Jump to content

three-eyed monkey

Members
  • Content count

    1,598
  • Joined

  • Last visited

2 Followers

About three-eyed monkey

  • Rank
    Spanker of one-eyed monkey.

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Emerald Isle
  • Interests
    ASoIaF, LotR, Dune, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, The Catcher in the Rye, Lord of the Flies, Fight Club, 1984, Watchmen, Heart of Darkness, Brave New World, A Picture of Dorian Gray, I Am Legend, The Road, Cloud Atlas, Station Eleven, The Handmaid's Tale, and ASoIaF.

Recent Profile Visitors

2,716 profile views
  1. three-eyed monkey

    Stannis wrote the Pink Letter. Clydas changed it

    This is essentially the plan. Stannis was willing to offer pardons to Robb and Balon if they swore fealty. Then Robb and Balon died. Stannis noted that the wolf left no heir and the kraken too many, the lions would eat them alive unless... He doesn't finish that sentence but I think the implication is clear. Unless he solves their succession problems for them by putting someone loyal to him in Winterfell and Pyke, and thus uniting them under his kingship. Melisandre warned him that they would not, more false kings would rise to take their place. She told Stannis that he would need to show the realm a sign of his power if he wanted their fealty. What sort of sign? Well, Davos then showed him Aemon's plea for help at the Wall. Stannis decided he would answer the call and show Westeros that he was the true king who went to the defense of the realm in it's hour of need. He smashed the wildling host and demanded homage but received only silence and defiance. Stannis knows the north has no love for him. They would apparently rather pay hommage to Roose than him so he knows that defeating the Boltons will not be enough. He needs to earn it by unfucking the fucked, as you put it. That is what Davos is selling at White Harbor, vengeance and justice for the Red Wedding, not just in the north but also in King's Landing. But back to putting things right in the north. With no apparent heirs to Robb except for Lady Sansa Lannister, the bastard son of Eddard Stark is the best choice and Stannis would have known that before he even sailed from Dragonstone. That's why he wastes no time in offering Winterfell to Jon at their very first meeting. The Stark name is vital to the plan, just as it was for Tywin and Roose when they created fake Arya. The Starks are revered in the north. If you put any other northern house in charge it will not be long before another proud house like Umber or Ryswell or Manderly starts asking why it's not them in charge. A Stark in Winterfell is the very best chance of stability in the north, and Stannis naturally wants a stable north bound to his cause. When Jon repeatedly refuses his offer and Stannis is forced to settle for a Karstark, he is quick to stress their family ties to the Starks. Stannis is still trying to trade off the Stark name, even if it is Stark-lite. But then the Karstarks prove treacherous, so who does Stannis turn to next? I think Stannis certainly has motive to at least make some play for Jon again. But Stannis is at Winterfell, (the timeline confuses people because ADwD is missing a few chapters that were moved to TWoW so I believe Stannis took the castle before he sent the letter) and Jon is at the Wall. So a raven is really the only way Stannis can contact Jon in a quick and expedient manner. And a letter that provokes Jon into breaking his vows, the main obstacle to Jon accepting his offer as far as Stannis is concerned, would obviously be very beneficial to the king. And that is exactly what the pink letter was. If someone benefits from an action then we must accept that there is some level of probability they were behind the action. I agree that the responsible thing to do is unite not only the north but the entire realm before the Other's arrive. Jon would be better placed for that war as Lord of Winterfell than Lord Commander of the Watch. And as most of the north already want Jon to succeed Robb, unbeknownst to Stannis, and that Robb even considered ways of getting Jon out of his binding oath, then I don't accept the common objection that the north would not stand for it. Maybe not for Gared's defection or Mance Rayder's, but Jon is clearly a different case. If you want to get a full picture of a character you need to consider every scene, and not just confine yourself to one. But on the subject of the letter, who do you think dictated the first draft? Pylos or Stannis. I think there is a good chance it was Stannis. Then, after Pylos reads it to Davos, Stannis says "I don't know that we ought to call Robert my beloved brother either." He's clearly thinking about it. He doesn't immediately jump to, a lie, take it out. He says, I don't know that we ought... He thinks about it, but if he was as black and white as some readers think then there would be nothing to think about. He wouldn't have put it in the first draft to begin with but if it slipped in then he would certainly just take it out without question. He adds Ser to Jaime and takes out beloved brother regarding Robert for a reason. He wants the letter to be respectful and truthful because he wants the lords of Westeros to take what he is saying about the Lannisters seriously. Everyone knows there was no love between Robert and Stannis, so why add a blatant lie when you are trying to make the letter credible? As Cressen, who knew Stannis well told us, The youngest of Lord Steffon's three sons had grown into a man bold but heedless, who acted from impulse rather than calculation. In that, as in so much else, Renly was like his brother Robert, and utterly unlike Stannis. So Renly and Robert acted from impulse rather than calculation, which is utterly unlike Stannis. Therefore Stannis acts from calculation rather than impulse. That's why we see him think about it before he removes beloved from the letter. That line must come from Theon, who heard Ramsay say it to Walder in Winterfell. Stannis doesn't know Ramsay well enough to even attempt to impersonate him without help from someone who does know him. I think it is within Stannis' own character but I accept you feel otherwise. I'm not so sure Theon is that cunning, perhaps he is, but as I firmly believe the letter was sent from Winterfell after Stannis had taken the castle then perhaps Mance would better fit as the devil on his shoulder. I do expect them to be reunited in Winterfell.
  2. three-eyed monkey

    Stannis wrote the Pink Letter. Clydas changed it

    Because I believe Stannis did use Theon in the construction of the letter. When I say Stannis wrote the pink letter, I guess I mean Stannis and the resources at his disposal including Theon and Maester Tybald. The letter contains a quote from Theon to Stannis, change of person aside, which strongly indicates to me that Theon was involved, wittingly or otherwise. I believe this quote, "He wants his Bride. He wants his Reek." and the mention of a cloak of skins can both be attributed to Theon. That quote also indicates to me that if the letter was altered, as the OP suggests, then the alterations were very minor. Personally I think the letter was read but not altered before it was delivered to Jon. Opening the letter, reading it, and then resealing it would account for the smear of pink wax instead of the usual button of wax as well as Clydas' demeanor when delivering the letter. We agree that Theon was involved. Stannis did say that Theon had information he might need that no doubt concerns Winterfell, the Boltons, Abel and the spearwives, and Ramsay, all of which is valuable to Stannis. Theon does not have to show his worth to Stannis. Theon is heir to the Iron Isles, Stannis will need a loyal lord of Pyke, just as he needs a loyal lord of Winterfell. And even if he holds Asha too, he has made it clear he favors males in such matters. Alternatively, Stannis could kill Theon to appease the northerners. So dead or alive Theon already has political value to Stannis, which far outweighs any potential worth he could muster by his actions. Plus, Theon knows Jon would take his head off in a heartbeat. Bringing Jon to Winterfell is not a good idea if Theon wants to avoid being killed as you suggest. Stannis is a player in the game of thrones, and players manipulate pieces. That's how the game is played. If Stannis couldn't do that then he wouldn't still be in the game. I think it is pretty clear that Jon is Stannis' first choice when it comes to Lord of Winterfell. He has said as much several times and there is no better alternative candidate. The Karsarks were a distant second but that obviously changed when Jon disclosed their plot. So why would Stannis no longer want Jon? I don't understand why people keep saying Stannis is not capable of subterfuge. He burned Rattleshirt instead of Mance. Stannis portrays a certain image, unbending, just, lawful, etc, but his actions often contradict that image. And that is hardly a surprise given that propaganda and public relations are part and parcel of political rule. As Mance said, "We all do what we have to do, Snow. Even kings." That should be especially kings if you ask me but... Theon may have, might have, could have maybe done a lot of things. We know it is Stannis who calls Val a wildling princess and we know that Stannis sees Val as the mortar that seals a peace between the north and the free folk and therefore she has political value to the king, as does the little prince who Stannis is holding hostage to keep Mance loyal. Only if you perceive there to be a contradiction. It does fit GRRM's style. He loves the law of unintended consequences. And I firmly believe Jon's death was an unintended consequence, which really rules out Ramsay as the author in my mind. Ramsay sending a mad rant and then striking gold by getting Jon killed does not fit GRRM's style in my opinion. Stannis wanted Jon to forswear his vows and become his lord of Winterfell, but the letter ended up getting Jon killed. That is an unintended consequence. Bowen Marsh is also doing something to save his own skin, and save the Watch, but ends up killing the key guy in the fight against the Others. So all these storytelling elements are still present with Stannis as the author. The difference is the narrative is tighter with Stannis as the author because throughout ADwD there is a conflict between Stannis and Jon over Winterfell and Jon's vows. This in turn creates a conflict within Jon which comes to a head with the pink letter and Jon deciding to forswear his vows. So I see the pink letter as a final attempt by Stannis to win the conflict with Jon, removing Jon's vows which are the main obstacle, and almost proving successful, until the intervention of another character doing what he thought was right caused it to fail spectacularly.
  3. three-eyed monkey

    Stannis wrote the Pink Letter. Clydas changed it

    No he's clearly not. If he was a rigid moralist then Mance would have burned as his life was forfeit by all the laws of the Seven Kingdoms. Firstly, Stannis has motive to save Mance. This is in the text. Mel does not have motive to save Mance. Mel explains it was Jon's sage advice to Stannis that saved Mance. Mance tells Jon it was Stannis who burned the man he had to burn. So while you firmly believe it was Mel's idea, once again your argument ignores the text. Stannis used a glamour to trick the realm into thinking he satisfied the law and burned Mance. I don't see how that is less duplicitous than the pink letter. Jon was not LC when Stannis first tried to convince Jon to join his cause, but Stannis did not stop trying to convince Jon after he became LC. He made the offer several times in ADwD. Again your argument is contradicted by the text. No. Proudwing was useless, he would not soar. Jon is the outstanding candidate for Lord of Winterfell. Stannis has made several attempts to win Jon to his cause, but they failed because of Jon's vows. Stannis needs to change his approach and that's what he did when he wrote the pink letter. This ignores the whole political aspect of the story. It's not really about watching over Winterfell, it's about winning the north to his cause. Again, this is spelled out in the text several times. And it also ignores the "conflict" between Stannis and Jon and Jon's vows, which runs right through ADwD. Stannis is not merely asking Jon to be the guy who watches over Winterfell for him. That would be extremely weak in terms of storytelling. Thankfully there is a lot more to it than that and Jon's inner-turmoil surrounding the matter is justified.
  4. three-eyed monkey

    Stannis wrote the Pink Letter. Clydas changed it

    Well some people have suggested that, but personally I think it would be a lot less. We know the Wall is 100 leagues or 300 miles long, approximately the same distance as Deepwood Motte to Winterfell. The distance from Winterfell to Castle Black is a little over twice that, so over 200 leagues or 600 miles but less than 700 miles by the kingsroad. Mounted troops could cover this in 10 to 12 days in good weather. The heavy snow would certainly hamper the journey, but I think slowing it to 2 or 3 months is way too much. It was Stannis' infantry and baggage train that slowed him to a halt. Tycho's party, Crowfood's boys, and the Karstarks all made it to Winterfell of the village without being snowed in. So, personally, I think Jon would have been looking at a 15 to 25 day journey. And we should remember that GRRM admits he's a little, (or sometimes a lot), sketchy when it comes to distance and travel times. Also, some Stannis theories have suggested that Stannis wants Jon to come and assist him take Winterfell, but I think the approximate travel time, even at the minimum end of the range, makes that implausible. And there is no evidence that Stannis has a raven trained for Castle Black at the crofters' village. I believe Stannis took Winterfell and then sent the letter as he wants Jon for long-term political reasons rather than short-term military reasons. A lot of readers take a surface view of Stannis, based on how Stannis portrays himself to Westeros. But Stannis character is a lot deeper than that and it's evolving as he progresses along his arc. We can see this in his actions. Stannis has even explained this to Davos. He learned the lesson of Proudwing. Rather than persist with something that is not working, it is better to change and try a different approach. Stannis did command Jon to take the title of Lord of Winterfell but Jon refused based on his oath. Stannis persisted for a while to no avail. Based on his character, and what he himself has told his most trusted advisor, we should expect him to try a different approach. And I believe he did when he wrote the pink letter.
  5. three-eyed monkey

    Stannis wrote the Pink Letter. Clydas changed it

    It's explained quite clearly by Mel and Mance. Stannis saw the value of Mance, but his life was forfeit by all the laws of the seven kingdoms. Then Jon told Stannis the law ends at the Wall. "The only man who can bind them to your cause is Mance Rayder." "I know that," Stannis said, unhappily. "I have spent hours speaking with the man. He knows much and more of our true enemy, and there is cunning in him, I'll grant you. Even if he were to renounce his kingship, though, the man remains an oathbreaker. Suffer one deserter to live, and you encourage others to desert. No. Laws should be made of iron, not of pudding. Mance Rayder's life is forfeit by every law of the Seven Kingdoms." "The law ends at the Wall, Your Grace. You could make good use of Mance." Mel told Jon that Stannis, who is not one to go against the law, took Jon's sage advice and that Mance owes Jon his life because of it. "Our false king has a prickly manner," Melisandre told Jon Snow, "but he will not betray you. We hold his son, remember. And he owes you his very life." "Me?" Snow sounded startled. "Who else, my lord? Only his life's blood could pay for his crimes, your laws said, and Stannis Baratheon is not a man to go against the law … but as you said so sagely, the laws of men end at the Wall." It was Jon's advice that provided Stannis, not Mel, with a loophole in the law. So "Mance" was burned north of the Wall, and beyond the law. Mance later confirmed to Jon that it was Stannis, not Mel, who burned the man he had to burn. "Stannis burned the wrong man." "No." The wildling grinned at him through a mouth of brown and broken teeth. "He burned the man he had to burn, for all the world to see. We all do what we have to do, Snow. Even kings." And finally, if we look at the scene where Rattleshirt is being led to the fire glamoured as Mance, we see Ser Godry, one of Stannis' knights, give a well-timed yank on the rope to prevent the truth escaping Rattleshirt's mouth. The wildling king recoiled from the sight. "No," he cried, "mercy. This is not right, I'm not the king, they—" Ser Godry gave a pull on the rope. The King-Beyond-the-Wall had no choice but to stumble after him, the rope choking off his words. I think it is clear that Stannis is the one who wanted to keep Mance alive. If anything Mel would have wanted to burn Mance for his king's blood. She still considered Stannis to be Azor Ahai at that stage and Mance nothing more than the leader of a lost and heretical people. I don't see why she would go behind Stannis' back on this and risk the king's trust just to save Mance. And I fail to see why Ser Godry, who was clearly informed, would commit treason to save Mance. I think Stannis is very capable of duplicity. We agree on this. Stannis will fall but it won't be against the Boltons, his arc still has a bit to go yet. But let's expand on your point. If Stannis does defeat the Boltons and take Winterfell, then he will need a loyal Lord of Winterfell, just as any king taking the Reach would want a loyal lord of Highgarden, etc. Stannis has made it clear from his first meeting with Jon in ASoS that a legitimized bastard of Eddard Stark would be his preference, given there are no known male Stark heirs left. But Jon repeatedly refuses the offer because of his vows to the Watch. This "conflict" continues between Stannis and Jon all through the first half of ADwD. Eventually Stannis has to settle for Arnolf Karstark. He knows it must be a northman and the Karstarks are connected to the Starks. It's not ideal compared to Jon but Stannis has few options. Then the Karstarks prove treacherous, so who does Stannis turn to next? I say he turns back to his first choice, Jon. The situation is actually a lot different than King's Landing. Stannis was already on Dragonstone when Robert died. He had an army, a navy, potential allies, and he knew the truth about Robert's heirs. He had options then, not so much now. If Stannis takes Winterfell he will be an unloved southron king with a queer god and an army that is mainly made up of northmen who share a common cause against the Boltons but who's allegiance is uncertain beyond that. If Jon forswore his vows and swore his sword to Stannis, then Stannis would be in a far better position to win the north to his cause because he believes the north would rally to the son of Eddard Stark. And finally, you said that Stannis knows who is coming for him, thanks to Theon. The Freys and Manderlys will come seperately, and Ramsay will not be far behind. He wants his bride. He wants his Reek. Like Theon, I also expect Ramsay to be at the battle. If Theon is right then I find it highly unlikely that Ramsay would be in a position to be misled about the result of the battle.
  6. three-eyed monkey

    Stannis wrote the Pink Letter. Clydas changed it

    You can make points like this against Stannis as the author, and many do, but the books say otherwise. Stannis switched Mance with Rattleshirt to keep him alive and he did not tell Jon about it. So duplicity to allies, yes. If you want to ignore that, fine, but ignoring the story makes for a weak argument. No. GRRM has said some of the chapters from TWoW take place before the end of ADwD, as they were originally part of that novel. We can be fairly sure that Theon I TWoW took place before the letter was written as the letter contains a quote from Theon in that chapter.
  7. three-eyed monkey

    Stannis wrote the Pink Letter. Clydas changed it

    I disagree that Ramsay is the best choice. In fact, from a storytelling point of view I believe he is the worst choice. And I don't think he has motive to mention fake Arya's escape in the letter. I think this is one of the biggest reasons to scratch Ramsay from the list of potential authors. I don't want the author of the letter to be anyone in particular. I'm just articulating what the story is saying to me as a reader; Stannis is the architect of the pink letter.
  8. three-eyed monkey

    Who is Going to Die

    Just for fun I'm guessing Grey Worm, Jorah, Edd, Theon, Tormund, Pod, Gendry, Jaime and Brienne are all done. Not sure about Bran but my gut says he's gone too. I think Visrerion and Rhaegal are both going down locked in mortal combat. Dany might even have to burn them both with Drogon. Plot-armored survivors will flee on Drogon. Jon, Dany, Sansa, Arya, and Tyrion. Probably Samwell and Gilly too. Not sure about Varys. Gut feeling says Davos survives all the way. And for some added tinfoil, I think Sandor will die but Beric will pass the flame and bring him back. Sandor will be one of the survivors who gets to King's Landing, where he will kill Gregor with a burning sword he ignites Beric-style.
  9. three-eyed monkey

    Will Melisandre appear?

    I suspect Mel will show up with R'hllor's army of light for final battle in ep 5.
  10. three-eyed monkey

    Stannis wrote the Pink Letter. Clydas changed it

    No offense taken my man. I enjoy a good debate. I don't claim the Stannis theory contains any hard proof, but I don't accept when people make the case for there being hard proof that Ramsay wrote the letter because there is none. I am all in on the Stannis theory, and I present the case as best I can and answer the objections to the best of my ability. But unlike Stannis, I don't expect anyone to bend the knee. I'm free folk at heart, and free folk can follow whatever theory they choose. On the subject of clarity, I mean from the writer (GRRM's) point of view. If Ramsay wrote the letter GRRM would have made it clear, and if he missed that mark then his editor would have picked it up. But again, that's just my opinion.
  11. three-eyed monkey

    Stannis wrote the Pink Letter. Clydas changed it

    I would say it does not matter much if Jon has 300 wildings or 3000 wildlings. Stannis has 5000 and Mance still thinks he would need ten times that number to take the castle. Jon will need more than wildlings to take Winterfell. He will need to use who he is, the son of Eddard Stark, to try and win the north from the Boltons. It's a well-known fact that the Boltons betrayed the north and were given their power by the Lannisters, whom the north were at war with. Jon's best move, as a son of Eddard Stark, would be to rally every honorable northman against the cruel and treacherous Boltons. Justice and vengeance are strong selling points. But Nevets, you and I bashed this forward and back on several threads. I doubt either of us will convince the other without the next book. Let me just clarify my position. I'm not tentatively suggesting the letter came from Stannis. The conflict between Stannis and Jon regarding Winterfell and Jon's vows began at the end of ASoS and ran all the way to the end of ADwD. The pink letter is part of that conflict. But I'm not getting into the Stannis theory here again, when I've already detailed it in several threads already. There is also a 20 page thread about the Ramsay theory which, despite people taking it as a given and suggesting the alternative theories are crackpot, has been unable to provide any foreshadowing or any form of textual support for the theory, beyond trying to convince people that the signature is "hard proof" it came from Ramsay, which is clearly a logical fallacy. Still, that's the best they have done. Should something so "obviously true" be that hard to prove or even support? I don't think so. If GRRM intended the letter to be from Ramsay, then we must agree that he failed to make it clear. And I for one certainly don't think GRRM would make such an amateur mistake around clarity. I've seen Mance (considered by some to be the definitive theory on the matter), Lady Dustin (that one even won an award on reddit), Mel, Thorne, Clydas, Davos, Varys, Blackfish, Asha, Littlefinger, some dead septon from Winterfell, and even Jon himself. I'm not sure who's left?
  12. three-eyed monkey

    Stannis wrote the Pink Letter. Clydas changed it

    It's more than a partnership of convenience. The most convenient thing about their partnership is that Stannis wants to take down the Boltons and Lannisters. Jon is invested in Winterfell and Arya, that's clear all through his arc. He's not happy about what happened Ned at the hands of the Lannisters. He's not happy about Robb being betrayed. His vows are the cause of most of his inner conflict. Jon says the Watch have no sisters, but he thinks about Arya all the time and fears for her safety. Jon says the Watch take no part, but as even Cersei pointed out, his actions give lie to his words. Jon has aided Stannis every step of the way. He advises the king about the Dreadfort, how to win the northern clans, Deepwood Motte. He gives Tycho horses and guides to reach Stannis. He informs Stannis of the Karstark scheme. So Jon is clearly invested in Stannis' cause. As we should expect because he would hardly back the Boltons and Lannisters. Better a Karstark than a Bolton or a Greyjoy, Jon told himself, but the thought gave him little solace. "The Karstarks abandoned my brother amongst his enemies." If Jon was not invested then it would not matter who held Winterfell; Karstark, Bolton, Greyjoy, or Moonboy. But quite understandably it does matter to him. The Karstarks abandoned his brother so it gives him no solace, but it is better than the Boltons or Greyjoys whose betrayal of the Starks was much deeper. It is known in Winterfell that Jon had made a common cause with Stannis, and it is known that Stannis wants to remove the Boltons and ultimately their Lannister overlords. It makes perfect sense that Jon and Stannis would make a common cause, given what happened to Jon's family at the hands of Stannis' enemies. It makes perfect sense that Jon was the one who sent Mance to rescue Arya. And because he has already acted against the Boltons, it makes perfect sense that Jon would act against them again and reveal the lie behind Ramsay's wedding, given it's importance to the Boltons' hold on the North. Of course Jon has a choice. Even Ramsay is smart enough to understand that. Willem Darry had no support and was hanging in the wind, but that does not mean he had no choice but to hand the Targ heirs over to Robert. From a Bolton point of view, Jon just stole Arya. He obviously knew the Boltons would discover her missing sooner or later, they would want her back, and he would be a suspect given his relation to her. But he did it anyway. Why would they think a letter would be enough to make him give her back? The Bolton's would know the Starks well enough to know that a son of Eddard Stark may not actually be willing to comply with a man who skins women. Certainly not when the demands involve sending several more women and children to Ramsay. While there are men who would comply with such demands, there are many who would not. And given that Jon and Jeyne might be able to pull the support from under the Boltons by exposing the fake wedding, then there is even less chance that he would comply because he has another option and the Boltons are not secure enough in their rule to risk Jon choosing that option, particularly when he is the son of a Stark. Of course Ramsay has reason to think Jon will care about fake Arya, because her identity undermines the Bolton rule and Jon made a common cause with the Bolton's enemy, which means he is in favor of things that undermine Bolton rule. If you mean make him come to Winterfell by some sort of summons, then that would not really constitute breaking his vows, which is essential to Stannis plan. We might as easily ask why the Boltons didn't summons Jon to Winterfell to pay for his crimes? Why did they shilly-shilly about with taunts and then put stuff in about fArya having escaped them? It seems odd to claim Jon is not invested in his own family but might be invested in Stannis' family. This is typical of the Ramsay Theory. Argue one way to support one point and flip the table to support the next. As I have always said, it's not really a theory just a set of objections that can't be fitted together coherently without self-contradiction. And finally, from the senders point of view, the letter only gives Jon three options, broadly speaking. 1. Comply with the letter. Try save his own skin by sending Ramsay the women and children he wanted, saying nothing about the fake wedding, and then hope the bastard of Bolton is a man of his word and will let the whole thing slide. 2. Do nothing. Which means Ramsay will come for him eventually. 3. Defy the letter. Which means waiting for Ramsay to come to him and then defending Castle Black from the south against a vastly superior force compared to the Thenn raiding party. Or taking the fight to Ramsay whatever way he can, which would obviously mean using his lineage or the fact that Ramsay's marriage is just another Bolton lie to try and raise the north against the Boltons. The letter removes any chance of Stannis solving the problem for Jon. It also removes concerns about Arya being a hostage of the Boltons. It taunts Jon to come to Winterfell, quite directly on two occasions. It paints Ramsay as a monster and a cruel Lord of Winterfell. It says Mance is in a cage needing rescue. It accuses Jon of crimes he did commit and of crimes he did not. It insults Jon and puts his honor in question. All in all, I think it is more likely that Jon would act against Ramsay than comply with his demands. And once Jon does act against the Lord of Winterfell he will have broken his vows.
  13. three-eyed monkey

    Stannis wrote the Pink Letter. Clydas changed it

    Red herrings are placed in a mystery by the writer to distract or mislead the reader. But if the letter really came from Ramsay then there is no mystery, and if there is no mystery then there is no need to distract or mislead your readers, so you don't need to place red herrings. I think what you're suggesting is the quote from Theon is merely a coincidence. It might be, though I don't think that's a convincing argument. In my opinion the quote from Theon is a clue, not a coincidence. A clue that was intended to be placed before the pink letter, naturally, except the Theon chapter got bumped. And it's not the only clue; the huge spiky hand, the wildling princess, etc, all clues dismissed by Ramsay theorists. Ramsay has no realistic motive to ask Jon for fake Arya back, given that Jon has made common cause with the Bolton's enemies, Jon was the one who sent Mance to rescue her, and certainly not when her fake identity, which Jon would obviously see through, is crucial to the Bolton's tenuous hold on the north. Ramsay asking Jon for fArya back makes about as much sense as Robert writing to Willem Darry to ask for Viserys and Dany back.
  14. three-eyed monkey

    Stannis wrote the Pink Letter. Clydas changed it

    If you think the Theon quote is a red herring then I take it you don't believe the letter is from Ramsay, as red herrings are added to mysteries and Ramsay writing the letter means no mystery regarding authorship. I agree he sent it from Winterfell. That does not exclude him from quoting what Theon told him about Ramsay a few days before that. I find that explanation at least as plausible as any other potential author quoting Theon, if not more plausible.. I never said Thorne was honorable. I'm not even sold on him being involved in the conspiracy, but I accept it is possible. My own position is that the letter was read and resealed by the conspirators, not rewritten. I think they believed the contents were true and it really was from Ramsay. I think the letter provided the conspirators with additional reasons to act against Jon and his speech in the shieldhall where he outlined his plan to ride against Ramsay meant they had no choice but act or risk being seen as complicit by the crown. Well, we disagree as I believe all of the above are clues that the letter was not written by Ramsay. As I said, I think the absence of huge spiky hand is simply a literary clue. I guess we'll have to wait and see.
  15. three-eyed monkey

    Stannis wrote the Pink Letter. Clydas changed it

    I disagree that Stannis motive to manipulate Jon is convoluted. Stannis is a player and he views Jon as a piece. Players manipulate pieces, that's how the game of thrones is played. The conspirators didn't need Jon to break his vows to remove him. He had been declared a rebel by the crown for assisting Stannis. Marsh and company have more than likely been plotting to remove him for some time. Marsh was not happy about the wildling situation or about the Stannis situation or the beheading of Slynt. But it was Jon's reaction to the letter that forced them to act because if they had let him ride south against the Lord of Winterfell then the Watch would obviously risk being seen as complicit in Jon's actions. That's why it was "For the Watch." You say Clydas' motive was to get Jon to break his vows, but as the conspirators had enough reason to act already then the letter being for this purpose too is the very definition of convoluted. Stannis is the one who wants Jon to break his vows, this runs right through Jon's arc. Jon will not accept Stannis offer of Winterfell because of his vows. Stannis needs to accept that or else find a way to get around it. Some people say he accepted that, and while I agree he may have done so temporarily when he was going to give Winterfell to Arnolf Karstark, once the Karstark plot was exposed by an act of loyalty from Jon that clearly showed his investment in Stannis removing the Boltons from Winterfell, he needed to revisit the matter. Given that Stannis had no viable alternative who could unite the north like the son of Eddard Stark could, he wrote the pink letter to try and get around Jon's vows by triggering Jon to break them. But what's this imaginary letter based on? He didn't send Reek with fArya. Your reasoning for why he mentioned the wildling princess ignores the political value that Stannis places in Val, he plans to use her to seal a peace between the wildings who will settle the Gift and the North. He doesn't want Jon to come south to see his home, he wants him to be the Lord of Winterfell and bind the north to the king's cause. In my opinion, no. Do I think the conspirators read the letter? Yes. The smear of pink wax suggests the letter was opened and resealed. Is it possible that the conspirators altered the letter? Yes, it's possible. If they read it then of course they could have altered it, but did they? I'm not convinced because I think the language largely relates to Stannis, particularly the quote from Theon. That the parchment was not described as wet may be a clue to the letter being rewritten but at the same time it could easily be explained if the conspirators had the parchment in their possession long enough for it to dry. How long did they scheme between reading the letter and resealing it for Clydas to deliver it to Jon? Long enough for a piece of parchment to dry I would think. Actually the idea was discussed here shortly after ADwD was released. Several years ago @bemused wrote a very good piece about it being rewritten by Thorne. It seems to be, but that doesn't make it right. Firstly, if you want to argue along the lines that you did then I would say that if any potential forger had seen Ramsay's distinctive hand then they would obviously copy it. We could argue back and forth on why Jon didn't mention Ramsay's hand. Some people say Jon didn't think about it because he recognized it, but recognition does not exclude him from thinking about it. Why didn't we get that recognition through his pov? Jon recognized the huge spiky hand or the letter was signed in a familiar huge spiky hand or whatever. That way GRRM would have clarified that the letter was actually from Ramsay and not set up a false mystery. Huge spiky hand is set-up twice, once through Asha and once through Jon. It is set up for a reason. It's absence is meant to be noticed. This is a very standard device in mystery writing. Agreed. If it was edited then it would have to be someone like Thorne or Mel or maybe Marsh. Clydas would have held the pen at best and written what he was told. Still, I'm not convinced it was edited but I accept it is possible. Stannis wants to unite the wildlings and the north by marrying Jon Stark, Lord of Winterfell, to Val, the wildling princess. The Wall is a mess right now and the north is embattled. Stannis' plan, if it came to fruition, would only make the Wall and the north stronger for the war to come.
×