In the Autumn of 2019, the left leaning The Guardian newspaper of England started to publish a list of 100 best of culture of the twenty-first century https://www.theguardian.com/culture/series/best-culture-of-the-21st-century-so-far/2019/sep/16/all . I looked forward to reading the first list, ‘The 100 Best TV Shows of the 21st Century”, and I even felt a rush of adrenaline as I scrolled my way down the list from number 100, knowing that since I don’t watch TV shows at all, except to follow cultural ramifications of great or atrociously bad TV shows, I knew that I would discover brilliant teeviewing and all the iconic moments it gave birth to in culture and society, which I can then go back and read and muse about. In other words I was excited – as one would upon encountering list and rankings on a subject done by “experts” in that field – with the excitement of encountering the three best things about rankings: how do the best compare, what tidbit of info is given to justify the rank, and how do your favourites compare.
Now since I don’t qualify for the favourites reason, my joy was immense as no biasness would get in the way of my enjoyment of the ranking. What discoveries, what treasures awaited me! And there were discoveries but by number 90 my sceptic itch surfaced. 24 at 90. 24 in my opinion must be top 25, though my opinion does not amount to much, I must confess since I have never watched an episode. I read on until I encountered Buffy at 83, which made me pause a comma-kind-of stop just to note a possible irregularity that may increasingly become a defect with the list even before I got quarter way.
By the end of the list, I sighed in disappointment, the list has not educated me in the big way I had hoped, it merely confirmed my TV-show-ignorance-level of knowledge that the Sopranos is still unmatched and The Wire, Game of Thrones, Mad Men, Breaking Bad are still Top Ten of greatest TV shows. The anecdotes they offer for the rest of the toppers hardly convinced me that they deserve so high a place. My irk with the low placing of 24 was based on my own experience in the early noughties and seeing how the masses and the critics responded to the real-time drama of 24. The drive by commuters to beat the rush hour to catch 24 on sky in England. The discussions, the webinars and the follow-on mania of old seasons on TV in African counties especially Francophone African countries from 2002 onwards. For Buffy I know of its cultural significance and its fresh take on the gender politics of teen portrayal since the 90s. The Guardian list has failed to live up to its brief promise of greatness. It offered nothing except disappointment. And like a shaman, I know the rest of the lists that would be subsequently released especially on the two arts I was more familiar with, films and literature would be ‘pffft’ lists. It was worse, they were worse than fawning fans’ list of their favourite artist’s 100 moments when such so-called artist has less than a dozen works of art and a couple of handfuls of performances.
As a listman and a listmaniac or a ranking man and rank fanatic, I mused over the bare elements that make ranking commendable. How can a list be defined? A list of greatest work, a 100 XXXs of such and such? What and how.
I have always approached the many lists I make with certain criteria to make it fair. For favourites, it is fairly subjective. However when you enter the terrain of ‘greatest’, objectivity and rules would help you and others evaluate your choice of ranking. To simplify, I shall order the points of my arguments, ‘punningly’, listwise:
- The rule of 3
In truth this should be called the mighty rule of 3. Three is the minimum number of great works of an artist that begins the arguments of greatness. It is known to all and nearly every culture, that one great work of art is generally met with criticism and arguments around serendipity to say the least. With two great works of art, envy and sharpened brains can argue on the coincidence factor. But three, with three, symmetry and completion against any argument of greatness is extinguished. Three is the start of work ranking and all other pieces of work of creation are measured in threes; three after three, after three after three.
The second related reason why three stands out in evaluating works of art is the fact that (I really hate this phrase ‘the fact that’ but it must be used here since what I’m stating is a fact) types of successes in a work of art comes in 3 categories, after that there is only failure: failure to appreciate the work, which in its least serious form, is a mundaneness in the piece of work, and in its most serious, much more serious than even low sales (for many artists care not for sales), is critical and public pan of a piece of work. These three categories are broadly, a) critical acclaim, b) being appreciated by some consumers of the work, which in its highest level can reach cultish fandom and c) the sales and thereby profitability of the piece of work. Without a doubt the last one is the least important to the true artist and art lover, but it is the most important to the general public, as the narrative is often skewed towards commercial success. Since the worth of an artist, or sportsman, or public figure or any other personality or thing that can be placed in a list can be measured by their performance on the defined 3, thus can it be argued that a list or ranking of works/people/anything should be defined by comparative value of the 3 yardsticks for measuring greatness.
Of course because the second category has a subjective element, there will always be some disagreement on the value of that factor under discussion regarding greatness since it denotes certain unjustifiable affection that cannot be fairly or critically measured. And this is what makes listing so interesting and goes on to define its hold on the psyche of people: you can argue with critical evaluation or with commercial success but you can do little about personal love, though personal love also plays a part in the final outcome of the other two yardsticks.
To give a real example of this rule of three, shakespeare’s work comes to the fore. The question what are the greatest works of Shakespeare will be met with mentions of Hamlet, King Lear, Julio Caesar, Romeo and Juliet, and so on. A close reflection of the most mentioned plays can lead one to rank them according to the rule of 3: most critically acclaim, most popular, and most iconic/or cult.
- Five fine features
The next notable number in rankings and list is 5. We never say give me four good reasons. We just jump to five. When the person or thing has reached rule of 3 and tops it with two other personal cases that make five, the evaluation goes up. There is a certain completeness to compiling five factors that one does not feel with four or six. Many have heard of that trivia (l) game ‘six degrees of separation’ where you get six links to completely unrelated people wherein by the sixth fact or factor you have linked them through each of the six points being related in some sense. Incidentally, The Guardian newspaper runs a series of sports articles called the Joy of 6 in which a list of six stories on a common theme are presented as pastime trivia. Now these lists of six don’t still make six an attractive number for lists, period. Lists don’t come in even numbers. No one says Top 2, Top 4, Top 8 or Top 12. Lists are odd, and odd numbers fittingly fit the bill.
- The commonest feature of lists is odd
Or one can say that lists are odd and unique to the creator(s) of the list. It is the personal that makes this unique and again value judgement and subjectivity surrounds this uniqueness that is so difficult and at times virtually impossible to argue against. However the oddness goes beyond that, because literally speaking, most lists are odd in number. First, One itself is a ranking, and it is the epitome of lists. The more common numbers that are made in lists across all cultures are 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 20, 25, 50 and 100 and of these, 10 is the most common.
- An argument for the Number Nine
If most lists stopped at 9, there would have been less argument on the content thereof. Because the tenth spot, if anyone wants to argue, can be left empty for the reader to fill in with an overlook favourite. Top 10 is probably common because ten is not only the first double digit number, but alliteratively speaking, it just sounds great to pair top with ten. It is what it is, even if David Letterman wanted us to believe that of all lists and rankings, Top 10 is the oldest used by humanity with his popular Ye Old Top 10 skit. Top 9 is much better, threes, then threes and threes, based on the triangular classification mentioned before. As indicated, most lists are odd, so why shift from saying Top 3, Top 5, Top 7 and you jump to Top 10. If the argument is to keep the number sequence odd, then the most magical number to make rankings after Top 3, Top 5 is 9. Nine is generally considered as the most fluid number. Books have been written about the magic of nine, mathematicians swear by nine like it is some god. If one brings the argument why ten instead of nine and another defendant retorts why 9 instead of 10, arguably a reasonable answer is because lists are odd, and nine, most objective and least prejudiced of numbers with a certain completeness rings to it, fits the bill.
- A double-digit argument
Having considered the single digit contenders and offered reflections on 10, an evaluation of the position of double digits as most suitable for list master is appropriate here. A note of caution however: Top 10 is never gonna go away. Top 10 is as old as gold. If for one time, possibility of replacing it with another double digit is considered, what rings better? Top 11? Top 12? Top 13? Where the decision is linked back to the rule of 3 and its central position in lists and rankings, accommodating the convenience of repetition of the classification, the Top 15 dovetails beautifully with this sense of completeness. This argument will be explored over a number of pop culture rankings. For now it is sufficient to declare that a Top 10 is maintained in addition to Top 15, towards arguments to be outlined for Top 25 in pop culture.
