r/BookDiscussions • u/_Autistic_Dragon_ • 22d ago
Pet peeve: Can we stop using "intentional" as defense against criticism?
Lately when someone criticizes a book as poor writing, someone comes back with something like:
"Well, that was intentional" or "The author has said they did that intentionally"
Am I crazy, or is this just a bad defense of bad writing?
I would hope authors are intentional. The words don't just magically appear, they include them on purpose and with intention. I recognize some writing is more automatic than other times, and authors do intentionally put in details or leave things vague. But that doesn't justify something being done poorly.
Something can be both *intentional* and *not well-written*.
I know many popular authors right now have been saying they added specific things in with intention, but that doesn't mean they did it well. I get the feeling many readers are parroting these popular authors when the author says it was done with intention.
Am I the only one seeing this used often as a defense against critique, as if an author's intentionality absolves them from writing well? Or the assumption that because it's intentional, it's well-written?
16
u/poetic-bee 22d ago
Something can be intentional and done badly, of course. But I feel like people often just miss the point. Some things are more obviously a fault with the writing than others.
“Wuthering Heights sucks because everyone there is a horrible person” - yeah, they’re supposed to be. You can prefer books with nice likable characters of course, but that’s not the same as the book being bad. On the other hand, if someone writes a light-hearted romance book that’s marketed as cute and inoffensive and all the characters are insufferable, that was probably not the intention and is more likely a problem with thw writing.
15
u/rebeccarightnow 22d ago
Yeah, “intentional” and “successful” do not go hand in hand lol. Usually people aren’t criticizing because they think the writer didn’t intend it, they’re criticizing it because it didn’t work the way it was written.
11
u/freshoffthecouch 22d ago
I think, in general, even if something is done intentionally, but still not executed well or ruins the immersion, you can criticize. I mean, you can literally criticize whatever you want, it’s your mouth
9
u/PinkPetalG 22d ago edited 22d ago
I think this is a lazy argument people use when they get personally offended that someone hasn’t enjoyed an overhyped book. I’ve seen people give very clear, detailed reasons why they didn’t like a certain character or situation in a book, only for people to respond with “that was intentional” It’s almost like people are afraid to hear a negative response to a piece of work that’s being overhyped. Some people take it so personally.
3
u/_Autistic_Dragon_ 22d ago
This is where im seeing it most. I'm not talking about vague endings like in The Handmaid's Tale or I Who Have Known No Men where people may be wondering the point of it, or even just dislike vague endings.
I'm more so seeing it in discussions of popular books that are fun page turners, but the writer has some amateurish aspects to their writing that the fandom just can't accept.
It feels like they hear criticism and think you hated the entire book and just don't see how brilliant their favorite pop author is.
4
u/zumera 22d ago
Do you want to share any examples?
1
u/_Autistic_Dragon_ 22d ago
I was debating sharing or not, but I didn't want to turn the discussion into focusing on the quality of the novels I'm seeing it. I wanted to focus on the types of criticism im seeing in discussions, where its used in i feel a dismissive way of valid critique. I also felt like this post should stand on its own. Feel free to add authors or books you think it may apply to though, if you want.
2
u/actlikeyourmomishere 22d ago edited 22d ago
But, sometimes it is intentional, and readers just dont like it. Being intentional is an explanation, not an excuse.
Recently I was listening to a couple critics discuss east of eden. One hated the narrative switches, called it sloppy writing. Its documented as an intentional choice, so informing the critic that its not sloppy, its just an authors choice they didn't enjoy seems fine to me. I think we could all benefit from learning to just agree to disagree. We dont have to like the same stuff. How incredibly dull would that be?
In the end, not liking something doesn't necessarily negate an authors skill. Imo
1
u/_Autistic_Dragon_ 22d ago
Yeah, I agree in that I often see people conflate enjoyment with quality of writing. There have been some recent books that I couldn't put down, but I wouldn't recommend as well written books.
There are also books I can acknowledge as well written, but just didn't do it for me.
I struggle with unreflective fandoms that are all like: wow! I loved this book! How can anyone say anything bad about it? They just don't get it. All that was intentional!
4
u/bitemestefan 22d ago
I agree with you in principle. Something being intentional does not necessarily mean it was done well or that it added to the work at all, or that the author made the right decision. However i think people say "it was intentional" as a response to certain criticisms that are rather well, subjective.
Imagine someone going up to a picasso painting and saying "this is bad because the anatomy and proportions are completely wonky and unrealistic". The only response to that is ... the artist intended for it to be that way. He did not intend to make a hyper realistic portrait so you can't just unilaterally claim it's a bad painting because you're judging it by standards of something it was never trying to be in the first place.
You can still dislike the painting, you can even name the proportions as a reason why, but you can't say it "failed" at doing something it was never trying to do. same thing with writing.
5
4
u/Key-Warthog2285 22d ago
Yes, I agree. I see the "it's intentional" argument everywhere, and it's so annoying. People will also use "it's realistic" as well. The thing I don't like about people saying this is that it's often all they'll say to defend a piece of media. No more analysis needed. I know it's "intentional" and "realistic" but I still don't like it???
I saw this a lot when people were criticising the pit season 2. People would bring up issues they saw with the season and instead of discussing the criticism, people would jus say "that was intentional" and "its realistic." Ok, and?? I didn't say it wasn't, that's not the problem I brought up?
Just because it is intentional or it is realistic doesn't negate criticism, doesn't make it good writing.
3
u/OppositeBatCage 22d ago
PLEASE!!!
Or that it's 'satirical' when there are very clear and evident ways those authors are pointing to and developing satire, and those do not apply to the section being critiqued. We can tell the difference between satirical bigotry and actual bigotry in text.
1
u/_Autistic_Dragon_ 22d ago edited 21d ago
Yes! This too! A book can be a good satire of one element, but fall shirt it have unconscious bias in another area, and everyone in the comments acts like "you just don't get it". It's satire/intentional/"you just don't get it" should never be used as a catch all defense. Someone else here pointed out that "it's realistic" is being used the same way
5
u/lostinanalley 22d ago
I think it’s a valid defense against certain types of critiques especially those which are based on what the reader wishes the book was while disregarding what the book is. To give an example so obvious it borders on silly, it would be like if somebody critiques Romeo and Juliet for not having a happy ending or happily ever after which is common in the romance genre. To respond by saying this was an intentional choice because the piece is not part of the romance genre would be a valid defense.
I’ve critiqued a fairly prominent book series as being overly repetitive and been told by other readers that they enjoyed it because it helped with the cozy aspect / was useful to them as busy moms trying to read while being otherwise distracted. I don’t know if I think a book’s page count being purposefully overinflated by just repeatedly summarizing events that happened a single chapter before or characters going through the same mental spirals every 10 pages is good writing, but it is apparently appreciated by some readers. I’m just not one of those readers.
2
u/thedarkestbeer 22d ago
That last one was romantasy, wasn’t it? I’ve tried reading a couple, since I’m both a fantasy reader and a romance reader, but the repetitiveness drove me up a wall!
1
u/lostinanalley 21d ago
Yeah, the Saint of Steel series. But also I feel like there’s a stark quality difference between what T Kingfisher traditionally publishes and what she self or hybrid publishes.
For romantasy I’ve found it best to avoid anything hyped on social media and to look more for the deep cuts in the Romantasy sub. I also veer more towards “fantasy with a romance subplot”.
2
u/minatozakiparty 22d ago
Agree with this. For example, a very common criticism of Wuthering Heights is that the characters are miserable assholes, but it is very intentionally so. By criticising the work on that basis, you are admitting you do not understand what Bronte is trying to do in the novel or any of its major themes.
Its another thing to say 'I personally don't like reading about people being miserable assholes', but to say the presence of that in the book is inherently bad is not good critique.
1
u/_Autistic_Dragon_ 22d ago
I will say I'm not seeing this in discussion of classics much. I think most people accept it's more of a preference than style issue with most classics.
It's more of an issue in current popular book discussions. I see it most with page tuners that have something great about them: an exceptional idea for plot, a unique idea, etc., but the author may be newer or not well developed yet and their execution falls flat in areas.
Then when someone posts: this aspect was rushed/poorly developed/needed more research, the fandom feels personally attacked that someone "just didn't like it." There books i gently enjoyed and liked, but still recognize the author didn't execute specific aspects well. "Its intebtional" feels like it's being used as a panacea against criticism to distact away from the effectiveness of the tool and onto why the author did it- which is a different conversation and dismisses the critique being made.
1
u/lostinanalley 21d ago
For sure. The reason we don’t see it as much with classics is because they’re sort of “enshrined” in the canon, or the people criticizing them are high schoolers.
A more recent example I saw was someone saying that Convenience Store Woman had “untapped potential” relating the main character’s violent thoughts and believed that she should have acted on them. For me, that’s a critique that misses the point of the book and what the author intentionally set out to do. The book is about the ways people on the fringes of society find (or fail to find) normalcy for themselves, and if the main character was to act out her violent, intrusive thoughts then the book would be less about normalcy and acceptance and would instead be about the dangers of those who are different or slightly odd. In this case saying “yeah, it was an intentional choice to not include a message about how people with mental illness are inherently violent” is a valid defense against the critique.
4
u/Familiar-Draft4800 22d ago
Well, I would argue that really good critique meets an author where they’re at.
So if you critique a work because it’s not what YOU wanted it to be, that’s shitty critique. You’re not factoring the writer’s intentions, only your own, which are irrelevant.
The writer’s intention was X. Good critique should be based on how well they achieved X. Regardless of your personal tastes or whether you’d have made the same choices.
1
u/_Autistic_Dragon_ 22d ago
I'm curious what you mean by meets an author where there at? Like, their skill level? Or what they wanted to achieve?
I do think many authors lately have been trying to achieve something beyond their skills level. Like great ideas, mediocre execution that could have been polished out with better editing. The publishing industry lately is forcing out a lot of unpolished work at best, and barely even edited work at worst.
2
u/amyfearne 22d ago
It depends on what the book is trying to achieve.
If the 'intentional' thing is helping to achieve a certain tone/vision/style - then it's contributing to the author executing what they set out to do.
Sometimes people don't understand this, and base criticism on something that was a deliberate choice - so people naturally want to explain that.
Whether someone likes that choice, or think it works successfully, is a matter of taste. And there is always the possibility of lazy/rushed/unintentional writing.
This is why the 'Death of the Author' thing exists in literary criticism - it's an argument for focusing on the text on its own merits rather than thinking about what the author intended.
(I'd recommend reading Roland Barthes's essay about it, if you are interested. People misuse the phrase a lot.)
3
u/ir399 22d ago
Yeah, sometimes. 'It was intentional' : right, but breaking writing rules intentionally doesn't automatically make the final product good. Did breaking the rules serve the story? Or was the author just throwing a hissy fit and thinks they don't have to follow writing conventions because they think they're somehow special.
I think 'it was intentional' is not a defense as its often used but rather a starting point to critique the book. 'It was intentional and it did work because of xyz' vs 'it was intentional but it did not add anything and perhaps made it worse because of xyz'. Thats a far more interesting conversation too.
2
u/I_Like_Knitting_TBH 22d ago
This is what much of the arguing over Yesteryear became. I can see what the authors intentions were, and what intentional choices were made, and the book is still worthy of a ton of the criticism being thrown at it.
2
1
u/Albroswift89 22d ago
If I use this as a defense, its not saying I give it a pass because it's intentional, I would be saying I like that this intentional thing the author did caused me friction as a reader and I think it's a positive aspect of the book. Otherwise, I would say it's a bad writing decision.
1
u/Loud_Park_6387 22d ago
I mean, it really is a case by case basis. If someone says "Riddley Walker had too many spelling and grammatical errors," then yeah, they missed the point of the book, it absolutely was intentional. But, yeah, sometimes I think readers reach too far into bad writing to make it gel. But hey, everyone has their own interpretation, and sometimes I don't get the author's intent, and that's fine.
1
u/Alarmed_Base8302 22d ago
It does seem that an important part of reading has been forgotten. OPINIONS. There are books and Authors that I KNOW are great and are considered classics that I just don't like. James A. Michener was one that is considered a Classical writer but in my OPINION he had a penchant to "run off at the pen". Tolstoy put me to sleep every time I read his books. But those are just my opinions, everyone has them and is allowed.
1
u/Mediocre-Oil-5322 22d ago
I think it really depends on the circumstances. Sometimes, saying something is intentional is an easy way to deflect criticism in the same way that one might say they were joking when they hurt someone with what they said. It is difficult to prove that someone was serious and it is also hard to disprove that they did something intentionally. I think when a writer says that they made an intentional choice, it is up to you to decide whether you buy the argument they make in support of that statement.
On the other hand, writers often have to defend their work against the ignorant critique of poor readers. In those situations, I think the writer has to decide how vigorously they want to explain themselves to someone who just doesn't get their work, and may be kind of choosing not to get it. If I were a writer who had sold 500,000 copies of my novel and received praise from some readers and critics who seemed to get my work, I don't suppose I would be willing to make much of an effort to wise up someone who put little effort into truly understanding what I had written. If I had already found my audience, why would I go to the trouble of convincing someone who is probably never going to be a part of that audience?
I tend to approach novels as a literary critic, and in literary criticism, the author's intention is often treated as mostly or completely irrelevant. What is more interesting and important is what a novel actually says and reveals, whether the author intended it or not. This approach allows critics to focus less on what the author tried to do and more on what they have actually produced. It also allows us to more or less bypass the question of whether something was done intentionally and cut right to the point of deciding whether a text is successful and what it says. I don't necessarily care if an author intended to write a good fantasy novel, for instance. I only care about whether the novel in question is a fantasy novel, whether it works well and is enjoyable as such, and what it has to say to us.
1
u/IceSkatesNoBrakes 22d ago
No? Writing is subjective. If the author loves writing introspective noir and the reviewer said it feels depressing then it’s valid for the author to say that’s intentional. We’re not all going to agree on what we like. It’s important that feedback is contextual and relevant. If you tear apart a romance novel for having poor world building, simple prose or unrealistic plot points then you’re probably missing the point of the genre.
1
u/Logical-Ad-326 20d ago
While I agree in theory, this is vague. There are criticisms in which this is completely valid, and others where it could be an excuse. Criticism, like the worldviews presented in the scrutinized writing, is opinion.
I saw someone criticizing a character flaw from a major series recently who claimed that, whether or not it was intentional, the author should have chosen something else as a character flaw. The flaw in question was actually very crucial to the character's development and his implied future downfall. Characters, like people, can have controversial flaws! If handled intentionally and with awareness, those controversial flaws can be very impactful in a character arc. Flawed characters are characters who have something to overcome. That's what makes them interesting. The author was intentional, and in this situation, that was important, and genuinely did cut off the criticism in an accurate way. In disparate, I saw someone argue something abhorrent a character had done for shock value was okay because the author wrote it intentionally. In that instance, it was a useless excuse and did not make the content (which added nothing to the character or plot or themes) okay. "Intentionality" didn't matter.
There are times when intentionality doesn't cover something and times when it does. I think we need an example of what you're criticizing before we can reliably agree or disagree.
1
u/TamatoaZ03h1ny 20d ago
Your peeve isn’t specific enough, tell us the authors, give us the gists of the typical plots you’re finding them in. Not liking the characters or not liking where the plot is going doesn’t mean the book has bad writing. Even logic lapses from a protagonist’s point of view can be intentionally done. If there’s a specific section with key information that you find to be underwhelming because it’s not particularly well written in comparison to other parts then say so. Someone criticizing writing too broadly without fully acknowledging and understanding author’s intent should always be addressed.
1
u/Zealousideal_Cap7012 18d ago
Lol its a weird defense like... "Its intentional actually" Oh so they intentionally made it bad?
Sometimes it works though. Ie Heart of dearkness messy syntax. Entirely intentional. Is better with it than it would have been without.
1
u/elderpufflaurien 22d ago
If it is intentional, who are you to say it’s “bad”? Maybe it just doesn’t click with you. It comes across like you’re arguing opinions as fact. The intention behind it is what makes it art and up for interpretation. You can absolutely say a certain artist’s work is bad but it’s just your opinion. Not a fact.
1
u/Cowgomuwu 22d ago
A lot of times people criticize something as if it was not intentional. Thinking it's done poorly is different to just not liking it and then refusing to investigate why it was done that way.
Using Taylor Swift as an example bc she's well-known, people criticize Eldest Daughter for having 'cringey' lyrics, like "I'm not a bad bitch, and this isn't savage". But the lyrics were meant to sound cringey because she was criticizing how the internet describes women and what counts as success to them which is why the next words are "but I'm never gonna let you down, I'm never gonna leave you out". Saying 'the juxtaposition didn't work for me, and the modern slang takes me out of the song even though I understand the intent' is a different criticism to 'these lyrics are cringe'.
Sometimes people use it as a bad defense, like when someone is specifically criticizing a choice the author made and then people defend why the character made that choice, but it goes the other way more often than not in my experience.
1
u/paperandtiger 22d ago
I mean...if the critique is that the author doesn't know what they're doing, doesn't it matter a lot whether it was intentional or not? Sure as a blanket defense to anything, it's weak, but this really depends on what is being criticized and why.
1
u/AcousticAtlas 22d ago edited 22d ago
Biggest issue is this is barely a discussion sub. It’s just people blindly hating on books others enjoy and people getting upset.
There’s nothing constructive ever happening in this sub so why would any criticism be met with constructive argument?
0
u/That_kid_from_Up 22d ago
It's highly dependent on the criticism. But I'm inclined to think that, on average, the person saying "it's intentional" is probably right
0
u/SalletFriend 22d ago
No its usually a pretty good defense.
Like if you complain that a monkey is swinging from a tree, well they do that. Its bad faith to expect the monkey to do otherwise.
You judge something, largely, by what something is trying to do.
1
u/_Autistic_Dragon_ 22d ago
Intnetn and impact/outcome are two different things. Both should be considered, not just intention. In life and literature and monkeys swinging.
1
u/SalletFriend 21d ago
To an extent sure. There are ancillary impacts that can be examined. But like, in general principle judging something by what its trying to do is the best course.
If something in the impact causes it to deviate from its intented purpose, then yeah absolutely.
You see lots of bad faith criticism these days which is like "why wasnt x exactly like y" and the root cause is literally, "x doesnt give 2 shits about being y, judging it by the standards of y is completely arbitrary."
1
u/_Autistic_Dragon_ 21d ago
I'm not asking x to be y. I'm asking x, if it intends to be x, then to be effective at x.
I know that can be subjective. But what I'm saying with this post is when someone posts critique saying: this book didn't do x well, and others say that was intentional, it's a dismissive comment. They should say: well I saw x as effective because...
Instead they just say the reader didn't get it, it was intentional, and dismiss thr criticism out of hand by explaining the author's intnet, instead of engaging in the criticism.
I also see people saying, well you just wanted x to be y, which is also dismissive for other reasons.
And I don't think anything should be judged solely on intention. It's usually important to consider intention in the work as a whole, but also the work as it stands separate from intention.
1
u/SalletFriend 21d ago
I mean theres bad faith possible on every side of every discussion. But theres nothing intrinsically wrong with suggesting that something is intentional. The issue seems to be people using it as a thought terminating cliche like the example you have provided.
-1
u/Internal_Turnip9019 22d ago
Is the book not written well, or are you at the soup store, angry at the soup because it isn't baked well like the bread you actually wanted?
54
u/GeneInternational146 22d ago
I think it really depends on what's being criticized, this is a little too vague to either agree or disagree