I have been playing chess for quite awhile but knowledge wise I still consider myself rather new to it all.  I have played most often as black the French opening of which I know the advance and a little of the Winawer variations more from practical experience than actual study.  In hopes to broaden my perspective I have been looking at the Rubinstein variation which my book warns me is dangerous for less than professionals with weak defensive skills.  I also looked at the Tarrasch variation but to my question.  Should I use the Rubinstein as a method to avoid the large volume of theory in the Tarrasch and try to adapt to its play or is it indeed a bad idea as the book would suggest?

The Rubinstein Variation:

minus any other transpositions I might say

By using rubinstein you avoid a lot of studying and theory in general. In return you get positions that are not great (but not really bad either) and require a lot of work in the middle game. Also you get to miss out on some very interesting and instructional play (eg isolated pawns) that occur in mainstream lines.

If you want to play Rubinstein for a wee while and get a feel for the play in that system thats great, but dont give up on the other systems. It is the search for better play that will make you a better player.

my 2c

antonisf is right on.  The Rubenstein is absolutely sound, but the positions with opposite side castling require careful treatment.  In my opinion, they are actually easier to defend than many other lines in the french (e.g. the Nf6 Tarrasch and a majority of lines in the Winawer), but black pays the price in terms of winning chances.  How much do these theoretical considerations matter at the amateur level?  For whatever it's worth, I choose the Rubenstein in most OTB games.

Again, antonisf is right.  Play the Rubinstein for a while but don't limit yourself by avoiding taking on the Tarrasch forever.  I used to play the Rubinstein to avoid the Tarrasch but a master suggested I should broaden my horizons and learn the Tarrasch lines.  Indeed the Rubinstein gives few winning chances and requires high levels of defensive abililty.  I got tired of that and now I play 3...Nf6 against the Tarrasch.  

What book gave that advice about the Rubinstein, Feller?

If the Rubinstein is so defensive, I must be playing against it wrongly as white... What set up should I be going for?

I hate to help a white player like this, but the "light square" system scores highly.  The key moves are Bd3 and Qe2.

The lines 4...Nd7 5 Bd3 Ngf6 6 Qe2

and 4...Nd7 5 Nf3 Ngf6 6 Bd3 Be7 7 Qe2 score well for white.

It is Chess Opening Essentials the complete 1e4.  It simply says, "it is rare at lower levels, where defensive technique is not as refined."

This isn't one of the fun French lines, Black usually ends up struggling for counterplay, but with tenacious defense he can hang on.  White has most of the play and all of the fun, even when he can't win.

Playing it to avoid the Tarrasch seems misguided.  Black gets decent play against the Tarrasch with either ...Nf6 (my favorite) or ...c5.  Why accept a more difficult defense to avoid that?

Cos as white I have no idea how to show any advantage against it... Black just seems to trade a few minors off and I'm unsure whether to let him or relocated, or even know where I should be attacking...

Having played the French for over 20 years, I have to agree with Estragon. It just didn't look like a fun line. (As much fun as you can have in the French, that is.)

I tended to prefer the activity you got from 3...Nf6.

Thanks for the advice.  Along with what Rainbow said where should white focus his attack after this opening lines?

ah! a little bit of a ruy lopez opening called exchange! i like your opening, but i dont like the logic.