This is not a perfect quote of the original author. Multiple sections have been chopped and/or rewritten, and highlights or emphasis have been added.
Some books are disappointing in that they have great settings/ideas but fail to stick the landing from a thematic/plotting perspective.
When you seek out similar opinions (especially on Reddit), very often comments are made up of some variation of:
- “The book isn’t for everyone, I just loved the vibe of the book”
- “I guess it just wasn’t for you. This book wasn’t really supposed to be about [plot/theme], it was more about the FEEL of the book.
This is what I am calling “the Vibes Defence”.
==The Vibes Defence is the definition of a “conversation stopper.” It completely grinds legitimate critical discussion to a halt in the tracks by saying “actually it is YOUR fault for expecting this book to be something that it was never trying to be.” The Vibes Defence completely ignores the possibility that the author either failed to do something, or that they ignored parts of the writing process[^*]==.
*(which are valid and human things to do as nobody is a perfect writer, but does not make anybody exempt from literary criticism)
Instead, it shields the author from criticism by absolving them of the expectation to write a holistically good book. “Oh, you invented a great setting but your plot is meandering and cliched? No problem, we’ll just say the book wasn’t about the plot, it was about the vibes.”
Rather than furthering the conversation, the Vibes Defence creates a false dichotomy; either you got what the author was trying to do (and your thoughts are valid), or you didn't (and therefore your criticisms are illegitimate).
Moreover, the Vibes Defence also ignores the possibility that a book can have great vibes/setting AND have a great plot or examination of themes.
Lord of the Rings is one of the most vibey-books of all time and tells an epic adventure story. Harry Potter, for all its faults, absolutely nails the cozy vibe without needlessly indulging in it. Remains of the Day is basically a story about a guy driving to a town and having a conversation, and yet you are on the edge of your seat while it happens.
The most annoying thing is that the vibes defence completely misses the point of trying to engage in critical discussions of these books in the first place.
More often than not, the whole reason that people are saying they are disappointed (as opposed to ‘vindicated’ or ‘outraged’) is that they loved the setting and vibes too. The problem isn't that they misunderstood the vibe, but rather that they were ultimately let down by the book's failure to effectively use that setting and vibe in an interesting or effective manner.
Ultimately, the point of engaging in criticism is not to say “this book is good” and “this book is bad.” This is the false assumption that fuels the “vibes defence”: people liked a book, and when they see someone who didn’t, they think they have to leap to the author’s defence to justify their own point of view. ==The point of literary criticism, however, is to figure what worked in a book, and what didn’t, and to figure out why that matters. The Vibes Defence stops that conversation from taking place, and in so doing, prevents books from becoming better than they are.==
So please, if you find yourself in the future typing “I just liked the vibe of the book”, ask yourself if that comment is ADDING to the conversation, or trying to shut it down.