Please explain Ramsay and the Pink Letter.

[Corvo the Crow]

4 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

The way I see it is, Stannis maybe could have benefited from Jon marching to Winterfell. But not one of the proposed authors could have counted on Jon reacting in any specific way, b/c people are unpredictable. And to make such a huge bet on something that is ultimatelly so unpredictable is very irresponsible, to say the least. That alone speaks against the author being Stannis, and more so than anyone else. On the other hand, the letter fits perfectly w/ the ravings of mad dog Ramsay. IMO. 

Some people are unpredictable, some are not so. Jon acted the way I would expect someone like him in such a situation would.

Stannis could have guessed as much and we witness it first hand that Stannis tell to Massey he may hear of him being dead, so Stannis was planning on being dead for this reason or that and with Stannis dead, Jon is bound to defend at the very least his family since they are his guests.

[Nevets]

2 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

In my opinion, 1/ Stannis is dead, and 2/ Mance is caught, are both false. Their purpose in the letter is to force Jon to act. If Ramsay has caught Mance then Jon is clearly implicated in a serious crime against the Lord of Winterfell, as well as lying about the execution of an oathbreaker. He has to act, especially since Stannis has been defeated and thus cannot remove Ramsay as Jon had once hoped. Because I believe the letter is less about what might or might not be true and more about weaving plausible lies, like Stannis being dead or Mance being captured or Arya no longer being in Ramsay's possesion, into a narrative that is designed to persuade Jon to act against Ramsay. The letter did what it was designed to do. Jon was going to forswear his vows make Ramsay answer for his words, and according to Jon he was going to go alone if needs be.

Why would any letter writer expect Jon to ride to Winterfell, when he has no forces to back him up.  What would he expect Jon to hope to accomplish?  If Ramsay has really won, his best action is to get the individuals named in the letter to safety, and try to bluff or lie his way out of trouble with Ramsay, if and when he arrives.

The only reason Jon is actually willing to ride to Winterfell is because he knows he has sufficient forces to back him up.  I fully believe that he knew what the response would be when he made his speech.  There was never any real danger of him going by himself.  And there is certainly no reason for any letter writer to expect Jon to go by himself, in any event.

I am perfectly willing to accept that Stannis would like Jon to ride to Winterfell and support him, although I don't think he actually needs him.  What I fail to see is how the letter would accomplish that goal.

2 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

I don't believe what the letter says is true about Mance. One or more of the washerwomen may have been take alive and if that is the case then Ramsay would no doubt extract the required information, I don't have a problem with that. But if it is the case then I would expect a piece of skin in the letter, given the nature and tone of the letter. Because as Roose told Cat, Ramsay is cruel and he does that. We have seen further evidence in his letter to Deepwood Motte. We did not see any skin in his wedding invitation letter, but I think that's understandable. Not so understandable is its omission from the pink letter.

The lack of skin can also be used to make the case that the letter was not forged by Stannis.  If Stannis (or anyone else) wanted to write a message that looked like Ramsay's, the first thing they might do is to examine something he wrote.  The only message Stannis has access to is the one written to Asha at Deepwood Motte, which has skin and is written in blood.  So why didn't Stannis use that letter as his template?  The fact is, we can go round and round on that issue until we're dizzy and it won't get us anywhere.  I don't know why there is no skin, and I really don't care much, either.

I am willing to accept the possibility of a forgery.  I just don't see any reason why anyone would do so, and how this letter in particular would accomplish the objectives for doing so. 

[Ser Hedge]

27 minutes ago, Nevets said:

Why would any letter writer expect Jon to ride to Winterfell, when he has no forces to back him up.  What would he expect Jon to hope to accomplish? 

Perhaps the main intention of the letter (if it wasn't written by Ramsay) was to send out the news that fArya had escaped with the help of Mance & co and was not traveling alone (had Theon with her, but not the SWs).  So perhaps it was just saying, send out a search party and collect her and Theon, who, btw, helped her escape. There is a reference in there to go and tell Mel (perhaps thinking she could provide the GPS coordinates of fArya from her fires and maybe also confirm that Stannis is actually alive). Most likely the author thought that Jon would keep this under wraps and only discuss it with Mel first, since the Queen, her hand and other Knights in her retinue are all a collection of idiots, so nothing constructive comes of worrying them, just yet. The other claims and demands in the letter are there for it to look like it might have come from Ramsay. Finally, the person sending the letter could not send it under their own name, as Jon, would go: Why is this person writing to me?

Under this hypothesis:

Asha might have the motivation for the above (and gained knowledge about Mance and the SWs and the Reek terminology), as she might want to let Jon know about Theons involvement, but she does not the means to means to write to CB.

Ditto for Stannis, no CB Raven.

Same for Theon, who is anyway in chains.

Mel would not know about the Reek terminology either, she only sees silent movies in her fires.

Mance does not need to write this letter for the reasons in this hypothesis. He thinks the Stannis party outside the walls will help fArya escape, and he himself is probably hiding in the crypts, if he did not get captured.

That leaves a northern noble, and it reads better when it's someone who has had screen time recently, so we have - drum roll please - Lady Dustin! 

[kissdbyfire]

2 minutes ago, Ser Hedge said:

Perhaps the main intention of the letter (if it wasn't written by Ramsay) was to send out the news that fArya had escaped with the help of Mance & co and was not traveling alone (had Theon with her, but not the SWs).  So perhaps it was just saying, send out a search party and collect her and Theon, who, btw, helped her escape.

Then why would the author talk about Reek instead of Theon? Jon doesn’t know who Reek is.

 

[Ser Hedge]

16 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Then why would the author talk about Reek instead of Theon? Jon doesn’t know who Reek is. 

To make it sound more like Ramsay. Ramsay had the original Reek with him for a while, and the northmen who had been staying with him at Barrowton  and WF for a while might have grown accustomed to his referring to his Reek, so they might have just subconsciously got used to the Reek terminology.

[Ser Hedge]

Btw, this is a bit of a thought experiment in alternatives to Ramsay. I won't say I'm 100% wedded to this theory, but will defend it to see how far it can hold up.

[Ser Hedge]

17 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Then why would the author talk about Reek instead of Theon? Jon doesn’t know who Reek is. 

I was actually expecting challenges on how she knows about Mel, more than the Reek angle tbh :-D

CB data is a weak point here, so you have to additionally surmise that she spoke to Mance or Rowan or another surviving SW. Perhaps in the crypts.

[kissdbyfire]

4 minutes ago, Ser Hedge said:

I was actually expecting challenges on how she knows about Mel, more than the Reek angle tbh :-D

CB data is a weak point here, so you have to additionally surmise that she spoke to Mance or Rowan or another surviving SW. Perhaps in the crypts.

She who? 

[Ser Hedge]

3 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

She who? 

Lady Dustin, who I think is the second most viable candidate after Ramsay to have written the PL.

[three-eyed monkey]

@Nevets Stannis has proven to be duplicitous.

Firstly, burning Mance. Mel tells Jon it was his sage counsel that persuaded Stannis not to burn Mance. Mance tells Jon that Stannis burned the man he had to burn. That's two people in the know confirming it was Stannis, not Mel. I doubt Mel even considered sparing Mance, if anything she would have favored giving him to the fire, and she would not have burned him without approval from Stannis, who considers Mance to have both military and political value. Stannis is the one who spared Mance, not Mel.

Stannis told Davos he stopped believing in gods the day his parents died. He pretends to have taken the red god because he believes Mel has power and he needs it because he has little else going for his war effort.

Stannis is equally skeptical of Lightbringer which served him no better than common steel on the Blackwater, yet he is happy to produce it and wave it around whenever the occasion demands it, as it adds to the guided by the hand of providence image he's trying to project for political purpose.

Stannis is more like Littlefinger or Tywin than people think in that he is a player not a piece, and the fact that he's still in the war with plans that go beyond winning Winterfell, as evidenced by him sending to Essos for sellswords, proves it.

Stannis also knows, from his experience with Proudwing, that when something fails repeatedly then you have to try another hawk. Stannis asked Jon to bend the knee and take Winterfell repeatedly and Jon refused citing his vows as the reason. If Stannis wants to get what he wants, then he knows he must try a different hawk with Jon.

You ask why Stannis would want Jon to break his vows and come to Winterfell, especially when Jon has no military strength?

Stannis is not interested in Jon's military strength. It is purely a political move. As Stannis sees it, if he gets Jon then he wins the north. He has stated this several times so we can be certain that Jon is central to his hopes of winning the north. Stannis believes the north will rally to the son of Eddard Stark. Furthermore, Stannis has a plan to seal a peace between the north and the free folk by marrying Lord Jon Stark to Val the wildling princess, as revealed by Sam. Stannis wants Jon to bend the knee and swear his sword, become Jon Stark Lord of Winterfell and Warden of the North, marry Val, and in so doing bring the loyalty of the north and the free folk with him.

Jon has refused several times because of his vows.

Stannis still needed a loyal Lord of Winterfell and was forced to proceed with a Karstark, who had falsely declared for him and were presumed loyal. He knew it had to be a northman and the Karstarks had come from the Stark line. But when the Karstarks proved treacherous, Stannis was back at square one. He still needed a loyal Lord of Winterfell and Jon was still his first choice. He had tried asking Jon several times to no avail, and it was time to try something different.

Stannis decided on a problem-reaction-solution strategy to achieve his goal. The pink letter created a problem for Jon, Jon reacted in the manner predicted by breaking his vows to confront Ramsay, but if Jon had come to Winterfell he would have found Stannis had taken the castle. Stannis would then offer to pardon Jon's oathbreaking in exchange for the loyalty he has been repeatedly asking for.

1 hour ago, Nevets said:

The lack of skin can also be used to make the case that the letter was not forged by Stannis.  If Stannis (or anyone else) wanted to write a message that looked like Ramsay's, the first thing they might do is to examine something he wrote.  The only message Stannis has access to is the one written to Asha at Deepwood Motte, which has skin and is written in blood.  So why didn't Stannis use that letter as his template? 

Asha burned the skin. The letter was given to the maester to be brought to Lady Glover. Later Stannis took the castle and in his letter to Jon he makes it clear that he was aware of the content of that letter, but we don't know that he read the letter. He may have simply heard it from Lady Glover or the maester or Asha, including the part where the bastard of Bolton had taken to signing himself as the Trueborn Lord of Winterfell.

36 minutes ago, Ser Hedge said:

Ditto for Stannis, no CB Raven.

Unless it was sent after Stannis took Winterfell, which the timeline allows for.

37 minutes ago, Ser Hedge said:

That leaves a northern noble, and it reads better when it's someone who has had screen time recently, so we have - drum roll please - Lady Dustin! 

State your case by all means. The theory did the rounds here a few years ago and was resurrected last year on reddit but remind us of the key points again.

37 minutes ago, kissdbyfire said:

Then why would the author talk about Reek instead of Theon? Jon doesn’t know who Reek is.

The author does not just talk about Reek. The author quotes exactly what Theon said when he told Stannis what Ramsay would want. It could just be another huge coincidence that means nothing but I think it is more likely another strong hint that Stannis wrote the letter using information gained from Theon, word for word in this case.

 

 

[kissdbyfire]

8 minutes ago, Ser Hedge said:

Lady Dustin, who I think is the second most viable candidate after Ramsay to have written the PL.

Ah gotcha. I didn’t have her in mind when I brought up the fact that Jon doesn’t know who Reek is. 

As to Lady Dustin, I have never really considered her. It could be interesting, b/c she is an interesting character, but at a first glance feels a bit too convoluted... 

 

[Ser Hedge]

14 minutes ago, three-eyed monkey said:

Stannis decided on a problem-reaction-solution strategy to achieve his goal. The pink letter created a problem for Jon, Jon reacted in the manner predicted by breaking his vows to confront Ramsay, but if Jon had come to Winterfell he would have found Stannis had taken the castle.

@three-eyed monkeyI must say this post overall has been the best stated case for Stannis I've seen on recent PL threads. However, what  I still find unconvincing is, what exactly did Stannis expect Jon to do on receipt of the letter? And would the fact he has just taken WF not spread? He can't stop the mountain clans and Glovers from sending riders back with the news. Well, of course he has the authority to stop them once everyone is inside the walls of WF, but it's suspicious and not something you want to do after winning such a great victory perhaps.

[three-eyed monkey]

14 hours ago, Ser Hedge said:

I must say this post overall has been the best stated case for Stannis I've seen on recent PL threads. However, what  I still find unconvincing is, what exactly did Stannis expect Jon to do on receipt of the letter?

Thank you.

I believe the letter, regardless of who the author might be, was designed to provoke Jon into riding for Winterfell to confront Ramsay. I don't see it as a legitimate list of demands because I don't think anyone would be naive enough to think those demands would be met. I don't see it as a madman's rant because I see purpose in every line, as we should expect from GRRM. The letter taunts Jon with the word bastard and with Trueborn Lord of Winterfell. It invites Jon to Winterfell twice, to see the heads on the walls and to get Mance back. It makes seemingly well-founded accusations against Jon that he needs to respond to. It highlights Ramsay's cruel nature and how unfitting he is to hold the Stark seat. It removes Stannis as a possible solution for Jon. And it informs Jon that Arya is no longer a hostage of the Boltons. It's all geared toward getting Jon involved in the situation in Winterfell.

The main objection to this is that no proposed author would know about the arrival of Tormund's army, and therefore nobody could have expected Jon to ride south when he didn't have the swords. I agree that the author would not have known about Tormund's army, so we have to leave the wildling host out of the equation when we are considering what the author expected from the letter.

So what options would Jon have had if Tormund hadn't arrived yet? The letter would still have enraged Jon to the same degree. He would still want to make Ramsay answer for his words. He tells the shieldhall that he would go alone if he has to, and I accept he probably knew what the response would be before he said it, but I don't accept he was lying. That's not Jon. I think he would have went alone if he had to, although I doubt it would have ever come to that even if Tormund had not yet arrived.

I'm reminded of Brandon Stark's ride to the Red Keep to challenge Prince Rhaegar when he had but a handful of colleagues with him. Jon had 300 wilding fighters to call on. And while an army of 300 might seem pointless against Winterfell, Tormund's army of 3000 would be equally insufficient. Stannis has five thousand, they say, but Abel claims ten times as many still could not breach these walls.

I believe Jon would act with whatever resources he could muster. I don't see him cowering in Castle Black with his white wolf when Ramsay just called him out. Jon would respond one way or another. Ramsay is a monster and Jon has a strong sense of justice, and Jon knows the north does too so he could try to raise the north as he raised the shieldhall and see if the northern lords respond in the way the wildlings did. Lyanna Mormont's letter would certainly suggest it was not beyond the realms of possibility. But it boils down to this, Jon can either wait for Ramsay to come to him or he can go for Ramsay with whatever means available. I think Jon would choose the latter.

Of Course, from the author's point of view, there is a chance that Jon might not act, and in that case the letter will have clearly failed in its purpose.  There is an element of risk to every strategy, but this must be balanced against the cost and potential reward. Stannis was making a political play to gain the loyalty of the north through Jon. The potential reward was huge but unfortunately, due to the law of unintended consequences, it cost him dearly in the end.

14 hours ago, Ser Hedge said:

And would the fact he has just taken WF not spread? He can't stop the mountain clans and Glovers from sending riders back with the news. Well, of course he has the authority to stop them once everyone is inside the walls of WF, but it's suspicious and not something you want to do after winning such a great victory perhaps. 

Stannis is planning ahead and once he secures the loan from the Iron Bank he sends Massey to Essos in search of sellswords. This will take months, so we know he is planning long term, towards the Iron Throne ultimately, and he has certain goals he needs to accomplish along the way. First he must defeat the Freys at the crofters village, then gain Winterfell from the Boltons, next secure the loyalty of the north under a loyal Lord of Winterfell, and only then is he free to proceed with his push south or whatever he needs the sellswords for.

The pink letter is central to the third of these goals, securing a loyal Lord of Winterfell who can rally the north to his cause. With the Karstarks ruled out, thanks to the letter from Jon, Stannis has no real viable option other than his first choice, Jon, who has refused him several times citing his vows as the reason. Even if Stannis did not write the pink letter, Jon breaking his vows and coming to Winterfell would greatly benefit Stannis, as he could make a new offer while turning Jon's vows to his advantage this time. The offer would be Jon's life in the form of a pardon for his oathbreaking in return for Jon bending the knee, swearing his sword, rising Jon Stark of Winterfell, Warden of the North, marrying Val, and uniting the free folk and the north to his cause, as we know is Stannis ideal solution to the north.

As I have said, the letter is the catalyst in a problem-reaction-solution strategy. The letter poses the problem, Jon reacts and foreswears his vows, Stannis presents the solution in the form of a pardon for fealty deal.

So if Stannis achieves the first two goals, winning the battle of ice and taking Winterfell, then securing the north becomes his next goal. It is not as urgent as his first two goals. He would want Jon there as soon as possible but the travel time would be unavoidable. Stannis would hold Winterfell, but he knows the north has no love for him, and until such time as he can gain their loyalty through the son of Eddard Stark he would be seen as no different than the Ironborn sitting in Torhenn's Square. So he would have to sit in Winterfell and wait for Jon to arrive. But as the sellswords will take some time, he has no choice but wait anyway.

And I doubt that Stannis pinned all his hopes on Jon, as there is plenty of room for the pink letter plan to fail, as it did, because it's a gamble. Ultimately, he needs to achieve his goal of winning the north with or without Jon if needs be, but there is no harm in one last tilt at Jon before he is forced to proceed without him.

News would invariably spread that Stannis had taken Winterfell, but a raven would take two days to get to the Wall, compared to a journey time of at least 18 days by horse, according to Tyrion and Jon's journey, leaving the weather aside. I think Jon would be well underway before news reached him, and even if he hears tales along the way then the best way to confirm them would be to continue and see for himself. I can't see why he'd turn back at that stage. But if he did then the pink letter plan would have failed.

[Seams]

19 hours ago, Ser Hedge said:

... the person sending the letter could not send it under their own name, as Jon, would go: Why is this person writing to me?

...

That leaves a northern noble, and it reads better when it's someone who has had screen time recently, so we have - drum roll please - Lady Dustin! 

I like this a lot. Not only has she had screen time, but she was in the Winterfell crypt. I see that crypt as a parallel for Vaes Dothrak, with the collection of statues common to both locations. Vaes Dothrak has the dosh khaleen; Winterfell crypt could have Lady Dustin who is the widow of a warrior. It is after speaking to her, confessing his desire to be a Stark, that Theon recovers his name and stops thinking of himself as Reek. If she can manipulate Theon, maybe she can also manipulate Jon Snow. 

One of the functions of the dosh khaleen is to pass judgment on the acceptability of the bride for each khal. But they also passed judgment on Dany's belly and decided that she carried the Stallion that Mounts the World. Lady Dustin may represent that "royal recognition" function in Jon's arc, marking him as the chosen one (Last hero, Azor Ahai, etc.).

18 hours ago, Ser Hedge said:

@three-eyed monkeyI must say this post overall has been the best stated case for Stannis I've seen on recent PL threads.

I agree.

3 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

I'm reminded of Brandon Stark's ride to the Red Keep to challenge Prince Rhaegar when he had but a handful of colleagues with him.

This is an excellent insight. No one knows how Brandon was lured to King's Landing, why he thought his sister and Rhaegar were there, why he took the drastic and treasonous approach of openly calling for Rhaegar to come out and fight. Someone got him all worked up but, like Jon, he had received flawed information. Did he also receive a mysterious letter? If so, who sent it? Figuring out that ride south could help us to answer questions about the pink letter.

The other time we saw a ride south was at the end of AGoT, when Jon tried to desert so he could join Robb in the battle against the Lannisters. In that case, Jon was stopped when Sam Tarly informed other young members of the Night's Watch; friends of Jon who brought him home before he got too far. When he returned, Mormont told him that his departure was foreseen by Maester Aemon, he was being watched and he would have been retrieved by others if his friends had not done the job. (If you count the "betrayal" of Qhorin Halfhand and undercover mission to the wildlings, this plan to ride to Winterfell would be Jon's third treason.)

I think we need to expand the scope of the evidence before focusing on the pink letter. The two other things that we should examine are:

1) the communications from East Watch by the Sea;

2) Clydas, who delivers the messages.

Many of us have examined and questioned and parsed the pink letter, but I don't think we have ever questioned the parchments sent by Cotter Pyke from the ship Talon, as it journeys to Hardhome. Maybe we don't question those letters because we have separate confirmation in one of Arya's POVs that wildlings are being enslaved and brought to Essos on ships. Like the pink letter, however, it's possible that some of the information is accurate and some is either ill-informed hearsay or outright falsehoods.

What I'm getting at here is that someone might have falsified the report from Hardhome to try to get Jon to drop everything and rush off to the eastern edge of the Wall. Maybe the pink letter was an attempt by another party to create a crisis that would instead lure Jon toward the south, causing him to turn away from Hardhome. My candidates would be the Aliser Thorne / Night's Watch traditionalists trying to get Jon to go to Hardhome; Melisandre and Stannis trying to get Jon to go to Winterfell.

When Jon receives the initial communication from Cotter Pyke, he thinks:

The letter had been written by Maester Harmune; Cotter Pyke could neither read nor write. But the words were Pyke's, set down as he had spoken them, blunt and to the point.

(ADwD, Jon X, Chap. 49)

We know that words can be used as a tool of war and we are given a clue here: "blunt and to the point" is a phrase that could be used to describe a sword. In fact, if the sword is blunt, maybe it needs to be "forged". Has Jon just been stabbed but he doesn't yet know it? There may be a further hint on the same page, where Jon describes a new stage of the feast for the wedding of Alys Karstark and the Magnar: The fish course was next, but as the pike was being boned, Lady Alys dragged the Magnar up onto the floor. Jon received a letter from Cotter Pyke and now the pike is being boned (i.e. having its spine removed). These turns of phrase don't guarantee that there is treason underway, but I think they could be hints to the reader that something is not quite right about the communication from Eastwatch. We know from sad experience that someone always dies at a wedding feast in ASOIAF.

My suspicion about Clydas is this moment with Tormund and Mully, one of the reliable loyalists surrounding Jon Snow:

He broke off when Mully poked his nose inside the door, grim-faced, to announce that Clydas had brought a letter.

"Tell him to leave it with you. I will read it later"

"As you say, m'lord, only ... Clydas don't look his proper self ... he's more white than pink, if you get my meaning ... and he's shaking."

"Dark wings, dark words," muttered Tormund. "Isn't that what you kneelers say?"

"We say, Bleed a cold but feast a fever too," Jon told him. "We say, Never drink with a Dornishman when the moon is full. We say a lot of things."

Mully added his two groats. "My old grandmother always used to say, Summer friends will melt away like summer snows, but winter friends are friends forever."

"I think that's sufficient wisdom for the moment," said Jon Snow. "Show Clydas in if you would be so good."

Mully had not been wrong; the old steward was trembling, his face as pale as the snows outside.

(ADwD, Jon XIII, Chap. 69)

It seems particularly significant to me that Clydas has stopped being pink as he delivers the pink letter. His face is instead as pale as snow. There's some meaning in things that are drained of color, but I'm not sure what it is. The world was drained of color when Sansa woke up at the Eyrie and went outside to make her snow castle. Maybe it's an allusion to the grey and white Stark colors? Or an indirect way of describing what happens when Ramsay skins someone, causing them to bleed out? Roose uses leeches to drain his own blood, of course. I think GRRM is giving us a hint through Clydas, but I'm not sure what the hint means.

(Note: Previous comments by others have questioned why the letter is not written on skin, if it did come from Ramsay. In Jon's conversation with Tormund, after reading the letter, Tormund says, "Might be all a skin o' lies." Not proof of anything, but it does introduce the skin notion in connection with the letter.)

In the conversation with Mully and Tormund, GRRM also gives us several wise old sayings in the run up to Clydas. Ostensibly, Jon spouts off these pearls of wisdom to downplay the suspicion that the letter contains dark words. But we know enough about the author to know that these are not just random phrases: it is likely that we are being given hints here about the contents or origin or portent of the letter. Bleed, cold, feast, moon, summer, snow, friends - all important symbols in ASOIAF. Do any of them point toward the origin and meaning of the pink letter?

[Nevets]

21 hours ago, three-eyed monkey said:

Stannis also knows, from his experience with Proudwing, that when something fails repeatedly then you have to try another hawk. Stannis asked Jon to bend the knee and take Winterfell repeatedly and Jon refused citing his vows as the reason. If Stannis wants to get what he wants, then he knows he must try a different hawk with Jon.

I think that Proudwing, in this case, is Jon himself.  He has tried to get Jon on his side, has failed repeatedly, so is now trying military prowess.  If Jon happens to show up, Stannis will happily use that fact, but I doubt that Stannis is trying to instigate it.

Jon is not some reckless idiot like Brandon was.  He's not going to be heading off to Winterfell if he knows he can't accomplish anything, and I don't think Stannis would necessarily expect him to.  A more likely response is to send search parties to look for Arya and possibly try to ambush Ramsay.  There are better ways to ensure Jon rides to Winterfell.  For example;  "Come to Winterfell alone by date X to answer for your crimes.  Refuse, or betray me, and I will have your sister flayed, raped, etc.   Signed, Ramsay."  That might get Jon moving.  Simple insults won't do it, especially if Jon has no forces to back him up.   

[Alaynsa Starne]

On 3/24/2019 at 8:51 AM, three-eyed monkey said:

@Nevets

You ask why Stannis would want Jon to break his vows and come to Winterfell, especially when Jon has no military strength?

Stannis is not interested in Jon's military strength. It is purely a political move. As Stannis sees it, if he gets Jon then he wins the north. He has stated this several times so we can be certain that Jon is central to his hopes of winning the north. Stannis believes the north will rally to the son of Eddard Stark. Furthermore, Stannis has a plan to seal a peace between the north and the free folk by marrying Lord Jon Stark to Val the wildling princess, as revealed by Sam. Stannis wants Jon to bend the knee and swear his sword, become Jon Stark Lord of Winterfell and Warden of the North, marry Val, and in so doing bring the loyalty of the north and the free folk with him.

Jon has refused several times because of his vows.

This is the fundamental problem I have with this. Jon continuously refuses to break his vows, and Stannis figures he can get Jon to do so and swear fealty to him after it's been proven to Jon that Stannis lied to and betrayed Jon in a political maneuvering that hurt Jon and his cause and helped only Stannis. And Stannis plans to do this by telling Jon that Ramsay no longer has his sister, which would negate a serious motivation for Jon to come south.

Why on earth would anyone do this? This is the hoop-jumping I was talking about. Sure, Stannis would benefit from Jon swearing fealty to him. But no sane person in Stannis' position could possibly believe that the pink letter would achieve what he theoretically wants to happen. You'd have to assume Stannis is sitting around, thinking to himself: 

"Goddammit, I need Jon Snow to break his vows. He keeps telling me no even after I offer him all this cool shit. I bet I can get him to do it by telling him his sister is no longer in immediate danger. Winterfell wasn't motivation enough, but I'm sure that'll get him. Gee, I sure miss my wife and kid. I should ask him to bring them down in the middle of a horrid snowstorm to war torn lands while I'm at it." 

And I don't mean that to be snarky at all, I'm just trying to show you why this line of reasoning makes absolutely no sense to me. 

 

As a side note, I don't think it's a coincidence that Theon quoted a line to Stannis from the letter word for word. I think it's evidence that Theon knows Ramsay well enough to understand his speech patterns. The letter calls Theon Reek. Stannis is currently in possession of Theon. Stannis knows that Jon has no way of knowing who Reek is. What is the point of imitating Ramsay so perfectly when Jon 1) wouldn't know what the hell he's talking about, anyway, and 2) wouldn't be able to tell the difference regardless? It makes more sense for the letter writer to assume that Theon is at the Wall, or at least on his way to the Wall, and therefore Jon would actually know what Reek means. 

[Alaynsa Starne]

On 3/22/2019 at 11:17 PM, redriver said:

The only one who could have written the letter without having to do hoops is Mance.You are right in what you say about Ramsay's sources,but he has to have tortured the info out of someone.So that's either Mance,the spearwives or both.

And this brings us to the nature of knowledge extracted by torture.Does it not depend on the questions asked?

Did Ramsay ask Mance if he ever threatened to cut Jon Snows heart out?

Did he enquire whether Mance used the phrase "for all the north to see"?

Did he ask specifically whether Mance called Jon "bastard" in every interaction they had in text?

Did he ask whether Mance spoke of cloaks in most of those meetings?

Very little of that Intel could have been gained from the spearwives.

And really what does Ramsay want with Selyse,Val or the babe?No real traction there.

Crow or black crow is a pejorative term used exclusively by wildlings.

I'm also interested in how you view the word "thematic"?

 

 

Why would Ramsay need to torture that information from anyone? Ramsay isn't looking to make the letter look like it was written by Mance. None of the language used in the letter is actually exclusive to Mance, and to believe so is to have such a strong bias towards the Mance theory that one ignores the fact that 1) the series is written by one person and will inevitably have phrasal/stylistic repetition even between different characters, and 2) literally any character can use the language you've cited. Mance is not the first human to threaten to cut someone's heart out. Mance has not only never actually used the phrase "for all the north to see," but he certainly doesn't have the phrase trademarked, either. Most characters have called Jon a bastard. Plenty of other characters have talked about cloaks, and if Ramsay actually did make a cloak out of the washerwomen's skins, what else is he supposed to call it? Should Martin not use the word "cloak" just in case readers jump to wild conclusions just because a cloak was important to Mance once? Ramsay probably wants to avoid alternative authorities in the North. He probably doesn't understand the dynamic of wildlings, and so assumes that Val and Mance's baby are "heirs" of sorts. Selyse and Shireen are the same, and, more importantly, they're noble and could theoretically raise swords to come fight him eventually. Better to nip that shit in the bud. The term "crow" is not used exclusively by wildlings at all, and is it really so far a stretch to believe someone in the south would have the "imagination" to add black to that nickname? They're called "black brothers" they "take the black," they wear all black. It's not as though this is the greatest leap, here. 

 

Theme: a central topic in a story. The main theme of Jon's story is duty. I believe it was three-eyed monkey who said that what I cited as theme was related to character arc, but not theme. Which ignores how character arc acts in direct service to theme, but that's probably because I worded my original comment poorly. 

[three-eyed monkey]

On 3/24/2019 at 9:21 PM, Nevets said:

I think that Proudwing, in this case, is Jon himself.  He has tried to get Jon on his side, has failed repeatedly, so is now trying military prowess.  If Jon happens to show up, Stannis will happily use that fact, but I doubt that Stannis is trying to instigate it.

Stannis is trying to win the north with military prowess, but regardless of that, if he is ever going to win the north he needs the north to be loyal to some lord that is loyal to him. King Tommen has Roose Bolton in that position. Stannis needs his own Lord of Winterfell and Warden of the North, because he does not intend to rule from there himself. So Stannis has by no means abandoned the idea of the north being ruled by someone loyal to him, he was forced to move on from Jon as that person.

When Jon refused him, Stannis had to settle for the Karstarks, but now that the Karstarks have been caught for treachery, he needs someone else. There are not many viable candidates as only the Karstarks, Crowfood, and mountain clans declared for him. I can't think of anyone from those houses who could rally the north to the same degree that the son of Eddard Stark would. Stannis knows one of his own knights inheriting Winterfell would not sit well with the north. So who does that leave? I think it's worth rolling the dice for Jon one last time.

And remember, the Karstark treachery was uncovered thanks to an act of loyalty from Jon which would indicate that Jon is invested in the outcome at Winterfell. Jon already told Stannis that he was not happy about the Karstarks getting Winterfell as they abandoned Robb amongst his enemies. And if Jon's not happy with a Karstark for abandoning Robb then it's not hard to imagine how he would feel about a Bolton, considering the Red Wedding.

Stannis knows Winterfell is important to Jon, but his vows are the problem. If Jon forswore his vows and came to Winterfell, Stannis would clearly benefit, we agree. Cui bono is a principle that says the probable responsibility for an act lies with someone who gains from that act. So I think on this basis, we can establish that Stannis at least has motive to get Jon to break his vows and come to Winterfell, even if you don't believe Stannis did anything to instigate it.

On 3/24/2019 at 9:21 PM, Nevets said:

Jon is not some reckless idiot like Brandon was.  He's not going to be heading off to Winterfell if he knows he can't accomplish anything, and I don't think Stannis would necessarily expect him to.  A more likely response is to send search parties to look for Arya and possibly try to ambush Ramsay.  There are better ways to ensure Jon rides to Winterfell.  For example;  "Come to Winterfell alone by date X to answer for your crimes.  Refuse, or betray me, and I will have your sister flayed, raped, etc.   Signed, Ramsay."  That might get Jon moving.  Simple insults won't do it, especially if Jon has no forces to back him up.

The letter did what it was designed to do, we know that. Would it have worked without Tormund's army, we don't know. Would the letter have had the same emotional impact on Jon if Tormund wasn't there, I assume so. Would that cause Jon to react with whatever means were available to him, I don't see why not. I think he'd go with the 300 and hope he can win the north to his side in the name of his Lord father and for the sake of King Robb, etc. I just don't see him waiting at Castle Black for Ramsay to come down on him in force. But if he did then Stannis' plan would have failed.

21 hours ago, Alaynsa Starne said:

This is the fundamental problem I have with this. Jon continuously refuses to break his vows, and Stannis figures he can get Jon to do so and swear fealty to him after it's been proven to Jon that Stannis lied to and betrayed Jon in a political maneuvering

What do you mean after it has been proven to Jon that Stannis lied and betrayed Jon? Who would prove Stannis wrote the letter? Well, there are plenty of hints in the letter that suggest it wasn't from Ramsay and was from Stannis. and Jon might pick up on some like "wildling princess", which Stannis kept calling Val despite Jon's persistence that she is no princess. But Stannis certainly would never want it known that the letter was his work. He would keep that to himself and leave the natural assumption that the letter came from Ramsay be.

Two people who may have knowledge of the letter are Tybald and Theon. I suspect Tybald may have penned the letter as Stannis likes to dictate. Tybald is a weak-bladdered individual who is due to be executed for treachery so I imagine he would be easily persuaded to pen and send the letter, and probably at least loose his tongue afterwards if not his head. Theon certainly provided information for the letter, there are two clear instances of that, but it's impossible to tell if he was present when the letter was written or if he is even aware of the letter. But if we are going to see the letter being written then I think it will be in Theon II TWoW which I expect to be set in Winterfell, given that the battle of ice seems to be Asha I, so my guess is Theon does know about the letter.

So the notion that Stannis could not expect Jon's loyalty if he lied to Jon or tricked him only works if Jon finds out.

21 hours ago, Alaynsa Starne said:

And Stannis plans to do this by telling Jon that Ramsay no longer has his sister, which would negate a serious motivation for Jon to come south.

This is a misunderstanding of how hostages work. If Arya was still in Winterfell it would be difficult for Jon to act against Ramsay without putting her in danger. The letter informs Jon that Arya is no longer a Bolton hostage and therefore Jon is free to act against Ramsay.

21 hours ago, Alaynsa Starne said:

You'd have to assume Stannis is sitting around, thinking to himself: 

"Goddammit, I need Jon Snow to break his vows. He keeps telling me no even after I offer him all this cool shit. I bet I can get him to do it by telling him his sister is no longer in immediate danger. Winterfell wasn't motivation enough, but I'm sure that'll get him. Gee, I sure miss my wife and kid. I should ask him to bring them down in the middle of a horrid snowstorm to war torn lands while I'm at it."  

Alternatively, Stannis could be sitting around thinking something like this:

The Karstarks have proved treacherous so I won't be giving Winterfell to them. I need a lord of Winterfell and Jon is the best possible option. But Jon won't set his vows aside for me even with Winterfell and legitimacy and the wildling princess as part of the bargain, that's why I had to go with the Karstarks but now I'm back to square one.

It was Jon who informed me of the Karstarks being turncloaks. Jon is loyal to me by his actions. His advice about the northern clans was solid. His advice about burning Mance was sage. I like how he handled Slynt. Not to mention when he swears his sword he really means it. Damn those vows.

Jon was not happy when I told him I was giving Winterfell to a Karstark because they abandoned Robb among his enemies. I wonder how he feels about a Bolton, considering the Red Wedding. The bastard of Bolton signing himself the trueborn Lord of Winterfell while the son of noble Eddard Stark remains a bastard. I bet the injustice of it is eating at him. Jon might not forswear his vows for me but would he forswear them for Ramsay?

He would need to know that his sister was no longer in Ramsay's possession. But even then he would not act until I was first defeated and therefore unable to remove Ramsay for him, which he is clearly hoping I will do as he is assisting me at every turn despite repeatedly declaring that the Watch take no part. He is helping me because he wants Ramsay out of Winterfell, and if I can't do that for him then he will have to figure out a way to do it himself with whatever resources he can muster.

I wonder how would Jon react if he thought I was defeated? Would he leave Winterfell to the Boltons? Would he cow down and send his sister back to the Trueborn Lord of Winterfell, who is certain to want her returned. What was it Theon said of Ramsay? "He wants his bride. And he wants his Reek."

But who is best placed to misinform Jon that I was dead and how would they do it? Well, the Lord of Winterfell of course. Ramsay. And by raven, obviously.

Hmm. Stares into flames. Idea forms. I did say Theon might have information I needed. Better warn Massey in case the faithless fool actually believes it and never comes back with my sellswords. And I must remember not to refer to Val as "wildling princess" because it's a dead give away. Now, I am Stannis! Let's do this!

21 hours ago, Alaynsa Starne said:

And I don't mean that to be snarky at all, I'm just trying to show you why this line of reasoning makes absolutely no sense to me. 

I see that but I think my line of reasoning is clear, even if you disagree with the conclusion.

21 hours ago, Alaynsa Starne said:

As a side note, I don't think it's a coincidence that Theon quoted a line to Stannis from the letter word for word. I think it's evidence that Theon knows Ramsay well enough to understand his speech patterns.

You talk about the Stannis theory jumping through hoops but honestly, which is more likely? Stannis quoted what Theon said directly to him or Theon predicted exactly what Ramsay would say in a letter he would write at some time in the near future.

21 hours ago, Alaynsa Starne said:

The letter calls Theon Reek. Stannis is currently in possession of Theon. Stannis knows that Jon has no way of knowing who Reek is. What is the point of imitating Ramsay so perfectly when Jon 1) wouldn't know what the hell he's talking about, anyway, and 2) wouldn't be able to tell the difference regardless?

Jon doesn't know who Reek is, agreed. So why would Ramsay put Reek in a letter to Jon when Jon wouldn't know what the hell he was talking about?

We know why Stannis put it in there. Because Theon told him that is what Ramsay would want and Stannis is forging a letter that contains demands from Ramsay.

21 hours ago, Alaynsa Starne said:

It makes more sense for the letter writer to assume that Theon is at the Wall, or at least on his way to the Wall, and therefore Jon would actually know what Reek means.

How long after Theon and Jeyne's escape do you think the letter was written because they are weeks from Castle Black. If the letter was written weeks after the escape then Stannis has either taken the castle or died trying because his army was not going to survive weeks without taking the castle. And if Stannis is defeated then where is Reek?

A similar objection you may not have thought of yet. Why did Stannis send Arya back to Jon at Castle Black if he was trying to lure Jon from the Wall? Because Stannis told Jon he would save his sister if he could and find a better match for her than Ramsay Snow. She has been saved and is on her way to relative safety and the match can wait for now. Stannis needs to remove the Boltons and win the north first or he won't be making any political matches.

On the other hand we have Ramsay, who knows Arya is fake, and who knows Jon would recognize that fact. Is he hoping Jon will send back Jeyne and say nothing about Ramsay's marital claim on Winterfell being false? The Boltons are using a fake Arya to support Ramsay's claim on Winterfell and when fake Arya is stolen by Jon, one of the last known living people who would recognize that she is fake, Ramsay writes to Jon asking for her back? I don't see the sense in that.

For me, it makes far more sense if the reason she is mentioned in the letter is to inform Jon that she is free from the Boltons otherwise Jon could not act without fear she would be hurt in reprisal for his actions, as happens with hostages.

 

[three-eyed monkey]

21 hours ago, Alaynsa Starne said:

None of the language used in the letter is actually exclusive to Mance, and to believe so is to have such a strong bias towards the Mance theory that one ignores the fact that 1) the series is written by one person and will inevitably have phrasal/stylistic repetition even between different characters, and 2) literally any character can use the language you've cited. Mance is not the first human to threaten to cut someone's heart out. Mance has not only never actually used the phrase "for all the north to see," but he certainly doesn't have the phrase trademarked, either. Most characters have called Jon a bastard.

I agree.

21 hours ago, Alaynsa Starne said:

Plenty of other characters have talked about cloaks, and if Ramsay actually did make a cloak out of the washerwomen's skins, what else is he supposed to call it? Should Martin not use the word "cloak" just in case readers jump to wild conclusions just because a cloak was important to Mance once?

I think the reference to the cloak of skin comes from Theon. In Winterfell Ramsay told Walder to point out the murderer and he would make a cloak of his skin. I accept that it is obviously something Ramsay would say and did say, and Mance was also present at the time, but as everything else leads me to believe Stannis wrote the letter then it makes sense that it must come from Theon, as he was the pov.

21 hours ago, Alaynsa Starne said:

He probably doesn't understand the dynamic of wildlings, and so assumes that Val and Mance's baby are "heirs" of sorts.

Maybe, but we know for certain Stannis repeatedly uses the term "wildling princess" compared to the possibility that Ramsay used it.

21 hours ago, Alaynsa Starne said:

The term "crow" is not used exclusively by wildlings at all, and is it really so far a stretch to believe someone in the south would have the "imagination" to add black to that nickname? They're called "black brothers" they "take the black," they wear all black. It's not as though this is the greatest leap, here. 

I agree. Yoren is called a crow and a black bird in the riverlands, in separate incidents. The stretch to black crow is nothing given that crows are generally black, with the rare exception of white ravens of course. I would say crow and black crow are common derogatory terms for brothers of the Watch, which would explain why we hear it frequently north of the Wall, but also in antagonistic situations such as with Yoren south of the Wall.

22 hours ago, Alaynsa Starne said:

Theme: a central topic in a story. The main theme of Jon's story is duty. I believe it was three-eyed monkey who said that what I cited as theme was related to character arc, but not theme. Which ignores how character arc acts in direct service to theme, but that's probably because I worded my original comment poorly. 

Sorry, I may have misunderstood you.

[HallowedMarcus]

On 2/12/2019 at 1:57 AM, The Map Guy said:

It's just like 'Cersei & getting King Bob drunk until he dies' plan all over again.

Its a stupid plan and the villain gets lucky because the hero is stupid.

Calm down. Jon acted that way and made other mistakes because he is 15 years old and GRRM wanted him dead so he can be resurrected on WoW.