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

[three-eyed monkey]

On 1/30/2019 at 6:42 PM, The Mother of The Others said:

I don't get the insistence on this.   The sword has failed Stannis.  That's no lie.   He could use a little heat from a legit lightbringer right about now. 

I'm not saying the sword is the real deal, even Stannis says it served him no better than regular steel on the Blackwater. And if you insist the letter is written by Ramsay then of course the line would seem like a victorious boast from Ramsay. However, I firmly believe GRRM would have clarified that the letter was from Ramsay by simply using the tag he had established, "huge spiky hand", if indeed the letter was from Ramsay, but he didn't because it is not.

On 1/30/2019 at 7:19 PM, kissdbyfire said:

I don’t see how this is a clue pointing to Ramsay not having written the PL... it’s Ramsay, and he has “Lightbringer” - not the real Lightbringer, of course, but he has Stannis’ “magic sword” - and he truly believes he has defeated Stannis. Only he is dead wrong. IMO.

It's not a clue to Ramsay not having written the letter, the omission of "huge spiky hand" is the main clue that Ramsay did not write the letter. But if you believe the letter was written by Ramsay then it makes perfect sense to take the lines "I have his magic sword. Tell his red whore," at face value and those lines will not change your mind.

Let's just put aside who the letter is from for a moment. What would Melisandre think if Jon had done what the author of the letter had specifically urged him to do and shown her the letter or at least told her that Stannis was dead and Ramsay had his magic sword? We can answer this question by referring directly to the text.

"Would you know if the king was dead?" Jon asked the red priestess.

"He is not dead. Stannis is the Lord's chosen, destined to lead the fight against the dark. I have seen it in the flames, read of it in ancient prophecy."

 

And Stannis knows what she thinks.

"Melisandre swears that she has seen me in her flames, facing the dark with Lightbringer raised on high. Lightbringer!"

So Melisandre should at least question the validity of the claim that Stannis is dead and Ramsay has Lightbringer, regardless of who wrote the letter. And so we should ask why the author of the letter specifically urged Jon to tell Melisandre that Stannis is dead and Ramsay has his magic sword?

If the letter was written by Ramsay, then he unwittingly alerted Melisandre to the fact that his claim about Stannis being dead might not be true, even though he himself believes it to be true.

But if the letter was written by Stannis, then there was nothing unwitting about it.

 

 

 

 

[three-eyed monkey]

On 1/30/2019 at 4:01 PM, three-eyed monkey said:

But the purpose of this OP is to show why Mance collaborated with Stannis.

• Stannis wants Jon to be his loyal Lord of Winterfell, the son of Eddard Stark, someone who will rally the north to his cause. Stannis also plans to marry Val to Jon as the mortar to seal a peace between the Wildlings and the North.
• Stannis' plan suits Mance with one obvious exception, having Stannis and the Iron Throne as his overlord. The free folk will not follow Stannis by choice. They don't care how you style yourself, of who your sire was. They don't follow names, they follow the man. Mance wants Jon to be crowned King-in-the-North and be the man the north and the Wildlings both choose to follow. Jon notably killed the boy and let the man be born.
• Jon Stark, King-in-the-North, is the best political solution Mance could hope for when it comes to having his people south of the Wall without being subjected to the rule of a king they would not choose to follow. And Abel is well-placed to know the north are not really loyal to the Boltons or the Iron Throne, with some notable northern houses clearly plotting against them.
• So Mance helped Stannis' attempt to get Jon to Winterfell even though he had an ulterior motive. Mance no doubt hoped that when Jon arrived the northern conspirators would win the tug-o-war for him and eliminate Stannis in the process.

Sorry, I posted this in the wrong thread. The OP I'm talking about is The Mance Plan and how the Pink Letter killed it.

 

[The Mother of The Others]

5 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

I'm not saying the sword is the real deal, 

But if the letter was written by Stannis, then there was nothing unwitting about it.

Neither am I. 

 It rather looks like Mel's relic is of no assistance, which makes it odd he'd send a secret Red Whore code to ask for further assistance from her.   It's more like he called her that as a way letting his true feelings be known, writing her off as a fraud with false visions.   Maybe it's a sympathy ploy for a guy who rarely gets any.   Seeing what the world would do if it thought him dead.  Would there be any loyalty from these idjits or will they instantly turn their backs on his memory.   Will even one of them come to avenge him, since they couldn't be moved while he lived.   

What kind of witting is going on?   If he wrote it in his shivering ice hut, he'd not want to summon Mel to bring the mentioned people to him, they'd find only his frozen corpse and their own deaths.  If he's writing it in victory at Winterfell, why not tell Jon to send his fam and friends openly?  Fear that Watch conspirators would act against his people on hearing of Stan victory? (as they did anyway even with the wacky wittiness of the letter about his defeat).   If he's writing during the inbetween time, when Ramsay thinks he's dead but a plan has been hatched with Manderly to take Winterfell, meaning that secret codes must be used at the time of writing, why not just maintain radio silence until the seige plays out and one can then avoid super odd misinformation dangers like what he just sent to castle black?  Because nobody from the Wall can get there in time to provide timely reinforcements anyways. 

 I don't see how Melisandre reads this and gets from it, "Oh, I see.  Stan and I are still on good terms, and I know what to do now that'll really help, based on being called a whore, because I've previously been holding back on aid I could have given him."

 

[Nevets]

6 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

It's not a clue to Ramsay not having written the letter, the omission of "huge spiky hand" is the main clue that Ramsay did not write the letter. But if you believe the letter was written by Ramsay then it makes perfect sense to take the lines "I have his magic sword. Tell his red whore," at face value and those lines will not change your mind.

"Huge spiky hand" isn't that much of a clue.  The only previous message from Ramsay received at Castle Black is the one announcing that the Ironborn were defeated at Moat cailin and that Ramsay is marrying Arya.  The only part of that letter mentioned as being in a spiky hand is Ramsay's signature.  The letter to Asha at Deepwood Motte may have been written in a spiky hand; however it was a threatening message aimed at invaders.  The letter to Castle Black is not such a message, and i doubt that Ramsay personally wrote all the messages he sent out to the North announcing his betrothal.

I can also see no motive for anyone but Ramsay to have written the letter.  Jon can't help anyone militarily, he is too far away.  And Stannis no longer needs him.  If he has beaten the Boltons, the Northerners will likely get in line behind him.  If he has lost, it won't matter, as he will likely not survive the experience.   And Jon's arrival would carry with it some baggage, such as the fact that he is a deserter, something that might well displease the Northerners. 

 

[kissdbyfire]

8 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

It's not a clue to Ramsay not having written the letter, the omission of "huge spiky hand" is the main clue that Ramsay did not write the letter.

I very strongly disagree. And this is an argument I don’t get at all. As @Nevets said, we’ve only ever seen the ‘huge spiky hand’ once. Jon saw Ramsay’s signature, and we see, through Jon, that Ramsay has a crude hand, “huge and spiky”. When Jon receives the PL and reads it, he doesn’t think, “oh that’s odd. Where’s Ramsay’s huge spiky hand.”. In other words, he has no reason to think about it, because it’s exactly what he expected to see. 

8 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

But if you believe the letter was written by Ramsay then it makes perfect sense to take the lines "I have his magic sword. Tell his red whore," at face value and those lines will not change your mind.

I don’t think for a second that Ramsay killed Stannis. But I think Ramsay himself believes it. 

8 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

Let's just put aside who the letter is from for a moment. What would Melisandre think if Jon had done what the author of the letter had specifically urged him to do and shown her the letter or at least told her that Stannis was dead and Ramsay had his magic sword?

Where does it urge Jon to show the letter to Melisandre or tell her Stannis is dead? The letter simply demands that Jon delivers Mel and others to Ramsay. 

8 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

We can answer this question by referring directly to the text.

 "Would you know if the king was dead?" Jon asked the red priestess.

"He is not dead. Stannis is the Lord's chosen, destined to lead the fight against the dark. I have seen it in the flames, read of it in ancient prophecy."

 

And Stannis knows what she thinks.

"Melisandre swears that she has seen me in her flames, facing the dark with Lightbringer raised on high. Lightbringer!"

 So Melisandre should at least question the validity of the claim that Stannis is dead and Ramsay has Lightbringer, regardless of who wrote the letter. And so we should ask why the author of the letter specifically urged Jon to tell Melisandre that Stannis is dead and Ramsay has his magic sword?

 

I suppose have to read the blasted letter again, because I have no recollection of it urging Jon to tell Mel anything. 

 

[Nevets]

2 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

I suppose have to read the blasted letter again, because I have no recollection of it urging Jon to tell Mel anything. 

Quote

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.

That is the only mention of telling Mel. It is at the very beginning of the letter.  Given the taunting tone, I hardly think it is urging him to tell her.  More of a suggestion.

[three-eyed monkey]

2 hours ago, Nevets said:

"Huge spiky hand" isn't that much of a clue. 

 

1 hour ago, kissdbyfire said:

I very strongly disagree. And this is an argument I don’t get at all. As @Nevets said, we’ve only ever seen the ‘huge spiky hand’ once. Jon saw Ramsay’s signature, and we see, through Jon, that Ramsay has a crude hand, “huge and spiky”. When Jon receives the PL and reads it, he doesn’t think, “oh that’s odd. Where’s Ramsay’s huge spiky hand.”. In other words, he has no reason to think about it, because it’s exactly what he expected to see. 

We have seen "huge spiky hand" twice in ADwD, the letter to Jon and the letter to Asha in Deepwood Motte. When two separate pov characters describe the writing using the exact same phrase then it is a descriptive tag. otherwise a huge spiky hand to Jon might be a large jagged scrawl to Asha. GRRM is very good at this, pale as ice to Jon might be pale as sea foam to Theon. Red as a rose to Sansa might be blood red to Arya, etc.

So when GRRM uses the exact phrase twice he wants you to take note. This technique is widely used when writing mystery. If GRRM wanted to clarify that the letter was from Ramsay, which he would have done if the letter was from Ramsay, then the already established tag would have been used again in Jon XIII. Huge spiky hand was established for a reason, to clarify which letters are from Ramsay and which are not, and it's absence green-lights the Pink Letter mystery.

What Jon might have expected to see does not really come into it. I've seen this argument before and I consider it a weak argument that ignores the fact that this is a well-crafted story created using standard storytelling techniques.

2 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

I don’t think for a second that Ramsay killed Stannis. But I think Ramsay himself believes it. 

That depends on whether or not Ramsay rode out after Jeyne and Theon, as Theon expects him to. I think Roose might be fooled by a letter from Tybald, but whether Ramsay would even be in Winterfell when the raven arrives is debatable.

3 hours ago, Nevets said:

I can also see no motive for anyone but Ramsay to have written the letter.  Jon can't help anyone militarily, he is too far away.  And Stannis no longer needs him.  If he has beaten the Boltons, the Northerners will likely get in line behind him.  If he has lost, it won't matter, as he will likely not survive the experience.   And Jon's arrival would carry with it some baggage, such as the fact that he is a deserter, something that might well displease the Northerners. 

The motive has been spelled out several times in the text. Stannis needs a loyal Lord of Winterfell, even after defeating the Boltons.The north has no love for Stannis. He needs the son of Eddard Stark to rally the north to his cause. He wants to seal a peace between the wildlings and the northmen by wedding Val to Jon Stark, Lord of Winterfell. His second choice was Arnolf Karstark who proved treacherous. He will not give Winterfell to one of his southron knights because he knows that won't fly in the north. This motive has been hammered home several times across three books. It is Ramsay who has no motive to write the letter.

Nobody wants Jon to help militarily. Not in the direct sense anyway. The letter was sent from Winterfell after Stannis has taken the castle. Jon's military value is bringing the north to Stannis' cause for the wars to come.

And Jon being a deserter will not displease the north. They were planning on crowning him King-in-the-North. Robb had even discussed ways of getting Jon released from his vows before the Red Wedding. If anything, the fact that Jon left the Wall to intervene in northern affairs would only appeal to those who want to make him king.

2 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

Where does it urge Jon to show the letter to Melisandre or tell her Stannis is dead? The letter simply demands that Jon delivers Mel and others to Ramsay. 

 

2 hours ago, kissdbyfire said:

I suppose have to read the blasted letter again, because I have no recollection of it urging Jon to tell Mel anything. 

 

2 hours ago, Nevets said:

Quote

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.

That is the only mention of telling Mel. It is at the very beginning of the letter.  Given the taunting tone, I hardly think it is urging him to tell her.  More of a suggestion.

Your false king is dead... I have his sword. Tell his red whore.

Clearly the author wants Jon to tell Mel. More than a suggestion in my opinion but let's settle on tell instead of urge then.

[BRANDON GREYSTARK]

Ramsay 's list was written by  Roose ,Qyburn , Ramsay and Marsh .Its goal was to assassinate Jon .

[divica]

4 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

 

We have seen "huge spiky hand" twice in ADwD, the letter to Jon and the letter to Asha in Deepwood Motte. When two separate pov characters describe the writing using the exact same phrase then it is a descriptive tag. otherwise a huge spiky hand to Jon might be a large jagged scrawl to Asha. GRRM is very good at this, pale as ice to Jon might be pale as sea foam to Theon. Red as a rose to Sansa might be blood red to Arya, etc.

So when GRRM uses the exact phrase twice he wants you to take note. This technique is widely used when writing mystery. If GRRM wanted to clarify that the letter was from Ramsay, which he would have done if the letter was from Ramsay, then the already established tag would have been used again in Jon XIII. Huge spiky hand was established for a reason, to clarify which letters are from Ramsay and which are not, and it's absence green-lights the Pink Letter mystery.

What Jon might have expected to see does not really come into it. I've seen this argument before and I consider it a weak argument that ignores the fact that this is a well-crafted story created using standard storytelling techniques.

Here you are completly wrong. Jon won t mention ramsay's spiky hand every time he sees ramsay signature. It would be repetitive. If grrm wanted to make it clear that the letter might not be from ramsay he would have jon noting that there wasn t a spiky hand.

Jon not seeing anything strange on ramsay's signature (which he expects to be spiky) is proof that there probably wasn t anything strange with the signature and that it was spiky.

4 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

The motive has been spelled out several times in the text. Stannis needs a loyal Lord of Winterfell, even after defeating the Boltons.The north has no love for Stannis. He needs the son of Eddard Stark to rally the north to his cause. He wants to seal a peace between the wildlings and the northmen by wedding Val to Jon Stark, Lord of Winterfell. His second choice was Arnolf Karstark who proved treacherous. He will not give Winterfell to one of his southron knights because he knows that won't fly in the north. This motive has been hammered home several times across three books. It is Ramsay who has no motive to write the letter.

Nobody wants Jon to help militarily. Not in the direct sense anyway. The letter was sent from Winterfell after Stannis has taken the castle. Jon's military value is bringing the north to Stannis' cause for the wars to come.

And Jon being a deserter will not displease the north. They were planning on crowning him King-in-the-North. Robb had even discussed ways of getting Jon released from his vows before the Red Wedding. If anything, the fact that Jon left the Wall to intervene in northern affairs would only appeal to those who want to make him king.

 

And it has been spelled several times why stannis wouldn t write the PL in the conditions you have said. 

But here are some of them again.

Jon leaving the watch by his own decision would divide the north on wether he is a deserter that should be killed or not. Him doing it based on false information would make his situation even worse (this is completly diferent from accepting stannis releasing him from his vows).

Jon would send stannis' familly to essos in order to protect them. why would stannis want his familly (and heir) sent to essos where everything can happen to them?

If jon shares the info written in the PL with his brothers in the watch in order to make a decision, then stannis' familly would be at risk. What is the point of gaining jon if sheereen is killed?

Jon has no logical reason to go to winterfell. Just because he said he would do it in order to rally the wildlings behind him doesn t mean he would actually go alone to winterfell. It makes no sense and nobody that writes that PL can expect him to go there. It is basically suicide

etc...

As nobody knows about the 3000 wildlings that arrived to castle black 3 days before the PL. The only rational decision anyone can expect jon to do upon Reading the letter is sending the supposed targets of the letter to essos, start bulding defenses around CB and send letters to the clans and northern houses asking for help because ramsay wants to attack the watch without reason.

 

[three-eyed monkey]

12 hours ago, divica said:

If grrm wanted to make it clear that the letter might not be from ramsay he would have jon noting that there wasn t a spiky hand.

He doesn't want to make that clear because it is for the reader to work out. That would be a reveal and there would be no mystery.

 

12 hours ago, divica said:

Jon not seeing anything strange on ramsay's signature (which he expects to be spiky) is proof that there probably wasn t anything strange with the signature and that it was spiky.

Are you really trying to say that the absence of the term huge spiky hand is proof of there being a spiky hand? If we use that warped logic then we could say that the letter was signed by the northern lords too, but as Jon expected that then he didn't mention it.

And why would GRRM use reverse psychology and anti-logic when three simple words, huge spiky hand, would have provided all the clarity he needed?

12 hours ago, divica said:

And it has been spelled several times why stannis wouldn t write the PL in the conditions you have said. 

But here are some of them again.

Jon leaving the watch by his own decision would divide the north on wether he is a deserter that should be killed or not. Him doing it based on false information would make his situation even worse (this is completly diferent from accepting stannis releasing him from his vows).

Jon would send stannis' familly to essos in order to protect them. why would stannis want his familly (and heir) sent to essos where everything can happen to them?

If jon shares the info written in the PL with his brothers in the watch in order to make a decision, then stannis' familly would be at risk. What is the point of gaining jon if sheereen is killed?

Jon has no logical reason to go to winterfell. Just because he said he would do it in order to rally the wildlings behind him doesn t mean he would actually go alone to winterfell. It makes no sense and nobody that writes that PL can expect him to go there. It is basically suicide

etc...

You said this has been spelled out several times. Any citation to support these claims?

 

12 hours ago, divica said:

The only rational decision anyone can expect jon to do upon Reading the letter is sending the supposed targets of the letter to essos, start bulding defenses around CB and send letters to the clans and northern houses asking for help because ramsay wants to attack the watch without reason. 

This is why "I have his magic sword. Tell his red witch," is important.

And you really think Jon is going to start lying to northern houses about Ramsay wanting to attack Castle Black without reason? Jon thinks Ramsay captured Mance and exposed the rescue attempt and the proof is hanging in a cage in Winterfell, where most of the north is gathered, having already paid homage to Roose.

 

 

[divica]

1 hour ago, three-eyed monkey said:

He doesn't want to make that clear because it is for the reader to work out. That would be a reveal and there would be no mystery.

 

Are you really trying to say that the absence of the term huge spiky hand is proof of there being a spiky hand? If we use that warped logic then we could say that the letter was signed by the northern lords too, but as Jon expected that then he didn't mention it.

And why would GRRM use reverse psychology and anti-logic when three simple words, huge spiky hand, would have provided all the clarity he needed?

jon has already mentioned that ramsay has a spiky hand. Do you expect him to mention it every time he receives a letter from ramsay? 

Or do you expect jon to mention the diferences between ramsay's first and second letters like the wax for example? 

This isn t a warped logic. If jon doesn t metion a diference in the writing between the first and second letters then there is no reason to believe that there is a difference. It would be the same as saying that everytime someone looks at tyrion they have to mention he is a dwarf otherwise he might grow up… 

There is no reverse psicology or anti-logic. In the first letter jon notes ramsay's spiky hand. If jon receives a second letter from ramsay and doesn t find anything strange in how it is written then it should be written in a spiky hand… Otherwise he should have said "this letter doesn t have a spiky hand". Because we have already established that it is expected that ramsay's letters have a spiky hand.

1 hour ago, three-eyed monkey said:

You said this has been spelled out several times. Any citation to support these claims?

 

This is why "I have his magic sword. Tell his red witch," is important.

And you really think Jon is going to start lying to northern houses about Ramsay wanting to attack Castle Black without reason? Jon thinks Ramsay captured Mance and exposed the rescue attempt and the proof is hanging in a cage in Winterfell, where most of the north is gathered, having already paid homage to Roose.

 

 

Are you asking citation from where? All this are hipothetical scenarios based on what who wrote the PL might expect jon to do if there weren t 3000 wildlings in CB and arya and theon were with him… The problem is that the logical things jon might do if he received the letter simply don t support stannis writting it. If you can prove that those aren t the logical reactions or that there are other logical reactions that support your theories I can agree with you. Othwerwise there is no reason to believe that stannis wrote the letter…

I have no idea why do you think a fake magic sword is important for jon or mel...

And why would jon lie? Jon and stannis have an agreement with the wildlings and jon sent mance to get a girl riding a dying horse to the Wall. He didn t send him to winterfell, he didn t send him to rescue farya and he doesn t have farya with him nor does he have to return her to her husband if he did have her. 

He just has to write that he sent mance to help a girl riding a dying horse and that he decided to go to winterfell and rescue arya. How does this mean ramsay has the right to atack the NW? If he wants to put jon in some kind of trial it might be understandable, but that isn t what is written in the letter. It makes perfect sense that jon would ask the northern lords for help to stop an attack on the watch based on the motives written in the letter

[Nevets]

6 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

This is why "I have his magic sword. Tell his red witch," is important.

How is that important?  If he tells Melisandre, what is she supposed to do?  She can't tell Jon it's really from Stannis; that would defeat the purpose.  If she decides to remain, she would need a good reason, or Jon will be quite suspicious, and unlikely to leave CB.

23 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

And Jon being a deserter will not displease the north. They were planning on crowning him King-in-the-North. Robb had even discussed ways of getting Jon released from his vows before the Red Wedding. If anything, the fact that Jon left the Wall to intervene in northern affairs would only appeal to those who want to make him king.

Robb was discussing essentially bribing the NW into releasing Jon from his vows.  That is different from Jon essentially leaving and showing up, which would be regarded as desertion.  At the least, his actions would likely divide the North

[dialt]

20 hours ago, divica said:

jon has already mentioned that ramsay has a spiky hand. Do you expect him to mention it every time he receives a letter from ramsay? 

Or do you expect jon to mention the diferences between ramsay's first and second letters like the wax for example? 

This isn t a warped logic. If jon doesn t metion a diference in the writing between the first and second letters then there is no reason to believe that there is a difference. It would be the same as saying that everytime someone looks at tyrion they have to mention he is a dwarf otherwise he might grow up…

The point is that handwriting in that world is not proof of authenticity.

Sigils are.

That is why sometimes, characters do notice handwrinting. Just because the corrispondece between "actual" author (the person who actually writes a letter/document) and "nominal/formal" author (the person in behalf of whom the document is written) is not a given.  At all.   

That's how Middle Ages worked and - as historians would say - we don't have to look at it whit glasses that fit our times and uses.

It's another mindset.

In fact from book 1, corrispondences handwriting/author are noticed just becuase that is not what people expect each and every time. It's something "special", that people notice, in that world.

 So when they add things like "and the handwriting is his/hers" (Cat with Robert Baratheon, Jon with Rob, Jon with Stannis in the text but not in the signature) they do that just because it's not a given (therefore a further proof - not the primary proof - or because that handwrinting tells something about the personality of the character sending it, see Asha and Jon with Ramsey's first letters).

However, when it comes to the PL we don't know if Jon did recognize the handwrinting or not.

Maybe he did. Maybe he didn't. But  if he didn't, that was not something to be suspicious about.

But sure, when asked if that letter can be trusted, Jon doesn't replay "Yes, I recognized the handwritring" he says that there's truth on it (things that only Mance could have said to Ramsey, from Jon's pov).

And that coupled with the wax is enough for a man like him to trust that letter. Regardless the handwrinting.

 

[three-eyed monkey]

On 2/4/2019 at 8:10 PM, divica said:

jon has already mentioned that ramsay has a spiky hand. Do you expect him to mention it every time he receives a letter from ramsay? 

Or do you expect jon to mention the diferences between ramsay's first and second letters like the wax for example? 

This isn t a warped logic. If jon doesn t metion a diference in the writing between the first and second letters then there is no reason to believe that there is a difference. It would be the same as saying that everytime someone looks at tyrion they have to mention he is a dwarf otherwise he might grow up… 

There is no reverse psicology or anti-logic. In the first letter jon notes ramsay's spiky hand. If jon receives a second letter from ramsay and doesn t find anything strange in how it is written then it should be written in a spiky hand… Otherwise he should have said "this letter doesn t have a spiky hand". Because we have already established that it is expected that ramsay's letters have a spiky hand.

Correct, now ask yourself two questions. 1/ Why did GRRM establish Ramsay's huge spiky hand? 2/ What has that set-up to do with the pink letter, given that the pink letter is the most important letter from Ramsay?

On 2/4/2019 at 8:10 PM, divica said:

Are you asking citation from where? All this are hipothetical scenarios based on what who wrote the PL might expect jon to do if there weren t 3000 wildlings in CB and arya and theon were with him… The problem is that the logical things jon might do if he received the letter simply don t support stannis writting it. If you can prove that those aren t the logical reactions or that there are other logical reactions that support your theories I can agree with you.

This is a story where characters actions grow out of the character. I've supported every claim I made about Stannis motive, and method with support from the text. You're making a bunch of claims about Ramsay's motive and Jon's motive, none of which are supported by text. You said it was spelled out several times yet you can't produce a single citation.

 

On 2/4/2019 at 8:10 PM, divica said:

I have no idea why do you think a fake magic sword is important for jon or mel...

Mel. I can't put it in simpler terms than I have above. Again, my claim is supported by text, it's not just an unsupported claim about her fleeing to Essos when she hears Stannis is dead. The text does not just fail to support your claim but it actually contradicts your claim.

On 2/4/2019 at 8:10 PM, divica said:

And why would jon lie? Jon and stannis have an agreement with the wildlings and jon sent mance to get a girl riding a dying horse to the Wall. He didn t send him to winterfell, he didn t send him to rescue farya and he doesn t have farya with him nor does he have to return her to her husband if he did have her. 

He just has to write that he sent mance to help a girl riding a dying horse and that he decided to go to winterfell and rescue arya. How does this mean ramsay has the right to atack the NW? If he wants to put jon in some kind of trial it might be understandable, but that isn t what is written in the letter. It makes perfect sense that jon would ask the northern lords for help to stop an attack on the watch based on the motives written in the letter

Mance was supposedly executed as a NW deserter. Jon can't write saying he sent him anywhere without being complicit in the deception. I really don't see your point here. None of what you are saying here makes any sense.

On 2/5/2019 at 12:40 AM, Nevets said:

How is that important?  If he tells Melisandre, what is she supposed to do?  She can't tell Jon it's really from Stannis; that would defeat the purpose.  If she decides to remain, she would need a good reason, or Jon will be quite suspicious, and unlikely to leave CB.

She might not even know the letter was from Stannis, but she would have reason to doubt the content of the letter and not flee the Wall. Why would Jon be suspicious if she stayed? She is a religious zealot whose goal is to fight the true enemy and there is no better place than the Wall for that. Jon might even be glad for her to stay.

"Dalla told me something once. Val's sister, Mance Rayder's wife. She said that sorcery was a sword without a hilt. There is no safe way to grasp it."

"A wise woman." Melisandre rose, her red robes stirring in the wind. "A sword without a hilt is still a sword, though, and a sword is a fine thing to have when foes are all about."

On 2/5/2019 at 12:40 AM, Nevets said:

Robb was discussing essentially bribing the NW into releasing Jon from his vows.  That is different from Jon essentially leaving and showing up, which would be regarded as desertion.  At the least, his actions would likely divide the North 

So desertion is honorable once there is a bribe involved and we call it a release? The Watch is a sworn brotherhood and the brothers serve for life. The oath has to be forsworn one way or another as long as Jon is alive as there is no get-out clause. The only difference is that if you have power, like Robb had when he was alive, or the northern lords who want Jon to be King-in-the-North have, then you can make it happen and call it what you like.

[Nevets]

1 hour ago, three-eyed monkey said:

Correct, now ask yourself two questions. 1/ Why did GRRM establish Ramsay's huge spiky hand? 2/ What has that set-up to do with the pink letter, given that the pink letter is the most important letter from Ramsay?

The only part of the earlier letter to Castle Black described as being in a spiky hand is Ramsay's signature.  Given that he is informing the entire North that the Ironborn have been defeated at Moat Cailin and he is marrying Arya Stark, it is unlikely that he wrote all of the letters himself.  The letter to Deepwood Motte, which is described as being in a spiky hand, was written personally by him because it is a threat to the occupying Ironborn.   

Hmmm, come to think on it, if Stannis was going to forge a letter from Ramsay, I might expect him to make it look like the only letter he has seen from Ramsay, spiky hand and all. Just a passing thought.

1 hour ago, three-eyed monkey said:

his is a story where characters actions grow out of the character. I've supported every claim I made about Stannis motive, and method with support from the text. You're making a bunch of claims about Ramsay's motive and Jon's motive, none of which are supported by text. You said it was spelled out several times yet you can't produce a single citation.

We have to go off of hypotheticals because the message was not received under the circumstances tht Stannis would have expected to exist.  He has no reason to think that Jon has any substantial force of men with him.  I seriously doubt that Stnanis would expect Jon to ride to Winterfell all by his lonesome.  That would be stupid.  The logical response for Jon, without lots of men, is to bolster defenses and get the named individuals out of harm's way, and hope Ramsay's force is small enough they don't get overrun.

1 hour ago, three-eyed monkey said:

So desertion is honorable once there is a bribe involved and we call it a release? The Watch is a sworn brotherhood and the brothers serve for life. The oath has to be forsworn one way or another as long as Jon is alive as there is no get-out clause. The only difference is that if you have power, like Robb had when he was alive, or the northern lords who want Jon to be King-in-the-North have, then you can make it happen and call it what you like.

If the Night's Watch releases him, they are unlikely to demand his return or execution a a deserter.  If he leaves on his own, the NW is likely to send messages to everyone branding him a deserter and asking that he be treated accordingly.  This would likely divide the North, at least.  I am also unaware of any attempt by the North to make Jon King-in-the-North.  Stannis thinks Jon's presence would help him, but I don't recall anything from the Northerners to that effect.  If there is, please cite it.

[divica]

2 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

Correct, now ask yourself two questions. 1/ Why did GRRM establish Ramsay's huge spiky hand? 2/ What has that set-up to do with the pink letter, given that the pink letter is the most important letter from Ramsay?

This is a story where characters actions grow out of the character. I've supported every claim I made about Stannis motive, and method with support from the text. You're making a bunch of claims about Ramsay's motive and Jon's motive, none of which are supported by text. You said it was spelled out several times yet you can't produce a single citation.

 

Mel. I can't put it in simpler terms than I have above. Again, my claim is supported by text, it's not just an unsupported claim about her fleeing to Essos when she hears Stannis is dead. The text does not just fail to support your claim but it actually contradicts your claim.

Mance was supposedly executed as a NW deserter. Jon can't write saying he sent him anywhere without being complicit in the deception. I really don't see your point here. None of what you are saying here makes any sense.

She might not even know the letter was from Stannis, but she would have reason to doubt the content of the letter and not flee the Wall. Why would Jon be suspicious if she stayed? She is a religious zealot whose goal is to fight the true enemy and there is no better place than the Wall for that. Jon might even be glad for her to stay.

"Dalla told me something once. Val's sister, Mance Rayder's wife. She said that sorcery was a sword without a hilt. There is no safe way to grasp it."

"A wise woman." Melisandre rose, her red robes stirring in the wind. "A sword without a hilt is still a sword, though, and a sword is a fine thing to have when foes are all about."

So desertion is honorable once there is a bribe involved and we call it a release? The Watch is a sworn brotherhood and the brothers serve for life. The oath has to be forsworn one way or another as long as Jon is alive as there is no get-out clause. The only difference is that if you have power, like Robb had when he was alive, or the northern lords who want Jon to be King-in-the-North have, then you can make it happen and call it what you like.

I will just answer some things.

Grrm might have set up ramsay's handwriting simply to show he isn t as good at writing as someone who was thought since childhood… There doesn t need to be a reason or it doesn t need to be shown in dance. Maybe it will be shown in winds… 

And if ramsay's spiky hand had a relation to the PL there would be some mention of its presence or absence in the letter. Jon not saying anything about what is the case shows how important it is in this situation...

Then this is just for you:

Quote

He wanted to believe it would be Arya. He wanted to see her face again, to smile at her and muss her hair, to tell her she was safe. She won't be safe, though. Winterfell is burned and broken and there are no more safe places.

He could not keep her here with him, no matter how much he might want to. The Wall was no place for a woman, much less a girl of noble birth. Nor was he about to turn her over to Stannis or Melisandre. The king would only want to marry her to one of his own men, Horpe or Massey or Godry Giantslayer, and the gods alone knew what use the red woman might want to make of her.

The best solution he could see would mean dispatching her to Eastwatch and asking Cotter Pyke to put her on a ship to someplace across the sea, beyond the reach of all these quarrelsome kings. It would need to wait until the ships returned from Hardhome, to be sure. She could return to Braavos with Tycho Nestoris. Perhaps the Iron Bank could help find some noble family to foster her. Braavos was the nearest of the Free Cities, though … which made it both the best and the worst choice. Lorath or the Port of Ibben might be safer. Wherever he might send her, though, Arya would need silver to support her, a roof above her head, someone to protect her. She was only a child.

I think this shows what jon would do when people he wants to protect and don t belong in the watch are threatned.

And you taking quotes out of context means nothing. When you quote jon saying he would go alone to winterfell to confront ramsay in order to rally the wildlings behind him as proof that jon would really go alone to winterfell shows the quality of some of your quotes… And this doesn t even include the fact that stannis would need to think jon would do such a thing...

I mean:

jon's dad is killed and his brother starts a war- jon is convinced to stay in the NW

Robb is murdered, arya and sansa disappear, rickon and bran are presumed dead- Jon stays in the NW
 

Stannis offers to make him Lord of winterfell and avenge robb-Jon stays in the NW

Ramsay says he has arya and is going to marry her- Jon stays in the NW

A letter appears saying that jon must return arya and a bunch of other people or the Boltons will attack the NW- Jon obviously leaves the NW alone to go to winterfell confront ramsay...

WHO WOULD THINK THIS???

[three-eyed monkey]

On 2/7/2019 at 12:16 AM, Nevets said:

The only part of the earlier letter to Castle Black described as being in a spiky hand is Ramsay's signature.  Given that he is informing the entire North that the Ironborn have been defeated at Moat Cailin and he is marrying Arya Stark, it is unlikely that he wrote all of the letters himself.  The letter to Deepwood Motte, which is described as being in a spiky hand, was written personally by him because it is a threat to the occupying Ironborn.   

Hmmm, come to think on it, if Stannis was going to forge a letter from Ramsay, I might expect him to make it look like the only letter he has seen from Ramsay, spiky hand and all. Just a passing thought. 

I imagine Tybald held the pen for the pink letter. Dictating to a maester is Stannis preferred style.

But my point is simply this, "huge spiky hand" was set up twice in ADwD yet did not feature in the climactic pink letter. I find that telling. You obviously disagree. We shall see.

On 2/7/2019 at 12:16 AM, Nevets said:

We have to go off of hypotheticals because the message was not received under the circumstances tht Stannis would have expected to exist.  He has no reason to think that Jon has any substantial force of men with him.  I seriously doubt that Stnanis would expect Jon to ride to Winterfell all by his lonesome.  That would be stupid.  The logical response for Jon, without lots of men, is to bolster defenses and get the named individuals out of harm's way, and hope Ramsay's force is small enough they don't get overrun.

No potential author knew about the additional wildlings. But the letter was written to provoke Jon into action nonetheless. That much is quite clear from the language. The letter gives Jon multiple reasons to act and removes the main barrier to him acting, which is Arya being held hostage by the Boltons.

Would Jon ride out alone? I doubt it. Even his uncle Brandon took a small group of companions to the Red Keep. Jon would have 300 wildlings to call on. I'm not saying he would be going to take Winterfell, that would be difficult even with Tormund's army, but it makes sense to me that he would try find Arya and maybe even attempt to rescue Mance. He knows Winterfell well afterall. But Jon is a proactive character with a strong sense of justice and I would expect him to act in that manner.

I can't get this idea you keep returning to about bolstering defenses at Castle Black. Castle Black cannot be defended from the south, and there is a reason for that. Do you really think if the wildlings had not arrived that Jon would start preparing the Watch for battle against the North given the Mance situation? I don't buy this at all.

And getting the named individuals out of harm's way will not be easy when Mel is unlikely to believe Stannis is dead. If Mel says the letter is a lie then Selyse will believe her.

On 2/7/2019 at 12:16 AM, Nevets said:

If the Night's Watch releases him, they are unlikely to demand his return or execution a a deserter.  If he leaves on his own, the NW is likely to send messages to everyone branding him a deserter and asking that he be treated accordingly. 

This is precisely what Stannis wants. This is called a problem-reaction-solution strategy. Jon would not accept Stannis' offer citing his vows as a reason. Stannis caused the problem with the pink letter, Jon reacted, Stannis will provide the solution with a pardon on the provision Jon accepts the offer.

On 2/7/2019 at 12:16 AM, Nevets said:

I am also unaware of any attempt by the North to make Jon King-in-the-North.  Stannis thinks Jon's presence would help him, but I don't recall anything from the Northerners to that effect.  If there is, please cite it.

There is too much to cite here. If I was to sum it up in one quote I would say: "Bear Island knows no king but the King in the North, whose name is STARK." She is talking about Jon, legitimized in Robb's will.

On 2/7/2019 at 1:48 AM, divica said:

Grrm might have set up ramsay's handwriting simply to show he isn t as good at writing as someone who was thought since childhood… There doesn t need to be a reason or it doesn t need to be shown in dance. Maybe it will be shown in winds… 

If you think there will be another pivotal letter from Ramsay in winds then so be it. I think it's the pink letter.

On 2/7/2019 at 1:48 AM, divica said:

And if ramsay's spiky hand had a relation to the PL there would be some mention of its presence or absence in the letter. Jon not saying anything about what is the case shows how important it is in this situation...

No, to mention it's absence would be a reveal. GRRM wants his readers to work stuff out. That's the way he writes every mystery.

On 2/7/2019 at 1:48 AM, divica said:

I think this shows what jon would do when people he wants to protect and don t belong in the watch are threatned.

Correct. But he doesn't have Arya. He needs to go and get her first. The quote you provided shows that he cares about Arya and wants to protect her. It's the biggest trigger in the letter from Jon's point of view.

On 2/7/2019 at 1:48 AM, divica said:

And you taking quotes out of context means nothing.

Go to my threads on Stannis and show me one quote taken out of context.

 

On 2/7/2019 at 1:48 AM, divica said:

When you quote jon saying he would go alone to winterfell to confront ramsay in order to rally the wildlings behind him as proof that jon would really go alone to winterfell shows the quality of some of your quotes…

How is this out of context? The author wrote that to show Jon's mindset because it will be relevant.

And it's pretty rich considering the Ramsay wrote the letter camp don't have anything relevant to support their theory, just supposition about how Ramsay didn't want to hunt down Reek and Arya but wanted to write a letter instead, and how Jon would reinforce Castle Black from the south and prepare for Ramsay's attack.

On 2/7/2019 at 1:48 AM, divica said:

And this doesn t even include the fact that stannis would need to think jon would do such a thing... 

Stannis saw enough of Jon at Castle Black to know what type of man he is. He watched him deal with Slynt. He saw how Jon reacted to the news that Winterfell would go to a Karstark. He knows Jon has a strong sense of justice. He knows that if Jon passes sentence then he swings the sword himself. When Jon reacted to the pink letter, I don't think he did a single thing that was out of character.

On 2/7/2019 at 1:48 AM, divica said:

I mean:

jon's dad is killed and his brother starts a war- jon is convinced to stay in the NW

Robb is murdered, arya and sansa disappear, rickon and bran are presumed dead- Jon stays in the NW

Stannis offers to make him Lord of winterfell and avenge robb-Jon stays in the NW

Ramsay says he has arya and is going to marry her- Jon stays in the NW

A letter appears saying that jon must return arya and a bunch of other people or the Boltons will attack the NW- Jon obviously leaves the NW alone to go to winterfell confront ramsay...

WHO WOULD THINK THIS??? 

And who would think Jon would comply with the letter? Nobody.

That leaves Jon with two choices. Waiting at Castle Black for Ramsay to come to him or going to Ramsay, in whatever shape of form those actions take. Leaving the wildling army aside, and regardless of who the author of the pink letter is, you cannot rule out Jon having taken action with whatever means were available without discarding his character, as it has been developed over the series.

So I would say, Jon stay and wait for Ramsay to come to him? WHO WOULD THINK THIS???

Although caps do not make the argument any stronger.

[Nevets]

8 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

Would Jon ride out alone? I doubt it. Even his uncle Brandon took a small group of companions to the Red Keep. Jon would have 300 wildlings to call on. I'm not saying he would be going to take Winterfell, that would be difficult even with Tormund's army, but it makes sense to me that he would try find Arya and maybe even attempt to rescue Mance. He knows Winterfell well afterall. But Jon is a proactive character with a strong sense of justice and I would expect him to act in that manner.

He obviously could send trusted men out to find Arya, and send a force out to meet, or perhaps ambush, Ramsay.  He might even be able to get the Wildlings to help, as a Ramsay attack would be disastrous for them.  And he would be within his rights to do so.  It helps Stannis not one bit, and doesn't hurt Jon.  I don't see him attempting to help Mance, especially since he isn't supposed to be in Winterfell in the first place.

8 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

I can't get this idea you keep returning to about bolstering defenses at Castle Black. Castle Black cannot be defended from the south, and there is a reason for that. Do you really think if the wildlings had not arrived that Jon would start preparing the Watch for battle against the North given the Mance situation? I don't buy this at all.

Of course it can be defended from the south.  It can't be defended from an army, but can be defended from a smaller force, as it was against the Wildlings that Jon was with.  Thus my comment about hoping that Ramsay's force is small enough to stand against.  Moving an army in the current conditions would be difficult, and Ramsay doesn't have that many men loyal to him, as opposed to Roose, for example.

8 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

And getting the named individuals out of harm's way will not be easy when Mel is unlikely to believe Stannis is dead. If Mel says the letter is a lie then Selyse will believe her

And Jon will ask why she believes it is a lie.  If it is a lie, then Jon doesn't have to do anything at all, as there is nothing to worry about.

8 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

And it's pretty rich considering the Ramsay wrote the letter camp don't have anything relevant to support their theory, just supposition about how Ramsay didn't want to hunt down Reek and Arya but wanted to write a letter instead, and how Jon would reinforce Castle Black from the south and prepare for Ramsay's attack.

We have one big thing going for us.  The letter itself is signed by Ramsay.  It is therefore presumptively from Ramsay, and those who object are obliged to come up with reasons why someone would forge such a letter.  I've yet to see a convincing account.  

[three-eyed monkey]

18 hours ago, Nevets said:

He obviously could send trusted men out to find Arya, and send a force out to meet, or perhaps ambush, Ramsay.  He might even be able to get the Wildlings to help, as a Ramsay attack would be disastrous for them.  And he would be within his rights to do so.  It helps Stannis not one bit, and doesn't hurt Jon.  I don't see him attempting to help Mance, especially since he isn't supposed to be in Winterfell in the first place.

No he would not be within his rights to do so. According to the letter the Lord of Winterfell has accused him of lying about the execution of Mance and sending Mance to steal back Arya. Ramsay holds Mance as proof. That is a serious accusation. Jon was not complicit in the Rattleshirt switch but later he did allow Mance leave Castle Black and go south so he is complicit in the alleged crime, and therefore he has a motive to help Mance.

18 hours ago, Nevets said:

Of course it can be defended from the south.  It can't be defended from an army, but can be defended from a smaller force, as it was against the Wildlings that Jon was with.  Thus my comment about hoping that Ramsay's force is small enough to stand against.  Moving an army in the current conditions would be difficult, and Ramsay doesn't have that many men loyal to him, as opposed to Roose, for example.

Well if you think Ramsay would be coming with 20 good men then fine. I think Jon would expect Ramsay to come in force though, or at least Jon would plan for that, if he did decide to wait for Ramsay to come to him.

As I said, I don't get this whole argument. Jon states in the text that he will ride to Winterfell alone if needs be, unless anyone will stand with him. Yet I am meant to take that quote as a lie Jon is using just to rally the wildlings and accept your version of events where he reinforces Castle Black and waits for ramsay, which is supported with no citation? Sure.

18 hours ago, Nevets said:

And Jon will ask why she believes it is a lie.  If it is a lie, then Jon doesn't have to do anything at all, as there is nothing to worry about.

She will believe the part about Stannis being dead is a lie. Tormund suggests the whole letter might be a skin o' lies, but Jon knows there are some truths there. Jon does still have something to worry about, Mance, except you don't see that. Here's the quote nonetheless:

"Might be all a skin o' lies." Tormund scratched under his beard. "If I had me a nice goose quill and a pot o' maester's ink, I could write down that me member was long and thick as me arm, wouldn't make it so."

"He has Lightbringer. He talks of heads upon the walls of Winterfell. He knows about the spearwives and their number." He knows about Mance Rayder. "No. There is truth in there."

19 hours ago, Nevets said:

We have one big thing going for us.  The letter itself is signed by Ramsay.  It is therefore presumptively from Ramsay, and those who object are obliged to come up with reasons why someone would forge such a letter.  I've yet to see a convincing account.  

Using the letter we are debating as proof of your argument about the letter we are debating is yet another logical fallacy on your behalf. It is presumed from Ramsay, that is the purpose of the letter. Forgers don't sign their own names to forged documents.

You have not yet seen a convincing account yet you believe:

• Ramsay did not hunt Reek and Jeyne to Castle Black, over 600 miles away, despite his reputation for hunting human prey through the woods, and instead favored writing a letter to Jon?
• It doesn't matter to Ramsay that Jon is one of the few people alive who would know the real Arya and be able to undo the false marriage?
• Theon was wrong about Ramsay coming after him?
• Theon was right about what Ramsay would say in a letter Ramsay would write several days later?
• There really was a seven day battle, despite the fact that Stannis' army was dropping at 80 men a day and rising from cold and hunger?
• Stannis sent his sword to Winterfell but kept his freezing and starving army outside?
• GRRM set-up the huge spiky hand description to show that poorly educated people can't write so good, or possibly for a future mystery in TWoW?
• Writing the letter in blood was not something Ramsay thought appropriate this time?
• Having the letter signed by northern lords was not something Ramsay thought appropriate this time?
• Ramsay considers Val a wildling princess?

I would like to see these things explained.

[The Mother of The Others]

2 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

It doesn't matter to Ramsay that Jon is one of the few people alive who would know the real Arya and be able to undo the false marriage?

This is the Ramsay motive to write.  His expertise as a hunter tells him he didn't pick up the trail in time, or that it disappeared too expertly, meaning Arya found aid in the woods.  So, unable to pursue, his best bet is to fly to castle black on bird wings so his written assault unseats Jon before the bride arrives on horseback to unseat Boltons. 

And as for the pat reply of "Ramsay couldn't have possibly known the letter would result in Jon's removal and/or death," I would just say Scoreboard.  Because he obviously did know, because he wrote with that intent and it then happened.  The Boltons are expert players of the game.  Skinning people looks blunt on the surface of things, but the knifework is actually quite nuanced, to keep people alive and awake through that.   Same with their politics and strategy in the field.  They've been gaming the system this whole time.   The letter absolutely could have been knowingly designed to achieve the exact result it got. They know their homeland best, better than the Starks obviously.  He'd know the tenuous position Jon was already in with the other Watchmen due to casting tradition aside,  and that applying pressure on the situation would cause the breaking of Jon's weak hold on neutrality.  Boom.  Like an astral knife, Rams' letter severed the Watch's heart from afar with the same easy nuance he used to take Winterfell.   Outside the norm thinking is his hallmark, bloodless on his end because bleeding is for other people.

(Don't worry, in another week I'll be saying Melisandre wrote it.  This was just to establish that Ramsay can't be discredited as the author.)