The Ramsey's list and the true goal of the Pink Letter

[three-eyed monkey]

1 hour ago, lalt said:

And then they need to prove the accusations like I said in the rest of that post. And like I said in the rest of that post I still think it requires time the Boltons do not have.

However agree to disagree.

No, they don't have to prove anything immediately according to your theory, they only need to make sure Jon doesn't meet fArya. And to do that their best option is writing to CB to insist Jon is arrested for his crimes and held in an ice cell without visitors until they get there, or something along those lines. But you refuse to accept that the Bolton's have better options than the Pink Letter to achieve what you claim is the true goal of the Pink Letter.

But I see you're not for budging, despite your gut feeling that the letter was constructed by someone who had a personal history with Jon. I think you should go with your instinct, not because of anything I've said, but because it seems to me that your instinct has a better understanding of the craft of story-telling than you give it credit for.

But we agree to disagree then. Good debate.

[Tagganaro]

On 12/4/2018 at 2:25 PM, three-eyed monkey said:

Stannis does not need the hostages. He most likely will send for whoever he needs once he has won the northern lords to his cause. Stannis only purpose in sending the letter is to get Jon to break his vows because from Stannis point of view Jon's vows are what are preventing Jon from accepting Stannis' offer, a conflict that has been set up in the text more than once, beginning in ASoS and continuing through ADwD.

I don't think any author of the letter could predict in detail what would happen, and I certainly don't think any author could have predicted or planned for it to turn out as it did. But if we examine what choices Jon had when he received the letter, purely from a logic point of view, we shall see that they are few.

1/ Jon can comply with Ramsay's letter, or 2/ Jon can defy Ramsay's letter.

Option 1 is straight forward. Jon sends Shireen and company to Ramsay and hopes that's the end of it.

Well option 1 is a little less straight forward than it would seem, because "Ramsay" is demanding Reek and "Arya", two hostages that Jon doesn't have.  And I guess if you run with the idea that Stannis is the author, depending on when he wrote the PL he would know that Jon doesn't have Reek and Arya, which would make him more likely to pick option 2.  My issue still continues to be that it is risky from Stannis's perspective- he risks antagonizing Jon for really no good reason if Jon was to discover this deception.  Plus, by including his wife and child in there he risks the admittedly extremely miniscule chance of endangering them by including them in the letter.  Plus, even more glaringly he risk endangering them by writing the letter itself, which puts them in a precarious position as if Stannis is believed dead people at the Wall will want to get in good with the Boltons by giving up Selyse and Shireen.  Now that I really think about it, this may eliminate Stannis as a potential author.  He would not be willing to endanger his family like that for some deception that doesn't even net him that much benefit.

 

I will continue to beat this Mance drum .  Not only is he a total badass but we know he's also a plotter who is extremely motivated to, well, plot.  He is stuck under the thumb of Mel/Stannis through Val and what he thinks is Monster, he is a king presumed dead without an army (that conveniently Jon is planning on taking right to him).  We know that Mance requested the spearwives for a "certain ploy" that was separate from the Arya rescue mission.  We know that Mance (or at least we can assume) never even went to Longlake to pick up what turned out to be Alys Karstark.  We know that Mance is obssessed with Bael the Bard and is replaying it here with his Abel nickname.  And we know that Mance is asking a ton of questions about the crypts.  There is also reason to believe that Mance may be aware that "Arya" is a fake- remember he took "passing note" of all the Stark children at Robert's feast.  

And again, we know that Mance likes to needle Jon by using obvious language in front of him (when he was disguised as Rattleshirt, he offered to sing for Jon as long as he didn't have to wear his cloak).  I find it really interesting that the letter repeats the same exact language Mance initially told to Jon ("a cage for all the world/North to see") for why he was "burned."  And the black crow language is certainly just as provocative.  

 

 

 

[three-eyed monkey]

15 hours ago, Tagganaro said:

Well option 1 is a little less straight forward than it would seem, because "Ramsay" is demanding Reek and "Arya", two hostages that Jon doesn't have.  And I guess if you run with the idea that Stannis is the author, depending on when he wrote the PL he would know that Jon doesn't have Reek and Arya, which would make him more likely to pick option 2. 

This is very true. But my point is the letter is designed to lead Jon to option 2 anyway. So yes, demanding hostages that Stannis knows Jon doesn't have would make compliance impossible, eliminating option 1.

15 hours ago, Tagganaro said:

My issue still continues to be that it is risky from Stannis's perspective- he risks antagonizing Jon for really no good reason if Jon was to discover this deception. 

If Stannis and say Tybald, and I'm only including him to send the raven, were the only ones involved then once Tybald is executed promptly for his treachery then Stannis could feel reasonably assured that his secret is safe. As someone pointed out, Areo Hotah says "someone always tells", but those someones first have to know and there are not too many someones who would know, compared to say Arianne's group. Of course, there could be one other person involved but we'll get to that later.

But anyone using deception runs the risk of being discovered so that is an unavoidable factor that Stannis will just have to live with. He should feel reasonably secure though, once the number of living people who know remains low.

And it's not for no good reason. Stannis has clearly stated the value he puts in Jon as a key piece to holding the castle he has just taken and all the lords who have traditionally sworn fealty to the lord of that castle. As Stannis said, its not the castle that makes a lord, it's the man.

15 hours ago, Tagganaro said:

Plus, even more glaringly he risk endangering them by writing the letter itself, which puts them in a precarious position as if Stannis is believed dead people at the Wall will want to get in good with the Boltons by giving up Selyse and Shireen.  Now that I really think about it, this may eliminate Stannis as a potential author.  He would not be willing to endanger his family like that for some deception that doesn't even net him that much benefit.

First, the deception does net him benefit if it is successful. You may not agree but Stannis has stated clearly what the benfit of having Jon by his side would be.

Stannis does risk endangering his family, as you described. But when you play the game of thrones you win or you die. Not only that but your family play too. Stannis is in a very precarious position at the time of sending the letter, surrounded by northmen who supported a rival king in the War of 5 Kings, who would not pay him homage, and who by his own admission have no love for him. He and his family are in peril every step of the way. The best thing he can do to protect his family is to win the north to his cause. And the best way he can win the north to his cause is with Jon. So when you weigh it up, the risk is worth it.

And Stannis warned Justin Massey about hearing news of his death, which may even be true. This shows that the danger you described is already present before Stannis wrote the letter, it is ever-present really as Stannis could die at any time, and if that danger is already present then I can't see how it could be considered a deterrent to writing the letter. So I disagree that it in any way eliminates Stannis as the author.

15 hours ago, Tagganaro said:

I will continue to beat this Mance drum . 

I find the case for Mance to be far stronger than Ramsay, although I'm not sure he would have the means and opportunity to go it alone, as many of the Mance theories have claimed. (Maybe with glamours in play, who knows I guess.)

In my own op, the Stannis Plan, I do mention that I find much of the language used to be reminiscent of Mance, which opens the possibility of Mance being involved. But some of the language, like "wildling princess" seems distinctly Stannis, as well as the words Theon says to him turning up in the letter almost verbatim. As I have said I believe that Stannis sent the letter after taking Winterfell, which would further increase the chance of Mance being involved.

 

[dialt]

17 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

No, they don't have to prove anything immediately according to your theory, they only need to make sure Jon doesn't meet fArya. And to do that their best option is writing to CB to insist Jon is arrested for his crimes and held in an ice cell without visitors until they get there, or something along those lines. But you refuse to accept that the Bolton's have better options than the Pink Letter to achieve what you claim is the true goal of the Pink Letter.

 

Except, that was your theory/question. Not mine.

I never theorized that the Boltons may ask for Jon to be arrested.... you did. And I've explained why I believe that won't be a good move just because of what I think about their true problem/goal. Since this reply and those that came next. So you may go back and check yourself.

Of course you can disagree. It's fine. What I find boring is to keep going in circles, ignoring entire conversations and picking up a little quote out of context just to start all over again. Maybe you do so, because you think you need to dismiss every argument vs every possible author that is not Stannis to make your theory compelling. I don't feel that need. And more imporantly I really believe the PL is so interesting just because GRRM has left many chances open.

17 hours ago, Tagganaro said:

2.  My issue still continues to be that it is risky from Stannis's perspective- he risks antagonizing Jon for really no good reason if Jon was to discover this deception.  Plus, by including his wife and child in there he risks the admittedly extremely miniscule chance of endangering them by including them in the letter.  Plus, even more glaringly he risk endangering them by writing the letter itself, which puts them in a precarious position as if Stannis is believed dead people at the Wall will want to get in good with the Boltons by giving up Selyse and Shireen.  Now that I really think about it, this may eliminate Stannis as a potential author.  He would not be willing to endanger his family like that for some deception that doesn't even net him that much benefit.

As you probably know by now, I believe the author - whoever he is - doesn't ask those people expecting that Jon will hand them. This however "if Stannis is believed dead people at the Wall will want to get in good with the Boltons by giving up Selyse and Shireen" deserves some attention. A counterargument may be that the "you may hear that I am dead. It may even be true"  line from Theon sample chapter, tells us that Stannis may be ready to fake his death. But yeah, I still see your point. Faking his death (per se) is still different that putting an harm directly - or by chance only - to his daughter and wife writing the PL the way it is. About what you say about Jon... the only counterargument is that first Stannis needs to win. Maybe it's a worth risk. But that's the problem with Stannis (or someone else that is not a Bolton) writing the PL nevertheless: if the risk is worth, whatever plan he may have.

17 hours ago, Tagganaro said:

I will continue to beat this Mance drum .  Not only is he a total badass but we know he's also a plotter who is extremely motivated to, well, plot.  He is stuck under the thumb of Mel/Stannis through Val and what he thinks is Monster, he is a king presumed dead without an army (that conveniently Jon is planning on taking right to him).  We know that Mance requested the spearwives for a "certain ploy" that was separate from the Arya rescue mission.  We know that Mance (or at least we can assume) never even went to Longlake to pick up what turned out to be Alys Karstark.  We know that Mance is obssessed with Bael the Bard and is replaying it here with his Abel nickname.  And we know that Mance is asking a ton of questions about the crypts.  There is also reason to believe that Mance may be aware that "Arya" is a fake- remember he took "passing note" of all the Stark children at Robert's feast.  

And again, we know that Mance likes to needle Jon by using obvious language in front of him (when he was disguised as Rattleshirt, he offered to sing for Jon as long as he didn't have to wear his cloak).  I find it really interesting that the letter repeats the same exact language Mance initially told to Jon ("a cage for all the world/North to see") for why he was "burned."  And the black crow language is certainly just as provocative.

Agree with everything. In addition, these are the first 3 things - in sequence- that Mance disguised as Rattleshirt says to Jon the first time they meet [JOHN IV]:

1-  "Here he comes, " he said when he saw Jon, " the brave boy who slew Mance Rayder when he was caged and bound. " the big square-cut gem that adorned his iron cuff glimmered redly. " Do you like my ruby , snow ? A token o' love from Lady Red. "

2- “Not me. I’m done with those bloody fools.” Rattleshirt tapped the ruby on his wrist.
“Ask your red witch, bastard.”

3-"I'll range for you bastard,' Rattleshirt declared. " I'll give you sage counsel or sing you pretty songs , as you prefer. I'll even fight for you. Just don't ask me to wear your cloak."

(Next time they meet, in JON VI there is the line “He burned the man he had to burn, for all the world to see. We all do what we have to do, Snow. Even kings.” )

What I think is interesting in not only the callbacks to the PL, but that - imo - Mance is trying since their first meeting to give Jon clues of what's really going on. Think about it, why Rattleshirt should say "I'll range for you bastard [...]or sing you pretty songs , [...] Just don't ask me to wear your cloak." We know that Rattleshirt is Mance, after so many re-read. Jon doesn't at that point. Still, Rattleshirt has never sang and Jon should know that. That's the point. Jon should remember that Mance was a ranger of the NW, that he likes to sing and that he broke his vow, for a cloak. Those words are a short version of their first meeting, as if Mance/Rattleshirt is speaking in a code only he and Jon can get, to let Jon understand, but Jon fails to do so. Let's go back to their first meeting: not only Mance was singing when Jon entered the tend, later on when he tells the sotry of how and why he left the NW, that's how the story begins:  “One day on a ranging we brought down a fine big elk [....]" 

And then of course:

I left the next morning... for a place where a kiss was not a crime, and a man could wear any cloak he chose.” He closed the clasp and sat back down again. “And you, Jon Snow?”
 Jon took another swallow of mead. There is only one tale that he might believe. “You say you were at Winterfell, the night my father feasted King Robert.”
 “I did say it, for I was.”
 “Then you saw us all. Prince Joffrey and Prince Tommen, Princess Myrcella, my brothers Robb and Bran and Rickon, my sisters Arya and Sansa. You saw them walk the center aisle with every eye upon them and take their seats at the table just below the dais where the king and queen were seated.”
 “I remember.”
 “And did you see where I was seated, Mance?” He leaned forward. “Did you see where they put the bastard?”
 Mance Rayder looked at Jon’s face for a long moment. “I think we had best find you a new cloak,” the king said, holding out his hand.

And then in PL again: Mance is wearing a clok some one else gave him and Jon is repetedly called bastard and all the other callbacks from above.

[dialt]

20 hours ago, Widowmaker 811 said:

The Bolton claim to Winterfell is based on solid, legal grounds.   The Starks rebelled and lost.  Roose Bolton is the Warden Of the North and its lord paramount.  His seat is Winterfell.  All the marriage was supposed to do is to pacify the bitter among the northmen.  

 

Hum... not. Roose Bolton is the Lord of the Dreadfort. Additionally he is the Warden of the North because the Crown made him so. He doens't need to be lord of WF to be that, he only needs - from a legal stand point - to be named WotN by the Crown, he is but that doesn't give him any right on WF. Like I said, it's Jamie himself back in ACOK and all ADwD that proves that Ramsey and fArya wedding is the tool supposed to give them that legal claim on WF.

Which, I agree with that of course, it's important not only legally, but for political/symbolic reasons. Just because WF has always been the seat of the Kings in North first and then the seat of the Wardens of the North. That's tradition and tradition has a value. However those political/symbolic assets may fall apart if the ruse is exposed. Not to mention that if the ruse is exposed, that is yet another strike to their credibility thus authority. Not legally of course. Roose will still be the WotN (as long as the Crown wants him to be), but he'll be exposed as a liar and we know that is not that the North trust him that much even now. That people like Manderly are questioning his real role in the RW etc... In addition if the PL hs to be trusted, then Theon is not anymore in their hands. And then again, Theon confessing the truth about Bran and Rickon may not be a legal problem about his role as WotN, but there could be 2 male heirs of Eddard alive. And they - just like Sansa or Arya according to line of succession - are the heirs of WF. Because again, that has nothing to do with the role of WotN from a legal stand point. And of course the chance only that the true about the sack of WF can be exposed, may be yet another strike to their credibility, thus to Roose's authority, to his capability of keeping the North under his control which is why the Crown has choses him for the job in the first place

That said, we agree about other things too. Like this one "Ramsay Bolton has a temper but he is not going to draw the wildlings out into battle right after he had just fought Stannis for a week.  That would be stupid.  He wants to rest his troops."

But this is where "interpretations" starts to play a part. My take is that just because of this he should not write "I have the king beyond the wall in a cage... come and get him". It's stupid, just because it's an invitation to the wildlings to do so (and the wildlings are known as people that may handle better than anyone else in the north the bad weather).

Or he's doing that - like I believe he is - not because he's stupid, but because that is what he wants, because his main problem - given the circumstances - is another one.

But sure, about that, we can agree to disagree. Like I said, personal takes are all legit untill TWoW.

Edit: to make a comparison, after Robert’s rebellion Dragonstone is not longer the seat of the heir apparent of the iron throne as it used to be in the Targaryen era. It’s given to Stannis, by Robert, but after the birth of Joffrey is not given to him as King Robert’s apparent heir. Meaning that this kind of things may change.

 

[Bernie Mac]

20 hours ago, Widowmaker 811 said:

The Bolton claim to Winterfell is based on solid, legal grounds. 

Kind of Yes, Ramsay's marriage to Arya Stark, like Tyrion he would serve as his wife's Lord Protector and rule those lands in her name. 

Lady Dustin had insisted that she should have custody of Lady Arya until such time as she was wed, but now that time was done. She belongs to Ramsay now. She said the words. By this marriage Ramsay would be Lord of Winterfell. So long as Jeyne took care not to anger him, he should have no cause to harm her. Arya. Her name is Arya. - A Dance with Dragons - The Prince of Winterfell

But in essence not really, Tywin's trump card will be that not only does he have the older daughter but the Bolton's married fake. 

 

20 hours ago, Widowmaker 811 said:

 

 The Starks rebelled and lost. 

They did, but they did not lose their lands thus the race between the Tyrells and Lannisters for the heiress's hand in marriage.

Tywin has not attainted the Stark's for three reasons

• their lands are too far away to effectively take in the present
• he does not want to legally give away the lands to the Boltons
• the North is more likely to be accepting of a northern ruler named Stark 

20 hours ago, Widowmaker 811 said:

 

Roose Bolton is the Warden Of the North and its lord paramount.  His seat is Winterfell. 

Wardenship is a title, not a seat. Anyone can have it (like Jaime in AGOT) irrespective of where you reside.  But Roose is not gaining Winterfell, his son is. 

Roose is frequently referred to as the Lord of the Dreadfort in ADWD, never Winterfell. Lady Dustin clarifies who is supposed to be the Lord

 He did not doubt that Lady Dustin suspected, but even so …

"Lady Arya's sobs do us more harm than all of Lord Stannis's swords and spears. If the Bastard means to remain Lord of Winterfell, he had best teach his wife to laugh." A Dance with Dragons - The Turncloak

 

20 hours ago, Widowmaker 811 said:

All the marriage was supposed to do is to pacify the bitter among the northmen.  

That as well. 

 

[three-eyed monkey]

3 hours ago, lalt said:

Except, that was your theory/question. Not mine.

I never theorized that the Boltons may ask for Jon to be arrested.... you did. And I've explained why I believe that won't be a good move just because of what I think about their true problem/goal. Since this reply and those that came next. So you may go back and check yourself.

Of course you can disagree. It's fine. What I find boring is to keep going in circles, ignoring entire conversations and picking up a little quote out of context just to start all over again. Maybe you do so, because you think you need to dismiss every argument vs every possible author that is not Stannis to make your theory compelling. I don't feel that need. And more imporantly I really believe the PL is so interesting just because GRRM has left many chances open.

It's not my theory, it's a response to your theory. You said the main goal of the PL is to get Jon to leave CB before he could meet fArya and realize she is fake. I asked why not have Jon arrested and contained as it seems a better option and your theory, like all Ramsay theories, depend on Ramsay ignoring better options, which is not at all compelling. You asked who they could write to at Castle Black, I answered, and you ignored it really.

It might seem to you that we are going around in circles but my objections remain the same. The Boltons have simple options that would be smarter than the PL, like hunting Arya or demanding Jon's arrest and containment, but you prefer to pretend these options don't exist, saying there is no one to write to in CB, or that frail Arya and Theon have too much of a lead to be hunted over a 600 mile journey.

My other objection is that they would never unnecessarily inform Jon that his rescue was partially successful, as in Arya is no longer in their possession. There is no advantage to that, as far as I can see. Arming Jon with that information and driving him south from CB to WF, when she is traveling in the other direction, seems rather disadvantageous to their position. So why include that, as opposed to omitting it?

The Stannis theory stands on the facts we have been provided, textual evidence - which you are very light on, thematic evidence, and more. Feel free to poke what holes in it you may, every objection has been answered reasonably over several threads, unlike the question I posed to you above.

GRRM did indeed leave the PL open to authorship, which is my very first point of objection to Ramsay. If GRRM wanted us to think Ramsay wrote the letter then he would have made it clear with the use of two words, spiky hand, or one of the other characteristics of a Ramsay letter which he had already taken time to set up. If you want to ignore those clues, feel free, but if you're going to start a thread on why you think Ramsay wrote the letter then don't attack people who point out flaws in the theory.

I don't find this theory in the least bit plausible, but as you like to say, we shall agree to disagree.

 

[dialt]

1 hour ago, three-eyed monkey said:

t's not my theory, it's a response to your theory. You said the main goal of the PL is to get Jon to leave CB before he could meet fArya and realize she is fake. I asked why not have Jon arrested and contained as it seems a better option and your theory, like all Ramsay theories, depend on Ramsay ignoring better options, which is not at all compelling. You asked who they could write to at Castle Black, I answered, and you ignored it really.

It might seem to you that we are going around in circles but my objections remain the same. The Boltons have simple options that would be smarter than the PL, like hunting Arya or demanding Jon's arrest and containment, but you prefer to pretend these options don't exist, saying there is no one to write to in CB, or that frail Arya and Theon have too much of a lead to be hunted over a 600 mile journey.

Beside I did.

And about your other question, 

1 hour ago, three-eyed monkey said:

My other objection is that they would never unnecessarily inform Jon that his rescue was partially successful, as in Arya is no longer in their possession.

I did reply to that too, I guess, but maybe not that specifically. I'll do it now: If Ramsey wrote the PL, then I don't see why he should not tell she's lost. At all. Especially if he needs a casus belli and especially if Jon leaves before she arrives as I believe is Ramsey's true goal. That is how she may be eventually turned back to him, after the Boltons will kill Jon (again: in a battlefield or as a traitor at that point, given that at that point - and at that point only - they can prove with 0 doubt he is a traitor without relaing on a man words, a man that says to be Mance and that says that he went to WF not because he chose so, but because Jon asked him to do so, a man they may beleive in but others - and especially the men at CB that saw Mance burning - may not belive in. Surely not to the point to arrest their Lord Commander without any further investigation, without anything but some words).

[three-eyed monkey]

16 minutes ago, lalt said:

If Ramsey wrote the PL, then I don't see why he should not tell she's lost. At all. Especially if he needs a casus belli and especially if Jon leaves before she arrives as I believe is Ramsey's true goal. That is how she may eventually turned back to him, after the Boltons will kill Jon (again: in a battlefield or as a traitor at that point, given that at that point - and at that point only - they can prove with 0 doubt he is a traitor without relaing on a man words, a man that says to be Mance and a man they may trust but others - and especially the men at CB that saw Mance burning - may not trust. Surely not to the point to arrest their Lord Commander without anything but some words).

That Arya escaped/was rescued is not a detail Ramsay needs to include if indeed he does need a cause for war with Jon. Informing Jon that he caught Mance trying to rescue Arya is enough. Adding that Arya escaped and is on her way to Jon is not smart as it may obviously prompt Jon to go out looking for Arya, which is the exact opposite of the letter's intended purpose, according to you. Again your theory depends on the Bolton's making poor decisions that contain clear and obvious potential to easily become counterproductive from their point of view.

Added to the fact that driving Jon in the direction Arya is coming from also seems potentially counterproductive, it seems the Pink Letter was not very well thought through by the Boltons, and if that is the case then it's just a plot-gimmick on GRRM's behalf. The same can be said about GRRRM not using the established tag, spiky hand, to clarify that the letter is indeed from Ramsay and instead setting up a false mystery, again that's just a poor writing gimmick that is so out of place with the rest of the mysteries in the series.

On the other point, personally, I don't think the Watch would demand proof from the Warden of the North about the accusations around Jon and Mance before they would arrest Jon, especially if the letter was signed by the northern lords too. And especially if the Warden of the North said he had proof at Winterfell, which would obviously be presented at some future time. I don't think the Watch could ignore that. But I guess that is arguable.

 

[dialt]

8 minutes ago, three-eyed monkey said:

Adding that Arya escaped and is on her way to Jon is not smart as it may obviously prompt Jon to go out looking for Arya, which is the exact opposite of the letter's intended purpose, according to you.

Already explained why that's not the case.  And why according to my view omitting the information is pointless if not self-defeating. 

12 minutes ago, three-eyed monkey said:

But I guess that is arguable.

I guess it is. Absolutelly.

[divica]

4 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

The Stannis theory stands on the facts we have been provided, textual evidence - which you are very light on, thematic evidence, and more. Feel free to poke what holes in it you may, every objection has been answered reasonably over several threads, unlike the question I posed to you above.

I am sorry, but this is completly false.

Several threads have given you several holes in the stannis theory.

Like, stannis is risking sending his familly and only heir to essos for several months over nothing. 

Or that jon has absolutly no reason to leave castle black if he can t defeat the boltons. However you defend he would go alone to winterfell or lead a suicide attack with a few hundred wildlings for some reason… Seriously, the stannis theory falls completly appart the moment that jon has NO REASON to leave castle balck and stannis has no reason to believe he would.

Or that stannis is puting his heir's life at risk with that letter. The moment the NW brothers and wildlings learn of the contente of the letter all hell would break lose. Do you think stannis would risk shireen's life in order to lie to jon because of a plan that has few probablities os suceding from his pov?

Or is stannis some sort of super genious at manipulating people? No! He has never done such a thing! And you hole theory is based on stannis being some kind of super manipulative genious. We are talking about stannis! the guy that is emotional awkward around women and that can t make people like him because he is too strict. He isn t littlefinger or roose Bolton!

Another problema that you always ignore is that the whole mention of the farya debacle. The person that sent the letter mentioned arya because he is convinced beyond the shadow of doubt that she is with jon. He isn t thinking she might not be there yet, he is certain she is with jon.

Another problem is that you assume that if jon broke his vows he wouldn t want to be punished. Hell, acording to stannis reputation how do you think stannis would deal with a NW deserter? Why would he accept him with open arms when he cut davos fingers?

and many other inconsisties

[three-eyed monkey]

44 minutes ago, divica said:

Like, stannis is risking sending his familly and only heir to essos for several months over nothing.  

If you think Jon means nothing to Stannis, in a political sense then you are ignoring the text.

45 minutes ago, divica said:

Or that jon has absolutly no reason to leave castle black if he can t defeat the boltons. However you defend he would go alone to winterfell or lead a suicide attack with a few hundred wildlings for some reason… Seriously, the stannis theory falls completly appart the moment that jon has NO REASON to leave castle balck and stannis has no reason to believe he would.

Then this Ramsay theory, which claims the letter is written to get Jon to leave Castle Black before Arya arrives, also falls apart. I defend that Jon would go alone based on the text and what Jon himself said. What action do you think Jon would take if the wildling army had not yet arrived? Would he do nothing? As i told you on a previous post, your logic fails here because you deny this could be a motive for Stannis yet accept it as a motive for Ramsay. The Stannis theory is based on logic but if you don't know what that is then I'm not surprised you can't follow the argument.

49 minutes ago, divica said:

Or that stannis is puting his heir's life at risk with that letter. The moment the NW brothers and wildlings learn of the contente of the letter all hell would break lose. Do you think stannis would risk shireen's life in order to lie to jon because of a plan that has few probablities os suceding from his pov?

This is answered just a few posts back.

50 minutes ago, divica said:

Or is stannis some sort of super genious at manipulating people? No! He has never done such a thing! And you hole theory is based on stannis being some kind of super manipulative genious. We are talking about stannis! the guy that is emotional awkward around women and that can t make people like him because he is too strict. He isn t littlefinger or roose Bolton!

It's doesn't require a super genius. It just requires Stannis to be smart, which he is. Definitely smarter than the Boltons if they think the pink letter is the best way to achieve the goals that have been attributed to the purpose of letter from their point of view. Whether kill Jon, disgrace Jon, or prevent Jon from meeting fArya, they have better options than the Pink Letter every time. And Stannis awkward nature around women has nothing to do with it.

1 hour ago, divica said:

Another problema that you always ignore is that the whole mention of the farya debacle. The person that sent the letter mentioned arya because he is convinced beyond the shadow of doubt that she is with jon. He isn t thinking she might not be there yet, he is certain she is with jon.

Firstly, why would they think fArya is at Castle Black? It took Tyrion 18 days to get to Castle Black from Winterfell in better weather. A raven will take a day approximatley. She hardly has a 2 week lead. The Boltons would hunt her all the way before they admit to Jon of all people that she has escaped.

You accuse me of presenting Stannis as a super genius but you portray the Boltons as total morons.

1 hour ago, divica said:

Another problem is that you assume that if jon broke his vows he wouldn t want to be punished. Hell, acording to stannis reputation how do you think stannis would deal with a NW deserter? Why would he accept him with open arms when he cut davos fingers?

We saw how Stannis dealt with a NW deserter already. Mance. Again you ignore the text.

1 hour ago, divica said:

and many other inconsisties

Such as?

[divica]

6 minutes ago, three-eyed monkey said:

If you think Jon means nothing to Stannis, in a political sense then you are ignoring the texto.

What means nothing is the plan to convince jon to join him. Meaning that it is a plan with so many possibilities of failure that it doesn t make sense to send his familly to essos and put their life at risk based on that plan.

6 minutes ago, three-eyed monkey said:

Then this Ramsay theory, which claims the letter is written to get Jon to leave Castle Black before Arya arrives, also falls apart. I defend that Jon would go alone based on the text and what Jon himself said. What action do you think Jon would take if the wildling army had not yet arrived? Would he do nothing? As i told you on a previous post, your logic fails here because you deny this could be a motive for Stannis yet accept it as a motive for Ramsay. The Stannis theory is based on logic but if you don't know what that is then I'm not surprised you can't follow the argument.

Jon said that in order to rally people to his cause. Do you think there is any logic in saying jon would desert the NW and  attack winterfell alone? Why would he do that? He stayed on the Wall when ramsay had his sister, but now that she has left he would go to winterfell do what? Give one logical reason for him to do that!

And it is obvious it makes much more sense for jon to stay in CB and fortify the castle agaisnt an attack and continue preparing the Wall for the fight against the others. Because it is much easier to defend a castle than attack it and he can keep his vows while ramsay would be the one in the wrong. He has everything to gain by staying in CB and everything to lose if he goes to winterfell. However you think he would go to winterfell for no logical reason... 

Finally, to me ramsay wrote the letter in order to sow dissent and possibly a rebellion against within the watch. Once jon tells his brothers that ramsay will attack CB if jon doesn t delliver all those people and he refuses to deliver them or has already sent them away it is very veeerryyy likely that his brothers will rebel against him (even more taking into account what happened to the last LC and that ramsay probably knows about it). In addition, even the wildlings might turn against jon if they think he was involved in the mance plot.

6 minutes ago, three-eyed monkey said:

This is answered just a few posts back.

It's doesn't require a super genius. It just requires Stannis to be smart, which he is. Definitely smarter than the Boltons if they think the pink letter is the best way to achieve the goals that have been attributed to the purpose of letter from their point of view. Whether kill Jon, disgrace Jon, or prevent Jon from meeting fArya, they have better options than the Pink Letter every time. And Stannis awkward nature around women has nothing to do with it.

You think that such a flimsy plan is motive to risk his heir, wife and mel? I simply can t accept it unless the plan has serious possibilities of success.

First, the PL is a smart move from the boltons in order to weaken and even put jon's life at danger. I have no idea what better methods you think the boltons could use to do it… I hope you remember that it isn t easy to talk to people on the Wall and that any Bolton man is weeks away from the Wall…

It doesn t require a super genious? Stannis will have to conquer winterfell (in order to find out about what happened to mance), then will think of using a dead man's name to write a fake letter with the tone ramsay would use in order to anger jon into attacking winterfell in a suicide attack and afterwards will have to convince jon to break his vows and join him and jon does all this for reasons no one understands. In addition, stannis familly might get killed in the chaos at CB if jon goes along with stannis plan, become hostages of the watch in order to pacify ramsay (everybody knows how dangerous it is to be a hostage of a band of criminals) or go to essos and possibly die for a variety of reasons… I am sorry but stannis needs to be a super genious in order to acomplish his objectives with this plan...

 

6 minutes ago, three-eyed monkey said:

Firstly, why would they think fArya is at Castle Black? It took Tyrion 18 days to get to Castle Black from Winterfell in better weather. A raven will take a day approximatley. She hardly has a 2 week lead. The Boltons would hunt her all the way before they admit to Jon of all people that she has escaped.

We have no idea of how much time has gone by since farya escaped and jon received the letter. For all we know a month might have passed...

6 minutes ago, three-eyed monkey said:

You accuse me of presenting Stannis as a super genius but you portray the Boltons as total morons.

We saw how Stannis dealt with a NW deserter already. Mance. Again you ignore the text.

Such as?

I already said why the PL is a very smart move from ramsay's pov...

And do you have proof that stannis knows that mance is still alive?

[Mordred]

On 11/29/2018 at 7:57 PM, Josette DuPres said:

Ramsay's purpose for the letter is rather basic.  He wants his bride back and the people listed for political reasons.  It's better to ask for them.  He doesn't want to travel hundreds of miles in deep snow to get to Castle Black and then have to fight for them.  Even a madman like the lord commander who sent a wildling king to steal his sister from her husband might listen to reason and comply.  Ramsay wrote the letter and hoped Jon Snow would see the light and comply.  

yes

[three-eyed monkey]

2 hours ago, divica said:

Meaning that it is a plan with so many possibilities of failure that it doesn t make sense to send his familly to essos and put their life at risk based on that plan.

Of course there is a risk of failure, so it is with every plan. "Risk is part of war," declared Ser Richard Horpe, a lean knight with a ravaged face whose quilted doublet showed three death's-head moths on a field of ash and bone. "Every battle is a gamble, Snow. The man who does nothing also takes a risk."

If the detail Stannis left at the Wall fled to Essos it would hardly be a disaster. As for putting his family at risk, as I have already explained, that risk is present already. Stannis told Massey that he may hear Stannis is dead, and it may even be true. Stannis is aware that if he dies, or even if there are rumors of his death, which he seems to hint are a distinct possibility, then his family will be at risk, and he is also aware that he could die at any time. The best way to ensure his family are safe is to win the north, and the best way to win the north, according to Stannis, is with Jon by his side.

If you want to continue raising this objection then do, but at least point out the flaw in what I have said and we can discuss it further.

2 hours ago, divica said:

Jon said that in order to rally people to his cause. Do you think there is any logic in saying jon would desert the NW and  attack winterfell alone? Why would he do that? He stayed on the Wall when ramsay had his sister, but now that she has left he would go to winterfell do what? Give one logical reason for him to do that!

I ride to Winterfell alone, unless …" Jon paused. "… is there any man here who will come stand with me?"

Of course Jon wanted to raise swords, it would be dumb if he did not. But what is not clear is whether he was being honest or not when he said he rides to Winterfell alone, unless... I believe he was telling the truth, given his character. If Jon had to go alone, then I don't think he would attack Winterfell, that would obviously be a stupid move, but he could have attempted to find allies, find Arya, rescue Mance, who knows. But I find it very unlikely that he would have stayed at the Wall.

Of course his uncle Brandon made a rather foolish move one time, riding to the Red Keep to call out Rhaegar with a small band of companions. But I don't see that as Jon's style.

And yes, Jon stayed at the Wall when Arya was Ramsay's hostage. This is the general idea of hostages. Of course this is no longer an issue thanks to the letter.

3 hours ago, divica said:

And it is obvious it makes much more sense for jon to stay in CB and fortify the castle agaisnt an attack and continue preparing the Wall for the fight against the others. Because it is much easier to defend a castle than attack it and he can keep his vows while ramsay would be the one in the wrong. He has everything to gain by staying in CB and everything to lose if he goes to winterfell. However you think he would go to winterfell for no logical reason... 

Castle Black has no walls to the south so it is not easier to defend than attack. If he keeps his vows Ramsay will not be the one in the wrong, because the letter says Ramsay has caught Mance who Jon sent to Winterfell to rescue Arya. He has nothing to gain by staying in Castle Black, because Ramsay gave him an ultimatum and said he would come for Jon. Jon has demonstrated that he is a proactive character all through the series.

No, I do not think Jon would go to winterfell for no logical reason, I think he would leave Castle Black for for logical reasons, such as finding Arya,

3 hours ago, divica said:

Finally, to me ramsay wrote the letter in order to sow dissent and possibly a rebellion against within the watch. Once jon tells his brothers that ramsay will attack CB if jon doesn t delliver all those people and he refuses to deliver them or has already sent them away it is very veeerryyy likely that his brothers will rebel against him (even more taking into account what happened to the last LC and that ramsay probably knows about it). In addition, even the wildlings might turn against jon if they think he was involved in the mance plot.

Is there any text in the books that show that Ramsay or Roose are plotting against Jon? No.

Once Jon tells his brothers, you say, but how would the sender know Jon would tell his brothers? It's addressed to Jon. You don't sow dissent against someone by writing to that person, you write to someone else about that person. That's your theory shot through already, but let's continue.

Why would the wildlings turn on Jon? The letter claims he didn't burn Mance. That has to be a plus.

3 hours ago, divica said:

You think that such a flimsy plan is motive to risk his heir, wife and mel? I simply can t accept it unless the plan has serious possibilities of success.

Again? Just scroll back up a little.

3 hours ago, divica said:

First, the PL is a smart move from the boltons in order to weaken and even put jon's life at danger. I have no idea what better methods you think the boltons could use to do it… I hope you remember that it isn t easy to talk to people on the Wall and that any Bolton man is weeks away from the Wall… 

Better method to sow dissent against Jon? Write to someone else.

Better method to put his life in danger? Demand the Watch arrest him for his crimes and put him in a cell until a headsman can be arranged.

You say it isn't easy for the Boltons to talk to people at the Wall, yet we are discussing a letter sent from Winterfell.

3 hours ago, divica said:

It doesn t require a super genious? Stannis will have to conquer winterfell (in order to find out about what happened to mance), then will think of using a dead man's name to write a fake letter with the tone ramsay would use in order to anger jon into attacking winterfell in a suicide attack and afterwards will have to convince jon to break his vows and join him and jon does all this for reasons no one understands. In addition, stannis familly might get killed in the chaos at CB if jon goes along with stannis plan, become hostages of the watch in order to pacify ramsay (everybody knows how dangerous it is to be a hostage of a band of criminals) or go to essos and possibly die for a variety of reasons… I am sorry but stannis needs to be a super genious in order to acomplish his objectives with this plan...

These are just repeats of the same objections. As to the bolded part, for reasons you don't understand.

 

3 hours ago, divica said:

We have no idea of how much time has gone by since farya escaped and jon received the letter. For all we know a month might have passed...

If you think the letter is true, and Stannis is dead after seven days of battle, then why would they wait to send the raven? If they are going to wait a month then they may as well send an assassin.

 

3 hours ago, divica said:

I already said why the PL is a very smart move from ramsay's pov...

You said why you think it's a very smart move, you did not show why it is a smart move, because it is not.

 

4 hours ago, divica said:

And do you have proof that stannis knows that mance is still alive?

Stannis was the one who kept Mance alive and swapped in Rattleshirt. So Stannis knows Mance was alive when he left the Wall. Theon spilled the beans about Abel, the washerwoman who were not washerwoman, and the rescue of fArya. Abel's description matches that of Mance. Stannis spoke with Mance for hours and observed that there was some cunning in him, and Mance likes to tell the tales of the times he infiltrated winterfell as a bard, which may well be the cunning he was refering too. So there is enough there for it to be very possible Stannis would be able to put it together. Not proof but clues.

Do you have proof of any of your theory? Any Bolton motive surrounding Jon set up explicitly in the text, like there is for Stannis? Or any shred of text to support any of you claims, such as Stannis would not risk sending the letter, or Jon was lying when he said he would go alone, unless..., or that Jon would stay and fortify Castle Black. Any clues even pointing to these claims even? No you don't.

[Nevets]

1 hour ago, three-eyed monkey said:

Do you have proof of any of your theory? Any Bolton motive surrounding Jon set up explicitly in the text, like there is for Stannis? Or any shred of text to support any of you claims, such as Stannis would not risk sending the letter, or Jon was lying when he said he would go alone, unless..., or that Jon would stay and fortify Castle Black. Any clues even pointing to these claims even? No you don't.

The Boltons have very good reason to believe that Jon sent Mance to steal Arya.  The fact that Jon did no such thing is irrelevant.  That alone would make the Boltons Jon's enemy, and they would act accordingly.  The letter could also have been sent with the objective of forcing Mel and the others to leave Castle Black, as staying could be quite dangerous.

By the way, do you have any quotes of Stannis wanting to recruit Jon to his cause after his election as LC?  Before his election, he is an ordinary NW man, so his claim on Winterfell is his main use.  Afterwards, he commands resources of his own, and is useful to Stannis in his capacity of LC, possibly more so than as a disgraced former NW.  He is hosting Stannis's family, fortifying the Wall and the Watch, and integrating the Wildlings, all activities that would be threatened by his departure.

You also seem to have confused Stannis with a risk-breaker.  Stannis is a plodder.  Jon thinks that when the Boltons occupy Winterfell, and thinks Stannis won't be bold like his brother, but will plod his way forth.  I can't imagine Stannis taking such risks as you are imagining.

[three-eyed monkey]

6 hours ago, Nevets said:

The Boltons have very good reason to believe that Jon sent Mance to steal Arya.  The fact that Jon did no such thing is irrelevant.  That alone would make the Boltons Jon's enemy, and they would act accordingly. 

Yes the Boltons have reasons to consider Jon an enemy, especially if the contents of the letter is true from their point of view. And they would act accordingly, and that is the key word, accordingly. They have several better options than the pink letter, especially if they have Mance in a cage. Theories that Ramsay wrote the letter depend on those options being ignored.

Both Ramsay and Stannis have implicit motive towards Jon so from a logical point of view they both have reason to take action. But my point is that Stannis, unlike Ramsay, has a motive that is explicit in the text that GRRM has drawn the reader's attention to several times, so from a purely story-telling point of view, Stannis has a far stronger motive. I don't think this should be ignored.

7 hours ago, Nevets said:

By the way, do you have any quotes of Stannis wanting to recruit Jon to his cause after his election as LC?  Before his election, he is an ordinary NW man, so his claim on Winterfell is his main use.  Afterwards, he commands resources of his own, and is useful to Stannis in his capacity of LC, possibly more so than as a disgraced former NW.  He is hosting Stannis's family, fortifying the Wall and the Watch, and integrating the Wildlings, all activities that would be threatened by his departure. 

Several of the quotes are from conversations when Jon is talking to Stannis as Lord Commander. Jon was sworn to the NW before he became LC, so his vows were still an issue then, as NW are sworn to take no lands, etc.

Mance is a disgraced former NW but Stannis spares him, using subversive methods, because he sees the value in Mance. And we know Stannis sees the value in Jon. Stannis writing the letter is consistent with how he handled Mance.

Jon's use to Stannis at the Wall is minor compared to his use to Stannis as his loyal lord of Winterfell. Even if you do not believe this, Stannis does and it is his opinion that counts.

7 hours ago, Nevets said:

You also seem to have confused Stannis with a risk-breaker.  Stannis is a plodder.  Jon thinks that when the Boltons occupy Winterfell, and thinks Stannis won't be bold like his brother, but will plod his way forth.  I can't imagine Stannis taking such risks as you are imagining.

What Jon thinks is irrelevant, because Stannis does move against Winterfell as soon as he hears the Boltons are going there. Stannis is more measured than Robert, for sure, but Stannis does take risks, such as swapping Mance and Rattleshirt.

 

[three-eyed monkey]

There's been a lot of talk about Stannis, and it might be best to continue that debate on the Stannis thread. I want to get back to Ramsay, and expand on one point, which is actually one of the first clues we get that the letter is not from Ramsay.

Jon's pov: Ramsay Bolton, Lord of the Hornwood, it read, in a huge, spiky hand. [previous letter from Ramsay]

Asha's pov: Those were done in maester's ink, made of soot and coal tar, but the message above was scrawled in brown in a huge, spiky hand. [letter from Ramsay at Deepwood Motte]

You might say that a huge spiky hand is a huge spiky hand, what other way would you describe it. But GRRM is very good and selecting his adjectives, depending on pov. For example, a northman might say as pale as ice, where an Ironborn might say as pale as sea foam. A Wildling might say as white as snow, but a farmer from the south might say as white as milk.

Spiky hand is not the only way to describe Ramsay's writing. What looks like a huge spiky hand to one person might look like a large jagged scrawl to another, and GRRM is very good at this technical aspect of writing. But he decides to use this "tag" twice on purpose, each time from a different pov character, and this is a decision he made with purpose. This is a well-known and oft-used technique in writing mystery, as anyone who reads Agathe Christie or JKR will surely recognize. So why do you think GRRM decided to do this?

And while you might also say that Jon would have spotted it if it was not written in a huge spiky hand, the question I'm asking is if GRRM wants you to clearly know this letter came from Ramsay then why did he decide to ignore the tag he had already set up twice?

[Maia]

On 12/7/2018 at 5:08 PM, three-eyed monkey said:

It might seem to you that we are going around in circles but my objections remain the same. The Boltons have simple options that would be smarter than the PL, like hunting Arya or demanding Jon's arrest and containment, but you prefer to pretend these options don't exist, saying there is no one to write to in CB, or that frail Arya and Theon have too much of a lead to be hunted over a 600 mile journey.

You keep saying that Ramsay/Boltons could have "hunted" FArya, when she was pretty much immediately taken up by the besieging force and then handed over to Stannis. As was obvious to anybody would happen once she was outside the walls of WF. There was no question of her and Theon limping on foot to the Wall, so that Ramsey could pursue them with his dogs and a couple of guys, like Karstark cousins did to Alys.

Spoiler

and Stanni sent her to the Wall with Massey et al., IIRC.

Nobody could have followed her without dealing with the besiegers and Stannis first. Which, BTW, "seven days of battle" likely include at least the 3-day march to Stannis's village and the same time, if not longer, to get back. Or maester Tybald could have just sent one of the Karstark ravens to WF with false news of Bolton forces victory.

And here is another thing - Ramsey's own handwriting may be spiky, but he could have just dictated the Pink letter to a maester. Why not?

I am not convinced that there was any plan behind the letter - brilliant or otherwise, he could have just been venting. But there was every reason to think that somebody else on the Wall would have opened it before passing it on to Jon - because that's how it is normally done. Nor was Jon really in position to keep it secret.

And while I don't like Stannis, he understood the threat of the Others or of the Weeper and his troops punching through if NW's guard was lowered, for that matter. He wouldn't have deliberately thrown the NW into chaos by engineering the defection of the LC. And for what? Jon's usefulness would have been very much tarnished if he appeared as a deserting oathbreaker, at the head of some ragged wildling posse.

What is more, from his PoV if Stannis can take WF, with "Arya Stark" in his power, he'd be able to manage without Jon. And if he can't, Jon appearing in a month or so with a couple hundreds wildling warriors - which is what he could have reasonably scraped from those who came through and submitted to Stannis after "Mance's" execution, would be rather pointless. 

It is all very well to say that the strong North is needed for successful defense against the Others - if the Wall falls to them in the meantime, that won't be nearly enough. Nor will the North have a chance to grow strong again with the Weeper and the Others cutting their way through it, Jon or no Jon.

[three-eyed monkey]

20 minutes ago, Maia said:

You keep saying that Ramsay/Boltons could have "hunted" FArya, when she was pretty much immediately taken up by the besieging force and then handed over to Stannis. As was obvious to anybody would happen once she was outside the walls of WF. There was no question of her and Theon limping on foot to the Wall, so that Ramsey could pursue them with his dogs and a couple of guys, like Karstark cousins did to Alys.

I agree it's obvious that the men outside the walls of Winterfell, who the Boltons assume belong to Stannis, would take fArya to Stannis camp, a location they have a map for courtesy of Tybald. Therefore the best option they have of retrieving her is at Stannis camp, which they were already preparing to march against before the rescue. So the equally obvious thing for the Bolton's to do is continue as planned, sack Stannis' starving camp, and find fArya and Theon there.

Theon thinks Crowfood's boys won't hold them long and Stannis is expecting the enemy to be close behind fArya. We know there is going to be a Battle of Ice, so Crowfood delayed them at best, but we don't know for how long. Not long I imagine.

Another thing we don't know is if Ramsay did ride out, as Theon thinks he will, or not? My opinion based on his character and considering how eager he would be to get both fArya and Reek back, but there is no conclusive proof as far as I'm aware.

38 minutes ago, Maia said:

Nobody could have followed her without dealing with the besiegers and Stannis first. Which, BTW, "seven days of battle" likely include at least the 3-day march to Stannis's village and the same time, if not longer, to get back.

The cold count in Stannis' camp was 80. His army were starving and freezing to death. They would not last seven more days, never mind seven days of battle. This is a red flag against the content being true in my opinion because realistically the battle should be done in a day.

So fArya's lead over the Bolton's from Stannis camp would come down to two factors, how long Crowfood held the Bolton forces plus how long the battle took, assuming the Boltons won it. That might be several days as you claim, but I think a couple of days is more plausible. Winterfell is 600 miles from Castle Black, and it took Tyrion and Jon 18 days to get there. A 2 or 3 day lead is not insurmountable over that distance. So it is very possible that Bolton forces, assuming they won, would be in a position to pursue her.

So much comes down to one crucial question. Did Ramsay ride out with the Freys after Arya or did he stay in Winterfell? If he rode out and won there is no reason to think that he would be too far behind fArya over the distance to Castle Black. If he rode out and lost then even if he escaped he would know they lost. If he stayed at Winterfell, then he would be in a position to receive a raven from Tybald and send one of his own to Jon, but staying out of the hunt is so out of character for Ramsay.

All other scenarios depend on the unlikely seven days of battle being true.

1 hour ago, Maia said:

And here is another thing - Ramsey's own handwriting may be spiky, but he could have just dictated the Pink letter to a maester. Why not?

Maybe he did, even if that's not Ramsay's style. I believe that it could be written by Tybald, as dictated by Stannis, which is Stannis preferred style. There's nothing to confirm either one is right.

2 hours ago, Maia said:

I am not convinced that there was any plan behind the letter - brilliant or otherwise, he could have just been venting. But there was every reason to think that somebody else on the Wall would have opened it before passing it on to Jon - because that's how it is normally done. Nor was Jon really in position to keep it secret. 

If he stayed in Winterfell and didn't join the hunt then he would be venting, but of course staying is out of character so that seems unlikely to me.

Yes, someone might have opened Jon's mail, and perhaps Jon was not in a position to keep the letter's content secret, but general common sense says if you want to sew dissent of disgrace someone you don't write to them, you write to someone else about them. Why take the chance that it lands in the hands of some loyal squire or friend of Jon's who brings it to him unopened? Again, the theory depends on Ramsay making senseless decisions.

2 hours ago, Maia said:

And while I don't like Stannis, he understood the threat of the Others or of the Weeper and his troops punching through if NW's guard was lowered, for that matter. He wouldn't have deliberately thrown the NW into chaos by engineering the defection of the LC. And for what? Jon's usefulness would have been very much tarnished if he appeared as a deserting oathbreaker, at the head of some ragged wildling posse.

If Stannis can't win the North then he's dead and the battles to come will be battles not to come. He believes he needs Jon to win the north. It is a simple matter of priorities. If Jon was Stannis' Warden of the North with the whole north united behind him then he would be in a far better position to fight the true enemy when that day comes.

2 hours ago, Maia said:

What is more, from his PoV if Stannis can take WF, with "Arya Stark" in his power, he'd be able to manage without Jon. And if he can't, Jon appearing in a month or so with a couple hundreds wildling warriors - which is what he could have reasonably scraped from those who came through and submitted to Stannis after "Mance's" execution, would be rather pointless. 

This is your opinion. Stannis opinion on the matter is available in the text and it is his opinion that counts here.

Interestingly, I see you put a month down for the travel time between Winterfell and Castle Black, which should increase the chance that the Boltons would hunt fArya there instead of sending a letter.

2 hours ago, Maia said:

What is more, from his PoV if Stannis can take WF, with "Arya Stark" in his power, he'd be able to manage without Jon. And if he can't, Jon appearing in a month or so with a couple hundreds wildling warriors - which is what he could have reasonably scraped from those who came through and submitted to Stannis after "Mance's" execution, would be rather pointless. 

Again, your opinion. Stannis opinion is in the text. He never mentions Arya as a possible alternative to Jon and he dismisses Sansa as an alternative. He does have women issues so maybe it's probably down to that. who knows. Jon is a smarter choice regardless.

2 hours ago, Maia said:

It is all very well to say that the strong North is needed for successful defense against the Others - if the Wall falls to them in the meantime, that won't be nearly enough. Nor will the North have a chance to grow strong again with the Weeper and the Others cutting their way through it, Jon or no Jon. 

The Wall could fall to the Others even if Jon is there. Stannis thinks he is the one the Lord of Light chose, and he is setting to his task as best he can. He decided to leave the Wall and move against the Boltons in a campaign to win the north. That is what he is striving for right now, and that's where he sees value in Jon.