He’s not wrong, on one level.
This is not good writing.
But
a) I’m not sure it’s actually VILE, vile is a bit of a leap. Unless vile didn’t mean anything disgusting or hateful back in the day but something like cliché or corny.
b) He seems to be objecting to “beautified” which is not a phrase, but a word, unless by phrase he means word. Or his objecting to the whole phrase – polluted by “beautified.”
But all that aside, it’s just not good form to do literary analysis on people’s loves notes – especially in front of their mothers.
It’s not so much that it’s vile but beautified seems to imply something entirely different from either Beautiful or Beatified. Beautified has the quality of beauty being done to you. Like – the classic make-over show- a plain, unhappy, shlubby girl is kidnapped by the Beauty Team and they take over, ignore her will and transform her, they beautify her, she’s the new woman! Beautified! And as much as I have fantasized about this sort of kidnapping (Won’t someone please just tell me what to wear! Could someone else please take responsibility for this hair?) I feel in this moment that this kind of beautification has nothing to do with the person it gets done to. She is the canvas and the beauty is the paint. Once she is beautified, people just look at the painting.
The Hamlet Project 