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

[Amris]

First of all the letter is not dialogue, Sweetsunray. So Ramsay does not necessarily show the same speech patterns in it as when he speaks.

And you still do not take into account that the letter is meant to provoke Jon. So your 'word avoidance' theory does not apply. On the contrary: in it Ramsay necessrily has to use words that he himself would find provoking. Like whore. Bastard.

And of course he demands in the letter. He needs to set up a justification for the whole north to see why he has to take out Jon. So he must set up demands that are arguably somewhat reasonable. At the same time he has to make sure the demands are rejected by Jon, thus the language.

To me the letter makes perfect sense from Ramsay's point of view. In fact it is a masterpiece of manipulation.

 

[Jadakiss]

9 minutes ago, Amris said:

First of all the letter is not dialogue, Sweetsunray. So Ramsay does not necessarily show the same speech patterns in it as when he speaks.

And you still do not take into account that the letter is meant to provoke Jon. So your 'word avoidance' theory does not apply. On the contrary: in the Ramsay uses words that he himself would find provoking. Like whore. Bastard.

And of course he demands in the letter. He needs to set up a justification for the whole north to see why he has to 'deal' with Jon. So he must set up demands that are arguably somewhat reasonable. At the same time he has to make sure the demands are rejected by Jon, thus the language.

To me the letter makes perfect sense from Ramsay's point of view. In fact it is a masterpiece of manipulation.

 

 

As like 50 people have already said. There is other words in it, like how Theon says "whore" more then any other character almost doubled. While ramsay has never said it once. etc. its been discussed in depth already. In order to say that all of these different speech mannerisms that are character specific don't mean anything is pretty much saying grrm isn't that in depth as a writer and doesn't know his own characters and has a bad memory when it comes to how said characters speak

sweetsun gave tons of examples. numerous with his personality in general and how he speaks and when, it comes off that you missed the entire point

Just like "my reek " etc. Jon has know clue wtf or who reek is. None of it matches anything of how he has ever spoke

[sweetsunray]

1 hour ago, Amris said:

First of all the letter is not dialogue, Sweetsunray. So Ramsay does not necessarily show the same speech patterns in it as when he speaks.

Oh, wow, I never knew that. Thank you for teaching me that written word and dialogue is somewhat different.

However, you are wrong to think the difference would be a 180° turn. The hardest thing for an author who begins to write is to not write with his tone of voice. The most common way to pick out a starting author is the way that he writes everything in the way he or she alone would express themselves. This would also happen to the author of the Pink Letter.

Ramsay would still start the first paragraph about himself, not about the false king. Ramsay would still try to sneak in boasts and verbose I-constructs as much as he can in those two first paragraphs. 

This argument also falls completely flat next to the letter that was written like someon's thoughts and speech. When we compare the written word to speech, people clean up their language in writing. But here we've got more crass vocabulary and simple short sentences than Ramsay's euphemistic, verbose, cleaned up speech. 

1 hour ago, Amris said:

And of course he demands in the letter. He needs to set up a justification for the whole north to see why he has to take out Jon. So he must set up demands that are arguably somewhat reasonable. At the same time he has to make sure the demands are rejected by Jon, thus the language.

That's a twisting of the point I made. I agree that Ramsay technically would be making demands, but he would word them differently. He would word them as commands instead. His own giga-ego would not allow him to say "I want..." over and over.

 

1 hour ago, Amris said:

And you still do not take into account that the letter is meant to provoke Jon.

I do not take that into account, because the whole argument that it is meant to provoke Jon is based on the assumption that Ramsay wrote the letter and that this is Ramsay's motivation. It is NOT a fact that the Pink Letter is meant to provoke Jon. It's your assumption you're working on. It's circular logic

A: "Ramsay wrote it because the letter is meant to provoke Jon."

B: "How do you know it is meant to provoke Jon?"

A: "Because Ramsay wrote it."

I dismiss such logic except in certain mathematical proofs about triangles. Lots of people can have motives to do all sorts of things, from writing letters to murder. Having motive is not enough to pin the letter on Ramsay, especially when there are numerous issues with pinning the letter on Ramsay, which you have to wave off one by one with air.

I mentioned this before with regards to "motivation" when brought up, and I haven't seen anyone address this logic issue at all. Can you provide evidence that it is 100% certain meant to provoke Jon and that only Ramsay has the motive to provoke Jon? Ignoring my issue with the argument and simply repeat it without some actual extra argumentation at least for such a motive to become enough of a fact that it can be assumed does not resolve the issue.

But it seems my main point is accepted: the letter does not sound the way Ramsay communicates.

The sole reason that people maintain the idea that Ramsay is the author is purely based on an unproven assumption of motivation (meanwhile excluding others from motivation) and some hand-waving of "people don't write the way they talk" and "it makes sense to me". By all means believe whatever makes sense to you, while ignoring text.

[Free Northman Reborn]

Motive. Once again. Ramsay has one. Theon and Stannis do not.

[sweetsunray]

43 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Motive. Once again. Ramsay has one. Theon and Stannis do not.

Plenty of motives can be speculated on. The actual result of the Pink Letter (Jon's stabbing) is not necessary the goal and motive behind the letter, since Jon recognized he made a mistake not to reveal the content to Selyse first, who would have had Mel with her to listen and discuss it, which was exactly what the letter advizes Jon to do and what Mel urged him to do beforehand. It seems that Jon was so hellbent on doing the opposite of informing Mel, that he avoided Selyse too. And later he realizes that was neither logical nor diplomatic, an error. This error he very likely may have paid for with one life.

Stannis possible motives:

• for strategic reasons he wishes to play dead and not just have his enemies in WF believe this, but make sure not to send contradicting info to pro-KL spies at CB.
• to have his wife, daughter, Mel, Val and Monster dispatched to him asap, away from pro-KL men at CB, or have them on the alert not just to go wandering in the gift without a force.
• to alert Jon that fArya managed to escape with the help of Mance and the 6 spearwives, and is on her way to CB.
• to alert Jon that Ramsay may seek retaliation
• to alert Jon that Mance and the 6 spearwives did not escape with fArya and are believed to be captured and Jon's secret is out

Theon's motives:

• He's in Stannis's hands and helping Stannis may be the price for his life. Theon the Turncloak after all. And others would rely on him to know Ramsay the best.
• Theon always regarded Jon as a particular rival for Robb's affection and they never liked each other, and this is his chance to speak foul to Jon, pretending it's Ramsay.

Motive is not much of an argument pro or against a specific forwarded author as the letter contains enough elements and circumstances to make the motive fit the person you think is the author. The same can be done for the CB mutineers tampering with the letter, or for Mance. All you can argue is that Ramsay's motive is a different one than Stannis's, Theon's, CB mutineers, or Mance's.

The actual text of the Pink Letter fits a combo of Stannis and Theon best. It's written more using Theon's speech patterns about women and about Ramsay and are the sole people who can pass on all the info in the letter, even if the fate of Mance and the spearwives is more likely Theon's belief than actual fact, and explains the blob of pink wax without a stamp, the lack of skin, the lack of flaking from the letter, the lack of mentioning of Ramsay's spiked hands and the lack of signatures from the other lords at WF.

[Jadakiss]

1 hour ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Motive. Once again. Ramsay has one. Theon and Stannis do not.

 

lmao. jesus......

[Nevets]

6 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

I do not take that into account, because the whole argument that it is meant to provoke Jon is based on the assumption that Ramsay wrote the letter and that this is Ramsay's motivation. It is NOT a fact that the Pink Letter is meant to provoke Jon. It's your assumption you're working on. It's circular logic

A: "Ramsay wrote it because the letter is meant to provoke Jon."

B: "How do you know it is meant to provoke Jon?"

A: "Because Ramsay wrote it."

I believe that the letter is designed to provoke Jon because Jon is the intended recipient and the letter is provocative.  It is written in a taunting tone, it includes provocative language, and it includes provocative statements such as making a cloak out of human skin.  This is precisely the sort of thing you write when trying to provoke and anger someone

If I am trying to provoke, I might well use language I would never use normally.  In fact, the fact that I found something offensive might make it likely that I would use it here but not normally.  While the letter's use of language not normally used by Ramsay is cause for suspicion, I do not consider it to be dispositive as to whether or not he wrote it.  I certainly don't think it absolutely eliminates him.

4 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

Plenty of motives can be speculated on. The actual result of the Pink Letter (Jon's stabbing) is not necessary the goal and motive behind the letter, since Jon recognized he made a mistake not to reveal the content to Selyse first, who would have had Mel with her to listen and discuss it, which was exactly what the letter advizes Jon to do and what Mel urged him to do beforehand. It seems that Jon was so hellbent on doing the opposite of informing Mel, that he avoided Selyse too. And later he realizes that was neither logical nor diplomatic, an error. This error he very likely may have paid for with one life.

Stannis possible motives:

• for strategic reasons he wishes to play dead and not just have his enemies in WF believe this, but make sure not to send contradicting info to pro-KL spies at CB.
• to have his wife, daughter, Mel, Val and Monster dispatched to him asap, away from pro-KL men at CB, or have them on the alert not just to go wandering in the gift without a force.
• to alert Jon that fArya managed to escape with the help of Mance and the 6 spearwives, and is on her way to CB.
• to alert Jon that Ramsay may seek retaliation
• to alert Jon that Mance and the 6 spearwives did not escape with fArya and are believed to be captured and Jon's secret is out

Theon's motives:

• He's in Stannis's hands and helping Stannis may be the price for his life. Theon the Turncloak after all. And others would rely on him to know Ramsay the best.
• Theon always regarded Jon as a particular rival for Robb's affection and they never liked each other, and this is his chance to speak foul to Jon, pretending it's Ramsay.

Motive is not much of an argument pro or against a specific forwarded author as the letter contains enough elements and circumstances to make the motive fit the person you think is the author. The same can be done for the CB mutineers tampering with the letter, or for Mance. All you can argue is that Ramsay's motive is a different one than Stannis's, Theon's, CB mutineers, or Mance's.

The actual text of the Pink Letter fits a combo of Stannis and Theon best. It's written more using Theon's speech patterns about women and about Ramsay and are the sole people who can pass on all the info in the letter, even if the fate of Mance and the spearwives is more likely Theon's belief than actual fact, and explains the blob of pink wax without a stamp, the lack of skin, the lack of flaking from the letter, the lack of mentioning of Ramsay's spiked hands and the lack of signatures from the other lords at WF.

I find the motives presented unconvincing.  Stannis is very careful and meticulous.  He is not going to assume anything. If he needs Jon to give the letter to Mel, he is going to make absolutely certain he does.  And a taunting instruction ("tell the red witch I killed her boss. nyah, nyah, hahaha") isn't going to do it.  He would send something that required her involvement, like instructions or a question.

Also, Stannis is fully aware that other people read Jon's mail.  So he is unlikely to give out information that Jon (and he) would prefer to remain secret, such as the fact that Mance is alive and was sent to rescue Arya.  This harms Jon, and right now, Jon is his closest ally.  I'm still going with Ramsay as the author, although with serious doubts as to whether he is telling the truth, or even knows the truth.  He is trying to create a confrontation, but making Jon be the aggressor and himself the aggrieved party.

[Amris]

Sweetsunray - the letter is written in very provocative language. However you slice it you can't change that fact.

Also the letter contains demands that on the surface would be somewhat understandable if posed by Ramsay.

You can't change that either.

Combine these facts and you get to someone wants to provoke Jon but at the same time give themselves some justification to the rest of the North for later taking Jon out.

On top of that Ramsay has a good motive to want to get rid of Jon.

Add that in too and you have Ramsay wants to provoke Jon but give justification to the rest of the North.

That's not 'circular logic' that's reasoning.

You don't need to use a disparaging term on that reasoning. I am not threatening you. And I have nothing against your theory. I am just presenting what I and others see and deduct.

[sweetsunray]

1 hour ago, Amris said:

the letter is written in very provocative language. However you slice it you can't change that fact.

People can use provocative language without it being their motive. I'm not denying it doesn't read provocative. But it's not necessarily the motive of the author. Some people find a cartoon provocation, whereas others (like the drawers) don't. How someone feels about the letter when reading it, is just that - personal interpretation. It doesn't necessarily mean that it's the author's motive.

 

1 hour ago, Amris said:

Also the letter contains demands that on the surface would be somewhat understandable if posed by Ramsay.

Not exactly. Ramsay would never ask about Reek, as he is cunning enough to know Jon wouldn't know who Reek is. The baby Monster I doubt would be in Ramsay's interest either. The others, yes. All of them makes the most sense for Stannis though - as they are his retinue and captives and who he needs to form alliances as he stated before he left the wall.

But even regardless of that - Ramsay would not word his demands that way. I want A, I want B, I want C, etc... Ramsay doesn't word his wants, his desires, his demands that way. And when it comes to manipulation, it doesn't actually come across as a convincing demand.

 

1 hour ago, Amris said:

On top of that Ramsay has a good motive to want to get rid of Jon.

That Jon was taken out because of the letter's content, the actual result, does not mean that it was the motive of the author. It can be a misfortunate result not intended at all. 

 

1 hour ago, Amris said:

That's not 'circular logic' that's reasoning.

I already stipulated what is circular about it and what the assumption mistakes are.

 

2 hours ago, Nevets said:

I believe that the letter is designed to provoke Jon because Jon is the intended recipient and the letter is provocative.  It is written in a taunting tone, it includes provocative language, and it includes provocative statements such as making a cloak out of human skin.

That is just that: your belief. It is not a fact.

Jon and Mel are the intended recipient.

Yes, the letter reads provocative. See my comment to Amris above on whether that actually should mean that was the intent.

There are many ways to taunt and provoke people, and it doesn't have to be done by using swear words. Ramsay has shown the skill how to taunt and threaten and provoke someone without resorting to it in the manner of the Pink Letter. But if you were to impersonate someone you consider to be a taunter, without actually knowing him or being a taunter yourself in the 'gross talk' way then you might end up using such language as well. The motive wouldn't be to provoke, but to impersonate a provocateur and what you believe they would say.

 

2 hours ago, Nevets said:

I find the motives presented unconvincing.

At least we can agree that motives are unconvincing. That's why I don't tend to go into motives at all, well nothing beyond speculation, but just go by the known facts of speech patterns, type of writing, missing signatures of other lords (that are present with other letters), etc. I only mentioned them to show how motives can be imagined to fit the suspected author, and that the outright claim that Stannis and Theon and others except for Ramsay have no motive is wrong.

 

2 hours ago, Nevets said:

Stannis is very careful and meticulous.  He is not going to assume anything. If he needs Jon to give the letter to Mel, he is going to make absolutely certain he does.

Now how do you propose that Stannis manages to do that ASAP without blowing his cover that he's dead?

 

2 hours ago, Nevets said:

 And a taunting instruction ("tell the red witch I killed her boss. nyah, nyah, hahaha") isn't going to do it.

The letter doesn't say "tell the red withc I killed her boss. nyah, nyah, hahahaha". That's what you turned the instruction into, because you already assume it's meant as a taunt and written by a nasty guy like Ramsay.

Instead it reads

Quote

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 whore.

Where does it say that Ramsay claims he killed Stannis? Or even participated in the battle? In fact that Ramsay doesn't boast elaborately how he managed to outsmart and smash Stannis and his forces in a battle that lasted seven days is highly suspect. If Ramsay can boast he will.

 

2 hours ago, Nevets said:

So he is unlikely to give out information that Jon (and he) would prefer to remain secret, such as the fact that Mance is alive and was sent to rescue Arya.

That's your assumption that Stannis would prefer to keep that secret. Perhaps he wants to give a pretext for Jon to be released from the vows. After all, he wanted Jon as Lord of WF from the very beginning, and Jon was elected as LC before Jon gave Stannis his answer. When Stannis learns from Theon about Mance's involvement in the rescue of Arya, Stannis could suspect and assume that Jon is more Stark than NW. Maybe he wants to give the NW an excuse to depose Jon. He just didn't think it would lead to an assassination. 

[RedShirt47]

GRRM put in an excellent Red Herring with this letter and the irony is that he probably did so unwittingly. There have been many and more threads on its authorship and yet not a lot of discussion on the real mysteries of the Pink Letter - its contents.
Is Mance really held in a cage or is he dead or maybe he's joined with Ramsey.
Are the Spear-wives dead? Probably, and quite likely flayed too.
Has there been a battle between occupied Winterfell and Stannis? Did Stannis really lose? Does Ramsey have the "Lightbringer" sword?
How did Ramsey get the sword if he does have it?
Would Ramsey really attack Castle Black?
Was the Letter meant to provoke Jon and into what action? What other reasons could there be for the letter?

Of course some of the sample chapters from TWoW do provide some clues towards these questions but when the the Pink Letter first appeared we didn't have those clues.
There is plenty to ponder in the Pink Letter but micro-analysing the phrasing and ink and wax like some CSI is a wild goose chase distracting from what we should be considering.
Not sure why the authorship became the sole focus of discussion...

[Free Northman Reborn]

9 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

Plenty of motives can be speculated on. The actual result of the Pink Letter (Jon's stabbing) is not necessary the goal and motive behind the letter, since Jon recognized he made a mistake not to reveal the content to Selyse first, who would have had Mel with her to listen and discuss it, which was exactly what the letter advizes Jon to do and what Mel urged him to do beforehand. It seems that Jon was so hellbent on doing the opposite of informing Mel, that he avoided Selyse too. And later he realizes that was neither logical nor diplomatic, an error. This error he very likely may have paid for with one life.

Stannis possible motives:

• for strategic reasons he wishes to play dead and not just have his enemies in WF believe this, but make sure not to send contradicting info to pro-KL spies at CB.
• to have his wife, daughter, Mel, Val and Monster dispatched to him asap, away from pro-KL men at CB, or have them on the alert not just to go wandering in the gift without a force.
• to alert Jon that fArya managed to escape with the help of Mance and the 6 spearwives, and is on her way to CB.
• to alert Jon that Ramsay may seek retaliation
• to alert Jon that Mance and the 6 spearwives did not escape with fArya and are believed to be captured and Jon's secret is out

Theon's motives:

• He's in Stannis's hands and helping Stannis may be the price for his life. Theon the Turncloak after all. And others would rely on him to know Ramsay the best.
• Theon always regarded Jon as a particular rival for Robb's affection and they never liked each other, and this is his chance to speak foul to Jon, pretending it's Ramsay.

Motive is not much of an argument pro or against a specific forwarded author as the letter contains enough elements and circumstances to make the motive fit the person you think is the author. The same can be done for the CB mutineers tampering with the letter, or for Mance. All you can argue is that Ramsay's motive is a different one than Stannis's, Theon's, CB mutineers, or Mance's.

The actual text of the Pink Letter fits a combo of Stannis and Theon best. It's written more using Theon's speech patterns about women and about Ramsay and are the sole people who can pass on all the info in the letter, even if the fate of Mance and the spearwives is more likely Theon's belief than actual fact, and explains the blob of pink wax without a stamp, the lack of skin, the lack of flaking from the letter, the lack of mentioning of Ramsay's spiked hands and the lack of signatures from the other lords at WF.

Firstly, the bolded part. Sure, you can make the motive fit anyone, if you stretch credibility to a breaking point. However, just because you could find a convoluted motive for say Varys or Littlefinger to have written the letter, doesn't mean it makes sense given the facts at hand.

Regarding the motives you list above. We can safely discount Theon's motives, since you yourself state that they are largely based on him being forced to work with Stannis. Fair enough, so let's look at Stannis's supposed motives, as listed by you.

1. He wishes to play dead to both Winterfell and any potential "KL-spies at Castle Black".

So why bring in any of the Reek stuff then? As you say, Jon wouldn't even know who the heck Reek is, so why make all that shit up? Secondly, how does pretending to be Ramsay fool the people in Winterfell itself, who would include Ramsay by the way. The whole thing makes no sense.

2. To have his wife, Mel, daugher and company sent to him right away.

He would achieve that far more easily if he just asked for them. His letter is not conducive to achieving that in any way. In fact, they are more likely to flee to the Free Cities than go down to Wintefell after receiving that letter. Not to mention that in the spoiler chapter, he orders Massey to go and hire 20k sellswords in Braavos to serve Shireen should Stannis die. Bringing her down into the thick of battle closer to Winterfell is the last thing Stannis wants.

3. To alert Jon about Arya's escape with Mance and the 6 spearwives.

Why not just say that to Jon? What is achieved by pretending to be Ramsay, demanding them back? And why then alert all of Jon's enemies about Jon's dishonesty in letting Mance live? That directly works against Jon and Stannis's powerbase at the Wall.

4. To alert Jon that Ramsay may seek retaliation.

Again, why not just tell Jon that Ramsay is seeking retaliation? 

5.To alert Jon that Mance and the 6 spearwives did not escape and his secret is out.

Well, this one seems to directly contradict number 3, so I'm not sure how Jon is supposed to draw two directly opposing conclusions from the same cryptic message. This proves the point that whatever supposed hidden messages are contained in the letter, the author has no way of knowing if they will be deciphered correctly. It is way too obscure.

So in conclusion, to call all of the above flimsy reasoning is too kind. It is in fact hogwash.

Far more plausible are Ramsay's motives - perhaps with Mance serving in the capacity that Theon was to serve had Stannis been the author.

This letter wasn't written by Stannis and Theon. They have no logical reason to fabricate such a message.

[Free Northman Reborn]

1 hour ago, RedShirt47 said:

GRRM put in an excellent Red Herring with this letter and the irony is that he probably did so unwittingly. There have been many and more threads on its authorship and yet not a lot of discussion on the real mysteries of the Pink Letter - its contents.
Is Mance really held in a cage or is he dead or maybe he's joined with Ramsey.

Has there been a battle between occupied Winterfell and Stannis? Did Stannis really lose? Does Ramsey have the "Lightbringer" sword?
How did Ramsey get the sword if he does have it?
Would Ramsey really attack Castle Black?
Was the Letter meant to provoke Jon and into what action? What other reasons could there be for the letter?

Of course some of the sample chapters from TWoW do provide some clues towards these questions but when the the Pink Letter first appeared we didn't have those clues.
There is plenty to ponder in the Pink Letter but micro-analysing the phrasing and ink and wax like some CSI is a wild goose chase distracting from what we should be considering.
Not sure why the authorship became the sole focus of discussion...

To try and answer some of your questions based on the most likely outcomes given information at hand:

Is Mance really held in a cage or is he dead or maybe he's joined with Ramsey.

Intriguing one. He is not dead. Martin does not let important players die off screen. He is either captured, and forced to work with Ramsay, or he willingly joined Ramsay (or pretended to join Ramsay). But he clearly had some input into the letter.

Are the Spear-wives dead? Probably, and quite likely flayed too.

Yes, I think the Spear-wives are dead, unless Mance bargained with Ramsay to let them live in exchange for joining forces with him.

Has there been a battle between occupied Winterfell and Stannis? Did Stannis really lose? Does Ramsey have the "Lightbringer" sword?

Yes there was a battle at the Lake. Stannis "appears" to have lost, from Ramsay's point of view. But most likely this is trickery on Stannis's part, brought back to Winterfell by the suriviving Manderly forces - with all the Frey's conveniently dead and therefore unable to spread any opposing tales. By the time Ramsay arrived at the Lake, most of Stannis's Northern forces had likely withdrawn, leaving only the dead Freys, the Manderlys and maybe a token force of now horseless knights who Stannis sacrificed to complete the subterfuge. And these knights were probably protecting a fake Stannis in a last ditch stand, after which Ramsay obtained Stannis's sword.

How did Ramsey get the sword if he does have it?

See above.

Would Ramsey really attack Castle Black?

He cannot. Without Fake Arya, and having lost the Freys, he is left surrounded by disloyal Northern lords who now come close to outnumberering his own troops at Winterfell. And most likely there have been further developments since we last saw the situation at Winterfell. Is Roose still alive? Has news of the Greatjon's escape (which likely has occurred by the time of the Winds of Winter Prologue), reached Winterfell? Has news of Robb's will surfaced? Has the Manderly betrayal progressed to them bringing in some of their additional thousands of troops who remain off screen?

It may well be that Ramsay is in a desperate situation, which the sly Mance is capitalizing on by giving Ramsay a way out. Perhaps by offering him the alliance of his wildling warriors, which Mance can easily inflate to the unwitting Ramsay to sound like 10,000 troops, instead of the paltry 1000 or so that are actually at Castle Black.

Mance gets his loved ones, Ramsay supposedly gets 10,000 wildling warriors, and Mance maybe even succeeds in negotiating a place for his people in the North, with a willing and desperate Lord of Winterfell.

Was the Letter meant to provoke Jon and into what action? What other reasons could there be for the letter?

To serve both Mance and Ramsay's purposes as outlined in the answer above.

[aryagonnakill#2]

2 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Firstly, the bolded part. Sure, you can make the motive fit anyone, if you stretch credibility to a breaking point. However, just because you could find a convoluted motive for say Varys or Littlefinger to have written the letter, doesn't mean it makes sense given the facts at hand.

Regarding the motives you list above. We can safely discount Theon's motives, since you yourself state that they are largely based on him being forced to work with Stannis. Fair enough, so let's look at Stannis's supposed motives, as listed by you.

1. He wishes to play dead to both Winterfell and any potential "KL-spies at Castle Black".

So why bring in any of the Reek stuff then? As you say, Jon wouldn't even know who the heck Reek is, so why make all that shit up? Secondly, how does pretending to be Ramsay fool the people in Winterfell itself, who would include Ramsay by the way. The whole thing makes no sense.

2. To have his wife, Mel, daugher and company sent to him right away.

He would achieve that far more easily if he just asked for them. His letter is not conducive to achieving that in any way. In fact, they are more likely to flee to the Free Cities than go down to Wintefell after receiving that letter. Not to mention that in the spoiler chapter, he orders Massey to go and hire 20k sellswords in Braavos to serve Shireen should Stannis die. Bringing her down into the thick of battle closer to Winterfell is the last thing Stannis wants.

3. To alert Jon about Arya's escape with Mance and the 6 spearwives.

Why not just say that to Jon? What is achieved by pretending to be Ramsay, demanding them back? And why then alert all of Jon's enemies about Jon's dishonesty in letting Mance live? That directly works against Jon and Stannis's powerbase at the Wall.

4. To alert Jon that Ramsay may seek retaliation.

Again, why not just tell Jon that Ramsay is seeking retaliation? 

5.To alert Jon that Mance and the 6 spearwives did not escape and his secret is out.

Well, this one seems to directly contradict number 3, so I'm not sure how Jon is supposed to draw two directly opposing conclusions from the same cryptic message. This proves the point that whatever supposed hidden messages are contained in the letter, the author has no way of knowing if they will be deciphered correctly. It is way too obscure.

So in conclusion, to call all of the above flimsy reasoning is too kind. It is in fact hogwash.

Far more plausible are Ramsay's motives - perhaps with Mance serving in the capacity that Theon was to serve had Stannis been the author.

This letter wasn't written by Stannis and Theon. They have no logical reason to fabricate such a message.

I would just like to say that I feel like maybe we are often not clear enough about the lack of motive, it's not just that you have to explain what Stannis gets from the letter, but why he is pretending to be Ramsay.  The only people between his position and CB are the mountain clans who are loyal to Stannis, As you point out, any of the proposed motives such as getting reinforcements would be more easily accomplished by just being up front and honest, and would not risk all the potential problems of your allies thinking your dead.

[sweetsunray]

3 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

So why bring in any of the Reek stuff then? As you say, Jon wouldn't even know who the heck Reek is, so why make all that shit up? Secondly, how does pretending to be Ramsay fool the people in Winterfell itself, who would include Ramsay by the way. The whole thing makes no sense.

You mixed up my meaning for the playing dead thing, but I understand why and it's my mistake that I ended up confusing you. He intends to play dead for Winterfell through strategic means, to CB by a letter proclaiming him dead. 

If you don't know someone personally, but someone else claims he does and says "he wants his Reek" then you're not making shit up, but using the info you get.

Is Ramsay still in WF? Is he still alive? You would think he's hunting his bride if he's alive. Or at least Theon would assume this, and thus so would Stannis.

3 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

He would achieve that far more easily if he just asked for them. His letter is not conducive to achieving that in any way. In fact, they are more likely to flee to the Free Cities than go down to Wintefell after receiving that letter. Not to mention that in the spoiler chapter, he orders Massey to go and hire 20k sellswords in Braavos to serve Shireen should Stannis die. Bringing her down into the thick of battle closer to Winterfell is the last thing Stannis wants.

Well, since motive is speculation anyway, it's indeed possible it's just meant as a tactic to have them flee. You kind of missed my point about hte motive examples. I'm not claiming they are actually Stannis's motives, but just showing how one can make sense of parts of the letter to fit the proposed man.

If the letter is meant to do several things, such as hiding the fact that Stannis is alive, then he can't bloody well write it in his own name.

It's your assumption that the battle is still happening. Stannis may be quite certain Winterfell would soon be his.

3 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

And why then alert all of Jon's enemies about Jon's dishonesty in letting Mance live? That directly works against Jon and Stannis's powerbase at the Wall.

Does it? What if Stannis thinks it shows that Jon is more Stark than NW after all, and thinks it would make the NW denounce Jon as LC and then he's free to become the Stark of WF that Stannis wants for his Northern alliance with Val as the bride. After all, Stannis did propose that once, and Jon never had a chance to turn Stannis down after being elected as LC. The Mance reveal at least would give this impression for Stannis: that Jon and Mel work together and that Jon is not as impartial as he maintains he is. Stannis may want to exploit that.

Of course, while Stannis would assume KL allies would know the letter's content, he couldn't bloody well expect that Jon would not show the letter to Mel, with whom he worked together to send Mance to free his sister, would not show it to Stannis's wife Selyse who would have Mel by her side as the supposed grieving widow who has a right to knowledge of her husband's supposed fate, let alone would read it aloud before the whole of the NW.

With all of this, people assume that Jon's response was the sole response you could expect, because that's what happened. Jon actually made several decisions with regards the letter that are quite baffling, no matter who wrote the PL. The man has diplomatic skills around Stannis, around wildlings, with his stewards, with the Iron Bank, and even around Selyse, but for some reason he does not go to Selyse and does not go to Mel with this letter first. It's like some child obstinately trying to prove independence from Mel, even if that goes against any humane behavior shown before, any previous attempt to be tactful, against anything that Jeor showed him by example whenever bad news regarding the Starks arrived at CB.

4 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Why not just say that to Jon? What is achieved by pretending to be Ramsay, demanding them back?

Because of the first possible motive. An alleged dead man can't write a letter can he? But the necessary info was passed along anyhow.

4 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Well, this one seems to directly contradict number 3, so I'm not sure how Jon is supposed to draw two directly opposing conclusions from the same cryptic message. This proves the point that whatever supposed hidden messages are contained in the letter, the author has no way of knowing if they will be deciphered correctly. It is way too obscure.

No, you're actually misunderstanding my list of possible motives. The clue is in POSSIBLE motives. I'm just mentioning all sorts of possible motives I can think of, that may or may not be in concordance with each other. You claimed Stannis has no motive whatsoever. All I need to disprove that is spew possible motives.

What is obscure about it? Jon is on the alert - he knows fArya escaped, he knows that Mance and 6 spearwives are likely captured, he knows Ramsay and his good fellows may be heading for him. And anyone who considers Jon to be a decent human being has every reason to believe he'd go to Selyse and Mel with the letter ASAP.

If someone were to write a letter to say your boss about the death of your partner, demanding your boss to hand you over to them, wouldn't you be surprised if your boss keeps that letter or the news in it from you, and then assembles every employee and reads it aloud in the cantine? 

4 hours ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

So in conclusion, to call all of the above flimsy reasoning is too kind. It is in fact hogwash.

Far more plausible are Ramsay's motives - perhaps with Mance serving in the capacity that Theon was to serve had Stannis been the author.

This letter wasn't written by Stannis and Theon. They have no logical reason to fabricate such a message.

You're free to your opinion.

[sweetsunray]

1 hour ago, aryagonnakill#2 said:

it's not just that you have to explain what Stannis gets from the letter, but why he is pretending to be Ramsay.  

I very well understand that question. Why Ramsay? Why not Roose or a Frey or Manderly, Barbrey or even a maester? Why not write as some lucky survivor on Stannis's side who simply wishes to warn Jon?

If you were pretending to be dead and want a letter sent without blowing that cover, there are a few things to think about:

• suspecting there are pro-KL spies, you want to avoid them writing a letter back to WF, asking Roose or any other lord to verify the message. So, you need to impersonate at least a high up Bolton - Roose or Ramsay.
• you'd also want to make sure that if one of those does send a message to WF, that the Bolton inside WF can easily refute it. For example, if the letter were to pretend to be Roose, and then Roose gets some ass-licking letter from CB, Roose would be on the alert that someone impersonated him. So, it has to be a Bolton believed to be not in WF. Well, Theon talks of Ramsay in the released chapter of tWoW as if he believes Ramsay left WF. I'm not sure whether that's actually true, but we can all agree that Theon who's frightened to death from Ramsay would believe it a certainty that his personal boogeyman is off on a hellbent wild hunt to get Theon and Arya back. Stannis has no reason to disbelieve Theon on that account, since he also passed on the info about Hosteen being very angry over his fellow Frey dying in a pit made by the Umber faction outside WF, and Stannis's watchmen or outriders may already confirmed it.
• you'd also want to make sure that the majority of men inside CB won't defect to the Boltons. The best way to do that is to impersonate someone luny enough to threaten the NW. Even if your LC did something shady, he's still better than the boogeyman himself. As far as Stannis knows, Ramsay fits the bill.

Several of you can accept that Stannis is playing dead to those inside Winterfell, that he's not actually dead. The 7 day battle for example is a ludicrous claim. But somehow you have a problem with Stannis sending a letter to CB pretending to be dead, while the stupidest thing you can do is pretend to be dead as far as Roose knows, and then announce you're alive to CB with raven handlers who are friends with the enemy in King's Landing (and might in fact smuggle a raven out for WF), probably around the time that your army dressed in Frey and Karstark garb enter WF with the plan to kill the Bolton men inside WF.

And of course, a nasty letter supposedly written by vicious Ramsay is perfect cliffhanger from George's POV.

Note: I'm not saying that Ramsay is in fact outside WF or even alive. But Theon believes it, and thus so will Stannis. 

 

 

[sweetsunray]

6 hours ago, RedShirt47 said:

There have been many and more threads on its authorship and yet not a lot of discussion on the real mysteries of the Pink Letter - its contents.

Not true. The discussions about the authorship actually follow from the claims made in the letter. It's just that people have discussed those plenty the past years, and do so much less these days. It's ground that has been covered already, with most people agreeing that Stannis is probably not dead at all, that Ramsay was given Lightbringer as evidence of Stannis's fate as part of a ruse, and that Mance and the spearwives are taken. No consensus exists about the author.

6 hours ago, RedShirt47 said:

Is Mance really held in a cage or is he dead or maybe he's joined with Ramsey.
Are the Spear-wives dead? Probably, and quite likely flayed too.

I know Theon thinks so, but in fact I think Theon is wrong. Ramsay is the unbeatable boogeyman in his mind, and unless you manage to escape (and that only temporary) you're dead in Theon's beliefs. But what Theon believes is not necessarily the truth.

First of all Mance was not using his glamor inside WF when pretending to be Abel. He can use the glamor if necessary to not be found. And while not all spearwives may have been the brightest, like the one who forgot her rope, Mance would have had a plan with regards the aftermath after freeing fArya. The spearwives question Theon about how he managed to get inside WF when he captured it. The spearwives reveal that Mance wants to know the whereabouts of the crypts. Mance had a plan to hide or get away unnoticed. There's no reason whatsoever to believe that Mance kept on playing the harp in the hall of WF, while Frey and Manderly armies leave the castle and Theon and spearwives are rescuing fArya. He slipped away before the rescue scene, and while Freys and Manderly prepared their men to leave for Stannis's camp. 

I don't think all the spearwives are dead. We can only be sure of two being dead. Those died fighting men at arms before Ramsay could interrogate them. The others managed to meet with Mance imo. They weren't all with Theon and fArya, but some were meant to meet with Mance before that somewhere else on the grounds.

Stannis says something interesting to Theon: angry men make mistakes. Ramsay no doubt is fuming like a volcano when he learns of fArya managing to get away together with his Reek. We are told by Roose that Ramsay's more of a hacker when fighting than actually trained in swords. Meanwhile Jon had difficulty when going against Mance, who didn't even break a sweat over it. Some of Ramsay's men have been killed. We have Theon remembering the spiral staircase as a training ground to duel as he goes up to rescue fArya. We have Mance looking for the crypts. Theon showing the crypts to Barbrey who talks of "bones" (Mance's glamor is Lord of Bones), "bloody swords", "maidenheads being taken" and the missing swords showing and reminding us how the crypts can be used as a shelter (Bael's story and Bran and Rickon). We're shown how deep a grudge Barbrey has for Ned over not bringing back her husband's bones. Imagine her grudge against Ramsay whom she believes killed her nephew Domeric.

So, I think that Mance's plan is to either hide in the crypte or lure Ramsay there. In a duel on a spiral staircase, Mance would beat Ramsay for sure. And thus it's not the six spearwives who are dead and flayed. But I suspect Ramsay himself died inside the crypts by the time the Pink Letter arrives, trying to eat his own fingers, and/or eaten by his girls. There are enough hints to suggest that Barbrey is colluding with someone and that it may be Mance. She could lie to Roose about Ramsay storming out of WF to go after fArya, and Roose thinks Ramsay stupid enough to do that. Nobody can check for that, as there's a blizzard outside.

6 hours ago, RedShirt47 said:

Has there been a battle between occupied Winterfell and Stannis? Did Stannis really lose?

Not yet imo. At the time of the arrival of the Pink Letter though I do think there has been a Battle of the Ice Lakes, that Stannis won.

Quote

Does Ramsey have the "Lightbringer" sword?

No, since imo Ramsay's dead in the crypts. I don't even think Lightbringer was given to Roose. It might have been given to convince Roose of Stannis's death and defeat, but it's just as well possible that one of the authors has Lightbringer, Stannis. "I have his sword" can be the truth from the author's POV as much as Reek-Ramsay talking about "I know lots of men, and lots of men know Reek."

 

6 hours ago, RedShirt47 said:

Would Ramsey really attack Castle Black?

I doubt he would be able to find large armies willing to march all the way to CB in blizzards. So, nope.

[YOVMO]

On ‎4‎/‎23‎/‎2016 at 4:35 PM, John Courage said:

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 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. You told the world you burned the King Beyond the Wall. Instead you sent him to Winterfell to steal my bride from me.

I will have my bride back. If you want Mance Rayder back, come and get him. I have him in a cage for all the north to see, proof of 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 my bride back. I want the false king's queen. I want his daughter and his red witch. I want this wildling princess. I want his little prince, the wildling babe. 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.

Ramsay Bolton, Trueborn Lord of Winterfell.

 

I think it's Mance who wrote it to get Jon to come south with the wildling's and save his ass.

 

Agree that it is Mance. I think most people, at this point, acknowledge that it is not Ramsay. I think the fact that it makes mention of "your black crows" is key here. At no point in any of the books do any people south of the wall refer to the NW as crows. That is a specifically wildling term for them. Also, if it was Ramsay or if it was Stannis or Theon why would he want the "wildling princess and his little prince, the wildling babe" What could either Stannis or Ramsay or Theon possibly want with them?

 

[The Fattest Leech]

I am surprising myself and leaning more and more towards the notion that some combo of Stannis with Theon and maybe Tybald, constructed the letter to try and provoke Jon into action of some sort.

The main reason why is because in a recent re-read of the  Theon/TWOW sample chapter , this line struck out to me...

Spoiler

"The north remembers.  The Red Wedding, Lady Hornwood's fingers, the sack of Winterfell, Deepwood Motte and Torrhen's Square, they remember all of it."  Bran and Rickon.  They were only miller's boys.  "Frey and Manderly will never combine their strengths.  They will come for you, but separately.  Lord Ramsay will not be far behind them.  He wants his bride back.  He wants his Reek."  Theon's laugh was half a titter, half a whimper.  "Lord Ramsay is the one Your Grace should fear."

This is virtually the same consistent dialgogue that is in the Pink Letter... hastily sealed with a non-stamped glob, and Jon doesn't know who the hell "Reek" is. And the other info given plays into other Stannis strategic plans as well.

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 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. You told the world you burned the King Beyond the Wall. Instead you sent him to Winterfell to steal my bride from me.

I will have my bride back. If you want Mance Rayder back, come and get him. I have him in a cage for all the north to see, proof of 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 my bride back. I want the false king's queen. I want his daughter and his red witch. I want this wildling princess. I want his little prince, the wildling babe. 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.

Ramsay Bolton, Trueborn Lord of Winterfell.  

 

The only other reason I can think of that Stannis may be asking for Val (and monster) is what Sam says about the situation: (sorry, italics won't turn off )

A Feast for Crows - Samwell I

"Why not?" asked Pyp. "She wants to have your children. Maybe we should call you Sam the Seducer."

Sam reddened. King Stannis had plans for Val, he knew; she was the mortar with which he meant to seal the peace between the northmen and the free folk. "I don't have time for archery today, I need to go see Jon."

 

[sweetsunray]

1 hour ago, The Fattest Leech said:

The only other reason I can think of that Stannis may be asking for Val (and monster) is what Sam says about the situation: (sorry, italics won't turn off )

Well, if Stannis is the author with the help of Theon and Thybald (for writing it and providing the raven and wax), then I agree he wants Val, because he wanted to give her as a bride to the new lord of WF. I also think that Stannis still wants Jon to be that lord of WF.

As for Monster, despite the profession that Mance is captured and the spearwives flayed in the letter, I think Stannis is aware of the fact that he doesn't have evidence for that, and that Mance may be hiding or escaped. Regardless, if Stannis is the author, it indicates he believes Mance might be alive still, and whatever plan he has to take WF he reckons on having to deal with Mance. Mance's son was promised to him, and thus Stannis is trying to ensure he has the child to fulfill the promise to Mance for his help in freeing fArya.

[The Fattest Leech]

2 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

Well, if Stannis is the author with the help of Theon and Thybald (for writing it and providing the raven and wax), then I agree he wants Val, because he wanted to give her as a bride to the new lord of WF. I also think that Stannis still wants Jon to be that lord of WF.

As for Monster, despite the profession that Mance is captured and the spearwives flayed in the letter, I think Stannis is aware of the fact that he doesn't have evidence for that, and that Mance may be hiding or escaped. Regardless, if Stannis is the writer, it indicates he believes Mance might be alive still, and whatever plan he has to take WF he reckons on having to deal with Mance. Mance's son was promised to him, and thus Stannis is trying to ensure he has the child to fulfill the promise to Mance for his help in freeing fArya.

This is kinda what I am thinking as well. This for that exchange.