis, since I clearly say that Stannis certainly could not have dictated the letter worded as it is, because it is too OOC for him, that would include the word "whore". In fact the word "whore" is an issue for every candidate, except Theon. But it's certainly not the sole issue I used for  the fair-comparison post, and it certainly would not be an issue for a left-field candidate such as Allister Thorne (though obviously there would be tremendous issues about other stuff).

[Lord Varys]

12 minutes ago, butterbumps! said:

 

@Lord Varys

Doesn't Stannis refer to Gilly as a "whore"?

Could be, I never made such an inquiry. But making such investigations isn't going to lead anywhere. I was just curious. One would had to make an analysis of all the characters and the contexts in which they use the words. Stannis using a word in some context doesn't mean he would use it another (like the letter) and vice versa Ramsay not using a word in some context doesn't mean he wouldn't use it in the letter, either.

By the way: Anyone assuming that there is a code used in the letter should also come up with an actual code on which that code might be based. If a code was used George is not going to pull such a code out of his ass. If there was a code one would assume he has made a sense of it and that should mean if we could figure out the code we would actually be able to read the real message hidden in the Pink Letter.

@sweetsunray

Well, I'd retreat to the comfortable position of Ramsay having heard the word 'whore' a few times in his life and thinks it would be a good insult directed against women. Just as the word 'bastard' is.

Just as George has repeatedly said - sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

[Free Northman Reborn]

34 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

@sweetsunray

 

@Free Northman Reborn

Stannis certainly is more than a plot device. And there is really no reason why Stannis or Mel had to come all the way to the Wall. Stannis could have been put down either in ACoK or ASoS, and whatever Mel may or may not be doing at the Wall could have been done by some other character. Hell, even the wildlings/NW battle/war could have been resolved peacefully without Stannis.

And if we wanted to set up Jon as the new great leader guy in the North one would expect this would have worked much better if Robb's testament had been delivered as quickly as possible to the Wall.

But Lord Varys

It is patently obvious that the announcement of Jon as Robb's heir - if that is the route to power for him - HAD to be delayed until the plot was ready to accelerate to a confrontation with the Boltons. It could not have happened earlier, else all Martin's pieces would not have been in place yet. Because the moment Jon gets designated as heir, a lot gets set in motion. The Boltons immediately make him enemy number one, and Jon gets placed in a position where he either has to turn the nomination down, or the wildling plot gets sidelined and the Wall is abandoned before the time for that has arrived in Martin's storyline.

Clearly, Martin needs the announcement as heir to happen AFTER Jon's resurrection, and not to be a cause leading UP to it. So the sequence is  very important to his story, and the will therefore had to disappear into the Neck for a while, or else be kept secret while the Northern lords bide their time. Also, the Northern lords need to be emboldened to rebel against the Boltons, and that means watering down the legitimacy that is bestowed upon Bolton by the Iron Throne. Which requires Aegon's arrival and a new civil war in the South, to make the Lannister support less meaningful.

In short, the announcement of the will/arrival of Rickon/revelation of Jon's true parentage can ONLY happen AFTER the current events, so it could never have been set up earlier if Martin's story is to unfold in the manner that he has set it up to.

Regarding Stannis's role. I actually agree with you. I don't feel that Stannis will make as ignominious an exit as the Show forced upon him.  I think he will still be around later, but in a much reduced and possibly transformed capacity. Whether that be as some kind of bitter fanatic, bereft of power, or as an undead Night's King who made a deal with the proverbial devil to keep stumbling after his goal of the Throne, or perhaps as a true man of duty, who realizes that Jon is the Realm's saviour and becomes Jon's follower and one of his generals, only time will tell. (Ironically, it seems very similar to the future you foresee for Jon. In a sense, it is almost as if you and I have reversed roles in mind for these two characters).

What is clear to me, is that  Stannis is merely the one to clear the ground for Jon's arrival as the true Azor Ahai and this seems to have been set up from the very beginning.

[sweetsunray]

15 minutes ago, butterbumps! said:

Going off memory, the one regarding the kennel girl might be the likeliest of the scenarios where "whore" could have been thrown around (because Rams himself would not be with her), but I just don't see the fact that he didn't use that word to be poignant at all.  Is there a direct quote that leads you to believe the omission means the word is not in his vocabulary?

Regarding the other examples, why would Rams have referred to Kyra-- who was one of Rams' "girls" and a hunted (i.e. "honored") party-- as a "whore?"   Rams' doesn't call the women he's with "whores," ostensibly because it has a negative connotation about the men who's with them/ "owns" them in his view.  

Further, I don't see his not calling Lady Dustin a "whore" during that discussion with Roose to be a conspicuous omission either.   Isn't this where Rams complains that she's haughty toward him, so he wonders aloud if she'd remain so haughty after he cuts off her breasts and feeds them to his "girls," as well as jokes about turning her into a(n inferior) pair of boots?  idk, I kind of think that insult/ threat is way more relevant to the context and much stronger than flippantly calling her "whore."

Whereas Mel is seen by many in story to be basically Stannis' concubine.  He's not calling for anyone but Reek by name in that letter (everyone is asked for in relation to being Stannis', including the baby and Val), so he'd hardly do so in the case of Mel.  How else would he describe her?  Perhaps "His red witch,"  (which is also used), but  "whore" delivers more of an insult, and probably gets closer to what he'd believe her function actually was, wouldn't it?

I'd also argue that in this series "whore" is such a throwaway word that I just can't see it as being a significant clue about this.  

Again I reply: George is a deliberate writer. He does not do off-page characterization, not for any character main, POV, secondary, tertiary or nthiary. Not every character might be fleshed out much, but he does not do characterization off-page. When a character avoids certain phrases or vocabulary on-page or engages in a particular type of conversation, then assuming a character would use a different language off-page can be counted as bad writing by George. Stuff happens off-page, but not characteriation. And when stuff happens off-page we are explicitly told that something went down behind closed doors or something is up in a different location where we don't have eyes. More, he gives the readers clues that something is happening off-page, so that when the event is revealed those clues are actually understood to have been hints. George simply doesn't write in a way that the reader must fill in the gaps afterwards. When the author avoids the verb "said" in a conversation about "seeing something" for a whole page, and then uses the same verb "said" 7 times in a row in the continued conversation that moved on to "saying/telling something", even in the characters' speech (even though 'writes' would be more apt and would promote vocabulary variation), then George writes deliberately*. When the author alters the tone and focus of chapters fitting that particular POV, then George writes deliberately.

The letter is all you have, and the letter is a few paragraphs of particular vocabulary, lines, etc... So, you have to go by the words. Yes, the word "whore" is thrown around willy-nilly, every-chance-they-get by some characters who are often not even all that important. It's exactly because it's such an often used word that it's peculiar that George never has Ramsay use it.

[sweetsunray]

9 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, I'd retreat to the comfortable position of Ramsay having heard the word 'whore' a few times in his life and thinks it would be a good insult directed against women. Just as the word 'bastard' is.

And that is off-page filling in the characterization blanks to make it fit. That's not George's writing style. Never was.

Ramsay doesn't need to ramp it up. He's Ramsay, who hunts women with hounds and have them thorn to pieces. He writes letters in the blood of flayed Ironborn to every leal lord in the North as he invites them to his wedding where they have to affirm their loyalty to the Boltons as new ruling house of the North. He sends a piece of Prince with the letters to every leal lord to celebrate a victory over the Ironborn, which was not even a battle, but sending in an envoy who talks the leftover IB into surrendering and then slaughter them like lambs. And you are truly arguing that this guy who has heard the word "whore" often enough throughout his life, but never uses it in the books himself, would use it for good insult effect, without writing in blood or sending skin along? Ramsay does not need to insult women and men with words, because he can torture and flay and rape them.

[butterbumps!]

 

21 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

Yup, not once either. Have you read the long post I posted yesterday?

13 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

Again I reply: George is a deliberate writer. He does not do off-page characterization, not for any character main, POV, secondary, tertiary or nthiary.

From aDwD:

"Her own father got this child on her?   We are well rid of her, then.  I will not suffer such abominations here.  This is not Kings Landing....[Goat's milk is] poor fair for a prince...but better than whore's milk, aye."   -- Stannis.

[sweetsunray]

2 minutes ago, butterbumps! said:

 

From aDwD:

"Her own father got this child on her?   We are well rid of her, then.  I will not suffer such abominations here.  This is not Kings Landing....[Goat's milk is] poor fair for a prince...but better than whore's milk, aye."   -- Stannis.

Ok, Stannis uses the word once, and he despises whores. There are no whores or brothels at Draggonstone and he'd ban brothels from KL if he were king. So, there's a better chance of Stannis using the word in a letter than Ramsay, but he's not going to call Mel a whore. And he'll probably choke before he dictates "false king" about himself.

The word "whore" is one particular issue. If it were only that word, I wouldn't even be so bothered about it. It's a combination of issues (for Ramsay about 11 in total). Mance solves a lot of them ( he uses "red witch" for example), but not all (like the word "whore"). There is also a lot of extra textual mirror support for him as a candidate, but issues arise big time scenario wise.

I would prefer it though if you were to read the post I linked to and posted yesterday, because it tries to take in the whole picture.   

[Lord Varys]

@Free Northman Reborn

The point is that the story could have been changed so that Jon Snow is pretty much an amalgam of Stannis and Jon at the Wall. Say, he reached a peace agreement with Mance and at the same time is installed as Robb's heir and half the North declares for him. He could have taken the same role as Stannis in ADwD more or less, could he not?

There is no reason to believe Jon could have taken the torch directly from Robb if that was the ultimate plan. And there is really no reason why the hell Jon could not already be confirmed as Robb's heir when he was assassinated. In fact, the whole assassination thing is a very bad idea, in my opinion, if George actually wanted to establish Jon as a great political leader. People might be awed by people who come back from the dead but they might also be afraid of them.

And right now things are very bad for this to be viewed as a miracle by anyone who wasn't at the Wall when it happened. Had he been assassinated and resurrected at Winterfell or some other public place the effect would have been much greater. As things stand right now many people wouldn't just refuse to believe that Jon Snow ever died if there are sudden rumors about his resurrection - just as people most likely will also not believe Stannis was dead if he happens to turn out to be not dead.

@sweetsunray

There is no reason to believe that Ramsay sent a piece of skin to every leal lord. The only people receiving skin to our knowledge were Asha and Jon.

Last time I checked Ramsay didn't have to ability to kill and flay via letter. Presumably this would be the reason why he used written insults, don't you think? That's the next best thing - and you are stuck to this kind of thing when you write a letter.

[sweetsunray]

17 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

@sweetsunray

There is no reason to believe that Ramsay sent a piece of skin to every leal lord. The only people receiving skin to our knowledge were Asha and Jon.

Last time I checked Ramsay didn't have to ability to kill and flay via letter. Presumably this would be the reason why he used written insults, don't you think? That's the next best thing - and you are stuck to this kind of thing when you write a letter.

Quote

It spoke of the fall of Moat Cailin, of the triumphant return of the Warden of the North to his domains, of a marriage soon to be made. The first words were, "I write this letter in the blood of ironmen," the last, "I send you each a piece of prince. Linger in my lands, and share his fate" The second letter to Jon confirms he also sent a flap of skin.

Ramsay's not some big-talker who makes claims without adding colorful evidence for it. He likes blood. His horse is called Blood. Two letters that George gives us aas a characterization example how Ramsay deals with his enemies and declares war on them.

I don't understand the last argument. Where did I say you can kill and flay via letter. I said he's not the "ramp it up with insults kind of guy". He's more the guy who writes letters with blood and sends a piece of leathery skin along, and makes his demand with a smile and a short threat. The blood and skin does the rest. Not even the "ripping and eating your black bastard heart" (paraphrasing) is Ramsay's style.

[bemused]

I'm jumping in in mid- conversation, here.. and (apologies) I haven't had time to read all the way through (but I will).

I'm still standing by my opinion that Alliser Thorne is secretly at CB and manipulating / leading Bowen & co. I believe the conspirators intercepted the letter and forged a facsimile , making it more inflamatory, before sending it to Jon. They would leave alone any claims made in the letter that they couldn't be sure of , perhaps add in some demands of their own, and make sure that any negatives would reflect on Jon (e.g. implicate Jon in the decision to "burn the wrong man")

I do think the use of "whore" is suggestive..Ramsay never uses it that we see. IIRC, all these months / years later, I don't think Mance ever does either. Stannis does, in regard to Gilly (better goat's milk than whore's milk for Mance's son) but he would never use it in regard to Mel.

OTOH, Thorne uses it with exactly the same tone that we see in the letter, when he calls Ygritte an "unwashed whore" during his and Slynt's interrogation of Jon. It's guaged to be as insulting as possible, designed to offend because it's known to be untrue to the person he's addressing.

Of all the candidates, I think it's least like Ramsay , because I think he really will be on "Arya's" trail, and I think his MO is always to use some form of subterfuge in his attacks. Take them by surprise seems to be his motto.

The letter to Asha with, presumably, a copy to Dagmer (I send you each a piece of prince) is an outlier. Roose is probably back in the north by the time it's written, which means Ramsay doesn't have a free hand.. Ramsay wanted to attack Asha and Dagmer; Roose said not yet, they could be dealt with later. Get the wedding and WF settled first... But if a threatening letter might cause A&D to withdraw in the meantime, Roose (once again) would manage to not spend his own men.

Getting back to the wording of the letter, the only time Ramsay uses "bastard" is in reference to his horse - "I rode the bastard hard". Mance uses "bastard" a lot to Jon, as a hint at their first conversation and Jon's lie about his motive for defecting from the Watch. Mance's use is sarcastic in tone but (for me) lacks the pure vitriol that drips from it's use in the letter , and coincidentally, from the way Thorne uses it to Jon. If the letter was being spoken to Jon, it would sound exactly like Thorne.

So I don't think Ramsay would give any kind of warning. Either Mance or Stannis would want to warn Jon of the situation.. and in all cases, Thorne would want to turn it to his advantage, in his desire to see Jon dead.

Bowen is under pressure from Thorne and possibly from KL, even after Tywin's death , if Pycelle and Kevan sent the letter they proposed to send in Cersei's small council meeting.. ..and as he did before, when he chased the Weeper, Bowen panics and acts too soon.

I'll be back with a bit more, later. (damn real life, anyway.)

[aryagonnakill#2]

45 minutes ago, bemused said:

I'm jumping in in mid- conversation, here.. and (apologies) I haven't had time to read all the way through (but I will).

I'm still standing by my opinion that Alliser Thorne is secretly at CB and manipulating / leading Bowen & co. I believe the conspirators intercepted the letter and forged a facsimile , making it more inflamatory, before sending it to Jon. They would leave alone any claims made in the letter that they couldn't be sure of , perhaps add in some demands of their own, and make sure that any negatives would reflect on Jon (e.g. implicate Jon in the decision to "burn the wrong man")

I do think the use of "whore" is suggestive..Ramsay never uses it that we see. IIRC, all these months / years later, I don't think Mance ever does either. Stannis does, in regard to Gilly (better goat's milk than whore's milk for Mance's son) but he would never use it in regard to Mel.

OTOH, Thorne uses it with exactly the same tone that we see in the letter, when he calls Ygritte an "unwashed whore" during his and Slynt's interrogation of Jon. It's guaged to be as insulting as possible, designed to offend because it's known to be untrue to the person he's addressing.

Of all the candidates, I think it's least like Ramsay , because I think he really will be on "Arya's" trail, and I think his MO is always to use some form of subterfuge in his attacks. Take them by surprise seems to be his motto.

The letter to Asha with, presumably, a copy to Dagmer (I send you each a piece of prince) is an outlier. Roose is probably back in the north by the time it's written, which means Ramsay doesn't have a free hand.. Ramsay wanted to attack Asha and Dagmer; Roose said not yet, they could be dealt with later. Get the wedding and WF settled first... But if a threatening letter might cause A&D to withdraw in the meantime, Roose (once again) would manage to not spend his own men.

Getting back to the wording of the letter, the only time Ramsay uses "bastard" is in reference to his horse - "I rode the bastard hard". Mance uses "bastard" a lot to Jon, as a hint at their first conversation and Jon's lie about his motive for defecting from the Watch. Mance's use is sarcastic in tone but (for me) lacks the pure vitriol that drips from it's use in the letter , and coincidentally, from the way Thorne uses it to Jon. If the letter was being spoken to Jon, it would sound exactly like Thorne.

So I don't think Ramsay would give any kind of warning. Either Mance or Stannis would want to warn Jon of the situation.. and in all cases, Thorne would want to turn it to his advantage, in his desire to see Jon dead.

Bowen is under pressure from Thorne and possibly from KL, even after Tywin's death , if Pycelle and Kevan sent the letter they proposed to send in Cersei's small council meeting.. ..and as he did before, when he chased the Weeper, Bowen panics and acts too soon.

I'll be back with a bit more, later. (damn real life, anyway.)

But in taking Moat Cailin he did exactly what the letter does.  Sent someone in to say surrender or die. 

[Free Northman Reborn]

4 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

@Free Northman Reborn

The point is that the story could have been changed so that Jon Snow is pretty much an amalgam of Stannis and Jon at the Wall. Say, he reached a peace agreement with Mance and at the same time is installed as Robb's heir and half the North declares for him. He could have taken the same role as Stannis in ADwD more or less, could he not?

There is no reason to believe Jon could have taken the torch directly from Robb if that was the ultimate plan. And there is really no reason why the hell Jon could not already be confirmed as Robb's heir when he was assassinated. In fact, the whole assassination thing is a very bad idea, in my opinion, if George actually wanted to establish Jon as a great political leader. People might be awed by people who come back from the dead but they might also be afraid of them.

And right now things are very bad for this to be viewed as a miracle by anyone who wasn't at the Wall when it happened. Had he been assassinated and resurrected at Winterfell or some other public place the effect would have been much greater. As things stand right now many people wouldn't just refuse to believe that Jon Snow ever died if there are sudden rumors about his resurrection - just as people most likely will also not believe Stannis was dead if he happens to turn out to be not dead.

Lord Varys

There are some important reasons why Jon could not have been an amalgamation of himself and Stannis in the context of the Northern and overall storylines.

Firstly, he could not have accepted becoming Robb's heir while remaining Lord Commander of the Watch at the same time. In order to accept a position of authority in Winterfell, he would have had to renounce his vows, which would have made the entire Wildling arc impossible for him to carry out.

Had he declared himself Robb's heir early on, this would also have provided an obvious destination for Arya and Sansa to head to instead of completing their required arcs in Braavos and the Vale respectively.

Furthermore, this would have seriously reduced the Bolton threat from the start, as most of the lords who currently tentatively and rather unwillingly support the Boltons, would have flocked to the Stark banner the moment it was raised. Not to mention that Rickon would have had an obvious place to flee to as well, further strengthening the Stark cause.

Next, Martin clearly wanted to avoid a situation where he leaves the Watch voluntarily for the sweet offer of Winterfell on his own volition. Early on the situation was not dire enough to warrant such an act for the greater good, rather than to serve his own secret heart's desire. Instead, he is now going to only leave the Watch after the Watch itself rejected him - by murdering him and releasing him of his vows. This is simply a more palatable outcome for readers. Plus, he is only doing so because there is no other choice if the Realm is to be saved.

Lastly, the resurrection was clearly meant to be a major turning point in both his character arc, and in his position in the North and the Realm in general. For this to be the catalyst to greater things, it has to coincide with new options becoming available to him, that were not available before. The timing is important, and the threads are coming together now.

Regarding your second point. It is important to understand that it is not the resurrection itself that is going to endear him to the masses of people and lords beyond the immediate vicinity of the Wall. In fact, if the resurrection occurs within a few days as I suspect, word of his death will likely not even leave the Wall before he is reborn. The death will only release him from his vows in his own mind. In the minds of the lords of the North it will be Robb's will that legitimizes and releases him from his vows.

The miraculous rebirth will only influence the immediate situation at the Wall, and a few witnesses that directly observe it. Sure, maybe rumours will spread afterwards that there was some miracle involved in his backstory, but like you say, most people will outright dismiss that as falsehood or embellishment. So the resurrection is not meant to change his status in the eyes of outsiders. It is really meant to change his state of mind, and his standing with those close to him at the Wall.

It will be Robb's will/the arrival of Rickon, the dire situation in the North, and Bran's supernatural involvement through the use of omens and other magical acts, that will propel him to defacto rule of Winterfell. And ultimately, the support of Sansa and the Riverlands that will propel him to a position of power in the larger realm.

And then, at last, it will be his status as Rhaegar's son that will be the step up to his final position.