Drawing Blood From a Bolton

[Ramsay Gimp]

The reason I ask is because of the theory bumps! floated that perhaps it was Roose, and not Ramsay, that murdered Domeric. Perhaps Roose knew there might come a time when he would kill/sacrifice Domeric, thus explaining why he didn't go through the trouble of arranging his marriage.

Or perhaps posters are jumping to wild conclusions about characters in order to fit a preconceived and admittedly crackpot theory.

[redviper9]

Or perhaps posters are jumping to wild conclusions about characters in order to fit a preconceived and admittedly crackpot theory.

Yes, the theory is crackpottish -- as bumps! admits -- but why is it preconceived?

Look, I'm not trying to shoehorn the Boltons into anything, nor am I arguing that there is an absolutely, 100 percent, without a doubt reason why GRRM didn't mention a betrothal/marriage for Domeric. The OP got me thinking and I thought it was a relevant question to ask, given what is being theorized and the confirmed knowledge we have of the Boltons. The question might well lead to a "wild conclusion," but I think it still merits discussion, and not a brusque dismissal.

[butterbumps!]

He also describes him as "sly and greedy" in ACOK, which was proved by how well he played Theon.

Do agree that there is a VAST difference in the way Roose and Ramsay are described? Do agree that Martin has taken great pains to show us the differences between these two characters, especially in terms of methodology?

That you equate Ramsay's methods with being "subtle" is the issue here. You're ignoring the fact that Ramsay does not kill in ways that are subtle and meant to be undetected. When Roose scolds him to his face about keeping a quiet land, he proclaims that it's good the people are talking:

The elder Bolton sighed. “Again? Surely you misspeak. You never slew Lord Eddard’s sons, those two sweet boys we loved so well. That was Theon Turncloak’s work, remember? How many of our grudging friends do you imagine we’d retain if the truth were known? Only Lady Barbrey, whom you would turn into a pair of boots … inferior boots. Human skin is not as tough as cowhide and will not wear as well. By the king’s decree you are now a Bolton. Try and act like one. Tales are told of you, Ramsay. I hear them everywhere. People fear you.”

“Good.”

“You are mistaken. It is not good. No tales were ever told of me. Do you think I would be sitting here if it were otherwise? Your amusements are your own, I will not chide you on that count, but you must be more discreet. A peaceful land, a quiet people. That has always been my rule. Make it yours.”

It is REALLY significant that no one but Roose speaks of Ramsay's involvement in Domeric's death, given that the entire North gossips about his even more disturbing crimes. Ramsay would had killed and flayed Domeric, probably worn his skin, and sent out fucking flyers to let everyone know it was him to incite fear, given the way he carries out his business. Ramsay wants to brag about he was responsible for killing the Stark boys, for heaven's sake. Why on earth would he hide the fact that he killed Domeric?

Respectfully, the way you're arguing about this and your tone seems like you're just trying to solicit a fight, and it's very distracting. If you want to keep insisting that Ramsay is a subtle genius, perhaps writing an OP discussing that would be more productive for you.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

Love this and it looks like you hit on most of what I would've. I'd also like to add the possibility that there's a supernatural reasoning for the Boltons setting up shop in Winterfell and/or wanting possession of Winterfell. "There must always be a Stark in Winterfell" is something a lot of people attribute to some sort of supernatural forces.

And to me the flaying/skinchanging thing is the coolest-creepiest bit of all of this. I remember seeing Tze first pose it eons ago and thinking, "Oh my god that's totally it." It would be interesting if the Boltons, who would be using perverted "ice" magic, are completely unable to warg in the "correct" sense, whereas the Starks, who use magic "correctly" and are more finely attuned to benevolent "earth" (old gods) magic, are inherently natural wargs, a talent that has died out over time but was "there" originally.

[Ramsay Gimp]

The OP got me thinking and I thought it was a relevant question to ask, given what is being theorized and the confirmed knowledge we have of the Boltons. The question might well lead to a "wild conclusion," but I think it still merits discussion, and not a brusque dismissal.

The Boltons as descendants of the Night's King, or a warped and bastardized branch of House Stark, or future allies of the Others I can get behind. But the OP was using some faulty premises and going from there, the biggest one being that Ramsay is incapable of any subtlety or caution.

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

The Boltons as descendants of the Night's King, or a warped and bastardized branch of House Stark, or future allies of the Others I can get behind. But the OP was using some faulty premises and going from there, the biggest one being that Ramsay is incapable of any subtlety or caution.

... Is he capable of subtlety or caution?

[Ramsay Gimp]

It is REALLY significant that no one but Roose speaks of Ramsay's involvement in Domeric's death, given that the entire North gossips about his even more disturbing crimes. Ramsay would had killed and flayed Domeric, probably worn his skin, and sent out fucking flyers to let everyone know it was him to incite fear, given the way he carries out his business. Ramsay wants to brag about he was responsible for killing the Stark boys, for heaven's sake. Why on earth would he hide the fact that he killed Domeric?

Respectfully, the way you're arguing about this and your tone seems like you're just trying to solicit a fight, and it's very distracting. If you want to keep insisting that Ramsay is a subtle genius, perhaps writing an OP discussing that would be more productive for you.

Regarding the firts part, it is the difference between low cunning and wanton sadism versus high cunning and mercilessness. Ramsay is very resourceful, but doesn't get house politics or grand strategy and needs some impulse control. He is a crueller Cersei to Roose's crueller Tywin, in a way

-If he actually wanted to brag about killing the Stark boys, he would have done so before daddy came home. But he didn't as far as we know. Roose was just chiding him as a reminder of the importance of keeping their stories straight and not slipping up.

-You really think peasant Ramsay, who at that point had never met his lord father, would have thought it was a good idea to kill and flay the local lord's trueborn son (assuming he would have even got the opportunity, which he wouldn't have)? He may be mad, but the character you are describing is just plain idiotic, which Ramsay isn't.

-What exactly did you expect? You admit the theory is crackpot, and for it to be true the nature and motivation of important characters would have to be drastically altered. But perhaps I should leave you to have an echo chamber, since it seems that's what you want.

[Ramsay Gimp]

... Is he capable of subtlety or caution?

Did you read A Clash of Kings? I am not claiming he is a subtle genius, that is Butterbumps's strawman. I am just saying he can be manipulative, can act a different part, and is not completely idiotic. There is no reason to believe he wouldn't have poisoned Domeric

[assjfjgjsgjljljglgjfjsduar]

Did you read A Clash of Kings? I am not claiming he is a subtle genius, that is Butterbumps's strawman. I am just saying he can be manipulative, can act a different part, and is not completely idiotic. There is no reason to believe he wouldn't have poisoned Domeric

He showed that he could think quickly when his own ass was on the line with the Reek move. But I don't consider that subtle or cautious. Devious, perhaps.

But way to use the lazy, "Did you read XXXXXX?" Because if someone disagrees with you, it obviously means they haven't even read the book, amirite?

[Old-Growth]

Intriguing Bumps, but I ain't just a' boltoning this down. I am prepared to be generous, however: one will get you four.

[Tagganaro]

Wow, interesting theory BB. I've often thought the description of the Bolton eyes was pretty suspicious, but always justified it away as a "bad blood" symptom kind of thing. Like how Tywin's eyes are described as those golden flecks, it's just the easy writer's visualization of a scary sociopath. But your way could work just as well.

Likewise, I'd never thought about it, but you are perfectly right that poisoning would be the opposite of Ramsay's style. The Ramsay we know would never be capable of the slightest bit of subtlety. Maybe the "bad blood" has gotten worse over the years, along with his newfound power as the Bolton heir making him less subtle than he was? I don't know, but that's very interesting.

-You really think peasant Ramsay, who at that point had never met his lord father, would have thought it was a good idea to kill and flay the local lord's trueborn son (assuming he would have even got the opportunity, which he wouldn't have)? He may be mad, but the character you are describing is just plain idiotic, which Ramsay isn't.

Really? The impression I got of Ramsay is that he is totally "plain idiotic". He's already lost the support of like the entirety of the Bolton banner men because of his "impulse control" problems. There's not one lord who seems like they would support him in the slightest once Roose goes down.

[butterbumps!]

-If he actually wanted to brag about killing the Stark boys, he would have done so before daddy came home. But he didn't as far as we know. Roose was just chiding him as a reminder of the importance of keeping their stories straight and not slipping up.

-You really think peasant Ramsay, who at that point had never met his lord father, would have thought it was a good idea to kill and flay the local lord's trueborn son (assuming he would have even got the opportunity, which he wouldn't have)? He may be mad, but the character you are describing is just plain idiotic, which Ramsay isn't.

When exactly did I say Ramsay was completely stupid? I didn't, for the record. I say subtlety wasn't his MO. His "slyness" has much to do with the fact that he wants people fearing him by reputation, which involves letting people gossip about his deeds. He's capable of hatching cruel schemes. However, he is not Roose.

-What exactly did you expect? You admit the theory is crackpot, and for it to be true the nature and motivation of important characters would have to be drastically altered. But perhaps I should leave you to have an echo chamber, since it seems that's what you want.

No, actually, my theory doesn't require that Ramsay didn't kill Domeric in order for the pieces to come together. I was just being thorough about things I found questionable. Subsequently, I find it strange that this is what you're focusing on, and doing so in a way that's not remotely conversational but extremely incendiary.

Did you read A Clash of Kings? I am not claiming he is a subtle genius, that is Butterbumps's strawman. I am just saying he can be manipulative, can act a different part, and is not completely idiotic. There is no reason to believe he wouldn't have poisoned Domeric

She didn't ask if you thought he was a subtle genius. She asked whether he was capable of "subtlety and caution" which is precisely what you had posited, no Butterbumps strawman necessary.

I don't want an echo chamber, but I did want a modicum of civility and insightful contributions, neither of which you seem to wish to oblige. Since the question of Domeric's death is only a small part of what I wrote, and almost completely independent from much of the magical implications, and it seems what you're most interested in harping on-- showing us that Ramsay is, in fact, "subtle and cautious" enough to use poison and keep quiet about it, I invited you to create your own thread based on those premises.

[Stannis the Wight]

Did you read A Clash of Kings? I am not claiming he is a subtle genius, that is Butterbumps's strawman. I am just saying he can be manipulative, can act a different part, and is not completely idiotic. There is no reason to believe he wouldn't have poisoned Domeric

In all fairness though during ACOK he wasn't Ramsay Snow he assumed the role of Reek in order to survive. He was able to adopt a different persona and I think the type of socio/psychopath that he is enables him to do this very well.

However, as Ramsay, he doesn't feel the need to be manipulative and cunning because that's not who he is. Especially now that he has been legitimized and has a title he feels as though he has earned the right to act as he pleases and let the legend of his ruthlessness grow.

I realize that you are talking about him in relation to Domeric's death and all that is prior to him being legitimized, but still, it speaks a lot about his character. Personally I think his mom poisoned Domeric.

[redviper9]

The Boltons as descendants of the Night's King, or a warped and bastardized branch of House Stark, or future allies of the Others I can get behind. But the OP was using some faulty premises and going from there, the biggest one being that Ramsay is incapable of any subtlety or caution.

Alright: first things first, my question about Domeric is only indirectly related to the question of whether Ramsay is subtle or not (for the record, I think that Ramsay -- especially when compared to Roose -- is as subtle as a bull in a China shop). I was expanding more upon the general idea that it may have been Roose that killed Domeric, not Ramsay.

Since you do bring up subtlety, as I mentioned above, I don't think Ramsay is very subtle. I know he pulled one over on Theon, but it's not like he did it by hiding in the shadows or making sure no undue attention came to him. He became a highly visible and active member of Theon's "court" at Winterfell, thus exposing him to discovery. When I think subtlety in ASoIaF, Roose's conversation with Jaime at Harrenhal, or Varys's half-truths, are what come to mind. Again, Ramsay's lack of subtlety doesn't necessarily mean he's unintelligent or that he wasn't behind Domeric's death; but that, along with what Roose tells Theon, does create enough room for us to discuss the possibility that Roose killed Domeric and the implications that has for his character (and Ramsay, too, for that matter).

-What exactly did you expect? You admit the theory is crackpot, and for it to be true the nature and motivation of important characters would have to be drastically altered. But perhaps I should leave you to have an echo chamber, since it seems that's what you want.

How have the nature/motivation of any characters been changed by what bumps!, myself, and others have discussed? Whether or not he killed Domeric, Ramsay is still an ambitious sadist that Roose feels needs to be reined in to a certain degree. If Roose was behind the murder, then it confirms Lady Dustin's contention that he's been sucked of all feeling and that he views other human beings -- including his own sons -- as playthings to do with as he likes, including killing them.

While I can't speak for bumps!, I'm fairly certain that she was trying to get all of us to think deeper about the Boltons and their connections to the mythos/history of the North. There is a lot to digest in bumps's post, but you're the one who latched on to the "Ramsay isn't as subtle as Roose" line. I know I'm the one who asked about Domeric's marriage, but that was more of an aside; there are far more tangible and important things to discuss in the post. It does seem like you just want to pick a fight with us, and if proving that Ramsay is a subtle genius is so important to you, I'll second bumps in suggesting that you start your own thread to that effect.

[Ramsay Gimp]

I sentence you all to eternity in the Dreadfort :grouphug:

Peace.

[Tagganaro]

I sentence you all to eternity in the Dreadfort :grouphug:

Peace.

Yeah, because that's not creepy or anything....

[Kolantero]

A bit far-fetched but i like this theory. Especially the connection between Roose and the Others.

[redviper9]

Love this and it looks like you hit on most of what I would've. I'd also like to add the possibility that there's a supernatural reasoning for the Boltons setting up shop in Winterfell and/or wanting possession of Winterfell. "There must always be a Stark in Winterfell" is something a lot of people attribute to some sort of supernatural forces.

And to me the flaying/skinchanging thing is the coolest-creepiest bit of all of this. I remember seeing Tze first pose it eons ago and thinking, "Oh my god that's totally it." It would be interesting if the Boltons, who would be using perverted "ice" magic, are completely unable to warg in the "correct" sense, whereas the Starks, who use magic "correctly" and are more finely attuned to benevolent "earth" (old gods) magic, are inherently natural wargs, a talent that has died out over time but was "there" originally.

Yes, it is interesting to think of the flaying and then the wearing of the skin as the Boltons' attempt to make up for their lack of warging abilities.

With regards to their Stark victims, it could also be seen as a way for the Boltons to symbolically become Starks. It's not enough to simply supplant the Starks' position as Kings in/Lords Paramounts of the North; you have to become them in some way, shape, or form to truly hold the North (this can tie in to bumps's point about the grammatical distinction between Kings in the North vs. Kings of the North; the former -- which is what the Starks have always been referred to as -- suggests a natural, maybe even magical/mystical, connection to the region). The wearing of the flayed skins to "become" a Stark can also shed light on why Roose is so intent on seizing Winterfell. Much like it's not enough to just kill and flay your victims, it's also not enough to merely be granted the titles that have belonged to the Starks for centuries. Making Winterfell theirs is another way for Roose and Ramsay to wear the skin of their victims; and if they "become" Starks, it could grant them access to the magic of Winterfell, a magic that might then be perverted for their own purposes.

Roose's intent on making Winterfell his becomes more striking when you look at other examples of rebellious bannermen. As far as I know, neither the Reynes of Castamere nor the Tarbecks wanted to seize Casterly Rock for their own. Walder Frey may have wanted to marry some of his children to the Tullys, but it's never stated that he personally wanted to be Lord of Riverrun (Emmon Frey is another matter). The Florents think they should be Lords Paramount of the Reach, but it's never stated that they want Highgarden itself. And Littlefinger -- while not a rebellious bannerman -- seems content to rule the Riverlands from a seat that isn't Riverrun. Roose could easily be Lord Paramount and Warden of the North from the Dreadfort, but he seems intent on Winterfell. It could be explained as political calculation -- Roose knows that Winterfell has symbolic value, and that the vast majority of his bannermen are still loyal to the Starks; but why not just leave Winterfell in ruins (as Tywin did with Castamere) as a lesson to all those who defy the Iron Throne and a symbol that a new Bolton era has begun in the North?

Another interesting note about the Boltons wearing skins as a way of "warging" is that it allows them to sidestep one of the consequences of actual warging: losing yourself in the skin you slip in to, especially if you slip in as a consequence of death. Remember, Jojen warns Bran repeatedly that he'll lose himself if he stays inside Summer too long. Varamyr and others comment that while you can slip into another skin upon death, eventually your conscience fades away. The Boltons sidestep that by literally slipping into another skin. They can "become" a Stark, but they never fundamentally lose their Bolton essence.

[Sevumar]

There are parts of this that are possible, but this construction is unlikely to play out as a whole. When I first started reading the series years ago, the possibility of a Bolton-Others connection jumped out at me as well.

These days, I'm less confident that an Other-human hybrid is possible, but that becomes less of a problem if the Others are derived from human stock. However, I'm not sold on the idea that the Others are degenerate humans who allowed 'ice' magic to fundamentally change their nature. I don't think that a splinter group of humans could become as established and as powerful as the Others apparently were in the Long Night. We have no texts and no information suggesting that there were any magic users among the First Men who arrived on Westerosi shores as they warred with the Children, and nothing supporting the departure of an ice-magic using splinter group. It seems more likely that the Others were a prehistoric, preexisting force on the continent of Westeros whose power rises and falls with the 'tide' of magic in the world.

There's no doubt that the Boltons are creepy and weird, but I don't see anything there that suggests knowledge and/or use of magic, especially ice magic. If we were going to catch a glimpse of magic at work in the Bolton stronghold, my bet would have been on it appearing when we had an eye into the Dreadfort early in Dance. The Boltons come across as rather 'old school' in their preferences and in their brutality, but Roose and his ancestors have clearly learned how to hide their proclivities from their overlords.

If the Bolton penchant for flaying comes from an attempt to imitate the skinchanging abilities of Stark ancestors, that suggests an attempt to gain a power that they've never had access to by imitating the behavior of those who do possess it. It doesn't come off as the action of a faction that has access to its own, different kind of magic. A powerful, confident Bolton faction would certainly flay enemies as a type of propaganda, a demonstration of their superiority over the Starks and their contempt for their rivals. Attempting to mimic what your bitter enemies possess if you have your own source of power doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

The Bolton interest in Winterfell and reliance fake Arya come across as a prudent move born of the desire to secure the North the same way that the Lannisters tried to secure Darry, by establishing a blood connection. That way, the vassals will have an easier time accepting a power transition that has been imposed from the outside by a distant 'king.' It's exactly what you'd hope to do if you wanted to supplant a seemingly-defeated family without provoking a new round of civil war.

[butterbumps!]

These days, I'm less confident that an Other-human hybrid is possible, but that becomes less of a problem if the Others are derived from human stock. However, I'm not sold on the idea that the Others are degenerate humans who allowed 'ice' magic to fundamentally change their nature. I don't think that a splinter group of humans could become as established and as powerful as the Others apparently were in the Long Night. We have no texts and no information suggesting that there were any magic users among the First Men who arrived on Westerosi shores as they warred with the Children, and nothing supporting the departure of an ice-magic using splinter group. It seems more likely that the Others were a prehistoric, preexisting force on the continent of Westeros whose power rises and falls with the 'tide' of magic in the world.

Another poster and I have been cataloging citations of the Red Priests and R'hllor for different, non crackpot purposes, and it put some questions about the Others into a different relief for me. We have a lot more info on R'hllor and fire magic than we do for the Others, but it strikes me that there are so many fundamental similarities between these two magics (both philosophically and in terms of how the magic manifests), that I began to rethink some assumptions about the Others based on things we know of fire.

It's clear that fire magic is channeled by humans; it seems to manifest via humans tapping into the magic cycles you speak of, and the more it is tapped into, the more powerful it becomes. Given how strikingly similar the theology and eschatology of the Reds are to the small bits we get from the Long Night and ice magic, I don't think it's a huge stretch to entertain the possibility that ice magic could have similar origins to fire magic in terms of the human use of blood magic, and by extension, has an entirely human basis as well.

The sort of human degeneration through the use of magic is something I believe we may have seen with regard to Mel and Moqorro. Moqorro's descriptions almost suggest that he's been entirely consumed by magic-- the black of his skin suggests charring sort of like what he did with Vic's arm; it's noted curiously, almost as though it doesn't seem natural. We know Mel maintains her appearance with a glamor, but also have the suggestion that she's much older than she seems, and has likely used fire magic for this purpose. We know from her inner monologue that this has cost her dearly. I think the issue of Stannis is also something to look at-- draining his energy for shadow babies was turning him into something that appeared less human.

We know that the FM did use blood sacrifice from Bran's vision of the woman with a bronze sickle. I know that popular opinion is that this is how the FM began waking the weirwoods, but I find it passing odd that if this were the case, that Bran would be seeing what happens before the man's blood hits the ground. If the sacrifice is when the tree "woke," why does he see the ceremony that took place before the sacrifice actually happened? I don't believe that this shows us much about CotF magic or weirwoods, but something else. I think that CotF magic is separate from blood sacrifice; it seems that blood is how "magic" is channeled by humans. We know that blood is part of what creates the Others as well. Craster has been sacrificing his sons to them, ostensibly making them stronger. I really think the presence of blood sacrifice implies the sort of magic that becomes a hiltless sword (i.e. human generated).

I think that there's a possibility that the Others and dragons are not precisely what's being opposed here. I think there may instead be a complementary relationship between the Others and the Red Priests/ sorcerers. The Reds are humans who channel fire magic; their weapons are dragons and fire. The Others are humanoids and channel ice magic; their weapons are wight thrall armies and cold mist. Given that we know fire magic has a human basis, I'm not sure that it makes sense to assume ice magic doesn't, especially because both fire and ice seem opposed to or at least different from CotF magic in the same ways.

There's nothing to suggest that the Others are some ancient, pre-existing Westerosi race, just as there is no evidence that they are humans corrupted by magic. However, we have 3 examples of FM blood sacrifice, two of which are directly connected to the Others: Craster and the NK. We also have Bran's vision. I think it may make more sense if the Others are in fact former humans in light of what seems to be the nature of blood magic and the corruption that occurs when blood magic is used (and the sort of unbounded danger these sorts of magic produce).

It doesn't come off as the action of a faction that has access to its own, different kind of magic. A powerful, confident Bolton faction would certainly flay enemies as a type of propaganda, a demonstration of their superiority over the Starks and their contempt for their rivals. Attempting to mimic what your bitter enemies possess if you have your own source of power doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

The Others are also skin changers-- they seem to wear the skins of the corpses. If the Boltons were connected to the Others, wearing dead people's skins would, in fact, be a propagandistic demonstration of their own abilities. I came to the conclusion that this might be a form of mockery or envy while I was reading; in light of thinking through their possible connection to the Others, however, I could see this practice as being less about imitation and mockery, but rather an assertion of their own powers.