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

[The Truth]

2 hours ago, butterbumps! said:

If Winterfell is such a hellhole food desert unfit for longterm occupancy, why does Stannis want his family to be brought there in the first place?  Apologies if this was addressed somewhere and I missed it, I just don't quite understand what Stannis' incentive would be to have them brought there, hellhole it is, in the middle of this snowstorm.

 

WF is more symbolic at this point thats it. Stannis current state when it comes to his family all he cares about is them being safe. Again that many have said, its the dreadfort that will be the safe spot. Stannis will want his family with him the moment they can get somewhere else thats safe, he does trust his guards at the wall and Jon, but he still would rather have them be somewhere without a bunch of ex cons and rapists etc

 

Again though, instead of looking at possible end game questions. You should just break down the letter itself, not the possible outcomes. Look at the easy simple stuff that has been posted multiple times, the terminology, the content, the description of it etc

[Lord Varys]

@sweetsunray

If you present a theory the burden of proof lies with you not me. For me your case breaks down when I find one of your many propositions unconvincing, and I listed many of them already. I don't have to invest time and effort into trying to understand your reasoning it is enough that I, personally, find the idea that Stannis is using a code which involves feigning that he is Ramsay absurd.

The only thing that could convince that this is true regardless would be if there was textual evidence (which we don't have). But even if Martin wrote stuff like that I'd find it ridiculous.

Neither I nor anybody else not buying this story doesn't have to prove you wrong, by the way. It is enough for me/other people to reject your idea simply because it lacks a sound basis.

Randomly thinking about that I'd have to point out that Stannis has no reason to assume that his letters addressed to Jon Snow are read by others - and if he thought they would then he should better be warned Jon Snow about that, right? And it is actually confirmed that nobody actually read Stannis' previous letter to Jon because he actually broke Stannis' seal himself. Unless you assert (without any textual evidence) that some Watchmen can fake Stannis' seal and have access to Baratheon wax you don't have anything to back that idea.

In fact, the only letter that may have been opened and shown to the conspirators was the Pink Letter, and that most likely only occurred because the letter actually had the insult written on the envelope. Marsh may have wanted to know what was in there to make plans how to react to it.

By the way: There is no reason to believe that Watchman isn't permitted to correspond with the Queen Regent or the Hand in KL. Slynt could send letters all day long from what you and I know. There is nothing wrong with that. But sending letters isn't the same as secretly reading your Lord Commander's mail, right?

Oh, and I wasn't using a straw man back with the assertion that reading a letter in secret might lead to never show it to Jon Snow because, you know, it might be convenient for some evil Lannister-Bolton loyalists at the Wall to keep certain things from Jon Snow, right?

I mean, you assert that Stannis thinks letting these people know that he won/needed help/wanted his family at his side/whatever would be a huge mistake and thus he writes a coded Lannister feigning to be Ramsay. But why the hell would he find it problematic that those people know stuff? They can't do anything about it, after all. True, technically they could send a letter to Winterfell, but they would most likely not do that if Stannis had - instead of feigning his own death - claimed that he has crushed the Boltons, killed Roose and Ramsay, and is writing said letter from Winterfell. That wouldn't have caused anyone to write a letter to warn or inform Roose.

The 'Dreadfort food' idea is just ridiculous. The Dreadfort is a strong castle but Barrowton is much closer, also an enemy stronghold, and completely made of wood. There is most likely more food to be taken there. In addition, Stannis most likely hoped/planned to take food and provisions from all the Northern Lords not just the Boltons. He is the king, and he gets what he wants (after he has won the war, of course). This is not a democracy - the nobles feast, and the smallfolk takes the leavings or dies. That's how winter would be.

You make a lot of bold and unsupported claims in your lengthy diatribe on the Winterfell thing. How do you know why the survivors from Rodrik's host didn't seek refuge in Winterfell? That's not supported by any text I know.

My point was that Stannis had a much better chance of winning the war if he was in the castle and Roose was outside and snowbound. And presumably Stannis took enough provisions with him to march to Winterfell and last a little bit of time in a siege and an attack. Or else he was an utter moron. So he could have lasted some time in Winterfell, too. Sure, eventually there would have to be a battle but Stannis would be in much better position. The only way he can win now is with deception and a lot of luck. If there was no lake and if he had not been informed about the Karstark betrayal he would be fried.

The idea that Stannis is deliberately luring Roose to Winterfell by doing nothing also doesn't make any sense. We have no reason to believe he waited that long after Deepwood Motte and thus he might have just waited to see how the North and Roose would react to his move of his. Not to mention that the Deepwood victory drew more men to him which wouldn't have happened had marched away immediately.

Stannis had no clue that there were any traitors in his midst. He had no idea about the Karstark betrayal before Nestoris and Theon told him. And there is also no reason to believe that he ever thought Marsh wasn't on his side. He only knew Slynt, and Slynt is dead. There isn't even a reason to believe Marsh is particularly Bolton or Lannister friendly. He just thinks the Watch should stick with them because they are more likely to win, at least while Tywin is still alive. Bowen Marsh doesn't want to assassinate Jon Snow, and neither does he (presumably) want to hand over Melisandre, Selyse, and Shireen to the Boltons. But he'll do the same to save the Watch - just as other Watchmen most likely also betrayed their mad Lord Commanders in the past.

No idea where you base that seven days stuff on. Do you buy the seven days mentioned in the Pink Letter? If there is a part in that letter that is ridiculous then it is that passage. We don't know how many time has passed between Theon's escape and the writing of the letter. Technically Stannis or Roose could crushed each other completely multiple times in the meantime.

All I'm saying about this Dreadfort idea is that this castle had to be besieged by the Starks for years in the past. This is not a castle to be scaled and stormed easily. It might actually be much stronger than Winterfell, and Stannis has no one who actually knows that castle or could find an easy way inside.

You really believe any Bolton commander at the Dreadfort would let Karstark men inside?! Why the hell would he do that? Because they say so. Come on, this is Roose you are talking about. The man would announce his arrival, and the people presenting themselves would be people known to the garrison, not some green boys feigning to be Karstarks. That is not just cheesy and repetitive (we'll get something like that with Storm's End in the next book already, and possibly with Riverrun as well), that's just stupid. I'm sorry.

The point about the time line I was making referred to George's disclaimer. And that one was for the reader's sake. By telling us the chapter took place before the Pink Letter arrived he didn't actually comment on Stannis' fate. He could still die, and the Pink Letter could still tell the truth. Whatever you or I believe doesn't matter because neither of us does know what's going to happen to Stannis or how the battle(s) unfold. There is still a theoretical possibility that Ramsay did not lie in the Pink Letter. And George did not intend to comment on that dangling cliffhanger.

I made a typo about Roose and Ramsay up there. I meant to say that your speculation is based (as those of many others without any good evidence) that Ramsay is going to lead an army to the village. But Roose himself could be going. He is the big boss, and he could either go alone leaving Ramsay at Winterfell, they could go together with him leaving loyal man and a stalwart Bolton garrison back in Winterfell, or he could only send Ramsay (as Theon for some occult reason believes).

What makes you believe Roose will ever believe Stannis is dead without him seeing his corpse? I never got why people would believe he of all people would believe such a story.

Actually, we don't know whether the ravens knowing how to fly to another castle would fly to that castle without a message. What we know is that ravens who are released somewhere in the wild return to their castle. That's a difference. But either way, your idea about Roose not having ravens he could sent to Castle Black at Winterfell is still just a bad assumption with no textual evidence to back it up. We know for a fact that Maester Tybald had a raven with him to fly to Winterfell. So that guy had the foresight to bring Winterfell ravens all the way with him but Roose himself didn't think as far as considering the possibility that he might have to send messages to various Northern or Southern castles including Castle Black from Winterfell? I mean, how stupid would that be. He sent ravens to many castles from Barrowton, and one assumes he even has a raven to be sent to KL ready to announce Stannis Baratheon's death.

[Makk]

Firstly I will say there are scenarios where all 3 out of Ramsay, Mance and Stannis conceivably have enough information and misinformation to build up a compelling argument to be able to write the letter. So I would rather focus on motives.

I don't think the motivation for Stannis to write the letter makes much sense at all. He may want Jon Snow to assume the title of the lord of winterfell, but if he wanted to do that by making Jon angry, why send fArya back to the wall and then tell him she has escaped??? And if Jon does assemble an army of wildlings and march them down to Winterfell (far too late for Stanis to attack Winterfell) without running into fArya on the way up, what then? Why is Jon going to be any more amiable to Stannis's suggestion at that time? This is also the guy who attacked Kings Landing head on without sneaking in any soldiers despite refugees streaming into the city for weeks, such a deception is not in character at all. I think Stannis is the least likely.

Mance is a bit more likely but I still question his motivation. He could use an army of wildlings if he wanted to amass power. But again, why tell Jon, Arya escaped? It would seem Jon is just as likely to send out scouts to look for her instead of mustering an army. You also question why he would wait so long. He would have been in a much better position to write such a letter as soon as he arrived in Winterfell rather than go to all the trouble of rescuing fArya, and exposing himself, first. The letter isn't a short term fix if Mance was in trouble, the distance is too great, it can only ever be a longer term plan.

I think by far the most likely person is Ramsay. He is f***ed off that Jean escaped. He has captured Mance to know about that part of it. Stannis and Manderly have tricked him after defeating the Freys and are trying to lure the Boltons out of winterfell so they can ambush them and therefore he has been fed misinformation and given the sword. He is simply writing an angry, spiteful letter, trying to swing his d**k around, as that kind of person is inclined to do. This is the only case of the three where it is not attempting to manipulate Jon, instead the writer has been deceived.

[The Truth]

Again Varys. I will go back to basic 101. Grrm has specific character traits that he REMEMBERS. Their lingo everything. All you have to do is look at the words of it, why would he use "whore" for the first time ever. Opposed to the person who says it the most, who just so happens to be prisoner along with a guy with pink wax. Why would grrm be so specific in Ramsays last letters, and then have this one with no house seal, no blood, not one piece of skin. Again Jon has no clue who reek is. Along with other stuff that Ramsay would have no way of knowing. Grrm gives it away with the Theon chapter... "he wants his reek back" another phrase ramsay never uses or refers to Reek that way. And sure enough right in the letter "I want my reek back'

Not trying to be a dick but there is a lot even down the line you are getting so very wrong so I am trying to start at block 1

And aside from my few friends, when I say its 100%, and told people to read between the lines, least a few people now know what I meant

[aryagonnakill#2]

apparently I cannot post in this forum so, that's a thing

[sweetsunray]

13 hours ago, Lord Varys said:

If you present a theory the burden of proof lies with you not me. For me your case breaks down when I find one of your many propositions unconvincing, and I listed many of them already. I don't have to invest time and effort into trying to understand your reasoning it is enough that I, personally, find the idea that Stannis is using a code which involves feigning that he is Ramsay absurd.

I did not ask you to prove anything. But I responded to your counter-arguments, many which were completely beside the point, and gave support for my own arguments.

If you wish to debate someone it's not just enuogh to say "burden of proof is on you"... but to also actually read the arguments and provided quote materials to your challenge. If you do not invest time and effort in reading and understanding where the other is coming from, you cannot actually come up with counter-arguments, but only strawman (intentional or unintentional) arguments where you find something ridiculous which I never even claimed. If you do not wish to invest any time and effort in reading and understanding the other person's arguments, you weaken your own argumenative position.

Quote

The only thing that could convince that this is true regardless would be if there was textual evidence (which we don't have). But even if Martin wrote stuff like that I'd find it ridiculous.

And these words enable me to dismiss any evaluation you make of the speculation made previously as any sort of valid argument. Even if GRRM writes a plot like Cantuse suggests (and I defend) you will find it ridiculous and absurd, therefore you evaluation whether a speculation or theory is absurd or ridiculous in your eyes means abolutely nothing. Thank you, for admitting that you are dismissing something not on arguments, reasoning and textual quotes, but purely on your personal taste.

I guess that means our discussion ends with that.

 

[Lord Greenhood]

A question, isn't Ramsay illiterate? Ramsay is possible around the age of 20 and was raised by his peasant (presumably illiterate) mother and Roose only had Ramsay for a year before the story began. Making it unlikely that he was taught to read and write in that short amount of time. And all we really know of Reek is that he was a servant to house Bolton. I'm guessing that medieval sevants didn't need to be literate to do their job. So yes everyone should stop believing that Ramsay wrote the pink letter (himself).

[Lord Varys]

@sweetsunray

Well, if you discuss literature your taste is essentially the only criterion you got decide whether you like something or not. And you usually only defend or talk about stuff you (generally) like because nothing on earth can force you to discuss literature you don't like outside of school.

That said, my personal tastes don't constrain from evaluating evidence or theories - but I'll say if I like stuff or find it ridiculous.

You have presented your theory with a verve that made it very much appear as if it was a given that we have to accept your ideas and views just because you say so. But we don't have to do that.

@Lord Greenhood

Ramsay seems to have learned his letters quite recently. The previous letters written in that huge spiky hand of his seem to suggest as much, and the point of those might actually have been to give Ramsay an opportunity to hone his writing skills.

We all know that the huge spiky hand isn't mentioned in the Pink Letter but we also see Jon Snow not doubting that Ramsay had written the letter. If somebody had tried to imitate Ramsay's rather clumsy handwriting Jon Snow most likely would have realized this.

If Stannis or Mance or Theon or whoever you can come up with as the guy who wrote the Pink Letter but Ramsay you would have to assume that this person had access to a specimen of Ramsay's handwriting. And there is no hint that, say, Stannis had such a specimen with him at the village.

[Free Northman Reborn]

12 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

@sweetsunray

Well, if you discuss literature your taste is essentially the only criterion you got decide whether you like something or not. And you usually only defend or talk about stuff you (generally) like because nothing on earth can force you to discuss literature you don't like outside of school.

That said, my personal tastes don't constrain from evaluating evidence or theories - but I'll say if I like stuff or find it ridiculous.

You have presented your theory with a verve that made it very much appear as if it was a given that we have to accept your ideas and views just because you say so. But we don't have to do that.

@Lord Greenhood

Ramsay seems to have learned his letters quite recently. The previous letters written in that huge spiky hand of his seem to suggest as much, and the point of those might actually have been to give Ramsay an opportunity to hone his writing skills.

We all know that the huge spiky hand isn't mentioned in the Pink Letter but we also see Jon Snow not doubting that Ramsay had written the letter. If somebody had tried to imitate Ramsay's rather clumsy handwriting Jon Snow most likely would have realized this.

If Stannis or Mance or Theon or whoever you can come up with as the guy who wrote the Pink Letter but Ramsay you would have to assume that this person had access to a specimen of Ramsay's handwriting. And there is no hint that, say, Stannis had such a specimen with him at the village.

Regarding the handwriting, there is no reason why a lord could not decide to dictate a letter to a Maester to write on his behalf, even if the lord is able to write. The style of handwriting should not come into the equation as to the identity of the author.

[Free Northman Reborn]

Interestingly, I found Roose's comments to Ramsay very interesting in Episode 1 of the Show. (For the record, I have no idea what the latest board rules are relating to Show vs Book crossover discussions. Frankly, since the Show has now passed the books, hints from the Show have become VERY relevant to discussing theories of events to come in the books. So I would hope that is now allowed, else it becomes a bit of a farce, truth be told.)

In any case, Roose's reference to having to unite the North to face the Lannisters (who hold the Iron Throne), paraphrases Lady Dustin's thoughts in the book very closely, where she tells Theon that Roose is aiming for more than the Lordship of Winterfell, he wants to be King in the North.

This reinforced the idea that the letter is primarily necessitated by the need to get the loyalty of the Northern lords, which was lost when Ramsay lost Arya Stark, and not by any particular threat posed by Stannis. Jon Snow united with Arya Stark poses the risk of tearing Roose's support base away from him.

Incidentally, this also ties into the debates surrounding the remaining strength of the North, as it would now have been both Stannis and Roose, in the books and in the Show, who feel that gathering the full strength of the North can give them a serious position of strength against the Iron Throne. But that is a discussion for another thread.

 

 

 

[Lord Varys]

Just now, Free Northman Reborn said:

Regarding the handwriting, there is no reason why a lord could not decide to dictate a letter to a Maester to write on his behalf, even if the lord is able to write. The style of handwriting should not come into the equation as to the identity of the author.

That is so, but Ramsay apparently wrote his other two letters himself. One would assume that Jon had mentioned/realized it if said new letter full of insults and threats was written by a different and distinguished hand suggesting it was written by a maester.

And you better keep the show out of this whole thing here.

 

[sweetsunray]

22 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

You have presented your theory with a verve that made it very much appear as if it was a given that we have to accept your ideas and views just because you say so. But we don't have to do that.

I specifically stated that I'm perfectly fine with someone "taking it or leaving it", but if you wish to counter-argument it, then I will defend it with verve yes.

[sweetsunray]

3 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

Interestingly, I found Roose's comments to Ramsay very interesting in Episode 1 of the Show. (For the record, I have no idea what the latest board rules are relating to Show vs Book crossover discussions. Frankly, since the Show has now passed the books, hints from the Show have become VERY relevant to discussing theories of events to come in the book section of the board. So I would hope that is now allowed, else it becomes a bit of a farce, truth be told.)

In any case, Roose's reference to having to unite the North to face the Lannisters (who hold the Iron Throne), paraphrases Lady Dustin's thoughts in the book very closely, where she tells Theon that Roose is aiming for more than the Lordship of Winterfell, he wants to be King in the North.

This reinforced the idea that the letter is primarily necessitated by the need to get the loyalty of the Northern lords, which was lost when Ramsay lost Arya Stark, and not by any particular threat posed by Stannis. Jon Snow united with Arya Stark poses the risk of tearing Roose's support base away from him.

Incidentally, this also ties into the debates surrounding the remaining strength of the North, as it would now have been both Stannis and Roose, in the books and in the Show, who feel that gathering the full strength of the North can give them a serious position of strength against the Iron Throne. But that is a discussion for another thread.

For one, D&D themselves have said that the show is diverging from the book-plot. GRRM too has said they are different, not just in medium but plot, and who is alive and who is dead. It is also very noticeable that GRRM is keeping as much distance from the show as he possibly can, without saying anything particular negative about the show, but there is no praise either. So no, whatever happens on the show has no bearing whatsoever on the books, and you cannot use the show to determine what will happen in tWoW.

D&D have spoiled two things about the books in their "episode" stuff, one event that occurs in S5, but could never occur in the literal circumstances portrayed in S5. This event has been speculated about for years to happen at some point in the future. They also confirmed  speculations regarding the nature of a character what has been speculated for a long time already that was revealed in the S6 premiere.

D&D confirmed show spoilers a la "When George told us..."

Spoiler

- That Shireen will be sacrificed by burning

- That Melisandre wears a glamor to disguise her real age, and that she is very old

As far as I know show spoilers are still not allowed in the book forum, because there are many book readers who do not watch the show, or at the very least opt to not watch S6. And thus anything from the show ought to be mentioned in spoiler tags. 

[butterbumps!]

41 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

For the record, I have no idea what the latest board rules are relating to Show vs Book crossover discussions. Frankly, since the Show has now passed the books, hints from the Show have become VERY relevant to discussing theories of events to come in the books. So I would hope that is now allowed, else it becomes a bit of a farce, truth be told.)

[mod] As ever, show discussion belongs on the show forums. [/mod]

[sweetsunray]

51 minutes ago, Lord Greenhood said:

A question, isn't Ramsay illiterate? Ramsay is possible around the age of 20 and was raised by his peasant (presumably illiterate) mother and Roose only had Ramsay for a year before the story began. Making it unlikely that he was taught to read and write in that short amount of time. And all we really know of Reek is that he was a servant to house Bolton. I'm guessing that medieval sevants didn't need to be literate to do their job. So yes everyone should stop believing that Ramsay wrote the pink letter (himself).

Ramsay can read and write. Asha's letter mentions two different styles of writing and type of ink in the letter she received. The actual message was written in what was claimed by the author to be blood, in a spiky hand. Beneath it a maester with maester ink wrote an addendum for the signatures, with the stamps and signatures from different lords and ladies.

The same handwriting and brown flaking lettering (blood for ink) is noted for Jon's letter, again with signatures at the bottom from other lords and ladies in another hand and ink (maester's).

So, yes, Ramsay can write, and if he can write, he can read.

[kissdbyfire]

54 minutes ago, Lord Greenhood said:

A question, isn't Ramsay illiterate? Ramsay is possible around the age of 20 and was raised by his peasant (presumably illiterate) mother and Roose only had Ramsay for a year before the story began. Making it unlikely that he was taught to read and write in that short amount of time. And all we really know of Reek is that he was a servant to house Bolton. I'm guessing that medieval sevants didn't need to be literate to do their job. So yes everyone should stop believing that Ramsay wrote the pink letter (himself).

Jon receives another letter from Ramsay before, even remarks the writing is spiky.

[Little Lark]

1 hour ago, Lord Greenhood said:

A question, isn't Ramsay illiterate? Ramsay is possible around the age of 20 and was raised by his peasant (presumably illiterate) mother and Roose only had Ramsay for a year before the story began. Making it unlikely that he was taught to read and write in that short amount of time. And all we really know of Reek is that he was a servant to house Bolton. I'm guessing that medieval sevants didn't need to be literate to do their job. So yes everyone should stop believing that Ramsay wrote the pink letter (himself).

Theon mentions in one of his ACoK chapters that Ramsay (then "Reek") was possessed of a certain low cunning and, as incredible as it seemed to Theon, was totally literate. He thinks of this specifically because he's concerned that Ramsay may have penned and hidden an account of what they had done to the Miller's boys in place of Bran and Rickon.

Honestly, I think there's room for speculation as to who wrote the pink letter but I'm still not sold on any one candidate. The one person I really don't see as a contender is Stannis because, other than the fact that he wanted Jon to leave the NW, I can't see any other motivation. Furthermore, it's pretty well known that you don't just walk away from the Watch unless you feel like dying, so Stannis would have to know that goading Jon into making an arguably rash decision was going to get his biggest ally on the Wall killed. In the end I just don't see what Stannis would stand to gain from writing the letter. 

[The Truth]

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

[Greg B]

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.

[The Truth]

@matchpoint That is exactly the point im at haha. People who ask the same questions and post the same things that myself and numerous people have answered on the first 3 pages.........cause they are too lazy to take 2 minutes and read. Thats why not bothering to respond to stuff that has been answered 10 times