Forum: Author Hangout

That vs. Who

PotomacBob 🚫

I see it so frequently in SOL stories it makes me wonder if they've changed the rules since I was in sixth grade English (before The Flood).
What I was taught was that if it refers to a person or an animal with a name, you use "who"; otherwise use "that".
Examples:
INCORRECT: Jimmy is a 16-year-old THAT has never spent a day in a hospital.
CORRECT: Old Nobbin is a horse WHO has earned his retirement. (In this case, they must have named him Old Nobbin when he was a colt.)
CORRECT: He is the cat THAT woke us up last night.
Have the rules changed?

Replies: Dominions Son awnlee jawking Remus2 REP

Dominions Son 🚫

@PotomacBob

It would probably be more accurate to say that the rule is changing and is a bit in flux.

On the one hand there seems to be a group for which who and that are almost interchangeable.

On the other hand there's another group that is die hard never use any pronoun other than it for animals even if they do have names. That group would probably consider using who for an animal to be sacrilege.

I don't think it's at all clear who will win this one.

Replies: awnlee jawking

awnlee jawking 🚫

@Dominions Son

Often writers make the mistake of padding their openings with scenes whose sole purpose is to establish a particular character or a setting and don't otherwise advance the story.

What would the die-hards think of that usage of whose? ;-)

AJ

Replies: Dominions Son BarBar

Dominions Son 🚫

@awnlee jawking

What would the die-hards think of that usage of whose? ;-)

I'm not one of them, so I won't pretend to know, but I imagine that they would object on the basis of it's not referring to a person.

BarBar 🚫
Updated:

@awnlee jawking

Often writers make the mistake of padding their openings with scenes whose sole purpose is to establish a particular character or a setting and don't otherwise advance the story.

I prefer to rephrase:

And some talented writers open with scenes which have the sole purpose of establishing either the central character or the setting.

Replies: awnlee jawking

awnlee jawking 🚫

@BarBar

I nicked that quote from a Switch Blayde post quoting one of his preferred writing experts.

I too have opened a story with a scene establishing the central character. I'm not a fan of openings that describe the setting: that smacks too much of exposition.

AJ

Replies: bk69

bk69 🚫

@awnlee jawking

I too have opened a story with a scene establishing the central character. I'm not a fan of openings that describe the setting: that smacks too much of exposition.

It can be done... the slow, tedious read of the setting followed immediately by sudden violent action can give that violent act more impact than just leading with the act, just from lulling the reader into not expecting it. (Note that this technique can't really be used repeatedly by the same author, because if it becomes a pattern people will expect the action and not be shocked... which is when leading off with the action becomes useful as the readers wouldn't expect it.)

Replies: awnlee jawking

awnlee jawking 🚫

@bk69

the slow, tedious read of the setting

I believe there's a feeling that such an opening style was exhausted in 18th and 19th century literature.

AJ

Replies: Switch Blayde bk69

Switch Blayde 🚫

@awnlee jawking

I believe there's a feeling that such an opening style was exhausted in 18th and 19th century literature.

I once read it was popular back then because people didn't travel so the author described the place, in great detail, they'd never get to see in real life.

Replies: Dominions Son

Dominions Son 🚫

@Switch Blayde

I once read it was popular back then because people didn't travel

Even today, most people don't travel that much. Sure, if the setting is a popular tourist destination you may be able to get away with assuming that most of your readers have seen it in person, but otherwise no.

Replies: Switch Blayde

Switch Blayde 🚫

@Dominions Son

Even today, most people don't travel that much.

But they have TV.

Replies: Keet Dominions Son

Keet 🚫

@Switch Blayde

But they have TV.

I don't. Haven't had one for over a decade. Can't say I have missed anything interesting. :D

Dominions Son 🚫

@Switch Blayde

But they have TV.

Seeing something on TV is not seeing it in real life, so it isn't relevant.

Replies: Switch Blayde PotomacBob

Switch Blayde 🚫

@Dominions Son

Seeing something on TV is not seeing it in real life, so it isn't relevant.

Reading it in a book is not seeing it in real life.

Replies: Dominions Son

Dominions Son 🚫
Updated:

@Switch Blayde

Reading it in a book is not seeing it in real life.

True, but that they can see it on TV does not eliminate the justification and/or need for describing it in books.

PotomacBob 🚫

@Dominions Son

Seeing something on TV is not seeing it in real life, so it isn't relevant.

In the movie "Wags the Dog," the war was over because somebody said on TV it was over. It mattered not whether the war had ended (or whether it had actually started, for that matter). As long as it was reported on TV, it was reality.

bk69 🚫

@awnlee jawking

The trick is not to overdo it. I'm not suggesting going full Dickens on it. That would put the reader to sleep before ever reaching the action (much like Grapes of Wrath did). But a page, maybe two, dedicated to describing a setting, a scene, various individuals...all of whom's heads explode as the sniper who was in the clocktower fires repeatedly... that could work.

Replies: Argon

Argon 🚫

@bk69

all of whom's heads

what's wrong with "whose"?

Replies: bk69

bk69 🚫

@Argon

Nothing. Just didn't feel right there.

Replies: BlacKnight

BlacKnight 🚫

@bk69

"Whom's" is not a word. The objective case is "whom"; the genitive is "whose". It can't be both objective and genitive at the same time.

awnlee jawking 🚫

@PotomacBob

Oh look, it's a castle!

Thread 1

Thread 2

I'm British so I'm allowed to use personal pronouns for far more objects than you Muricans.

AJ

Replies: bk69

bk69 🚫

@awnlee jawking

I'm British so I'm allowed to use personal pronouns for far more objects than you Muricans.

So you can use them for your pickup, your bass boat, your car(s), your motorcycle, your snowmobile, your ATV, and various elements of your gun collection, AND other stuff? Wow.

Replies: awnlee jawking

awnlee jawking 🚫
Updated:

@bk69

So you can use them for your pickup, your bass boat, your car(s), your motorcycle, your snowmobile, your ATV, and various elements of your gun collection, AND other stuff? Wow.

Most Brits don't own any of those. Motorcycles are probably the most common but our roads are not motorcycle-friendly, hence a high attrition rate :-(

Correction: Cars trump motorbikes in popularity by a country mile. Some Brits even assign names and genders to them. Mine has a name but not a gender.

AJ

Replies: bk69

bk69 🚫

@awnlee jawking

Most Brits don't own any of those.

Many in murica do. Which was the point... limeys may have a few items that can take personal pronouns that merkins can't, but it goes the other way too.

LupusDei 🚫

I would also always use person pronouns for a river (she) or named lake (he), rules be damned. Otherwise the rules are nearly identical in my native language too, although even more fluid, allowing person pronouns for basically whatever personified objects, but then, we're kind of animists. Using object pronouns for a person is considered rude, but sometimes okay if it's pure pointing.

Mushroom 🚫

It can also depend on if something is written as part of simply text, or as a quotation.

O will readily admit, that when I have things said in quotes, they quite often do NOT follow common language conventions. Slang, improper syntax, even purposefully (by me) outright destroying it.

But that is simply my choice, because that is how I want the reader to think that is how they talk and sound. Not unlike say Damon Runyon or Mark Twain, who are influences in how I developed my own style.

Remus2 🚫

@PotomacBob

Have the rules changed?

Rules??? We don't need no stinkin rules...

REP 🚫

@PotomacBob

INCORRECT: Jimmy is a 16-year-old THAT has never spent a day in a hospital.

The above can be interpreted 2 ways. When I read the sentence, I thought the THAT was referring to the group of 16-year-olds that never spent a day in a hospital. It can also be interpreted as referring to Jimmy.

Reply to topic

Forum: Author Hangout

That vs. Who

WARNING! ADULT CONTENT...