So, there are degrees of subjective? Aren't you really just saying that this seems more subjective to you because you don't agree with it? Or you don't know, and/or don't agree with, the author's criteria? I still don't get the "subjective" criticism. We're all being "subjective" in our responses on these notes. "Kennedy doesn't deserve to be last!" I think she does. Am I being "more subjective" than you?
It's not that there are necessarily degrees of subjectivity, but on a topic where objectivity is impossible, then yes, it is possible to be as close to objectivity as possible. This is a topic that I've seen discussed extensively in my bioethic class I'm taking in school, you don't have a choice but to be subjective, but you also need to be as objective as possible in your answer or else it's irrelevant. For example, I may have an opinion but decide that the best answer to a problem goes exactly against my belief. Neither answers are objective, but choosing the answer that is more correct (according to principles) is the more objective of the two.
Also, I'd like to point out that I don't disagree with all of the list. For example, I think Riley is right where he should be, I hate that dude, but in reality I do think he should be higher on the list. Also, one if the issue is that I don't even know what the author's criteria were. The guy ranked some characters that were there for one episodes (with no storyline) higher than regulars with much better stories, so yes I'm a bit confused by that, I would like to know exactly the criteria he used.
And on the topic of whether you're being more subjective then me by putting Kennedy dead last, no I don't think you're any more subjective than me if I were to make my own personal list (for which Tara would rank first, but let's be honest she doesn't deserve that spot). This is also why the board is talking about making our own list, where we would gather everyone's opinion to make a better list. In collecting many opinions, were at least going to get an average which will be closer to reality than just separate opinions.
Also, the author wrote at the beginning of the article, "This is going to be controversial!" and, at the end:
"So that's my list of the best and worst Buffyverse characters. What's yours?
People feel wonderfully possessive of their favorite characters, so this list was always bound to insult just about everyone's favorite at some point. Instead of a provocation, perhaps think of this as a celebration of all the characters who make the Buffyverse such a wonderful place to visit, and visit often. And then yell at me in the comments."
That's the problem, I'm not even insulted by the fact that my favorite characters didn't make it in the top, I'm insulted that some deserving characters did very poorly. Actually, *almost all of my favorites scored pretty high on the list.
(Emphasis added.) That hardly seems to me that the author was trying to come across as objective. Which, when you're discussing opinions of a character, is completely impossible anyway.
I think in this case, the title was misleading. When talking from best to worst, then I think you can be at least somewhat close to objectivity. The title should have been "My favorite characters from the verse". If that was the title, then I wouldn't be complaining.
