Jump to content

Archived

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

aryagonnakill#2

Ramsay wrote the pink letter

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, The Fresh PtwP said:

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. 

No - I'm not dancing around the point. You never comprehended my original point. Must be me being a non-native speaker.

My piont is that Ramsay is the exception to otehr writers,and that in general maesters write letters. My point was that IF Jon receives a letter written by a maester, including a letter from Ramsay, this would not spike (pun intended) his suspicion or even make him raise an eyebrow. 

I do not disagree that a letter actually written by Ramsay would contain his handwriting. WE know this because of Asha's letter and the first letter Jon has. I do not however make the jump to conclude that therefore Jon must assume the same for any other letter he receives allegedly written by Ramsay Don't mis-mash it together. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GRRM Readers are like old people, everything reminds them of something. And with dragons, babyswaps, lemontrees and glamour magic in the story already ...

I truly wonder whether GRRM ever wanted to have the authorship of the pink letter questioned and interrogated as it is. What made you people doubt the authorship so much that you started looking for a different author to begin with? What broke the camels back? The seal? The assumption he writes all in blood? The assumption he attaches body parts? Some torture and execution detail? Word counting (although preferences change depending on the word counted)? The alleged facts in the letter (and a conviction they can't be true)?

What most theories do to me is reconvincing me that most likely it was Ramsey, because most of them - it seems to me - are based in some violent misreading of important characters (both Mance and Stannis theories). I ponder about the seal and the factual claims that I hope and/or think are not true (reg. Battle and Stannis and Mance and Company), but whenever I read an argument for different authors it pushes me back to Ramsey as the author (although I believe at least regarding Stannis and the battle the claims are wrong and based on false intelligence).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, black_hart said:

GRRM Readers are like old people, everything reminds them of something. And with dragons, babyswaps, lemontrees and glamour magic in the story already ...

I truly wonder whether GRRM ever wanted to have the authorship of the pink letter questioned and interrogated as it is. What made you people doubt the authorship so much that you started looking for a different author to begin with? What broke the camels back? The seal? The assumption he writes all in blood? The assumption he attaches body parts? Some torture and execution detail? Word counting (although preferences change depending on the word counted)? The alleged facts in the letter (and a conviction they can't be true)?

What most theories do to me is reconvincing me that most likely it was Ramsey, because most of them - it seems to me - are based in some violent misreading of important characters (both Mance and Stannis theories). I ponder about the seal and the factual claims that I hope and/or think are not true (reg. Battle and Stannis and Mance and Company), but whenever I read an argument for different authors it pushes me back to Ramsey as the author (although I believe at least regarding Stannis and the battle the claims are wrong and based on false intelligence).

I would say: of course he did. He gave us 2 comparative letters with snippets of details to throw doubt of the physical features of it. The letter describes knowledge that is designed to make you wonder - "how does he know that?" as well as "That's not exactly his style." Certain words used that do not add up with any of the speech mannerisms perviously heard or seen by Ramsay.

Perhaps the elements purposefully constructed in the letter and about the letter were put in there as a red herring, or perhaps the claim it's Ramsay's letter is the red herring. I have no issue with someone making up their own mind on that. I have no issue with people believing it was Ramsay, although I do not believe he was the author at all.

What I find curious is that people say they believe it's Ramsay based on other readers not believing it, as that has little to do with the text or story, but with an annoyance or fatigue about "theories", which I can understand up to a point. There are certain theories on other issues that I'm not a fan of and I hope they're not true, such as Tyrion = Targ, but I can acknowledge that the proposers of those theories have some valid textual points, and if it turns out to be true, I'll live with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

No - I'm not dancing around the point. You never comprehended my original point. Must be me being a non-native speaker.

My piont is that Ramsay is the exception to otehr writers,and that in general maesters write letters. My point was that IF Jon receives a letter written by a maester, including a letter from Ramsay, this would not spike (pun intended) his suspicion or even make him raise an eyebrow. 

I do not disagree that a letter actually written by Ramsay would contain his handwriting. WE know this because of Asha's letter and the first letter Jon has. I do not however make the jump to conclude that therefore Jon must assume the same for any other letter he receives allegedly written by Ramsay Don't mis-mash it together. 

I understand your point, but IF a maester wrote the PL it would still have Ramsay's signature (which George stresses is distinct) for authentication, which Jon should recognize. 

I believe Jon would recognize a difference in hand writing if someone forged the letter and that since Jon, who has seen Ramsay's writing, believes it's from Ramsay it's a huge indicator that...wait for it...Ramsay wrote the Pink Letter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, The Fresh PtwP said:

I understand your point, but IF a maester wrote the PL it would still have Ramsay's signature (which George stresses is distinct) for authentication, which Jon should recognize. 

I believe Jon would recognize a difference in hand writing if someone forged the letter and that since Jon, who has seen Ramsay's writing, believes it's from Ramsay it's a huge indicator that...wait for it...Ramsay wrote the Pink Letter.

IF Ramsay is the author and dictated the PL to a maester, yes we would have Ramsay's signature or spiky scribbling somewhere, regardless of what Jon thinks or not. We do not disagree on that.

We disagree on what it means that Jon makes no particular observation about the writing style of the Pink Letter:

Your argument is that since the spiky hand is the norm for Ramsay, and Jon already has seen the Ramsay norm, the absence of observation about handwriting this time confirms it is written in Ramsay's spiky style.

My argument is that Ramsay's spiky hand, while the norm for Ramsay, stands out so much against everybody else's writing, deviates so much from standard writing style, it would always provoke a reflection upon it, especially as he gets many messages from all over the place. In contrast, maester handwriting is so "normal" that Jon is less likely to reflect on it. The one letter he had from Ramsay would not necessarily make him expect that every letter Ramsay writes contains the spiky hand. Even if Jon does at some point reflect on it off-page during the several hours gap with Tormund in his office, Jon can think up several reasons for Ramsay not writing a line himself - he could imagine for himself that Ramsay might be wounded to his writing hand. And while Jon certainly may end concluding it contains lies, he is not prone to suspect forgery.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, sweetsunray said:

IF Ramsay is the author and dictated the PL to a maester, yes we would have Ramsay's signature or spiky scribbling somewhere, regardless of what Jon thinks or not. We do not disagree on that.

We disagree on what it means that Jon makes no particular observation about the writing style of the Pink Letter:

Your argument is that since the spiky hand is the norm for Ramsay, and Jon already has seen the Ramsay norm, the absence of observation about handwriting this time confirms it is written in Ramsay's spiky style.

My argument is that Ramsay's spiky hand, while the norm for Ramsay, stands out so much against everybody else's writing, deviates so much from standard writing style, it would always provoke a reflection upon it, especially as he gets many messages from all over the place. In contrast, maester handwriting is so "normal" that Jon is less likely to reflect on it. The one letter he had from Ramsay would not necessarily make him expect that every letter Ramsay writes contains the spiky hand. Even if Jon does at some point reflect on it off-page during the several hours gap with Tormund in his office, Jon can think up several reasons for Ramsay not writing a line himself - he could imagine for himself that Ramsay might be wounded to his writing hand. And while Jon certainly may end concluding it contains lies, he is not prone to suspect forgery.

 

Yes, every letter from Ramsay should have a spiky hand it's his signature. Your first paragraph kinda contradicts your point. 

Really? A letter without authentication and you think Jon just goes "he probably took a wound...in his writing hand." instead of "this might not be Ramsay." 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎2‎/‎23‎/‎2017 at 4:20 PM, sweetsunray said:

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.

I chose to address your most ridiculous point, I didn't avoid anything.  Lysa's motive is well established, I don't know why your suggesting she didn't have one.  Joffreys motive was weak sure, I wouldn't have suspected him, but he George still established the motive and established that he was a fucked up person who liked to attack people weaker than him. Your point would only be valid if it was done by someone like Manderly or someone random who has no motive.

Your also deliberately pointing to two events in the first quarter of the first book when we did not have any info on the characters, backgrounds, and motivations.  Now we know the characters we are talking about, and we know what they want, at least as far as Stannis and Ramsay go, Mance might be a bit trickier. For example we didn't need Eurons confession that he had Balon killed, we knew he did it because of motive, he was the only person who had one.

Since your speech analysis is all you care about, how about you address the black crows part which by your own type of analysis means only a wildlings could have written the letter since only wildlings had used it previously.  This obviously nullifies your argument.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, The Fresh PtwP said:

I understand your point, but IF a maester wrote the PL it would still have Ramsay's signature (which George stresses is distinct) for authentication, which Jon should recognize. 

I believe Jon would recognize a difference in hand writing if someone forged the letter and that since Jon, who has seen Ramsay's writing, believes it's from Ramsay it's a huge indicator that...wait for it...Ramsay wrote the Pink Letter.

 

Jon has a ton on his plate. Just seeing something like that would shock the hell out of him, wouldn't really have a clear head at first after seeing something like that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still nobody had given a good explanation as to why the letter itself in terms of speech is so different from him and the other letters. Nobody has even addressed how odd it is how many times the word "whore" is used. a word he has never once said.  dont even have to get in the word "bastard" debate

That is just one small thing I want to see a legit response about, and ill get to all the other things later

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its also hilarious when Maester Tybald is being dismissed. Its obvious Stannis keeps him alive for a reason. Because he has use for him. And his pink wax....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Jadakiss said:

Still nobody had given a good explanation as to why the letter itself in terms of speech is so different from him and the other letters. Nobody has even addressed how odd it is how many times the word "whore" is used. a word he has never once said.  dont even have to get in the word "bastard" debate

That is just one small thing I want to see a legit response about, and ill get to all the other things later

The tone of flamboyant menace in the letter seems quite similar to his tone in private conversations when he is angry, such as his conversation with Roose about Lady Dustin.  This suggests that he wrote it while angry, unchecked by his father, and not thinking clearly.  As in he has lost a very valuable hostage, Jon is interfering with him (he thinks), and Stannis is causing him trouble.  Plus there is probably fighting inside Winterfell between the various factions.  Lots to make him angry and distracted, and he can reasonably place the blame on Jon.

I believe "whore" is used twice in the letter, both times to refer to individuals who are probably perceived as selling their bodies for profit or other advantage, hence "whores".  Calling a whore a whore is hardly unusual.  And I don't recall any other situations where it would have made sense to use the term.

"Bastard" is a word he hates to hear about himself.  Logical to believe that another bastard would hate having it used and consider it as an insult.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Nevets said:

The tone of flamboyant menace in the letter seems quite similar to his tone in private conversations when he is angry, such as his conversation with Roose about Lady Dustin.  This suggests that he wrote it while angry, unchecked by his father, and not thinking clearly.  As in he has lost a very valuable hostage, Jon is interfering with him (he thinks), and Stannis is causing him trouble.  Plus there is probably fighting inside Winterfell between the various factions.  Lots to make him angry and distracted, and he can reasonably place the blame on Jon.

I believe "whore" is used twice in the letter, both times to refer to individuals who are probably perceived as selling their bodies for profit or other advantage, hence "whores".  Calling a whore a whore is hardly unusual.  And I don't recall any other situations where it would have made sense to use the term.

"Bastard" is a word he hates to hear about himself.  Logical to believe that another bastard would hate having it used and consider it as an insult.   

I have been on the fence about who wrote this damned letter for a long time. I can see Stannis (with Theon's input (I want my bride back means Reek)) and I can see some parts for Ramsay. However, this part just popped out to me that I did not realize was a question until now.

You said, "As in he has lost a very valuable hostage, Jon is interfering with him (he thinks), and Stannis is causing him trouble.", but why would Ramsay think Jon has fArya and his Reek bride when he knows Stannis is literally just outside Winterfell? Wouldn't Ramsay think his closest enemy would take/capture/etc fArya to have one more thing to use against him?

Also, according to the timeline here, fifteen days have passed from Theon jumping to when Jon receives the PL. Also according to the timeline, it takes 30 days to reach Castle Black by foot from Winterfell (good conditions). But just about two to four days by raven in poor conditions. Why would Ramsay wait so long to send out a raven to Jon?

Sorry for the questions, just ones that always wiggle at me like a loose tooth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, The Fattest Leech said:

I have been on the fence about who wrote this damned letter for a long time. I can see Stannis (with Theon's input (I want my bride back means Reek)) and I can see some parts for Ramsay. However, this part just popped out to me that I did not realize was a question until now.

You said, "As in he has lost a very valuable hostage, Jon is interfering with him (he thinks), and Stannis is causing him trouble.", but why would Ramsay think Jon has fArya and his Reek bride when he knows Stannis is literally just outside Winterfell? Wouldn't Ramsay think his closest enemy would take/capture/etc fArya to have one more thing to use against him?

Also, according to the timeline here, fifteen days have passed from Theon jumping to when Jon receives the PL. Also according to the timeline, it takes 30 days to reach Castle Black by foot from Winterfell (good conditions). But just about two to four days by raven in poor conditions. Why would Ramsay wait so long to send out a raven to Jon?

Sorry for the questions, just ones that always wiggle at me like a loose tooth.

Ramsay may think he has defeated Stannis (the only mention Stannis gets is when Ramsay says he's dead and he [Ramsay] has Stannis' magic sword), and he might have received info that fArya and Theon were sent to CB. :dunno:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Ramsay may think he has defeated Stannis (the only mention Stannis gets is when Ramsay says he's dead and he [Ramsay] has Stannis' magic sword), and he might have received info that fArya and Theon were sent to CB. :dunno:

 

Gotcha. Thanks. You know I am full of random questions.

So just one more on this random thought of mine... I take it Ramsay (or Roose, a Frey?) would not be out there as the battle "finished" to scout for Stannis or even fArya and Theon?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, The Fattest Leech said:

Gotcha. Thanks. You know I am full of random questions.

So just one more on this random thought of mine... I take it Ramsay (or Roose, a Frey?) would not be out there as the battle "finished" to scout for Stannis or even fArya and Theon?

Damned if I know, I have probably twice as many random questions myself! :D

There are a few possibilities imo. Ramsay never joined the battle and was presented with a [badly maimed] dead body with a flashy sword and was told, "here's Stannis". Or he did join the battle, and there was at some point a dead body posing as Stannis. And there are other options too. 

One argument about the PL I will never understand is that Martin never intended for its authorship to be questioned. Because it's obvious that's exactly what he wanted, and as ever, he did a fucking brilliant job. Almost 6 years in, and here we are, still debating it, and each of the more "mainstream" theories - Ramsay, Stannis, Mance - with lots of readers behind them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Damned if I know, I have probably twice as many random questions myself! :D

There are a few possibilities imo. Ramsay never joined the battle and was presented with a [badly maimed] dead body with a flashy sword and was told, "here's Stannis". Or he did join the battle, and there was at some point a dead body posing as Stannis. And there are other options too. 

One argument about the PL I will never understand is that Martin never intended for its authorship to be questioned. Because it's obvious that's exactly what he wanted, and as ever, he did a fucking brilliant job. Almost 6 years in, and here we are, still debating it, and each of the more "mainstream" theories - Ramsay, Stannis, Mance - with lots of readers behind them.

A big fat YES to this part in particular.

Oh yeah, yes to the main part as well. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

still not one person defending this awful theory has brought up that its not odd that the pink letter matches nothing of his previous letters and no speech pattern

Thats one out of 50 things and wont keep talking in circles I just really want to hear that point in specific. Also in dance the first letter stannis sends is in his words but "maesters writing" aka he has a maester who will do writings for him so not shocking he would do it again, thankfully threads like my sig exist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jadakiss said:

still not one person defending this awful theory has brought up that its not odd that the pink letter matches nothing of his previous letters and no speech pattern

Thats one out of 50 things and wont keep talking in circles I just really want to hear that point in specific. Also in dance the first letter stannis sends is in his words but "maesters writing" aka he has a maester who will do writings for him so not shocking he would do it again, thankfully threads like my sig exist

I did address that on the previous page. We haven't seen the wording of the other letters. All we have seen 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."

I would even go so far to say the style of writing matches the bolded parts below quite well in a sort of deranged poetic kind of way.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×