There's nothing wrong with hating books other people loved and vice versa, or loving a book completely despite major flaws, or disliking a book despite it being technically well written, etc..Theoretically the goodreads rating system should be based on how much you personally enjoyed the book. So it could be that your analysis is different from how much you actually enjoyed reading the book. But in reality it just doesn't work like that.
It's just my opinion, but I wouldn't trust anyone who gives The Five a lukewarm 3* review! It's a masterpiece (and I don't give 5* reviews lightly)!Very off topic but I’m sorry the fact she gave The Five a 3*….I’m the first to defend 3* reviews and not being negative reviews, and I know opinions are subjective, but to do it in the same breath as saying it’s an important “narrative”, Ruby it’s a historical account of the LIVES of the women, anyone who didn’t profess to be a high first class English literature student aiming to go into the publishing industry could get away with conflating that maybe, but if that’s what you’re building your online presence on, and possible future career, you really can’t especially not when it comes to a book as important as The Five - and she even says the research is incredible when that’s literally the entire book, so why the rating Ruby? Sorry needed the rant
It's very blatantly written to be as vague as possible since she has never read the book, but she wanted to jump on the CMBYN popularity bandwagon and sound intelligent, so she shoved in a bunch of misused or invented flowery words. It's meaningless word soup that's so vague and ambiguous it could apply to almost any book. It's a classic "I got called on to do a book report but didn't do the reading" tactic. And she does it a lot.I missed discussion about her review of Call Me By Your Name so just went to read it and…mind blown. How can she be an English student and book lover when her sentences are just random words (questionable in being actual words) put next to one another?She just lies about what she reads, drops random ratings on books because she knows she can't give everything 5 stars without even her fans raising an eyebrow (although I'm sure some would comment "You can tell Ruby's a true bookworm because she loves every book!) and now avoids leaving reviews because it would highlight that she didn't read the book in question (like her infamous Call Me My Your Name review).
Has she even read it? It features such an interesting, innovative concept and she can't even make specific comments about it. That review could have been about literally any book.Yuppp. And the best piece of narrative fiction ever only warrants 4/5 stars.
Why does she feel the need to use all caps for certain words? She does know that you can emphasize your point without telling us that a book was SO good. The BEST book ever. IMPORTANT and WHIMSICAL, or whatever other bs descriptor she wants to use. If she truly had and effective comand of the English language, she would know how to write better. How does she get top marks for her degree? How?Definitely. But she can't offer that because she doesn't actually read books. Almost none of the reviews she's left indicate that she read more than the Wikipedia page, and very few of the reviews tally with the rating given. Like everything with Ruby, it's yet more lies and bizarre inconsistencies.
Here's a random selection of reviews/ratings that don't sync up:
View attachment 726002
View attachment 726005
View attachment 726014
View attachment 726015
All-time classics, her favourite books ever and books that she absolutely loved all get 3-4 stars. Why? Probably because she never reads anything and can't offer actual criticism, but probably realised how suspicious it was getting that she hands out 5 stars to everything, so started downgrading book scores at random.
On that note, Ruby misuses the word "flippant" and acts like she doesn't throw out 5 star reviews as often as she does daily routine videos:
View attachment 726007
Because it always bears repeating that even when Ruby actually "reads" books, she just skips and skims major sections when they don't interest her (y'know, like teenage drama in a drama book about teenagers):
View attachment 726018
View attachment 726020
And my all-time favourite Ruby review on so many levels:
View attachment 726033
She's a fraud, and a complete jelly-brained fuckwit.
I’m with ya on this, I’m autistic too and I just don’t see it. I’m no doctor, but I definitely relate to some her her behaviours due to my anxiety and OCD, I think it’s much more likely she’s experiencing one or both of them, especially with the obvious eating issues.OT but I've been catching up on the previous threads and wanted to add my 2 cents (sorry for bringing this up again lol) - as an autistic girl who has researched the condition extensively and has worked with others on the spectrum, I really doubt Ruby is autistic. Her obsessions (ever-changing aesthetics and literature) are surface-level, and whilst she does appear to have difficulty socially, it doesn't seem like that's due to an inability rather than a self-imposed difficulty due to how she sees herself as 'superior' to others. You can be socially awkward and not autistic lol. Whilst it appears differently in each person, I just don't see it.
Also ngl some of the speculation across the recent threads has been bordering on uncomfortable due to a few ignorant comments so I just wanted to add my bit!
Yes! I hate how every time a public person is a bit shy, quirky or awkward, doesn't have a ton of friends and has unique interests, everyone says "I bet they're autistic!"OT but I've been catching up on the previous threads and wanted to add my 2 cents (sorry for bringing this up again lol) - as an autistic girl who has researched the condition extensively and has worked with others on the spectrum, I really doubt Ruby is autistic. Her obsessions (ever-changing aesthetics and literature) are surface-level, and whilst she does appear to have difficulty socially, it doesn't seem like that's due to an inability rather than a self-imposed difficulty due to how she sees herself as 'superior' to others. You can be socially awkward and not autistic lol. Whilst it appears differently in each person, I just don't see it.
Also ngl some of the speculation across the recent threads has been bordering on uncomfortable due to a few ignorant comments so I just wanted to add my bit!
Didn't Jack Edwards have a similar issue with his planner? I think they're under the same management, does that mean their shops have the same manufacturer?Not sure if these have been posted yet but it seems quite a few people have issues with the planner...
View attachment 726451
View attachment 726452
View attachment 726453
View attachment 726454
View attachment 726456
she's a con artistNot sure if these have been posted yet but it seems quite a few people have issues with the planner...
View attachment 726451
View attachment 726452
View attachment 726453
View attachment 726454
View attachment 726456
View attachment 726462
Now watch Ruby ignore them all/her fans attack them for "bullying" herNot sure if these have been posted yet but it seems quite a few people have issues with the planner...
View attachment 726451
View attachment 726452
View attachment 726453
View attachment 726454
View attachment 726456
View attachment 726462
Yeah, Sixteenth handled everything for both of them and clearly sourced the cheapest manufacturers possible to maximise their own profits. It's why Jack and Ruby's planners are the exact same cheap and shitty ring-bound planner, and why both "stationery companies" have almost zero selection when it comes to stationery.Didn't Jack Edwards have a similar issue with his planner? I think they're under the same management, does that mean their shops have the same manufacturer?
I made the mistake of wondering - how bad could the review really be? I think that 'meaningless word soup' is about the politest thing you could call the reviewIt's very blatantly written to be as vague as possible since she has never read the book, but she wanted to jump on the CMBYN popularity bandwagon and sound intelligent, so she shoved in a bunch of misused or invented flowery words. It's meaningless word soup that's so vague and ambiguous it could apply to almost any book. It's a classic "I got called on to do a book report but didn't do the reading" tactic. And she does it a lot.
Intercept.I made the mistake of wondering - how bad could the review really be? I think that 'meaningless word soup' is about the politest thing you could call the reviewalso 'intercept', holy shit, this girl is an English Literature student but you wouldn't guess it. And I could be wrong but I'm sure she describes a lot of different books with stuff about the past and future intersecting... like yes, Ruby, that is how timelines work. And how can a book be 'etched' with memories?? There's so much to unpack here!!
View attachment 726979
tl;dr - *slaps roof of book review* this bad boy can fit so much absolute bullshit in it
"My yearly planner will now be a super-duper-ultra-most-exclusive limited edition due to the negativity of a select few people in the comments to make sure only the most productive, positive people benefit from it.Now watch Ruby ignore them all/her fans attack them for "bullying" her
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?