Jump to content

Ramsay wrote the pink letter


aryagonnakill#2

Recommended Posts

20 minutes ago, aryagonnakill#2 said:

Examining all other candidates and realizing that none are valid is not ignoring them. 

 

And that validity is based on people speculating about "motive" and speculating about the letter's "intent" based on the result it had.

As if "motive" and "intent" has been reliable for the past 5 books: see Jon Arryn's murder, see assassination on Bran and see Purple Wedding. It wasn't the most obvious candidate, the motives were not what we or investigating characters believed, and sometimes even the intended effect was different from originally believed.

And the dismissal of other candidates is purely based on that: what motive would he/she have? Heck after having been given the answers on the mysteries set up in aGoT and answered in aSoS, we still have people arguing about motive, and whether the character behind it was truly the one who was behind it. But you want 100% foolproof case on the candidates that are a better match for the content, details and vocabulary just based on the existnece of the letter alone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, sweetsunray said:

Not if maesters write letters too. So, the handwriting can be explained in Jon's mind too.

I don't really understand your point.

My point, is that if there isn't a big spiky scrawl at the bottom (or throughout the whole letter, as @Makk pointed out Ramsay writes on his own sometimes) it's unreal that Jon wouldn't notice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Fresh PtwP said:

I don't really understand your point.

My point, is that if there isn't a big spiky scrawl at the bottom (or throughout the whole letter, as @Makk pointed out Ramsay writes on his own sometimes) it's unreal that Jon wouldn't notice.

I agree. And the funny thing is, the same argument is used by many who don't believe Ramsay wrote the PL. As in, "but Jon doesn't think about the handwriting being spiky and huge". But to me that points in the opposite direction. Jon notices the handwriting in the first letter, he doesn't have to think about it again when he gets the PL. He's received one letter from Ramsay before, and the second letter, the PL, has the same handwriting and therefore he doesn't have to think about it again, "oh Ramsay's handwriting still looks just as it did before". Imo, he'd only think about it if there were significant differences. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, The Fresh PtwP said:

I don't really understand your point.

My point, is that if there isn't a big spiky scrawl at the bottom (or throughout the whole letter, as @Makk pointed out Ramsay writes on his own sometimes) it's unreal that Jon wouldn't notice.

Since Jon pays so little specific attention, I don't consider this particular as evidence there was a spiky hand.

And my point is that even if there is no spiky hand in evidence, Jon wouldn't even care to notice, because many letters are often written by maesters, with some lords even having several maesters. Jon simply isn't paying any attention to handwriting at all, unless someting of the handwriting stands out.

If the majority of the letters you receive and read are the words of a lord or castellan written by one of their maesters, and you're used to seeing several different handwritings because of different maesters, Jon is not inclined to pay attention to the type of handwriting much. He notices Ramsay's spiky scrawls in the first letter, because it differs greatly from the normal individual handwriting of a maester. To Jon the spiky handwriting is a one-off exception. So, if the next letter contains only maester writing and not spiky handwriting, he's not even bound to think "Hmmm, curious there's no spiky handwriting this time." No, instead he reads a normally written letter that is not peculiar to him at all.

Let's just say that you receive printed letters (bills) from several companies. At some point you receive a printed bill of a new company, but something is peculiar about it - a part of the letter was printed out as magenta instead of black. You will certainly notice that. Several weeks later you receive another letter supposedly from the same company (same name, and you think that's their logo) but it's just usual black print out. Will you even wonder "Hey, it didn't print out in magenta!" Of course not. You will consider the magenta one an aberration, and the last one normal. Later it turns out that all their letters have magenta lines, because there is an issue with their printer, and that the black letter one was actually sent by an imposter, who owns a perfectly working printer, and has no idea the magenta print is typical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

Since Jon pays so little specific attention, I don't consider this particular as evidence there was a spiky hand.

And my point is that even if there is no spiky hand in evidence, Jon wouldn't even care to notice, because many letters are often written by maesters, with some lords even having several maesters. Jon simply isn't paying any attention to handwriting at all, unless someting of the handwriting stands out.

If the majority of the letters you receive and read are the words of a lord or castellan written by one of their maesters, and you're used to seeing several different handwritings because of different maesters, Jon is not inclined to pay attention to the type of handwriting much. He notices Ramsay's spiky scrawls in the first letter, because it differs greatly from the normal individual handwriting of a maester. To Jon the spiky handwriting is a one-off exception. So, if the next letter contains only maester writing and not spiky handwriting, he's not even bound to think "Hmmm, curious there's no spiky handwriting this time." No, instead he reads a normally written letter that is not peculiar to him at all.

[Snip]

Jon makes note of Denys Mallister's hand and also notes Cotter Pyke's words written by a maester. Jon is more perceptive than you're giving him credit for. And yes it would be very curious if it at least wasn't signed by the person who sent it, who we know has hand writing that stands out. Furthermore we have no evidence that a maester wrote any of this. Which seems unlikely by the personal level of the letter, and the content, for instance, if it got out in WF that Ramsay lost (F)arya the Bolton's are done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, The Fresh PtwP said:

Jon makes note of Denys Mallister's hand and also notes Cotter Pyke's words written by a maester. Jon is more perceptive than you're giving him credit for. And yes it would be very curious if it at least wasn't signed by the person who sent it, who we know has hand writing that stands out. Furthermore we have no evidence that a maester wrote any of this. Which seems unlikely by the personal level of the letter, and the content, for instance, if it got out in WF that Ramsay lost (F)arya the Bolton's are done.

Oh, what is the argument used again about absence of evidence?

A maester's loyalty is to his lord. The argument that Ramsay would keep it secret from a maester, especially when threatening to come with an army is ridiculous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

Oh, what is the argument used again about absence of evidence?

A maester's loyalty is to his lord. The argument that Ramsay would keep it secret from a maester, especially when threatening to come with an army is ridiculous.

Except we have evidence that Ramsay at least pens some of his letters from his letter to Asha.

Who is the Lord, Roose or Ramsay? Even a word to Roose could mess up Ramsay's plans. The fewer people who know your plans the less likely they are to be foiled. If you want to talk ridiculous one of your "discrepancies" was that no other team Bolton lord signed...I hope you can puzzle out why that's asinine on your own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

And that validity is based on people speculating about "motive" and speculating about the letter's "intent" based on the result it had.

As if "motive" and "intent" has been reliable for the past 5 books: see Jon Arryn's murder, see assassination on Bran and see Purple Wedding. It wasn't the most obvious candidate, the motives were not what we or investigating characters believed, and sometimes even the intended effect was different from originally believed.

And the dismissal of other candidates is purely based on that: what motive would he/she have? Heck after having been given the answers on the mysteries set up in aGoT and answered in aSoS, we still have people arguing about motive, and whether the character behind it was truly the one who was behind it. But you want 100% foolproof case on the candidates that are a better match for the content, details and vocabulary just based on the existnece of the letter alone.

As if you are not speculating about Stannis's motives and intentions?  Bringing up speculation is kind of ridiculous when your doing more of it.  I'm going with what we are given, and connecting dots, anyone suggesting a character other than Ramsay is drawing the dots and connecting them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Fresh PtwP said:

Except we have evidence that Ramsay at least pens some of his letters from his letter to Asha.

Who is the Lord, Roose or Ramsay? Even a word to Roose could mess up Ramsay's plans. The fewer people who know your plans the less likely they are to be foiled. If you want to talk ridiculous one of your "discrepancies" was that no other team Bolton lord signed...I hope you can puzzle out why that's asinine on your own.

We have for the letter to Asha and the first letter to Jon. We don't have for the Pink Letter. And Jon never saw Asha's letter.

The Lord of Winterfell is Ramsay.

LOL: ok, so you argue that Ramsay wants to keep his plans secret by raising the alarms at castle black who can send a raven to WF. Genius!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, aryagonnakill#2 said:

As if you are not speculating about Stannis's motives and intentions?  Bringing up speculation is kind of ridiculous when your doing more of it.  I'm going with what we are given, and connecting dots, anyone suggesting a character other than Ramsay is drawing the dots and connecting them.

Actually, I never claimed to know what Stannis's motives are exactly. All I ever did was sum up a specualtion of several motives that George is free to insert, never even claiming I believe those are the motives, but to make the point that at this point excluding or pointing the finger a character purely based on motive is irrelevant. So, don't come with this cettle-pot argument.

I'm going with what we are given physically, not speculation about motive and intent when the series has repeatedly shown time and time again "motive" is the worst lead, and you very well know it, because I note how you avoid Lysa's letter, who murdered Jon Arryn, who hired the catspaw to kill Bran, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

The point is that we have 2 letters to compare to as readers, and  described in far more detail than any other letter mentioned, read or written in the books with other characters.

We have Catelyn translating a letter from Lysa, focusing on coding and the box it was sent in. We have Catelyn relate the message from Robert to Ned about Jon Arryn's death. We have Stannis dictating/composing a letter in aCoK to be sent to everyone. We have the small council discuss a letter from Jon and Slynt. There's a letter from Fat Walda to Roose that Arya doesn't make sense of. And Tywin relays a snippet from Walder Frey's to Tyrion about the red wedding. Aside from Lysa's letter we barely get any details about those letters, not the way we get details (if only snippets of wordings) for Ramsay's letter to Asha and invitation to Jon about his upcoming wedding. So, when it comes to letters then George has given us the most details ever about letters, twice, of the same author. So, George definitely put effort in giving us 2 comparative samples and the alleged third one differs from it.

You are correct: I switched the signature and message.

As for the wording, we have enough various situations for Ramsay as Reek and Ramsay as Ramsay to compare with the wording used in the Pink Letter to say that it seems not his style, not his vocabulary.

So, there are 2 responses to this: ignore it all and fill in the gaps with explanations to why it's still Ramsay or don't ignore it and look for other candidates. I'm personally fine whatever you choose to do, but there's enough discrepance on several levels for people to not dismiss it at all. 

We don't have 2 letters!!!!!!!! 

We don't see the contents of those letters. Jon reads one and Asha reads one, but GRRM does not narrate the contents of the letters to us.

Unless I have missed something, apart from the titles, all we have are the words...

The first words were, "I write this letter in the blood of ironmen," the last, "I send you each a piece of prince. Linger in my lands, and share his fate."

And from this you have somehow deduced Ramsay didn't write the last letter? All I take from thta is that Ramsay considers himself some sort of wordsmith to be feared. Which is well in character with the last letter.

As for his overall vocabulary, you have to be very careful with that. People write somewhat differently than how they speak in the first place but you also have to consider the context. We have not seen that much of Ramsay's speech and we have no PoV (thank god) to read his thoughts. When we hear what Ramsay says he is either in his sadistic superior controlling mood or his father is present and his speech has to be somewhat censored.

The only arguments I have seen with this is the use of the words "Black Crows" as a derogatory term for the Nights watch and "Whore" as a derogatory term for Women (not as a prostitute), but I still consider that argument pretty weak. Just because we haven't seen something certainly doesn't mean it will never happen. When has Ramsay ever been talking about the Nightswatch??? 

As for "whore", the only time I think it could have been appropriate is when he is talking about Lady Dustin 

Of late, his lord had been forced to restrain himself, for Barrowton was full of men House Bolton needed, and Ramsay knew to be careful around the Dustins and Ryswells and his fellow lordlings. With them he was always courteous and smiling. What he was behind closed doors was something else.

"If I cut off her teats and feed them to my girls, will she abide me then? Will she abide me if I strip off her skin to make myself a pair of boots?"

"Tell him nothing and remember every word he says. I'll have you back, no matter what that Dustin bitch may tell you. Who are you?"

So on these two occasions he could have used the word whore, but I just don't think it would have read as well. Jumping to the conclusion he would not ever use the word whore when he speaks like this is an extreme stretch. If we get a few pages of Ramsay dialogue in tWoW I am sure you will get dozens of words that he hasn't used before.

I have never seen a "Ramsay didn't write the pink letter" argument that doesn't seem extremely flimsy and those doing so tend to scatter a bunch of incorrect facts through them. I don't understand why it has attracted a moderate following. I do hope that if we get through tWoW, and it hasn't been revealed that someone else wrote it, these people will accept that it was Ramsay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

We have for the letter to Asha and the first letter to Jon. We don't have for the Pink Letter. And Jon never saw Asha's letter.

The Lord of Winterfell is Ramsay.

LOL: ok, so you argue that Ramsay wants to keep his plans secret by raising the alarms at castle black who can send a raven to WF. Genius!

I never said Jon saw Asha's letter, all I said was we have evidence that Ramsay, in at least half of the letters he has written, does more than just sign. Where you have no evidence that a maester writes all his words.

And Winterfell's maester is dead. Ramsay doesn't have his own maester. Roose does, he has three, and is Warden of the North. He is calling shots and the one getting info:

Quote

"I see you all want blood," the Lord of the Dreadfort said. Maester Rhodry stood beside him, a raven on his arm. The bird's black plumage shone like coal oil in the torchlight. Wet, Theon realized. And in his lordship's hand, a parchment. That will be wet as well. Dark wings, dark words." 

Yeah no, your right that raven from castle black is going to fly right to Wyman or Lady Dustin or you know it might be brought to who it's addressed to...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

And that validity is based on people speculating about "motive" and speculating about the letter's "intent" based on the result it had.

I do not base my  belief that the letter is intended to be provocative and offensive based on its result.  I base it on the words it contains.  As a native English speaker, I found the letter to be very provocative and containing much language that would likely be found offensive.  The letter is throwing every slur, epithet, insult, and ghastly violent suggestion that the author can think of.  The only reasonable conclusion to draw is that it is intended to provoke anger and offense in the recipient.

Lack of seal:  The seal is that of the Dreadfort.  It is Roose's seal.  If he is not on board, or isn't around, it would be unavailable.

Signature:  Like other posters above, I would expect Jon to remember the spiky signature, and to notice if it was missing, given how distinctive it was.

Word usage:  Just because we haven't seen Ramsay use particular language does not mean that he is unaware of the language or would be unwilling to use it if the circumstances were right.  I can imagine myself using slurs and other offensive language in a message if I was really trying to anger the recipient, even though I would never use them otherwise.  (Actually, I doubt that I would, but I'm also nothing like Ramsay).  It is likely that he would consider words such as bastard, whore, and "black crow" offensive, or would know that others do, which is why they are used in the message.

I also find it unlikely that Stannis, of all people, would forge a letter, especially one designed to anger a close ally, in the absence of a clear motive.  While there are many words to describe him, "sneaky" and "deceptive" are not among them.  He is consistently straightforward.  What you see is what you get with him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Nevets said:

I do not base my  belief that the letter is intended to be provocative and offensive based on its result.  I base it on the words it contains.  As a native English speaker, I found the letter to be very provocative and containing much language that would likely be found offensive.  The letter is throwing every slur, epithet, insult, and ghastly violent suggestion that the author can think of.  The only reasonable conclusion to draw is that it is intended to provoke anger and offense in the recipient.

Lack of seal:  The seal is that of the Dreadfort.  It is Roose's seal.  If he is not on board, or isn't around, it would be unavailable.

Signature:  Like other posters above, I would expect Jon to remember the spiky signature, and to notice if it was missing, given how distinctive it was.

Word usage:  Just because we haven't seen Ramsay use particular language does not mean that he is unaware of the language or would be unwilling to use it if the circumstances were right.  I can imagine myself using slurs and other offensive language in a message if I was really trying to anger the recipient, even though I would never use them otherwise.  (Actually, I doubt that I would, but I'm also nothing like Ramsay).  It is likely that he would consider words such as bastard, whore, and "black crow" offensive, or would know that others do, which is why they are used in the message.

I also find it unlikely that Stannis, of all people, would forge a letter, especially one designed to anger a close ally, in the absence of a clear motive.  While there are many words to describe him, "sneaky" and "deceptive" are not among them.  He is consistently straightforward.  What you see is what you get with him.

Or to cow. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Fresh PtwP said:

And Winterfell's maester is dead. Ramsay doesn't have his own maester. Roose does, he has three, and is Warden of the North. He is calling shots and the one getting info:

Roose has also his seal. Not Ramsay who isn't officialy lord, and as we can see how Roose acts with him and with other people, it would be very surprising he let his bastard act without control if he is with him. So the lack of seal in the pink letter can significate that Roose has left Winterfell and let Ramsay alone. In the first letter, Ramsay signs as "lord of Winterfell", but the seal his the one of Bolton from Dreadfort. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Fresh PtwP said:

I never said Jon saw Asha's letter, all I said was we have evidence that Ramsay, in at least half of the letters he has written, does more than just sign. Where you have no evidence that a maester writes all his words.

And Winterfell's maester is dead. Ramsay doesn't have his own maester. Roose does, he has three, and is Warden of the North. He is calling shots and the one getting info:

It'sz obvious that we are talking at two complete different length waves. The point is WE DON'T KNOW what handwriting is in evidence for the Pink Letter. There is no evidence that it is written in a spiky hand or a maester's hand.

And then pro-Ramsay argumenters try to argue it must be Ramsay's spiky  hand because Jon never reflects on it and so it must be the same hand. So, when it comes to determining whatever reason there may be that Jon does not reflect on it, Asha's letter doesn't matter because Jon NEVER saw that letter. Yes, we "the readers" have two letters described to detail, but Jon DOES NOT. Asha's letter is completely irrelevant to determine what Jon's mind is at. 

Oh, funny. Thank you. How could I forget that Luwin was dead. Stumps her forehead (not). Come on. Really?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Nevets said:

As a native English speaker, I found the letter to be very provocative and containing much language that would likely be found offensive.  The letter is throwing every slur, epithet, insult, and ghastly violent suggestion that the author can think of.  The only reasonable conclusion to draw is that it is intended to provoke anger and offense in the recipient.

It is your interpretation, and thus speculation. UNTIL you have confirmation about the author and his or her motive given by George, you don't know for certain. Because clearly, Lysa's motive to write her coded letter to Catelyn about Jon Arryn's murder was warning Catelyn and Ned to stay away from the Lannisters and remain North - based on the secretiveness and language, right? Perhaps Fat Walda's letter that Roose wanted burned and Arya read was truly a dutiful love letter between young wife and husband.

And I'm a non-native speaker. Are you really telling me that I possibly cannot understand English as well as you do? What does your native speaking reading comprehension to do with my argument that basing your conclusions on speculated "motive" is a very unrealiable method in the books.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Nevets said:

Lack of seal:  The seal is that of the Dreadfort.  It is Roose's seal.  If he is not on board, or isn't around, it would be unavailable.

And so we can agree that whomever the author is, that the auhtor had no access to the Bolton seal.

 

44 minutes ago, Nevets said:

Just because we haven't seen Ramsay use particular language does not mean that he is unaware of the language or would be unwilling to use it if the circumstances were right.  I can imagine myself using slurs and other offensive language in a message if I was really trying to anger the recipient, even though I would never use them otherwise.

We have gone over this back and forth before. You don't care about personal established voice. I do, and I maintain George inserted discrepances on purpose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, sweetsunray said:

It'sz obvious that we are talking at two complete different length waves. The point is WE DON'T KNOW what handwriting is in evidence for the Pink Letter. There is no evidence that it is written in a spiky hand or a maester's hand.

And then pro-Ramsay argumenters try to argue it must be Ramsay's spiky  hand because Jon never reflects on it and so it must be the same hand. So, when it comes to determining whatever reason there may be that Jon does not reflect on it, Asha's letter doesn't matter because Jon NEVER saw that letter. Yes, we "the readers" have two letters described to detail, but Jon DOES NOT. Asha's letter is completely irrelevant to determine what Jon's mind is at. 

Oh, funny. Thank you. How could I forget that Luwin was dead. Stumps her forehead (not). Come on. Really?

 

It's obvious you're dancing around the point. I brought up Asha's letter because you insisted that maesters scribe for lords so no big deal. Not because it has any bearing on Jon's mindset, but to show you that in the text Ramsay writes a good portion of Asha's letter and at least signs in Jon's first letter. 

That Jon doesn't think about the lack of the distinct spiky hand IS evidence and needs a better explanation than "muh maesters".

Which Ramsay doesn't even have! You must've forgot Luwin is dead because there is no maester for the Lord of Winterfell right now. Roose has three who report to him, not Ramsay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...