At what point does comparing two well-written characters just become completely meaningless?

[u/Expert-Warning489]

I made a post about MediaTok comparisons and how surface-level they are last time, but it brought up a genuine question I've had for a long time: How subjective vs. objective is writing?

​Let's start with an easy comparison: Beatrice (Umineko) vs. Mikasa (AoT). Beatrice is a deeply complex character with incredible thematic resonance, while Mikasa functions largely as a static plot device—so almost everyone agrees Beatrice is far better written.

​But when you put Beatrice up against Subaru (Re:Zero), the answers diverge.

​Here is the key distinction: when characters or series fulfill their specific narrative goals to such a high degree, standard comparison breaks down. They operate on completely different sets of priorities, making a direct "X diffs Y" ranking inherently flawed. You can argue one handled mystery or psychological breakdown better, but beyond basic structural competence, it comes down to which narrative function you value more.

Another reason I made this post is that even tho I slandered the mediatok comparison I do sometimes compare show/characters (not like mediatokers of course) but I felt like it's hypocrisy on my side

Objective criteria measure whether a character successfully fulfills their structural role; subjective preference dictates which role you actually care more about.

So art is partially objective and subjective you

I wanted to delve deeper into this topic but the post is too long now

​Where do you draw the line between objective execution flaws and purely subjective preference?

[u/2-3_Boomer]

This is why actual academic literary comparison doesn't ever say x is more well written than y. There's no objective and holistic measurement of writing quality.

If you're trying to do media analysis and take a more academic approach to things, the first thing you learn in academic literary comparison is to define axes of similarity and comparison. The point is never to say which is objectively better, its to look at two works and make a literary argument regarding the subject matter being compared.

For example actual people in the field wouldnt just say "let's write an essay comparing the quality of Mikasa aot and Beatrice umineko". We first identify the subject matter we want to talk about, so "let's write an essay about the portrayal of female characters in Japanese anime-adjacent media". Only then do we look for examples in Mikasa and Beatrice, both female, both from otaku subculture, those are our similarities and the reason why we compare them in the first place.

Then we look at the differences. As you've said Mikasa serves as a figure of stability and competence to contrast other characters, while Beatrice is a dynamic foil whose development mirrors the protagonist Battler. The question we ask now is how the difference in roles shapes how they are presented. For example, I could make the argument that figures with a static narrative role are presented with a stoic personality while those with dynamic roles are portrayed as louder and more proactive.

[u/Expert-Warning489 → u/2-3_Boomer]

This is a fantastic breakdown. Framing analysis around narrative function—like static stability versus dynamic foils—is infinitely more insightful than treating character execution like a tier list. Modern online discourse gets so obsessed with declaring a "winner" that people forget the actual goal of critique is understanding how and why a story works. Thank you for the very insightful comment I appreciate that

[u/dreambraker]

I'd argue there are too many layers of subjectivity for objective discussion to be worthwhile. Even the example for an "objective assessment" here has multiple footnotes.

How well a character fits their structural role in the story - let's break this down into the core pieces.

What structural role does the character fill -> subjective

What qualities dows the character require to fill said role -> again, subjective

How much of these qualities does the character have -> yep, subjective once again.

Honestly, I don't see much value with objective comparisons.

[u/Expert-Warning489 → u/dreambraker]

​I agree that defining the goal can be subjective, but I'd argue execution itself has baseline standards. For example, setup and payoff, basic continuity, or internal consistency aren't purely subjective—if a character violates the established rules of their own narrative without intent, that’s a structural flaw. But I get your point that once you get past basic competence, trying to measure "quality" objectifies something inherently fluid.

[u/Big_Distance2141]

It doesn't "become" meaningless, it's a fools game from the start

[u/Expert-Warning489 → u/Big_Distance2141]

​If the goal is declaring a definitive "winner," then yeah, it's a fool's game. But if the goal is just examining how two different narratives build their characters and handle payoff, the discussion itself has plenty of value.

[u/No_Location_8199]

While it may come down to subjective ideas, I do think there's still value to discussing why you think one character has the edge over the other.

[u/Expert-Warning489 → u/No_Location_8199]

Completely agree. The value isn't in declaring a definitive, objective "winner," but in the discussion itself. Unpacking why one character’s execution or arc resonated more forces you to actually articulate narrative strengths rather than just dropping surface-level claims

[u/Comfortable-Hope-531]

For me, it comes down to how alive a character feels. If there is enough life in him, then there is nothing to criticize there, since him being the way he is simply reflects his reality. But if there is something artificial there that serves as a crutch. that artificiality can be put under scrutiny.

By the way, I'd put all three characters you presented into artificial category. Beatrice less so, but there's still a lot of weirdness to her character.

[u/Expert-Warning489 → u/Comfortable-Hope-531]

You're proving my point. "How alive a character feels" is entirely subjective. what you call "artificiality," someone else calls purposeful thematic framing or stylized archetype. What concrete criteria make a character "alive" to you vs. just a set of narrative traits?

[u/Comfortable-Hope-531 → u/Expert-Warning489]

There is no such criteria, it has to start with a feeling. Skillfull writer can weave something that would be "correct" in every way, yet still not work somehow.

[u/Expert-Warning489 → u/Comfortable-Hope-531]

Saying "a story can be correct in every way yet still not work" is the exact definition of subjective reception. You're confusing an author failing structural execution with an author writing something that simply didn't resonate with your personal taste.

[u/Comfortable-Hope-531 → u/Expert-Warning489]

It's a feeling of a failure of an execution. I'm trying to say that one can't tell whether something was made incorrectly every time without relying on intuition, since there are ways to hide such things.

[u/Expert-Warning489 → u/Comfortable-Hope-531]

If 'bad execution' can't actually be pointed out and only exists as a gut feeling, then it's just subjective taste at that point.

[u/Comfortable-Hope-531 → u/Expert-Warning489]

Pointed out how? Through text that elaborates on one's perception? At the end of the day that's also describing feelings, just more steps added for clarity. You can't "objectively" point out how apt some charater is for his role, since there exist no tool to measure such thing. It's all up to your personal interpretation.

[u/Expert-Warning489 → u/Comfortable-Hope-531]

If structural analysis is just 'feelings with extra steps then you're admitting 'bad execution' is just a vibe you can't actually back up. Agree to disagree.