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

[The Truth]

and to the people of the dreadfort disagree.......nowhere did anyone say the castle would be stormed. It would be trickery, maester tybald, karstark men trying to save their family prisoners, dead frey soldiers uniforms. again something else answered 10 times. Yes with how strong the dreadfort is it obviously cannot be taken by force. Similar scenario to what Theon did in WF, but all trickery, and by doing that and still having maester tybald, can give bolton false information as to a small siege but it ended but he has to get back etc, lure him out and then has neither castle

[Lord Varys]

42 minutes ago, Greg B said:

The letter is an improvised and hastily drawn plot device that became mandatory when the Battle of Winterfell was cut from the book. Martin needed Jon to react to the outcome of the battle in order to end the book the way he wanted (we all know the scene). Since he wouldn't be able to show us the battle until the next book, Martin needed a way for Jon to 1) react to the outcome, and 2) still leave the reader in enough suspense that we'd want to read about the battle in Winds.

Given the (presumably necessary, at that point) butchering of the end of Dance, the Pink Letter worked well enough. Jon was motivated to go rogue and get himself killed (the desired ending), but we readers still don't know how or what exactly transpired outside the walls of Winterfell and therefore still want to read about it. The butchering (er, heavy cutting, revision, and editing) still leave the final Jon chapter a hot mess, but the sequence of events wouldn't have worked at all without a plot device such as the letter.

All IMHO, of course.

Hm. But wouldn't Jon Snow needed such a plot device (i.e. a letter informing him on what had transpired) even if we, the readers, actually had known what had transpired at Winterfell?

There wouldn't have been any other (conventional) way to inform Jon about that, and whether a letter reporting the truth about the battle(s) at/near Winterfell would have motivated Jon in a similar actually depends on that truth. If Stannis had won and sent a letter about his victory then nothing of the sort that happens in Jon's final chapter would happen in the book.

[Little Lark]

1 hour ago, The Truth said:

wrong thread

edit-ramsay can write

That said I still dont get why multiple users think that grrm does not remember the mannerisms of his own characters. So in something as big as the letter he is going to have Ramsay say words he has never once said, for the first time ever. Lets just start with that at block 1 and I can try to hold the few peoples hands who dont get it through the more revealing things

I actually agree with you in that there's a solid argument as to why Ramsay didn't write the pink letter, but you have been on the offensive from your first post. 

You've presented some decent points but why do you think you need to be completely nasty to anyone that disagrees with you? It's a fictional letter written by an undetermined fictional character, it's hardly worth working yourself up over it to this degree.

 

[Greg B]

14 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Hm. But wouldn't Jon Snow needed such a plot device (i.e. a letter informing him on what had transpired) even if we, the readers, actually had known what had transpired at Winterfell?

There wouldn't have been any other (conventional) way to inform Jon about that, and whether a letter reporting the truth about the battle(s) at/near Winterfell would have motivated Jon in a similar actually depends on that truth. If Stannis had won and sent a letter about his victory then nothing of the sort that happens in Jon's final chapter would happen in the book.

Assuming it's the outcome of the battle that originally would have caused Jon to go rogue, he obviously would have needed to learn the outcome of the battle. Maybe he would have learned about it from the mouth of a survivor. He presumably wouldn't have needed a letter so bizarre that no one can be sure even who wrote it, and why. A more straightforward account of the outcome would have served, given that we'd just read about it. In other words, I think what is unusual about the Pink Letter as that plot device is that it intentionally and necessarily makes no sense. It's a plot device that simultaneously lets Jon react in a certain way but also leaves us wanting to know what really happened down there!

However, while I do think Jon was always going to be assassinated, I'm not convinced that he was originally going rogue. I don't think this turn makes much sense in the text. I think Jon's plans for the wildlings planted the seed and no other actions were required on his part to be assassinated. Maybe we were originally supposed to get the Hardhome rescue mission! Or maybe he's assassinated before he can leave for Hardhome, because the conspirators can't allow him to succeed.

[aryagonnakill#2]

Means, motive, and opportunity.  That is how you decide if someone is a reasonable candidate to have done something.  Ramsay is the only person with all 3, plain and simple.  Mance has no means, Stannis has no motive.  The only person who should even be considered a candidate on that basis is Ramsay.

The only other option I see is Mance willingly working with/tricking Ramsay because that would add up to means, motive, and opportunity.  I personally don't like the theory because Mance doesn't even know Jon got so many wildlings through the wall.  All Jon had when Mance left were the 200 Thenns and maybe a couple hundred more warriors, but no where near enough that Jon could have mounted an attack against the Boltons, so Mance would not have a good reason to expect Jon to do so.

[The Truth]

1 hour ago, Little Lark said:

I actually agree with you in that there's a solid argument as to why Ramsay didn't write the pink letter, but you have been on the offensive from your first post. 

You've presented some decent points but why do you think you need to be completely nasty to anyone that disagrees with you? It's a fictional letter written by an undetermined fictional character, it's hardly worth working yourself up over it to this degree.

 

 

Not being nasty at all. Myself and others have posted some clear obvious basic things, that have not even been countered. Chalk it to losing patience, being some post the same things answered, and also overlook some of the basic points and try too hard to think down the line. When numerous people trying to walk them through step by step, seems the most effective thing is to start from square 1 and make it easy as possible

Not one person has posted a reasonable defense about the words of the letter. As grrm does not know his own characters mannerisms, why would he start using words for a character who has never said them before, while another says it all the time? Why would the past 2 letters be so descriptive with things like blood, skin body parts, and this one none of those? 6 prisoners and no blood, no nothing. Even "their heads being at WF" Boltons are known for flaying and then putting people on their sigil crosses. There is the obvious give away with bastard written instead of official house seal. TWOW chapter just gives it away by having Tybald there, and the convo with Theon. I mean he cant make it any more obvious. Unless some use the defense that grrm does not remember his own characters vocabulary and all of a sudden has them saying and doing new things for the first time in something that is obviously important

[The Truth]

Hey sorry for the late reply I never saw you private messaged me back. Why havent you posted in the pink letter thread? And nah I left it at saying I was 100% and gave the hint telling people to read between the lines of that but I left it at that. I agree with you, it is funny because it is obvious. Not sure if ya read the whole thing but multiple people broke it down and tried to make it simple, as did I. The ones who dont I feel bad for because it is that simple, not going to go back anymore just going to bookmark it and bump it when they get to see for themselves. And I still have the same skype just havent been on it, let me know when you need to

[Nevets]

1 hour ago, The Truth said:

 

Not being nasty at all. Myself and others have posted some clear obvious basic things, that have not even been countered. Chalk it to losing patience, being some post the same things answered, and also overlook some of the basic points and try too hard to think down the line. When numerous people trying to walk them through step by step, seems the most effective thing is to start from square 1 and make it easy as possible

Not one person has posted a reasonable defense about the words of the letter. As grrm does not know his own characters mannerisms, why would he start using words for a character who has never said them before, while another says it all the time? Why would the past 2 letters be so descriptive with things like blood, skin body parts, and this one none of those? 6 prisoners and no blood, no nothing. Even "their heads being at WF" Boltons are known for flaying and then putting people on their sigil crosses. There is the obvious give away with bastard written instead of official house seal. TWOW chapter just gives it away by having Tybald there, and the convo with Theon. I mean he cant make it any more obvious. Unless some use the defense that grrm does not remember his own characters vocabulary and all of a sudden has them saying and doing new things for the first time in something that is obviously important

The Pink Letter seems designed to be as provocative and insulting as it can possibly be.  If I am sending a message I want to be provocative and insulting, and to anger the recipient, I might very well use language and phrases I would never consider using otherwise.

Ramsay knows bastards are often sensitive about that fact and Theon probably told him that Jon himself was sensitive about the fact that he was a bastard while at Winterfell.  So his use of the term "bastard" is likely intended to rile up Jon.  Somewhat the same with "whore".  He knows, or expects, it to be considered offensive by his intended recipient(s), and uses it for that reason.   I don't know why "Reek" is used in the message, but I can think of no reason for anyone else to use it either.

The only time we see skin with a message is the one he sent to Asha at Deepwood Motte.  This is a castle he knew was under Ironborn occupation.  It also specifically mentions that it was written in the blood of Ironborn.  The message sent to Castle Black (which has the same content; that Moat Cailin was taken and Ramsay is marrying Arya) is not mentioned as having either of these features.  The signature is described as being in blood and spiky, but nothing was said of the message itself.  I think the skin and writing in blood were included in Asha's message because she was one of the Ironborn he was trying to frighten and intimidate.

As has been widely posted above, Ramsay seems to have the most reasonable motive for writing the letter.  I am inclined to believe that he wrote it, but am skeptical of the accuracy of its contents.

[Little Lark]

46 minutes ago, Nevets said:

The Pink Letter seems designed to be as provocative and insulting as it can possibly be.  If I am sending a message I want to be provocative and insulting, and to anger the recipient, I might very well use language and phrases I would never consider using otherwise.

Ramsay knows bastards are often sensitive about that fact and Theon probably told him that Jon himself was sensitive about the fact that he was a bastard while at Winterfell.  So his use of the term "bastard" is likely intended to rile up Jon.  Somewhat the same with "whore".  He knows, or expects, it to be considered offensive by his intended recipient(s), and uses it for that reason.   I don't know why "Reek" is used in the message, but I can think of no reason for anyone else to use it either.

The only time we see skin with a message is the one he sent to Asha at Deepwood Motte.  This is a castle he knew was under Ironborn occupation.  It also specifically mentions that it was written in the blood of Ironborn.  The message sent to Castle Black (which has the same content; that Moat Cailin was taken and Ramsay is marrying Arya) is not mentioned as having either of these features.  The signature is described as being in blood and spiky, but nothing was said of the message itself.  I think the skin and writing in blood were included in Asha's message because she was one of the Ironborn he was trying to frighten and intimidate.

As has been widely posted above, Ramsay seems to have the most reasonable motive for writing the letter.  I am inclined to believe that he wrote it, but am skeptical of the accuracy of its contents.

To add to this, Ramsay does use the word bastard at least once after he and his men fail to find the lost Freys:

"Just see to Blood. I rode the bastard hard."

People have also pointed out the fact that Ramsay never uses the word whore and therefore its presence in the pink letter is conspicuous. I'm not convinced on this one. Whore is a pretty common insult, both in reality and Westeros. I'm sure it was in Ramsay's vocabulary even if he hadn't used it in front of a POV character. 

The really damning term that sheds some doubt on Ramsay as the writer is "black crows." We only ever hear wildlings using this particular phrase to describe the black brothers. However, this makes it look more like Mance wrote the letter as, by the OP's logic, it would be just as incredibly OOC of Stannis or Theon to say this as it would Ramsay. 

[Greg B]

If you want to make sense of the letter textually (rather than as a somewhat clunky plot device), you need a convincing reason that Jon believes Stannis is dead. This task is made rather more difficult if you believe the letter is actually a coded message from Stannis, of course, but it's a problem regardless of your personal theory about who wrote the letter. This is because, even though we're inside Jon's head, the author never gives us any explanation or support whatsoever for this belief. Of all the things in the letter that may be true or may be false, we know for a fact that Jon believes this part.

I should have gone to Selyse first. She has the right to know her lord is dead.

Italics in the original, indicating Jon's thoughts.

 

 

[Nevets]

4 minutes ago, Little Lark said:

To add to this, Ramsay does use the word bastard at least once after he and his men fail to find the lost Freys:

"Just see to Blood. I rode the bastard hard."

People have also pointed out the fact that Ramsay never uses the word whore and therefore its presence in the pink letter is conspicuous. I'm not convinced on this one. Whore is a pretty common insult, both in reality and Westeros. I'm sure it was in Ramsay's vocabulary even if he hadn't used it in front of a POV character. 

The really damning term that sheds some doubt on Ramsay as the writer is "black crows." We only ever hear wildlings using this particular phrase to describe the black brothers. However, this makes it look more like Mance wrote the letter as, by the OP's logic, it would be just as incredibly OOC of Stannis or Theon to say this as it would Ramsay. 

The wildlings aren't the only ones to use the term "crow" to refer to NW men.  As someone pointed out upthread, the term "crows" is also used in the south.  It is aimed at Yoren's convoy a couple of times.  The term "black" merely serves to emphasize it.  It's clearly an insulting term, so it fits in the letter as well.

[Little Lark]

6 minutes ago, Nevets said:

The wildlings aren't the only ones to use the term "crow" to refer to NW men.  As someone pointed out upthread, the term "crows" is also used in the south.  It is aimed at Yoren's convoy a couple of times.  The term "black" merely serves to emphasize it.  It's clearly an insulting term, so it fits in the letter as well.

Haha never mind, you got me there!

[Free Northman Reborn]

7 hours ago, Greg B said:

The letter is an improvised and hastily drawn plot device that became mandatory when the Battle of Winterfell was cut from the book. Martin needed Jon to react to the outcome of the battle in order to end the book the way he wanted (we all know the scene). Since he wouldn't be able to show us the battle until the next book, Martin needed a way for Jon to 1) react to the outcome, and 2) still leave the reader in enough suspense that we'd want to read about the battle in Winds.

Given the (presumably necessary, at that point) butchering of the end of Dance, the Pink Letter worked well enough. Jon was motivated to go rogue and get himself killed (the desired ending), but we readers still don't know how or what exactly transpired outside the walls of Winterfell and therefore still want to read about it. The butchering (er, heavy cutting, revision, and editing) still leave the final Jon chapter a hot mess, but the sequence of events wouldn't have worked at all without a plot device such as the letter.

All IMHO, of course.

This is the best analysis I have read about the Pink letter. Absolutely spot on in my view

[evita mgfs]

I also like the above solution.  However, we cannot suppose the thoughts or intentions of the author without proof from a reliable source.  We love Martin, but we cannot read his mind.

[Greg B]

1 minute ago, evita mgfs said:

I also like the above solution.  However, we cannot suppose the thoughts or intentions of the author without proof from a reliable source.  We love Martin, but we cannot read his mind.

I agree with this, which is why I don't even pretend to know how the chapter was supposed to go. But we can determine that what's there isn't right. It's like that botched painting restoration that went viral: If you've never seen the original, you don't know how it was supposed to look. But you know it wasn't supposed to look like that!

Specifically, everything before and after two plot points is fine. Everything in between? Hot mess. Those plot points are 1) Jon deciding to lead the greater portion of the Wall's strength to Hardhome, and 2) Jon getting assassinated by his opposition in the Night's Watch. Indeed, if we'd gone directly from (1) to (2), it would have been a coherent narrative. The section between those two plot points is like the swirly mess in that restoration. We may not know exactly what, but something ain't right!

All we really know is that Martin had to cut the Battle of Winterfell, and we got a plot device telling us (a version) of the Battle of Winterfell. Then we get Jon believing parts of that account that the text gives him no reason to believe; we get Jon acting on that belief in a way that doesn't seem to be supported satisfactorily; we get the Night's Watch reacting to Jon's action in a way that doesn't make sense... In short, we get the swirly mess. Something ain't right!

 

[Makk]

2 hours ago, Greg B said:

I agree with this, which is why I don't even pretend to know how the chapter was supposed to go. But we can determine that what's there isn't right. It's like that botched painting restoration that went viral: If you've never seen the original, you don't know how it was supposed to look. But you know it wasn't supposed to look like that!

Specifically, everything before and after two plot points is fine. Everything in between? Hot mess. Those plot points are 1) Jon deciding to lead the greater portion of the Wall's strength to Hardhome, and 2) Jon getting assassinated by his opposition in the Night's Watch. Indeed, if we'd gone directly from (1) to (2), it would have been a coherent narrative. The section between those two plot points is like the swirly mess in that restoration. We may not know exactly what, but something ain't right!

All we really know is that Martin had to cut the Battle of Winterfell, and we got a plot device telling us (a version) of the Battle of Winterfell. Then we get Jon believing parts of that account that the text gives him no reason to believe; we get Jon acting on that belief in a way that doesn't seem to be supported satisfactorily; we get the Night's Watch reacting to Jon's action in a way that doesn't make sense... In short, we get the swirly mess. Something ain't right!

 

Jon believes there is truth in there because he doesn't want to risk it being true and then doing nothing to save Arya. He also in a way wants to "gather his banners" and go south to smash the Boltons. This is the sub-conscious justification for him. He doesn't believe it blindly, he sits down with Tormund and discusses how much is true. He knows about Mance and there is very little benefit in Ramsay lying. If this was all a lie, how would messing around with the nights watch help Ramsay? How would telling Jon Arya escaped help him?

 

 

[Free Northman Reborn]

In a way it reminds me of another weak plot device in the same book - the revelation that the Ironborn sailor boy Wex supposedly first hid in a tree and then followed the wildling Osha who was raised in the lore of woodcraft and tracking, and a direwolf with almost supernatural senses, undetected for long enough to discover they were heading to Skagos.

This makes almost no sense and seems to have ham fistedly been inserted simply to allow Manderly to send Davos to Skagos.

[Lord Varys]

11 hours ago, Greg B said:

Assuming it's the outcome of the battle that originally would have caused Jon to go rogue, he obviously would have needed to learn the outcome of the battle. Maybe he would have learned about it from the mouth of a survivor. He presumably wouldn't have needed a letter so bizarre that no one can be sure even who wrote it, and why. A more straightforward account of the outcome would have served, given that we'd just read about it. In other words, I think what is unusual about the Pink Letter as that plot device is that it intentionally and necessarily makes no sense. It's a plot device that simultaneously lets Jon react in a certain way but also leaves us wanting to know what really happened down there!

However, while I do think Jon was always going to be assassinated, I'm not convinced that he was originally going rogue. I don't think this turn makes much sense in the text. I think Jon's plans for the wildlings planted the seed and no other actions were required on his part to be assassinated. Maybe we were originally supposed to get the Hardhome rescue mission! Or maybe he's assassinated before he can leave for Hardhome, because the conspirators can't allow him to succeed.

Well, the idea that a survivor of a battle near Winterfell showed up at the Wall makes no sense. Nobody near Winterfell involved in the battle would head for the Wall in the middle of a snowstorm unless he had enough horses and provisions to make the journey. It would be much more logical to head for a near castle/holdfast/village/hiding place.

So I'd settle it had to be a letter. The only other option would be a vision from Mel, but those wouldn't carry the same weight as an actual existing letter - at least not in Jon's mind.

I agree that theoretically a non-rogue Jon could also have gotten himself assassinated but keep in mind that the deed was orchestrated by Bowen Marsh who never was Jon's sworn enemy. The idea that he would have done something like that while Stannis was still alive isn't very likely. The man could come back and avenge his friend and ally, the Lord Commander, and destroy the NW before he goes down himself.

Marsh kills Jon Snow to save the Night's Watch. That's his motivation.

So if there had been good information on Stannis' death (say, a letter written by Lady Glover who had gotten the news from surviving Glover men or clansmen) and had not received some taunting letter from Roose, then Marsh and his gang most likely would have tried to talk sense to Jon Snow - that they now had to do anything in their power to appease the Boltons to save the NW. If he had not being willing to do that he might also have been killed. However, it is really difficult to imagine that Jon Snow would just want to back down after the Boltons had won. Especially not if he had the wildlings under his command. On the other hand, if there is not even a shred of hope that Stannis might have survived and his entire army was effectively crushed, and all the Lords in the North bent the knee to Roose, then the idea that his undisciplined wildlings could make a difference against the Bolton army wouldn't make much sense.

And if Jon would then just stay at the Wall Marsh would actually have no reason to murder him. Especially since behaving wildlings could put them in a position of strength when actually dealing with the Boltons. And Jon seems to have been determined to stick to the bigger picture (that is the fight against the Others).

The Hardhome mission doesn't seem to have been such big a deal. Selyse didn't like it but Bowen Marsh actually might have liked the fact that Jon Snow might get himself and a lot of wildlings killed in the process. Unlike I'm misremembering stuff Jon didn't have the intention to leave most of the wildlings at the Wall intending to take most/all of the Watchmen with him to Hardhome. Therefore one should assume that Marsh would have been in a position to control events at the Wall in Jon's absence.

In that sense I find Jon going rogue actually a great idea. It provides the necessary ultimate betrayal of the long-standing traditions of the Night's Watch which then justify his assassination in the eyes of his murderers. And we should keep in mind that the assassination itself is far more than a plot device. Jon failed as Lord Commander of the Night's Watch. He'll have to deal with that if/when he returns from the dead.

[Free Northman Reborn]

15 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Well, the idea that a survivor of a battle near Winterfell showed up at the Wall makes no sense. Nobody near Winterfell involved in the battle would head for the Wall in the middle of a snowstorm unless he had enough horses and provisions to make the journey. It would be much more logical to head for a near castle/holdfast/village/hiding place.

So I'd settle it had to be a letter. The only other option would be a vision from Mel, but those wouldn't carry the same weight as an actual existing letter - at least not in Jon's mind.

I agree that theoretically a non-rogue Jon could also have gotten himself assassinated but keep in mind that the deed was orchestrated by Bowen Marsh who never was Jon's sworn enemy. The idea that he would have done something like that while Stannis was still alive isn't very likely. The man could come back and avenge his friend and ally, the Lord Commander, and destroy the NW before he goes down himself.

Marsh kills Jon Snow to save the Night's Watch. That's his motivation.

So if there had been good information on Stannis' death (say, a letter written by Lady Glover who had gotten the news from surviving Glover men or clansmen) and had not received some taunting letter from Roose, then Marsh and his gang most likely would have tried to talk sense to Jon Snow - that they now had to do anything in their power to appease the Boltons to save the NW. If he had not being willing to do that he might also have been killed. However, it is really difficult to imagine that Jon Snow would just want to back down after the Boltons had won. Especially not if he had the wildlings under his command. On the other hand, if there is not even a shred of hope that Stannis might have survived and his entire army was effectively crushed, and all the Lords in the North bent the knee to Roose, then the idea that his undisciplined wildlings could make a difference against the Bolton army wouldn't make much sense.

And if Jon would then just stay at the Wall Marsh would actually have no reason to murder him. Especially since behaving wildlings could put them in a position of strength when actually dealing with the Boltons. And Jon seems to have been determined to stick to the bigger picture (that is the fight against the Others).

The Hardhome mission doesn't seem to have been such big a deal. Selyse didn't like it but Bowen Marsh actually might have liked the fact that Jon Snow might get himself and a lot of wildlings killed in the process. Unlike I'm misremembering stuff Jon didn't have the intention to leave most of the wildlings at the Wall intending to take most/all of the Watchmen with him to Hardhome. Therefore one should assume that Marsh would have been in a position to control events at the Wall in Jon's absence.

In that sense I find Jon going rogue actually a great idea. It provides the necessary ultimate betrayal of the long-standing traditions of the Night's Watch which then justify his assassination in the eyes of his murderers. And we should keep in mind that the assassination itself is far more than a plot device. Jon failed as Lord Commander of the Night's Watch. He'll have to deal with that if/when he returns from the dead.

Well the Watch is pretty much done for now. Jon will have to apply the lessons learned in whatever new leadership role he has outside of the Watch. The boy has been killed and the man is about to be born.

[Lord Varys]

22 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Well the Watch is pretty much done for now. Jon will have to apply the lessons learned in whatever new leadership role he has outside of the Watch. The boy has been killed and the man is about to be born.

Well, the question is more what failing and death will do to him. Jon and Dany have pretty parallel stories in ADwD. Both try to deal with things as they are, compromise, etc., and they fail. People tend to make a lot of fuzz about Dany espousing Fire and Blood in the end of ADwD but it is actually Jon who suffered the greater trauma (although not necessarily a greater betrayal). How is that going to change him? How dark is he going to get? One assumes that life has an altogether different meaning for a man who has lived through death...

I don't think death and resurrection are a guarantee that you remain (or become) a great or nice guy.

And as to the Watch: I don't see the situation changing immediately. The Wall is still there, and as long as the Wall stand some guys will protect it. And despite the fact that Jon Snow effectively failed as Lord Commander (in the sense that he failed to convince his men or his new ideas) he still is the Lord Commander and whatever he does will most likely continue to be done in the confines of that organization. He only has the NW and the wildlings. The next decently sized armies are hundreds of leagues away at Winterfell.