I came across this video, and the woman in it really reminded my of Ruby. From the wanting to live on the Victorian era to wanting to be a writer.
Ruby Granger #14 Roobee with an E, style stolen from Blakeney, busywork = productivity
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Ruby Granger Threads Wiki
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
I came across this video, and the woman in it really reminded my of Ruby. From the wanting to live on the Victorian era to wanting to be a writer.
Hi! Long lurker here 
This is going to be a long post, but I wanted to take a closer look at her bookshelves... because I have a feeling Ruby is not the passionate, academic muse she tries to sell us.
First, the “classics shelf”, as she claims.
We find a book called “In the Kitchen. Essays on food and Life” that was actually published in 2020. Are we sure, Ruby, that this book belongs near Daphne du Maurier and Huysmans? The same applies to Kurt Vonnegut’s (2005) and Ian McEwan’s (2014). Do you really know what a classic book is?
Then the “contemporary books”:
Now, Ruby, as you are an almost third year English Literature student, you should know that Thomas Hardy’s “Far from the Madding Crowd” (1874) and “The Scarlett Letter” by Nathaniel Hawthorne (1850) are NOT contemporaries… maybe they belong to the upper shelf, with the rest of the 19th century literature. The same applies to, again, Daphne du Maurier’s “Rebecca” (1938) (why she doesn't put books by the same author together is beyond me), sharing space with Neil Gaiman’s “The Ocean…” (2013) and “The Vegetarian” (2007). Oh! And here we can see a Sherwood Anderson's book, bear it in mind.
Let’s continue:
She calls this part “Coffee-table books” … poor “Found in Translation” short-stories collection, isolated, set aside in the leftover shelf. Again, where is the "literary" logic?
Look! AnotherBrontë book nice old beautiful book! Above Hamlet a nice old beautiful book!
Finally we arrive at the “NICE OLD BEAUTIFUL EDITIONS” station. Let’s see. Another decontextualised Brontë, Mary Shelley, random antique (perhaps without literary value) books, another Sherwood Anderson (remember the other? Why has she decided to put this copy here is a mistery).
Poetry books.
Ruby, Hoffmann's "The Nutcracker" is not poetry, darling...
And finally, at the end of this nightmare, the most strange decision: putting the Penguin Little Black Classics books at the bottom corner. The explanation is simple: at this point we all know that Ruby the Matilda, the Lisa Simpson and the Hermione Granger doesn't know what a classic book is.
The conclusion:
this girl, a self-proclaimed bookworm and literature enthusiast, follows no logical pattern when it comes to placing her books. What's more, she commits inaccuracies and demonstrates that she not only doesn't know literature, but doesn't appreciate details. She loves aesthetics, but below the surface there is only mediocrity and vanity, the worst combination.
(sorry in advance, I'm not a native english speaker!)
This is going to be a long post, but I wanted to take a closer look at her bookshelves... because I have a feeling Ruby is not the passionate, academic muse she tries to sell us.
First, the “classics shelf”, as she claims.
We find a book called “In the Kitchen. Essays on food and Life” that was actually published in 2020. Are we sure, Ruby, that this book belongs near Daphne du Maurier and Huysmans? The same applies to Kurt Vonnegut’s (2005) and Ian McEwan’s (2014). Do you really know what a classic book is?
Then the “contemporary books”:
Now, Ruby, as you are an almost third year English Literature student, you should know that Thomas Hardy’s “Far from the Madding Crowd” (1874) and “The Scarlett Letter” by Nathaniel Hawthorne (1850) are NOT contemporaries… maybe they belong to the upper shelf, with the rest of the 19th century literature. The same applies to, again, Daphne du Maurier’s “Rebecca” (1938) (why she doesn't put books by the same author together is beyond me), sharing space with Neil Gaiman’s “The Ocean…” (2013) and “The Vegetarian” (2007). Oh! And here we can see a Sherwood Anderson's book, bear it in mind.
Let’s continue:
She calls this part “Coffee-table books” … poor “Found in Translation” short-stories collection, isolated, set aside in the leftover shelf. Again, where is the "literary" logic?
Look! Another
Finally we arrive at the “NICE OLD BEAUTIFUL EDITIONS” station. Let’s see. Another decontextualised Brontë, Mary Shelley, random antique (perhaps without literary value) books, another Sherwood Anderson (remember the other? Why has she decided to put this copy here is a mistery).
Poetry books.
Ruby, Hoffmann's "The Nutcracker" is not poetry, darling...
And finally, at the end of this nightmare, the most strange decision: putting the Penguin Little Black Classics books at the bottom corner. The explanation is simple: at this point we all know that Ruby the Matilda, the Lisa Simpson and the Hermione Granger doesn't know what a classic book is.
The conclusion:
this girl, a self-proclaimed bookworm and literature enthusiast, follows no logical pattern when it comes to placing her books. What's more, she commits inaccuracies and demonstrates that she not only doesn't know literature, but doesn't appreciate details. She loves aesthetics, but below the surface there is only mediocrity and vanity, the worst combination.
(sorry in advance, I'm not a native english speaker!)
Attachments
I'm so jealous of that Found in Translation collection, it looks gorgeous and she probably has never opened it smhHi! Long lurker here
This is going to be a long post, but I wanted to take a closer look at her bookshelves... because I have a feeling Ruby is not the passionate, academic muse she tries to sell us.
First, the “classics shelf”, as she claims.
View attachment 703452
We find a book called “In the Kitchen. Essays on food and Life” that was actually published in 2020. Are we sure, Ruby, that this book belongs near Daphne du Maurier and Huysmans? The same applies to Kurt Vonnegut’s (2005) and Ian McEwan’s (2014). Do you really know what a classic book is?
Then the “contemporary books”:
View attachment 703453
Now, Ruby, as you are an almost third year English Literature student, you should know that Thomas Hardy’s “Far from the Madding Crowd” (1874) and “The Scarlett Letter” by Nathaniel Hawthorne (1850) are NOT contemporaries… maybe they belong to the upper shelf, with the rest of the 19th century literature. The same applies to, again, Daphne du Maurier’s “Rebecca” (1938) (why she doesn't put books by the same author together is beyond me), sharing space with Neil Gaiman’s “The Ocean…” (2013) and “The Vegetarian” (2007). Oh! And here we can see a Sherwood Anderson's book, bear it in mind.
Let’s continue:
View attachment 703461
She calls this part “Coffee-table books” … poor “Found in Translation” short-stories collection, isolated, set aside in the leftover shelf. Again, where is the "literary" logic?
View attachment 703464
Look! AnotherBrontë booknice old beautiful book! AboveHamleta nice old beautiful book!
View attachment 703470
Finally we arrive at the “NICE OLD BEAUTIFUL EDITIONS” station. Let’s see. Another decontextualised Brontë, Mary Shelley, random antique (perhaps without literary value) books, another Sherwood Anderson (remember the other? Why has she decided to put this copy here is a mistery).
View attachment 703473
Poetry books.
Ruby, Hoffmann's "The Nutcracker" is not poetry, darling...
View attachment 703475
And finally, at the end of this nightmare, the most strange decision: putting the Penguin Little Black Classics books at the bottom corner. The explanation is simple: at this point we all know that Ruby the Matilda, the Lisa Simpson and the Hermione Granger doesn't know what a classic book is.
The conclusion:
this girl, a self-proclaimed bookworm and literature enthusiast, follows no logical pattern when it comes to placing her books. What's more, she commits inaccuracies and demonstrates that she not only doesn't know literature, but doesn't appreciate details. She loves aesthetics, but below the surface there is only mediocrity and vanity, the worst combination.
(sorry in advance, I'm not a native english speaker!)
Like most of her bookshelves, her TBR shelf is just filled with books she grabbed at random from her family/the local library to fill space and make it seem like she has more of an interest in reading than she does.
Ruby: "I thought I'd have space left over once I'd put all my books on the shelves, but I think I'll easily fill it today!"
Also Ruby: Has to plunder the family library and steal armfuls of her parents' books to fill up her bookcases."
Ruby's Definition of "Classics": Almost any book.Hi! Long lurker here
This is going to be a long post, but I wanted to take a closer look at her bookshelves... because I have a feeling Ruby is not the passionate, academic muse she tries to sell us.
First, the “classics shelf”, as she claims.
View attachment 703452
We find a book called “In the Kitchen. Essays on food and Life” that was actually published in 2020. Are we sure, Ruby, that this book belongs near Daphne du Maurier and Huysmans? The same applies to Kurt Vonnegut’s (2005) and Ian McEwan’s (2014). Do you really know what a classic book is?
Then the “contemporary books”:
View attachment 703453
Now, Ruby, as you are an almost third year English Literature student, you should know that Thomas Hardy’s “Far from the Madding Crowd” (1874) and “The Scarlett Letter” by Nathaniel Hawthorne (1850) are NOT contemporaries… maybe they belong to the upper shelf, with the rest of the 19th century literature. The same applies to, again, Daphne du Maurier’s “Rebecca” (1938) (why she doesn't put books by the same author together is beyond me), sharing space with Neil Gaiman’s “The Ocean…” (2013) and “The Vegetarian” (2007). Oh! And here we can see a Sherwood Anderson's book, bear it in mind.
Let’s continue:
View attachment 703461
She calls this part “Coffee-table books” … poor “Found in Translation” short-stories collection, isolated, set aside in the leftover shelf. Again, where is the "literary" logic?
View attachment 703464
Look! AnotherBrontë booknice old beautiful book! AboveHamleta nice old beautiful book!
View attachment 703470
Finally we arrive at the “NICE OLD BEAUTIFUL EDITIONS” station. Let’s see. Another decontextualised Brontë, Mary Shelley, random antique (perhaps without literary value) books, another Sherwood Anderson (remember the other? Why has she decided to put this copy here is a mistery).
View attachment 703473
Poetry books.
Ruby, Hoffmann's "The Nutcracker" is not poetry, darling...
View attachment 703475
And finally, at the end of this nightmare, the most strange decision: putting the Penguin Little Black Classics books at the bottom corner. The explanation is simple: at this point we all know that Ruby the Matilda, the Lisa Simpson and the Hermione Granger doesn't know what a classic book is.
The conclusion:
this girl, a self-proclaimed bookworm and literature enthusiast, follows no logical pattern when it comes to placing her books. What's more, she commits inaccuracies and demonstrates that she not only doesn't know literature, but doesn't appreciate details. She loves aesthetics, but below the surface there is only mediocrity and vanity, the worst combination.
(sorry in advance, I'm not a native english speaker!)
Ruby's Definition of "Contemporary": Every other book.
Ruby's Definition of "Classical Music": Any song featuring a piano.
She doesn't know what anything means.
I understand what you are saying but I think it only applies to people like Roobee (those who simply parrot others and seem unable to have ideas and thoughts of their own) I did an Arts Degree with a major in Literary Arts (not in UK) and half-way through I switched to a double-degree pathway (Law) and graduated in both. Because I focused solely on the coursework and followed my natural passion in both of my study paths, I had no time/need for busywork. I was also working 2 paid jobs to support myself for most of my study.
Roobee is a confusing one. I used to think she was using her pursuit of the Arts to write books. Her one book thus far is a massive fail, sloppy even. She isn't using her pursuit of Arts to contribute to society apart from showing pretty book covers, creating shallow 'study inspo' content. Oh, and plugging her useless Planner. As long as she is paying her taxes on the money she brings in, her pursuit of the Arts is a contribution to society.
That last sentence you wrote. Perfect. Roobee in a nutshell.
I've actually read her corset book, quite a few times now. She's very knowledgeable about victorian dress. She's also tit at explaining herself, a massive snob and completely insufferable. The best bit of her book was when she was talking about how she did judo, and let's be honest that's probably more to do with me liking judo than anything else. I would actually rather read Ruby’s books, she's much, much more likeable.
I agree with most of what you say, but the only Kurt Vonnegut I see on the shelf is Slaughterhouse 5, which was published in 1969, not 2005. I'd definitely consider it a classic (one of my all time favourites), and that category has a loose definition anyway. In any case she probably grouped them by colour but wanted to seem more organised than that.
New thread title: Dustcore
Ruby Grange #15 academically guided by greed and dusty kindness
- Status