There's more literature discussion going on in this thread than there is in her book club
Ruby Granger #15 Dustcore
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Ruby Granger Threads
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
Hahahahaha too true, Ruby is the Grace of the study world - right place, right time, privileged enough to make the most of it but no real skills to speak of
Just realized, in the span of maybe 2 months, Ruby has done 2 fake giveaways (the book one and the planner one).
Her planner has sold out. I believe there was only 1,000 copies, so that's 1,000 people who got scammed out of £16 plus shipping for a cheap piece of Poundland crap.
The hilarious part? There's somehow still 1570 ribbons left in stock. Even people crazy enough to buy the planner weren't stupid enough to buy that crappy ribbon for £1. So from the looks of it, they ordered twice as many ribbons as they did planners, now this crap's going to gather dust a warehouse.
The hilarious part? There's somehow still 1570 ribbons left in stock. Even people crazy enough to buy the planner weren't stupid enough to buy that crappy ribbon for £1. So from the looks of it, they ordered twice as many ribbons as they did planners, now this crap's going to gather dust a warehouse.
I am feeling a bit stupid right now as that is bow ive always pronounced it! I’m also an English grad and my seminar tutor also pronounced it “ca-powt” (rhymes with goat).
So I did check online and the first three videos I came across also pronounced it like this. How is everyone else pronouncing it?
I am amazed that she is so upfront with promoting her book club here, given she basically pretends it doesn’t exist the rest of the time, yet never remembers to tag any small business that she specifically says she WILL tag in her video!
As he's from the US it's pronounced Capohtea or /kəˈpoʊti/ in case you're familiar with IPA. If not then hover over the letters and it *should* show the pronunciation. Here's a (self-described) friend of his introducing Capote on his talk show in 1972 . Other show hosts use the same pronunciation.I am feeling a bit stupid right now as that is bow ive always pronounced it! I’m also an English grad and my seminar tutor also pronounced it “ca-powt” (rhymes with goat).
So I did check online and the first three videos I came across also pronounced it like this. How is everyone else pronouncing it?
Another word that blew my mind when I learned the pronunciation of it was "Yosemite".
Maybe it's a British tendency to use the French pronunciation in these circumstances? ie. "-te" is pronounced, "t"? Please correct if I'm wrong as I've never actually studied English pronunciation.
Absolutely agree. But she never goes deeper than 'it is a beautiful edition' or 'look at this lovely cover'. I doubt she even knows the history of this work by DH Lawrence. Definitely too 'adult' for her.
'Tea drinkers' is a bit of a dog whistle in my opinion. Restriction of calories. Fill up on tea.
I'm not really sure I get what you're saying at the end - it's pronounced Yoh-sem-it-ee, not Yoh-semi-ite.
The name Capote is of Cuban origin so it should technically be pronounced Ca-poh-tay (I think) and in any case the Americanised version would be Ca-poh-tee which is also the pronounciation that Wikipedia reports
No but she said she's totally fine! Stop leaving comments on her videos you trolls! Leave Ruby alone!
Long time lurker… but saw this and instantly thought of Roobs.
Attachments
It was brought up when she first made it public! See:
Ruby Granger #13 I’m a lil teapot, a leg is my spout. Triggering content gets called out.
Previous recaps Satisfying Click's recaps Chapters 1-21 Chapter 22 and Chapter 23 Chapter 24 and Chapter 25 Chapter 26 and Chapter 27 Chapter 28 Chapters 29-31 Summary of the Story So Far Chapter 32 - Denouement £6.99 paperback on Amazon, everyone (half the price on Kindle). Don't all rush...
tattle.life
The songs all seemed to be on-brand for ED recovery.
I do wonder, why make it public if she knows that some people from the internet ('bullies') know how to find her Spotify profile - does she want to tell people that she's in recovery, but not address it anywhere else?
The Yosemite comment would have fitted better under my comments about pronunciation. My (southern English) instinct is to pronounce Capote to rhyme with goat (as I'd pronounce the English word "capote"), and Yosemite using the same British pattern. Wrong, I know but it ties in with Saskia69's comment about pronouncing Capote.
Honestly I have no idea. My instinct would be to say that she likes the worried/ supportive comments from fans, but she deletes most comments asking if she's OK.
I would guess she gets a bit of a thrill from it being brought up, validation from those who say she’s ok, and reinforcement of her victimhood when her fans gang up take down the ‘bullies’ who try to suggest that what she’s doing (to both herself and to her young and/or vulnerable fans) is not ok.
I don't normally accuse people of seeking attention with their behaviour but honestly this does make it look a bit like that's what she's doing. She won't address her issues in a straightforward and mature way and won't actively try to fix them but she will leave people breadcrumbs to keep them worrying about her.
At school I had a friend who went through an eating disorder, she would never engage with the topic if we brought up genuine concern, offered her some support, but she would make a performance of binning her sandwiches every day infront of friends, as if to gain attention but then shut us down when we'd offer her our food or offered her concern. She simply would not discuss it but made sure we saw she wasn't eating (at school at least). Ruby's behaviour online reminds me of that, the playlist, the triggering photos, yet never addressing the concerns.
I really hope she does get help because she's clearly in need of support.
I really hope she does get help because she's clearly in need of support.
That's really interesting. A mix of wanting to 'boast' (for want of a better word) about it, but also not wanting to be challenged about it.
...what??? But there's no overt indication that the crimes are committed by indigenous Australians anywhere in this book, the afterword even explains that
the main girl went missing after turning into a lizard on the rock, in a supernatural occurrence.
I hate to defend Ruby but this is unfair - the book is written in an aesthetically pleasing way, the film adaptation is known for being extremely pretty too, and although there may well be an anti-Indigenous subtext, it's definitely not obvious unless you're reading additional commentary on the side. I've read PAHR twice and can't remember any insinuations of the sort, or much focus on aboriginal characters at all.
I'll try to spoiler my novel - sorry, I write a lot; it's just how I communicate (add to that COVID/summer isolation). Feel free to skip my thoughts on literature, academia, and identity if you wish! I left part unhidden by the spoiler, as that part might be less of a digression than the rest.
If Ruby were a cisman, more of her posturing would be tolerated or it would be better masked by certain stereotypical "male genius" characteristics. Eccentric cismen are perceived as geniuses and their quirks forgiven. Eccentric women and those who do not conform to gender stereotypes are perceived as "weird" or mentally ill. Being a high-functioning autistic cisman in academia is no problem. Being a high-functioning autistic woman or NB/trans individual is often not tolerated or shameful. Even in universities, ciswomen are supposed to be organized, diligent, self-sacrificing, caring, nice, pretty, neatly dressed but not flamboyant, and not too authoritative or bossy. There are exceptions, but very few compared to the bizarre or mentally ill cismen that are celebrated without a second thought. And let's not even discuss how many abusers, racists, sexists, Nazis, and fascists are still lauded as great scholars and people.
For this reason, I personally would give Ruby a chance before writing her off as incompetent. But I understand her social media presence for what it is: a typical young adult struggling with building an outward-facing identity and conception of self. Academic MySpace or Deadjournal. It may be cringe or naive at times. Maybe a good analogy is to see this growth as learning to paint? (disclaimer: I'm not good at art, but I'll try this analogy nonetheless) When you put paint on a canvas for the first few times, it might be a disaster: globby, childish, unsophisticated. You might not know how to thin paints, how to mix colors, how to use white and black to create muted or lighter hues, how to blend things together or use perspective. How to create shadow and light. You may not even know the basic methods of brushwork, let alone your signature brushwork (that will come later). You have to play around and see how colors interact with each other. Then you start to understand the environment of the canvas and the tools you are using. And you can improve.
Ruby is learning how to read. How to actually read. She needs to challenge herself or someone else needs to. Scholars are not mushrooms grown in the dark. They need external input. It's better for her if she finds the right tutor/professor early in her career. This person will help her frame ideas better and focus less on "seeming" bookish. In the end, in academia, everyone is either bookish or good at faking it (unless they have amazing talent for teaching/administration). Liking to read and having a lot of books - these traits are not enough. But regardless, reading is the path to something else, maybe something she wants to be. I guess we'll find out eventually. I'd like personally to see her enjoy writing more, and to see her write more elegantly. There are methods for developing oneself as a writer, but you have to want to improve.
She could be good at encouraging young children to read and developing interactive history lessons for certain books. Maybe that's a volunteer thing for her to explore, and maybe she'd like to do a degree in education. That's not my passion but it strikes me that she could make her regression /obsession with childhood pay off if she marketed to homeschooling parents or literature clubs for young kids.
I've posted a bit in previous threads about Ruby and her interest in literature, and my thoughts are somewhat scattered, so I won't quote individuals at this time. For reference, though, I'm an advanced PhD candidate in a related field. This isn't said as a boast (a couple of the smartest people I know either dropped out of college or barely made it through their programs), but as background/reference. My path to the end of my degree has been significantly delayed for a few reasons, but the biggest is that I had invaluable job opportunities in my field before finishing, and the payoff of those paid experiences (including research/published output) was too good to turn down. One could say I've been employed as a postdoc without the doctorate. It's not something that makes me proud; I really need to be done with my dissertation to get a more permanent position in my field, and I see the mental toll this has taken on me & those around me. I have also struggled a lot (mostly secretly, aside from what could not be hidden as a child) with some other issues. I don't really want to discuss me, so I'm being deliberately vague here.
All this preamble is to say that I do see a bit of my younger self in Ruby, and I hope that she can learn a few things quickly - these have to do with self and identity. The romanticization of studying literature is something that is fundamentally rooted in history. Some of the great scholars of the past were true superstars, and some - sadly - were partially charlatans, borne up by money, privilege, and their white maleness (no inherent offense to white men meant - it's just a fact that educated women and educated PoC were largely exceptions in European history). But the romanticization and appearance of being "learned" was partially performative for a certain group of people. The performative aspect of being "learned" as it relates to modern social media is interesting. Someone could probably write a nice dissertation or monograph exploring the ways in which elite philisophical "schools" (often not institutional but conceptual or "underground") and literature groups interacted throughout history (including ancient schools of thought through more modern groups like the Vienna Circle and Oulipo). These interactions could be compared to how "elites" and experts situate themselves in postmodern contemporary society. How is belonging established? How does one gain a reputation as "learned"?
I can say from my position as perhaps "waiter/janitor to the learned" (this is what students are, and often junior scholars too) that the standards seem impossibly high these days. There are times I read an article and marvel at how intelligent it is. The people I have met seem like celebrities at times. But everyone is, underneath it all, human. The gossip is the same. The petty grievances are the same. Universities have tolerated sexism and racism and harassment/assault/emotional abuse as "quirks" or "eccentricities" for far too long. No amount of intelligence or expertise can make up for damaging (emotionally or physically) another person, no matter the age, gender identity, or perceived intelligence of the victim.
But performance of intelligence is still done at all levels. The "secret genius" of films is a great lie. You must put yourself out there and establish a persona that others trust or like, or you will not succeed. In this, Ruby has probably done well for herself. She has created the persona and comes across as responsible even when there is not much content. That's nothing outstanding but also better than withdrawing entirely. Her contact with professors and tutors is creating a delicate web of connections; that web will be there for her if something bad happens, but it can never be completely neglected, nor can it remain delicate.
As a younger student, I wanted to have a lot of books around me and I read many if not all of them. I also wanted them to be a part of my identity, even though I didn't know very much yet (who can, at 18-22?). I see how the formation of identity took place while I was still working out what I was interested in, what questions were important to me, and how I envisioned myself relating to others, past and present. I guess this is to say that Ruby is on this kind of journey, and to expect her to have it all figured out is unrealistic. Literature and history often are "slow-burning" fields: perhaps one may show an early talent for writing or interpretation, but both fields require experience and LOTS of reading for perspective. Ruby's doing that reading now, I hope.
The issue is perhaps how she performs for us. It would be a nice turn to see her put out more content about the issues and topics that interest her - content that asks questions or discusses rather than presenting it as a finished thought (often without sources backing it up). Engaging with contemporary scholarship can only help, because older scholarship is often written in a dogmatic way. There are still dogmatic scholars, but you'll find many more who acknowledge the complexity of the issues and history they discuss, and act humble in light of them. This humility, again, can be expressed easily in the form of questions or musings. It doesn't mean saying, "Oh, I'm so ignorant." It means framing your work as an exploration vs. fact-finding mission or lecture.
All this preamble is to say that I do see a bit of my younger self in Ruby, and I hope that she can learn a few things quickly - these have to do with self and identity. The romanticization of studying literature is something that is fundamentally rooted in history. Some of the great scholars of the past were true superstars, and some - sadly - were partially charlatans, borne up by money, privilege, and their white maleness (no inherent offense to white men meant - it's just a fact that educated women and educated PoC were largely exceptions in European history). But the romanticization and appearance of being "learned" was partially performative for a certain group of people. The performative aspect of being "learned" as it relates to modern social media is interesting. Someone could probably write a nice dissertation or monograph exploring the ways in which elite philisophical "schools" (often not institutional but conceptual or "underground") and literature groups interacted throughout history (including ancient schools of thought through more modern groups like the Vienna Circle and Oulipo). These interactions could be compared to how "elites" and experts situate themselves in postmodern contemporary society. How is belonging established? How does one gain a reputation as "learned"?
I can say from my position as perhaps "waiter/janitor to the learned" (this is what students are, and often junior scholars too) that the standards seem impossibly high these days. There are times I read an article and marvel at how intelligent it is. The people I have met seem like celebrities at times. But everyone is, underneath it all, human. The gossip is the same. The petty grievances are the same. Universities have tolerated sexism and racism and harassment/assault/emotional abuse as "quirks" or "eccentricities" for far too long. No amount of intelligence or expertise can make up for damaging (emotionally or physically) another person, no matter the age, gender identity, or perceived intelligence of the victim.
But performance of intelligence is still done at all levels. The "secret genius" of films is a great lie. You must put yourself out there and establish a persona that others trust or like, or you will not succeed. In this, Ruby has probably done well for herself. She has created the persona and comes across as responsible even when there is not much content. That's nothing outstanding but also better than withdrawing entirely. Her contact with professors and tutors is creating a delicate web of connections; that web will be there for her if something bad happens, but it can never be completely neglected, nor can it remain delicate.
As a younger student, I wanted to have a lot of books around me and I read many if not all of them. I also wanted them to be a part of my identity, even though I didn't know very much yet (who can, at 18-22?). I see how the formation of identity took place while I was still working out what I was interested in, what questions were important to me, and how I envisioned myself relating to others, past and present. I guess this is to say that Ruby is on this kind of journey, and to expect her to have it all figured out is unrealistic. Literature and history often are "slow-burning" fields: perhaps one may show an early talent for writing or interpretation, but both fields require experience and LOTS of reading for perspective. Ruby's doing that reading now, I hope.
The issue is perhaps how she performs for us. It would be a nice turn to see her put out more content about the issues and topics that interest her - content that asks questions or discusses rather than presenting it as a finished thought (often without sources backing it up). Engaging with contemporary scholarship can only help, because older scholarship is often written in a dogmatic way. There are still dogmatic scholars, but you'll find many more who acknowledge the complexity of the issues and history they discuss, and act humble in light of them. This humility, again, can be expressed easily in the form of questions or musings. It doesn't mean saying, "Oh, I'm so ignorant." It means framing your work as an exploration vs. fact-finding mission or lecture.
If Ruby were a cisman, more of her posturing would be tolerated or it would be better masked by certain stereotypical "male genius" characteristics. Eccentric cismen are perceived as geniuses and their quirks forgiven. Eccentric women and those who do not conform to gender stereotypes are perceived as "weird" or mentally ill. Being a high-functioning autistic cisman in academia is no problem. Being a high-functioning autistic woman or NB/trans individual is often not tolerated or shameful. Even in universities, ciswomen are supposed to be organized, diligent, self-sacrificing, caring, nice, pretty, neatly dressed but not flamboyant, and not too authoritative or bossy. There are exceptions, but very few compared to the bizarre or mentally ill cismen that are celebrated without a second thought. And let's not even discuss how many abusers, racists, sexists, Nazis, and fascists are still lauded as great scholars and people.
For this reason, I personally would give Ruby a chance before writing her off as incompetent. But I understand her social media presence for what it is: a typical young adult struggling with building an outward-facing identity and conception of self. Academic MySpace or Deadjournal. It may be cringe or naive at times. Maybe a good analogy is to see this growth as learning to paint? (disclaimer: I'm not good at art, but I'll try this analogy nonetheless) When you put paint on a canvas for the first few times, it might be a disaster: globby, childish, unsophisticated. You might not know how to thin paints, how to mix colors, how to use white and black to create muted or lighter hues, how to blend things together or use perspective. How to create shadow and light. You may not even know the basic methods of brushwork, let alone your signature brushwork (that will come later). You have to play around and see how colors interact with each other. Then you start to understand the environment of the canvas and the tools you are using. And you can improve.
Ruby is learning how to read. How to actually read. She needs to challenge herself or someone else needs to. Scholars are not mushrooms grown in the dark. They need external input. It's better for her if she finds the right tutor/professor early in her career. This person will help her frame ideas better and focus less on "seeming" bookish. In the end, in academia, everyone is either bookish or good at faking it (unless they have amazing talent for teaching/administration). Liking to read and having a lot of books - these traits are not enough. But regardless, reading is the path to something else, maybe something she wants to be. I guess we'll find out eventually. I'd like personally to see her enjoy writing more, and to see her write more elegantly. There are methods for developing oneself as a writer, but you have to want to improve.
She could be good at encouraging young children to read and developing interactive history lessons for certain books. Maybe that's a volunteer thing for her to explore, and maybe she'd like to do a degree in education. That's not my passion but it strikes me that she could make her regression /obsession with childhood pay off if she marketed to homeschooling parents or literature clubs for young kids.
- Status