Who vs. That

[Black Dragon]

First, some context:

My new book, The Mythic Guide to Characters, will be available soon. It has a descriptive subtitle:

Writing Characters That Enchant and Inspire



However, I'm not sure if using "that" is correct, or if it should be "who":

Writing Characters Who Enchant and Inspire


Searching online, the consensus is that "who" is used for humans, and that "that" is used for non-humans or anonymous groups of people. Given that characters can be non-human, and that they are a group in this context, would "that" be the correct usage?

I want to make sure that I'm not committing a grammatical error before I immortalize this subtitle in print.

Thanks in advance.

 

[BWFoster78]

It seems to me that this is one of those instances where there is no real rule or consensus, so I think that either is appropriate.

"That" gets my vote.

 

[Ireth]

I think it should be "who", personally. Characters can be non-human and still be people, in a sense.

 

[Alex97]

I think what Ireth says makes the most sense. Most characters are going to be human and those who are not are going to be of a similar intelligence to humans (use of tools, language...) which makes them people.

However both sound fine to me. I don't think readers will really care all that much.

 

[Jamber]

I would personally go for 'that'. You're talking to writers, who are outside the fiction. Just a personal view, I'm sure there's no right or wrong.

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

I think it should be "who", personally. Characters can be non-human and still be people, in a sense.

I agree with Ireth.

The idea that "who" applies to people & "that" applies to all other creatures and things, needs altering in the fantasy context. Any sentient creature used in fantasy/sci-fi, that is capable of being a character, should be viewed as a "who" and not a thing.

 

[BWFoster78]

It seems like the responses above center on the argument that characters are people. I feel that the question of whether a person takes "who" or "that" is more ambiguous. Apparently, it is acceptable to say "the man that" instead of "the man who."

Seems like it's pretty much writer's choice on this one since there is no definitive rule either way...

 

[Lock]

Though it is mostly a matter of taste here, I would use who as it emphasizes the humanity (or relatability) of the subject more than that does. Yet, in switching to who instead of that the question of who these characters inspire and enchant ostensibly increases, as who is commonly used as an interrogative. However, you can avoid this issue entirely by using present participles, giving you: Writing Inspiring & Enchanting Characters, or you could even shorten the subtitle to: Writing Enchanting Characters, as the words inspiring and enchanting affectually overlap, both referring to characters who move your intended audience. But of course, it's your book, so use whatever language feels most natural.

However, I don't think the present participle forms of the subtitle sound right with your current book title, so I'd just stick with what you have.

 

[Rob P]

You could forget using either and replace with the word "to"

Writing characters to enchant and inspire.

 

[Xaysai]

Clearly, it's "which"!

 

[Phietadix]

You mean this isn't a spin off of this or that?
But as others said 'Who' sounds better than 'that' espiceally for Fantasy where non-humans are common.

 

[Zero Angel]

Pretty sure the "right" answer is "who", but I think that is a stupid rule, which should not be propagated by us as writers who will mold the English language in the decades to come.

 

[Black Dragon]

Thanks everyone for the feedback.

I'm inclined to go with "who," although I suppose both are grammatically correct.

When in doubt, I'll error on the side of the great Jane Friedman:

How to Write Characters Who Evoke Reader Compassion

 

[Jess A]

How to Write Characters Who Evoke Reader Compassion

It turned out I had nothing to add to this thread, but that link was useful.