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

[sweetsunray]

28 minutes ago, Amris said:

That is quite a logic leap you make there.

We have no evidence whatsoever for your claim that Ramsay uses the word 'whore' always in the same way and only for the same reasons. Thus whether he called Kyra a whore or not has absolutely no bearing on whether he is the author of the Pink Letter.

And an additional problem with your logic:

The Pink Letter was obviously meant to provoke Jon. So there was reason for Ramsay to use offensive wording (whore for instance) even if your assumption that he wouldn't use the same word in other circumstances was true. And it is completely irrelevant if the women mentioned really are whores or not. The letter is meant to make Jon mad, not to communicate an unbiased truth.

The same goes for the often cited use of the word bastard of course.

It seems to be a term that Ramsay disliked when used on himself. So from his perspective applying it to Jon in the Pink Letter must seem like just the thing to do to get Jon mad.

Not a logic leap in literature at all, certainly not with an author who has a total background character with just one line have a distinct voice, and Ramsay has more than one line.

So what if it was meant to provoke Jon? A previous letter was meant to provoke Asha... no "whore" mentioned in there. Provocation is not a reason why someone actually would alter their personal language to the previous times they wished to provoke either a woman or a man before. Ramsay provokes often. Using "whore" is not his way to provoke.

Also I wasn't "assuming" Ramsay would use the word "whore" in other situations, because obviously based on textual evidence he doesn't. Another poster "assumed" it, and I argued using their logic to argue against it. Now you say I'm the one making logical leaps based on someone else's assumptions.

What is clear to me is that people invent all sorts of reasons why the Pink Letter would be the exception where Ramsay uses the word "whore" where he hasn't before, and conveniently forget other similar situations, where we then also should see the use of the word "whore" by Ramsay, and yet we don't.

[aryagonnakill#2]

5 hours ago, Ferocious Veldt Roarer said:

The black crows, however, keep bothering me. The phrase has been used by: Osha, Craster, Ygritte, Rattleshirt, Mance Rayder, Harma, Tormunds Giantsbane, Jon Snow... and the author of the Pink Letter. That's the complete list, I believe. The words "black crow" weren't, on the pages of the books, ever said south of the Wall until Lord Snow said them in Mole's Town to wildlings. "It’s us that keeps you safe, the black crows you despise”, was the actual wording, as if Jon made an intentional choice to speak wildling. He did, I believe.

The author made a deliberate effort to establish "black crow" as a uniquely wildling term. In four different books, eleven occurrences, eight different characters - nope, that is not accidental, and that is not casual. And then he put the "black crows" in the Pink Letter - for what purpose? I have yet to see a satisfying answer, if the letter is really written by Ramsay.

To me the answer to this is that Ramsay just got all his info by interrogating wildlings.  Mance could easily have referred to Mel as a red whore also.  There is also the fact that it was written to provoke so you use the most offensive terms possible.

[sweetsunray]

3 minutes ago, aryagonnakill#2 said:

To me the answer to this is that Ramsay just got all his info by interrogating wildlings.  Mance could easily have referred to Mel as a red whore also.  There is also the fact that it was written to provoke so you use the most offensive terms possible.

That's actually not a "fact", but an assumption based on the assumption that Ramsay wrote it. It's circulal logic. "Ramsay wrote it to provoke it, so now any type of language goes" - never mind that he didn't use that language in other situations where Ramsay wished to provoke, denigrate or scare women.

[aryagonnakill#2]

1 minute ago, sweetsunray said:

That's actually not a "fact", but an assumption based on the assumption that Ramsay wrote it. It's circulal logic. "Ramsay wrote it to provoke it, so now any type of language goes" - never mind that he didn't use that language in other situations where Ramsay wished to provoke, denigrate or scare women.

It is clearly a fact that the letter was written to provoke, regardless of who wrote it or why, they were trying to provoke a reaction.

[sweetsunray]

Just now, aryagonnakill#2 said:

It is clearly a fact that the letter was written to provoke, regardless of who wrote it or why, they were trying to provoke a reaction.

It's possible, but not a certainty. The line to tell Mel is enough to cast doubt on the supposed provocation goal.

[Universal Sword Donor]

3 minutes ago, aryagonnakill#2 said:

It is clearly a fact that the letter was written to provoke, regardless of who wrote it or why, they were trying to provoke a reaction.

It has trigger warning written all over it.

[Universal Sword Donor]

2 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

It's possible, but not a certainty. The line to tell Mel is enough to cast doubt on the supposed provocation goal.

What else was it written for if not to provoke? Which character, regardless of author, would it have not provoked? Bloodraven?

[sweetsunray]

1 minute ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

What else was it written for if not to provoke? Which character, regardless of author, would it have not provoked? Bloodraven?

If Jon had gone to Mel with the letter, she might have given explanations to the letter and gone would be the provocation.

[Universal Sword Donor]

4 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

If Jon had gone to Mel with the letter, she might have given explanations to the letter and gone would be the provocation.

And why would Jon have gone to get this explanation? Is he rolling over and doing "Ramsay's" bidding or did the letter provoke him to do it? Basically it's either Jon knew what the letter was ahead of time or he was provoked by it. Are you in the former camp?

[Ferocious Veldt Roarer]

13 minutes ago, aryagonnakill#2 said:

To me the answer to this is that Ramsay just got all his info by interrogating wildlings.  Mance could easily have referred to Mel as a red whore also.  There is also the fact that it was written to provoke so you use the most offensive terms possible.

But I'm not looking for an in-universe excuse, "where could Ramsay hear that phrase". I'm looking for a literary reason, why did GRRM elect to put that, carefully planted and cultivated, exclusively wildling term, into the Pink Letter. The phrase "black crows" serves pretty much no purpose here if it's Ramsay. If the reader catches it (and many didn't, including yours truly), and if it's supposed to mean "he got his info from Mance's party", then the only reaction would be "well, duh, Captain Obvious, where else would he get the info from?". "You told the world you burned the King-Beyond-the-Wall. Instead you sent him to Winterfell to steal my bride from me". "...The six whores who came with him to Winterfell". (Curious, by the way, that in a letter filled with "whores", "false kings" and "bastards", Mance Rayder is referred to with something very much resembling respect. A little un-Ramsay). That's very accurate, very exclusive information, and it could have come only from Mance's party.

Bottom line: "black crows" do nothing, if the point is to convey "Ramsay wrote the letter".

[sweetsunray]

25 minutes ago, Universal Sword Donor said:

And why would Jon have gone to get this explanation? Is he rolling over and doing "Ramsay's" bidding or did the letter provoke him to do it? Basically it's either Jon knew what the letter was ahead of time or he was provoked by it. Are you in the former camp?

Because Mel herself told him herself to come to her and warned him about the arrival of a letter. And then that letter too urges to show Mel. It contains supposed news about the king's fate, demands the queen, Mel and Shyreen. Heck, even Jon himself thinks afterward that he should have shown the letter to the Queen (and thus Mel, as Mel would have been with the Queen) in private first. Yeah, plenty of reason to go with the letter to Mel or people who would want her there first before reading it out loud to everyone.

In fact, with the demand on the Queen, Shyreen and Mel and news of Stannis being dead, you would expect he would talk with them asap. Why would you ignore the fact that the news and threats concern them directly and they are a priority?

[aryagonnakill#2]

34 minutes ago, Ferocious Veldt Roarer said:

But I'm not looking for an in-universe excuse, "where could Ramsay hear that phrase". I'm looking for a literary reason, why did GRRM elect to put that, carefully planted and cultivated, exclusively wildling term, into the Pink Letter. The phrase "black crows" serves pretty much no purpose here if it's Ramsay. If the reader catches it (and many didn't, including yours truly), and if it's supposed to mean "he got his info from Mance's party", then the only reaction would be "well, duh, Captain Obvious, where else would he get the info from?". "You told the world you burned the King-Beyond-the-Wall. Instead you sent him to Winterfell to steal my bride from me". "...The six whores who came with him to Winterfell". (Curious, by the way, that in a letter filled with "whores", "false kings" and "bastards", Mance Rayder is referred to with something very much resembling respect. A little un-Ramsay). That's very accurate, very exclusive information, and it could have come only from Mance's party.

Bottom line: "black crows" do nothing, if the point is to convey "Ramsay wrote the letter".

So what is it you are suggesting, that Mance wrote the letter?  If Whore is a word that only Theon would use as is being suggested, and black crows is a word only wildlings would use as you are suggesting, then there is literally no 1 who could have written it.

I get that you guys think that the word usage is the most important factor here, but means, motive, and opportunity are very important as well, and in my mind more important.  There has never been a credible motive put forth for anyone other than Ramsay writing the letter.  I could buy Mance helping Ramsay write it by convincing Ramsay that he can be useful(so as to stay alive) as he knows Jon and thus how to provoke him, but see no motivation for Mance writing the letter himself as it puts his child and friends(Val) directly in harms way while he has no knowledge of Tormund crossing the wall.  At the same time as black crows is a wildling term, doesn't the letter also refer to Val as a princess, something a wildling would not do?

 

[GloubieBoulga]

Quote

I'm not talking about the ubiquitous nicknames, puns, insults, built around "black" or around "crow" - I'm talking specifically about the, exclusively wildling, term "black crow".

Context, context, context ^^

Because others people have no occasions to speak of the Night Watch ? And with insulting manner ? Night Watch is also the quotidian ennemy for Wildlings, so it is natural that we see them talking from the night watchers with insulting terms. 

For example, it is impossible to speculate about the fact that Dornians never say "black crows" for the Watchers, because they even never spoke about the Night Watch. 

Tyrion use "black brother" : he was friendly with Jon, and with the Old Bear, and some others. 

Ned won't use an insulting word to speak about his brother, but Robert could, in the same way Tormund says "black crow" or "black bastard" to Jon, but same as Dornians, we don't see him speaking of the Night Watch. 

And so on...

 

 

Edit : that doesn't take away the fact that Jon was wrong when he didn't show the letter to Mel and queen Selyse. For the minimum, they had right to know first that Stannis was said dead. But the fact he was wrong doesn't implicate the letter contained a hidden code. 

[Ferocious Veldt Roarer]

Just now, aryagonnakill#2 said:

So what is it you are suggesting, that Mance wrote the letter?  If Whore is a word that only Theon would use as is being suggested, and black crows is a word only wildlings would use as you are suggesting, then there is literally no 1 who could have written it.

Mance, I think. Trying to impersonate Ramsay and his charm, obviously (hence the copious "bastards" and "whores"), but inadvertently slipping.

Just now, aryagonnakill#2 said:

I get that you guys think that the word usage is the most important factor here, but means, motive, and opportunity are very important as well, and in my mind more important.

Sure. No argument here. And I believe good George is very stingy with clues: who we can figure out now, but we don't have nearly enough data for why.

Just now, aryagonnakill#2 said:

There has never been a credible motive put forth for anyone other than Ramsay writing the letter. I could buy Mance helping Ramsay write it by convincing Ramsay that he can be useful as he knows Jon and thus how to provoke him, but see no motivation for Mance writing the letter himself as it puts his child and friends(Val) directly in harms way.  

Yes, the motive is problematic. For everyone, by the way. Whoever asks for "my bride... false king's queen... his daughter... his red witch... wildling princess... little prince... my Reek" should know that he's unlikely to get his order delivered. So, Ramsay wants from Lord Snow not only Val and the baby, but also Selyse, Shireen and Melisandre - and thinks he'll get that? Peacefully? Without Queen's Men cutting the entire crew of Castle Black into crow carpaccio?

Unlikely.

Whoever wrote the Pink Letter, is either very desperate or plays some very sneaky game worthy of Lord Varys. I don't know what's Mance's motive is. But if it's Ramsay, I don't know what Ramsay's motive is.

(I'm claiming the authorship of "crow carpaccio", by the way, at least in the context of ice and fire).

Just now, aryagonnakill#2 said:

At the same time as black crows is a wildling term, doesn't the letter also refer to Val as a princess, something a wildling would not do?

He impersonates a kneeler lord, with his kneeler language. So, yes, he'd write about princes, princesses, queens, hell, he even could have inserted some "claims", "fealty" and "bending the knee" and it still would've been consistent with a wildling trying to pass as a southron.

[Ferocious Veldt Roarer]

49 minutes ago, GloubieBoulga said:

Context, context, context ^^

Because others people have no occasions to speak of the Night Watch ? And with insulting manner ? Night Watch is also the quotidian ennemy for Wildlings, so it is natural that we see them talking from the night watchers with insulting terms.

I can discuss theories and interpretations, but if we don't agree on facts, I'm out. And what you're saying is simply not true. "Crows", used as a slur, are all over the books. Jon hears spoken casually on the Wall, Arya hears it traveling with Yoren, both will use the term in their thoughts. "Crows" are common, "black crows" are unique.

And unwritten, unpublished, entirely hypothetical Dorne chapters do not constitute evidence, I'm not discussing those.

[Nevets]

3 hours ago, Ferocious Veldt Roarer said:

Yes, the motive is problematic. For everyone, by the way. Whoever asks for "my bride... false king's queen... his daughter... his red witch... wildling princess... little prince... my Reek" should know that he's unlikely to get his order delivered. So, Ramsay wants from Lord Snow not only Val and the baby, but also Selyse, Shireen and Melisandre - and thinks he'll get that? Peacefully? Without Queen's Men cutting the entire crew of Castle Black into crow carpaccio?

I think Ramsay is attempting to provoke an open confrontation with Jon and the Watch.  The conflict has already arisen with the covert effort to rescue Arya (never mind that Jon never actually sent Mance to Winterfell; Ramsay thinks he did).  The letter is designed to get Jon to show his true colors.  It also airs NW dirty laundry, such as the covert attempt itself, and grievances such as the Wildling influx into the North.  This plus the demand for Mel and the others is designed to give Ramsay cover for his confrontation.  These individuals are all enemies of the crown or of the North, so he can plausibly claim to have a right to take them into his custody.  In other words, he is goading Jon into an open fight, and giving himself cover for entering that fight himself.

Because it is intended to provoke, it uses a lot of provocative language.  Ramsay hates being referred to as a bastard, he would therefore have good reason to think Jon would as well.  While we haven't seen him use the term "whore", I am not aware of any situations where he deliberately avoided it or objected to its use.  And referring to women who are widely believed to be whores as "whores" isn't that shocking.  As for "black crows", it is easily believable that he is aware of the use of the term by Wildlings as a term of denigration.  While the stylistic issues with the letter certainly give me pause, they do not rise to the level which makes me seriously doubt the authenticity of the letter.   And I have yet to see any convincing reason for any other character to have written such a message under Ramsay's signature.

[Maxxine]

I'm not convinced Ramsay wrote the letter but I can't agree with these leaps that people on here have put forward to prove he 100% did not write it. 

1) Use of the word bastard. As someone else pointed out Ramsay hates being called a bastard not the word itself. In fact, it would make sense that since he hates being called a bastard he would go out of his way to taunt another bastard with the word to make himself feel better. I'm not a psychologist or anything but I think that's bullying 101.

2) The usage of the whore is not distinct enough in-universe for me to take some kind extra meaning out of it. Especially since whores don't have any specific connection to Theon other than using the word. If Tyrion was somehow involved in this then the use of whore could be special but since he's not I'm not getting the connection.

3) Most importantly, to me is Stannis' motive or lack thereof. Why would he want Jon to come to WF pissed and ready to fight. What's the purpose? If he wants help Jon seems to far away to actually help. Plus considering his interactions with Jon he had no reason to believe that Jon could be provoked into breaking his vows. 

Like I said I don't think it's guaranteed Ramsay wrote the letter. It's the 100% guarantee that's weird. Especially these valid evidence for 3 people to have written the letter. The best evidence for Stannis what he told Massey about don't believe if you hear I'm dead. But it could be Ramsay actually wrote the letter or Mance. Personally I'm leaning toward Mance. But not by a lot. He would have shaky motive too. 

[aryagonnakill#2]

On December 3, 2016 at 2:52 PM, Ferocious Veldt Roarer said:

Mance, I think. Trying to impersonate Ramsay and his charm, obviously (hence the copious "bastards" and "whores"), but inadvertently slipping.

Sure. No argument here. And I believe good George is very stingy with clues: who we can figure out now, but we don't have nearly enough data for why.

Yes, the motive is problematic. For everyone, by the way. Whoever asks for "my bride... false king's queen... his daughter... his red witch... wildling princess... little prince... my Reek" should know that he's unlikely to get his order delivered. So, Ramsay wants from Lord Snow not only Val and the baby, but also Selyse, Shireen and Melisandre - and thinks he'll get that? Peacefully? Without Queen's Men cutting the entire crew of Castle Black into crow carpaccio?

Unlikely.

Whoever wrote the Pink Letter, is either very desperate or plays some very sneaky game worthy of Lord Varys. I don't know what's Mance's motive is. But if it's Ramsay, I don't know what Ramsay's motive is.

(I'm claiming the authorship of "crow carpaccio", by the way, at least in the context of ice and fire).

He impersonates a kneeler lord, with his kneeler language. So, yes, he'd write about princes, princesses, queens, hell, he even could have inserted some "claims", "fealty" and "bending the knee" and it still would've been consistent with a wildling trying to pass as a southron.

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.  Bowen and the other officers would not have gone along with any plan other than turning everyone over or at best sending them to Eastwatch to take ship for Essos, and Jon/Mance/Stannis would have known that.  Given our knowledge I think we can assume they would not have even gone along with the Eastwatch idea, but Jon may have acted quickly enough to accomplish it.  In either event making the offer of sparing the NW would be expected, as no Lord of Winterfell has attacked the watch since the Night King, the other northern lords would not simply go along with the idea of destroying the NW.

If Mance assumed his son and the others would be sent to Essos I guess that could be considered a motive, but that would seemingly mean that he sent the letter after a deceived(or not) Ramsay returned to WF thinking he was victorious, and it is hard for me to believe he would still have the freedom to do so.  I guess he could have sent the letter assuming Stannis would be defeated immediately following the horn blows when he was in the great hall, but this all just gets so complicated, did he take the maester hostage to do this, was he even allowed to leave the great hall etc etc.  It also does not explain why he would pretend to be Ramsay, why not just say "Jon Stannis lost and Ramsay is coming for you with an army you cannot defeat, if you do not want the blood of innocents on your hands send them away."

There seems to be a relatively simple order of events that line up, I guess we will not know for a while but here is how I see it in its entirety.

1. Theon and Jeyne are rescued by the Umbers, simultaneously the Freys begin to exit the castle but fall into the pit delaying them.

2. The spear wives(still washer women to them) have been discovered, and they arrived with Abel so he is arrested too.

3. A naked man has few secrets, a flayed man none.

4. The Freys and Manderlys do leave and Ramsay wants to take Bolton men under his command with them now that Theon and Jeyne have gone, Roose agrees because of the damage Jeyne and Theon can do and Ramsay leaves but the Freys and Manderlys have a significant head start.

5. Some version of the night lamp theory results in Freys getting slaughtered and Manderlys joining Stannis, Ramsay arrives late and finds what he believes to be a victory, and is given Karstarks head as Stanniss's, along with his shiny sword.  He is informed they did not find Theon or Jeyne.

6.  Ramsay returns to WF to resupply for his journey to CB and presents the head and sword to Roose.  Roose is happy but does not want to attack CB and he has a lot of good reasons.  A poster previously put it as blackmail of a lie for a lie.  By sending Mance south Jon violated his oath giving the Boltons an excuse to kill him, and they do theoretically have the manpower to do so, but it is not that simple.  If Jon has Theon and Jeyne then he has the ability to send ravens to every castle in the North telling them that the person the Boltons told them was Arya was in fact Sansa Starks handmaiden(the eye color and age could be pointed out), and that it was the Boltons not the Ironborn who sacked WF, and that both Bran and Rickon survived.  This would cause tons of trouble for the Bolton claim.  There is also the other northern lords to consider.  They don't love the Boltons to begin with and aren't just going to agree to join in on destroying the watch, especially when lots of them have family members in the watch.  So if the Boltons wanted to simply march north and destroy them without first offering them the chance to surrender the people they demand in the letter, they would have to use only their men to do it.  This is a huge problem as even though CB does not have a wall facing south it is still a fortress that the Thenns attack proved can be reasonably well defended from a southern attack, and they have at least a few hundred men.  It would require a large force, in order to ensure victory they would want at least 2k men if not more, and marching 2k men some 500 miles in winter is no simple task, it would require tons of supplies, then it would leave them the problem of defending the wall from the remaining wildlings.  It also makes the Bolton position in WF much more vulnerable, especially after loosing the Freys.  

7. Ramsay is upset but realizes his father is right, realistically speaking the letter has to be sent.  There are other things that could go on here, such as Ramsay killing Roose, or Roose returning to the Dreadfort, but neither is absolutely necessary, although I favor Ramsay killing Roose after finding out Walda is pregnant and having lost all her Frey men in the battle against Stannis.

8. Pink Letter

Edit: I had to double check to be sure, I did not want to get it wrong, but as I suspected both Tycho Nestoris and the letter Jon sent to Stannsi via Raven were sent before Tormund crossed as well, meaning neither Stannis, nor Theon, nor Mance, nor Ramsay should think there are more than 300 wildling warriors.

 

 

[Amris]

7 hours ago, Nevets said:

I think Ramsay is attempting to provoke an open confrontation with Jon and the Watch.  The conflict has already arisen with the covert effort to rescue Arya (never mind that Jon never actually sent Mance to Winterfell; Ramsay thinks he did).  The letter is designed to get Jon to show his true colors.  It also airs NW dirty laundry, such as the covert attempt itself, and grievances such as the Wildling influx into the North.  This plus the demand for Mel and the others is designed to give Ramsay cover for his confrontation.  These individuals are all enemies of the crown or of the North, so he can plausibly claim to have a right to take them into his custody.  In other words, he is goading Jon into an open fight, and giving himself cover for entering that fight himself.

Because it is intended to provoke, it uses a lot of provocative language.  Ramsay hates being referred to as a bastard, he would therefore have good reason to think Jon would as well.  While we haven't seen him use the term "whore", I am not aware of any situations where he deliberately avoided it or objected to its use.  And referring to women who are widely believed to be whores as "whores" isn't that shocking.  As for "black crows", it is easily believable that he is aware of the use of the term by Wildlings as a term of denigration.  While the stylistic issues with the letter certainly give me pause, they do not rise to the level which makes me seriously doubt the authenticity of the letter.   And I have yet to see any convincing reason for any other character to have written such a message under Ramsay's signature.

That's what I am thinking about the motive.

Ramsay wants to get rid of Jon because as long as a male descendent of Ned Stark lives the Bolton rule over the north will be in peril.

Attacking the Night's Watch at castle Black, while militarily possible would be suboptimal from the Bolton point of view since the other Northern Lords and the population might not like that.

Getting rid of Jon without negative publicity would be much easier if Jon could be goaded to forget his Nights Watch oaths and attack Winterfell.

That's exactly what the letter is intended to provoke. And its been working too.

[Wm Portnoy]

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

Your false king is dead, bastard. He and all his host were smashed in seven days of battle. I have his magic sword. Tell his red whore.

Your false king's friends are dead. Their heads upon the walls of Winterfell. Come see them, bastard. Your false king lied, and so did you. You told the world you burned the King Beyond the Wall. Instead you sent him to Winterfell to steal my bride from me.

I will have my bride back. If you want Mance Rayder back, come and get him. I have him in a cage for all the north to see, proof of your lies. The cage is cold, but I have made him a warm cloak from the skins of the six whores who came with him to Winterfell.

I want my bride back. I want the false king's queen. I want his daughter and his red witch. I want this wildling princess. I want his little prince, the wildling babe. And I want my Reek. Send them to me, bastard, and I will not trouble you or your black crows. Keep them from me, and I will cut out your bastard's heart and eat it.

Ramsay Bolton, Trueborn Lord of Winterfell.

 

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

 

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.