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

[Hodor the Articulate]

On 3/12/2016 at 9:13 PM, sweetsunray said:

It doesn't matter that it's only 1%. Even if a character has only 2 lines in all the books, it's beneficial to give him a distinct personal voice from other speakers (perfect example of this is Shitmouth with his Tourettes, or Pia's rapist who Jaime beheaded who's only line is "we all had her hunnerd times!").

What I mean is, Ramsay gets so little dialogue that of course there are going to be words he doesn't use. I mean, I don't think he's ever said "pussy" either. It doesn't mean he avoids the word, he's just not had the occasion to say it yet.

On 3/12/2016 at 9:13 PM, sweetsunray said:

And no, I don't have to prove that Ramsay avoids the word on purpose, because Ramsay probably doesn't even know himself he avoids it. Our personal "voice" is something that is partially subconscious anyway, just like we're only subconsciously aware of our friends having a distinct personal voice.

All I need to show is that George wrote Ramsay dialogue as not using that word, not when he's pretending to be Reek in aCoK, not when he's Ramsay in aDwD. The only time the word whore is used is in the Pink Letter and in a manner as if the author loves using that word to any woman. If the author is Ramsay and loves that word so much then George would have had Ramsay use it any circumstance that was even remotely appropriate for Ramsay to use - like when he talks about killing Barbrey Dustin, or reminding Theon of Kyra's fate, or when being welcomed by Theon in WF and offered the kennel's daughter, in the letter to Asha... Those would be typical situations where a person who loves to use the word whore for women (even to those who aren't whores), just as in the Pink letter, would in fact use it in dialogue. But the word just doesn't pop up in Ramsay's vocabulary, but then in the Pink Letter it's used almost gratuitously.

That just doesn't jibe, and in literature with an author as George who pays great personal distinct dialogue, yes that's evidence. 

Did you just say you don't have to prove your claim? Way to argue.

Nobody ever said anything about Ramsay loving the word whore, just that he may not have had the opportunity to use it. And twice is certainly not gratuitous use.

[Wrl6199]

1 minute ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

What I mean is, Ramsay gets so little dialogue that of course there are going to be words he doesn't use. I mean, I don't think he's ever said "pussy" either. It doesn't mean he avoids the word, he's just not had the occasion to say it yet.

Did you just say you don't have to prove your claim? Way to argue.

Nobody ever said anything about Ramsay loving the word whore, just that he may not have had the opportunity to use it. And twice is certainly not gratuitous use.

Yeah i agree. Saying that you dont have to prove your claim is the most obnoxious thing you could say in response to that. But yeah we really haven't. I dont specifically remember him saying pussy. But i mean theirs a lot of books and he might say it. Do you mean calling someone a pussy. But yeah anyways what is your opinion on if Ramsay wrote the pink letter. It seems like their is a lot of evidence pointing to the fact that woman.

[sweetsunray]

7 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

Did you just say you don't have to prove your claim? Way to argue.

Misrepresentation of what I said. The stress is on "on purpose" when I wrote, "And no, I don't have to prove that Ramsay avoids the word on purpose".

You wanted me to prove that Ramsay avoids it "on purpose". That demand presumes that our word choice and vocabulary is a fully conscious choice we're at all times aware of, including the words we avoid at all cost. And that assumption is wrong. I'm pretty sure that even you cannot instantly sum up your 5 favourite most used words, nor the many that you avoid using. I even doubt you're aware your friends' favourite words and avoids. Vocabulary is something personal, and also for a great part subconscious.

My claim is not that Ramsay avoids it "on purpose". My claim is that Ramsay avoids it, period. You misrepresented my claim to begin with. That's called a straw man.

Which is why I said "because Ramsay probably doesn't even know himself he avoids it. Our personal "voice" is something that is partially subconscious anyway, just like we're only subconsciously aware of our friends having a distinct personal voice."

What you can ask me is to show that Ramsay has avoided the word "whore" in situations that are similar to the Pink Letter, regardless of Ramsay being aware of it or not. That's easy. A search of ice and fire in Theon chapters in aCoK and aDwD, and two confirmed letters sent to Asha and Jon by Ramsay turns up 0 whores in Ramsay's speech as Reek, as Ramsay and as letter writer, except Pink Letter. I'm pretty sure you've all already checked a search of ice and fire yourself to make sure I didn't make a mistake there.

Instead, it's quite noticeable how often he addresses women by their name or association, without the use of denigrating referrers at all... That should strike us all as odd, since after all hunting, raping and flaying women is his favourite sport. He totally disprespects women in action, but not verbally, not even when he expresses his hatred of a certain woman. In fact, a woman's name is like a trophy to him that he collects. He names his dogs after a woman he murdered. Serial murderers keep a collection of "trophies" that reminds them of their victims. What the trophy is varies per murderer. In Ramsay's case it are "names". 

Then the "but he hasn't had the right occasion yet to use the word" argument comes up, which is quite nonsensical:

• letter to Asha: meant to provoke and anger Asha. He threatens her and sends a piece of her brother to her. But nope, no "whore" in that letter
• Kyra, kennel master's daughter, Dustin, Jeyne Poole, Asha: all women he either hates or expresses loathing for, yet no "whore"

And then finally the repeated "none of them were prostitutes, except for the spearwives who were washerwomen":

• Not only is the pink letter then used to prove the pink letter is Ramsay's... while this is questioned, and thus circular logic
• Melisandre is not a professional prostitute, but she's referred to as "whore" as well in the Pink Letter, contradicting the wiggling of "he probably only uses it on the right occasion when it's a prostitute".

And then the letter is claimed to be this curious exception totally incomparable to previous situations. Suddenly the Pink Letter is claimed to be the sole occasion we saw Ramsay want to provoke.

 

7 hours ago, Hodor the Articulate said:

What I mean is, Ramsay gets so little dialogue that of course there are going to be words he doesn't use. I mean, I don't think he's ever said "pussy" either. It doesn't mean he avoids the word, he's just not had the occasion to say it yet.

I know what you mean and the argument simply doesn't work for literature dialogue. George shows with Shitmouth and Pia's wannabe rapist who gets beheaded that with one line or even less dialogue than Ramsay that he's meticulous about giving even very minor characters a personal distinctive voice with their own particular vocabulary. You're treating this as if Ramsay is not a literary character with an author having written him. But George did write him and his dialogue in the same book that he included a letter to Asha and Jon prior to the Pink Letter.

Anyone who has ever seriously sat down to write even a chapter or short story that includes dialogue would have made a choice on which character uses which strong language in a manner that felt right to them, which character uses contractions, which doesn't, educated or more formal language, etc. I can guarantee that an author is conscious of it when he has character A use a word like "whore" and when character B does not use it... NOTE: I say the author is conscious of this distinction between the two characters. I do not say the characters are necessarily aware of it.

In fact, the less dialogue a character has and especially when that character has no POV the more an author will pay attention to make their dialogue and expressions as one that makes the reader almost immediately recognize him to be that character without needing to add "x said" or "x wrote". That's exactly why Shitmouth and Pia's wannabe rapist have such a personal distinct voice. 

Now let's compare the portrayal of Theon and Ramsay. Theon wants to be dangerous and instill fear in people. He does this by using mean denigrating language. But when it comes push to shove he's a coward. He thinks and talks mean of people, but he shakes in his boots when he has to hack a man's head off. Yes, he kills people, but it's all posture. And then there's Ramsay who IS extremely dangerous and IS someone anyone should fear. But his language is surprisingly euphemistic in comparison. He doesn't go about and insult people he plans to kill, flay, murder, and he doesn't kill, flay or murder for posture, but because he loves doing that.

George does this with several characters. Shitmouth has the foulest mouth. He can't say one sentence without throwing a swear word in it (hence why I suspect he has Tourette's). But he's probably the nicest guy in all of Gregor's band. Anyone who reads Shitmouth's dialogue with Jaime probably thinks he secretly keeps a kitten somewhere and gives his horse an extra apple when none of his mates are looking. Then take Roose and Qyburn and you have extremely dangerous characters. Roose and Qyburn are soft voiced. Heck, Qyburn looks and talks like a sweet grandfather, and yet he does such abominable experiments on people. There's a reason why George does this: we're far more scared of someone who manages to preserve a mask of amiability and civility while doing the worst atrocities to people than we are of a brute using foul language. Heck, even a brute like Gregor becomes even far more scarier than he already is by his brutality and built, by making him a man of few words and completely silent as Robert Strong.

So, the little dialogue Ramsay has in the books is used by George to tell us something about his character in relation to his urges and actions, varying from wearing a mask and how scary he truly is behind it. And the word "whore" does not appear in his dialogue, not even in appropriate occasions comparable to the Pink Letter.

Quote

And twice is certainly not gratuitous use

If someone who has never met Ramsay reads the Pink Letter then that someone will immediately come to the conclusion that the letter writer uses the word "whore" gratuitously. It's used gratuitously twice in the Pink Letter. If it's used gratuitously in the Pink Letter, then the Pink Letter's author uses it gratuitously in his language. If Jon was to meet Ramsay in person, he'll expect Ramsay to throw out the word "whore" about any woman not of the highest noble status. And Ramsay doesn't throw out the word "whore" every chance he gets. He never used it, not even in provocative situations, not in situations where he expresses his disdain or hatred of a woman. 

George ain't writing Monty Python:

 

[Ferocious Veldt Roarer]

On 4.12.2016 at 3:30 AM, aryagonnakill#2 said:

The key here, I believe is that Tormund and his warriors did not come through the wall until after Mance went south.  Given that I just don't see how he could think there are more than 300 or so wildling warriors at or near Castle Black.  Were it not for the wildlings, I don't see what options Jon would have had.

But complying with the demands was not an option, either! Not with Selyse/Melisandre having her own security force. So - what happens then? Does Jon press the issue, and it ends in fight between crows and Queen's Men? Does he try to negotiate, and it ends in a stalemate of sort? Or maybe he opts to sit on the letter, keep his mouth shut and wait how the situation unravels, because he came to a conclusion that any action would be even more disastrous than inaction? There's nothing sure and determined about the outcome of the Pink Letter, beyond imprecise "it'll stir some shit for sure".

(And still no convincing reason why would GRRM decorate the Pink Letter with "black crows", BTW).

11 hours ago, Wm Portnoy said:

Not likely.  Mance care for the Wildling people more than anything else.  He loves them.  The last thing that man would do is get his Wildlings caught up in a fight with the Boltons.  That would mean the death of the Wildlings.   Ramsay Bolton wrote the Pink Letter.

A point, using wildlings as a military force is what Mance Rayder does. He marched them against the Wall.

[aryagonnakill#2]

4 hours ago, Ferocious Veldt Roarer said:

But complying with the demands was not an option, either! Not with Selyse/Melisandre having her own security force. So - what happens then? Does Jon press the issue, and it ends in fight between crows and Queen's Men? Does he try to negotiate, and it ends in a stalemate of sort? Or maybe he opts to sit on the letter, keep his mouth shut and wait how the situation unravels, because he came to a conclusion that any action would be even more disastrous than inaction? There's nothing sure and determined about the outcome of the Pink Letter, beyond imprecise "it'll stir some shit for sure".

(And still no convincing reason why would GRRM decorate the Pink Letter with "black crows", BTW).

A point, using wildlings as a military force is what Mance Rayder does. He marched them against the Wall.

50 total people including women and people like Axel Florent who are not warriors against hundreds.  When Jon tells Selyse about his letting the wildlings through Selyse is cool with it until he says they will not take the red god or kneel.  When he tells her it is happening she replies I cannot stop you as you well know, meaning everyone knows who has the power.

My belief about the black crows is that Mance either helps write the letter or that he simply heard the term used by the wildlings he tortured, or that as indicated by others since the term is used the 1 time we see someone insulting the NW, that we have simply not seen any other northerners use it because they have respect for the NW and do not insult it.

In any event, there is simply no way for Stannis/Theon/Ramsay/or Mance to know that there is a substantial # of wildlings.  300 are not worth much so the concept of reinforcements simply doesn't hold water, that's why I suggested the desire to have Jon send them away is the only possible motive I could think of, but that does not offer any explanation of why he would hide his identity.

I guess we're not going to agree on this, but I am at least happy that your black crows catch invalidates the whore argument as if you are relying simply on a language analysis that term does not line up with thinking it is Theon based on the word whore.

If anyone can offer me a logical motive I will happily reconsider my position.

[rotting sea cow]

As I said in another thread, Ramsay, Mance or even Stannis do not know that Selyse is at Castle Black. For all they know she is still at Eastwatch, although still under Jon's protection, it "easier" to defend by herself or escape.

My theory is that there was a letter, maybe even from Ramsay in similar terms (skin included), but it was adulterated upon arrival to the Wall by Bowen Marsh, Clydas and others in order to frame Jon.

[sweetsunray]

4 hours ago, rotting sea cow said:

As I said in another thread, Ramsay, Mance or even Stannis do not know that Selyse is at Castle Black. For all they know she is still at Eastwatch, although still under Jon's protection, it "easier" to defend by herself or escape.

My theory is that there was a letter, maybe even from Ramsay in similar terms (skin included), but it was adulterated upon arrival to the Wall by Bowen Marsh, Clydas and others in order to frame Jon.

Stannis knows, because he met Tycho Nestoris who came to the crofter's village from Castle Black via Deepwood Motte. Tycho was at CB after Selyse already arrived at CB, when Jon had sent Val away already to convince the wildling to pass through the wall in exchange for taxes and a child hostage.

[rotting sea cow]

9 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

Stannis knows, because he met Tycho Nestoris who came to the crofter's village from Castle Black via Deepwood Motte. Tycho was at CB after Selyse already arrived at CB, when Jon had sent Val away already to convince the wildling to pass through the wall in exchange for taxes and a child hostage.

You are right. Stannis knows that then, but then he has little incentive in wreaking havoc at the Wall, specially if his queen and heir are there. Unless there was a letter from Stannis in a different tone, which was adulterated by B. Marsh.

[sweetsunray]

13 minutes ago, rotting sea cow said:

You are right. Stannis knows that then, but then he has little incentive in wreaking havoc at the Wall, specially if his queen and heir are there. Unless there was a letter from Stannis in a different tone, which was adulterated by B. Marsh.

Or it was meant to be explained by Mel to Jon, and not meant the wreak havoc at all. Mel asked Jon to come to her with the letter she expected. And it would have been logical that Jon at least would confer about the content of the letter with Selyse, as it concerned her life and her husband.

[rotting sea cow]

1 minute ago, sweetsunray said:

Or it was meant to be explained by Mel to Jon.

Yes, the line 'tell his red whore' is almost an instruction to Jon, who completely ignores it. Even if not he should have gone to talk with Mel right away. But Jon has a deep distrust for Melisandre and anyway he is not the brightest kid in the block (I put him one step ahead of Victarion). Even the totally non-cunning Tormund suspect that it's a 'skin o'lies'.

But if the letter is a coded message, I would suspect more in Mance than Stannis, given the tone of the letter.  The problem is how Mance found himself in position to write a letter and send it by raven.

 

[aryagonnakill#2]

25 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

Stannis knows, because he met Tycho Nestoris who came to the crofter's village from Castle Black via Deepwood Motte. Tycho was at CB after Selyse already arrived at CB, when Jon had sent Val away already to convince the wildling to pass through the wall in exchange for taxes and a child hostage.

Tycho arrived with Selyse and may or may not know that Val was not at CB anymore, but definitely does not know where she was sent or why, nor what the terms were.  He was also gone before she came back.

[sweetsunray]

Just now, rotting sea cow said:

Yes, the line 'tell his red whore' is almost an instruction to Jon, who completely ignores it. Even if not he should have gone to talk with Mel right away. But Jon has a deep distrust for Melisandre and anyway he is not the brightest kid in the block (I put him one step ahead of Victarion). Even the totally non-cunning Tormund suspect that it's a 'skin o'lies'.

But if the letter is a coded message, I would suspect more in Mance than Stannis, given the tone of the letter.  The problem is how Mance found himself in position to write a letter and send it by raven.

 

The tone is Theon's. He and Jon never got along well for example. Theon thinks of himself as the Prince of Winterfell and was in a mental rivalry for Robb's affections and friendship against Jon. Theon thinks mysoginistic. Stannis also has heard Mel being referred to as the "red whore". "I want my Reek" is an adaptation of what Theon said to Stannis. And Theon is convinced that Mance and the remaining spearmaidens would never escape, though it's entirely possible they're hiding and Mance can use the ruby to glamor back into Lord of Bones.

The physical aspects of the letter fits with a location of someone who has pink wax, but not the stamp (Tybald, the maester). Hence Stannis constructed the letter with the help of Theon and Tybald wrote it out.

[rotting sea cow]

Also remember that when Clydas handed the letter to Jon, he was described to be 'white as snow' and trembling. Why? Sure he suspected something as the letter was addressed as 'Bastard', but even so?

[sweetsunray]

6 minutes ago, aryagonnakill#2 said:

Tycho arrived with Selyse and may or may not know that Val was not at CB anymore, but definitely does not know where she was sent or why, nor what the terms were.  He was also gone before she came back.

Yup I know. I was only situating the time period that Tycho was at CB - after Selyse's arrival at CB, after Val was sent away and before Val's return ... And thus hence Tycho doesn't know about Tormund and his wildings. But he does know of the wedding that Jon made between Alys and Magnar of Thenn, and of course that Selyse and Shyreen are CB.

[sweetsunray]

3 minutes ago, rotting sea cow said:

Also remember that when Clydas handed the letter to Jon, he was described to be 'white as snow' and trembling. Why? Sure he suspected something as the letter was addressed as 'Bastard', but even so?

Agreed that Clydas at least took a peek. I'm also sure that Clydas is a spy for Bowen and Alliser, and that Stannis distrusted Clydas. Slynt's conviction the morning of his execution that he had "friends in KL" was much too telling. Cersei received a letter from Slynt after Jon was already elected. How the hell did Slynt manage to send a letter to KL when Jon was LC and communication should be ok'd by him? Aemon would never help him, nor would Sam. But they left before Slynt's execution. That leaves Clydas who can handle ravens (since Chett's dead since the Fist, and he couldn't read anyway), but who's not a maester and thus not subject of the maester vows.

I do not totally exclude the possibility the letter was tampered with, but it's imo not necessary.

[rotting sea cow]

12 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

The tone is Theon's. He and Jon never got along well for example. Theon thinks of himself as the Prince of Winterfell and was in a mental rivalry for Robb's affections and friendship against Jon. Theon thinks mysoginistic. Stannis also has heard Mel being referred to as the "red whore". "I want my Reek" is an adaptation of what Theon said to Stannis. And Theon is convinced that Mance and the remaining spearmaidens would never escape, though it's entirely possible they're hiding and Mance can use the ruby to glamor back into Lord of Bones.

The physical aspects of the letter fits with a location of someone who has pink wax, but not the stamp (Tybald, the maester). Hence Stannis constructed the letter with the help of Theon and Tybald wrote it out.

The tone is Ramsay's, which of course Theon can emulate perfectly now (I want my Reek). The language is a mix of Theon (e.g. whore), Stannis (e.g. wilding princess), Mance (e.g. black crows). 

But I take the lack of skin as overwhelming evidence that the letter, as received by Jon, is not from Ramsay. So, if there was a letter from Ramsay, it was tampered at the Wall to frame Jon.

Sure, Stannis may not trust Clydas, etc. but writing such a letter is incurring in a huge risk. Of course there may have been a very different letter from Stannis and was again tampered.

 

 

[Hodor the Articulate]

17 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

Misrepresentation of what I said. The stress is on "on purpose" when I wrote, "And no, I don't have to prove that Ramsay avoids the word on purpose".

You wanted me to prove that Ramsay avoids it "on purpose". That demand presumes that our word choice and vocabulary is a fully conscious choice we're at all times aware of, including the words we avoid at all cost. And that assumption is wrong. I'm pretty sure that even you cannot instantly sum up your 5 favourite most used words, nor the many that you avoid using. I even doubt you're aware your friends' favourite words and avoids. Vocabulary is something personal, and also for a great part subconscious.

No, I want you to prove that the author does it on purpose. Ramsay is not a real person, after all.

 

17 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

If someone who has never met Ramsay reads the Pink Letter then that someone will immediately come to the conclusion that the letter writer uses the word "whore" gratuitously. It's used gratuitously twice in the Pink Letter. If it's used gratuitously in the Pink Letter, then the Pink Letter's author uses it gratuitously in his language. If Jon was to meet Ramsay in person, he'll expect Ramsay to throw out the word "whore" about any woman not of the highest noble status. And Ramsay doesn't throw out the word "whore" every chance he gets. He never used it, not even in provocative situations, not in situations where he expresses his disdain or hatred of a woman. 

Two points don't make a trend. Gratuitous use would be entitling every woman "whore". Instead, he uses various terms: my bride, the false king's queen, daughter, red witch, wildling princess.

[Jadakiss]

On 12/5/2016 at 9:21 PM, sweetsunray said:

The tone is Theon's. He and Jon never got along well for example. Theon thinks of himself as the Prince of Winterfell and was in a mental rivalry for Robb's affections and friendship against Jon. Theon thinks mysoginistic. Stannis also has heard Mel being referred to as the "red whore". "I want my Reek" is an adaptation of what Theon said to Stannis. And Theon is convinced that Mance and the remaining spearmaidens would never escape, though it's entirely possible they're hiding and Mance can use the ruby to glamor back into Lord of Bones.

The physical aspects of the letter fits with a location of someone who has pink wax, but not the stamp (Tybald, the maester). Hence Stannis constructed the letter with the help of Theon and Tybald wrote it out.

 

nailed it

[Jadakiss]

On 4/23/2016 at 8:54 PM, John Courage said:

Yea, its def not Ramsay, but could be Tybald and co. with Stannis. I just lean toward Mance because he's roaming around Winterfell, and can sneak into wherever he wants. Just the "black crows" and the sort way it's written just makes me think Mance wrote it. If I'm to believe Stannis wrote it, I would just need clarification on the timeline because Jon gets the letter at the end of Dance and we don't see Theon with Stannis and Tybald until Winds.

 

mance might have already been briefed on it I guess

[Free Northman Reborn]

Not sure if I commented on this thread before, or whether it was on the dozen or so previous threads on this topic. But for the sake of brevity, please be so kind as to outline your understanding of Stannis's motive in this convoluted scenario.