Grammar Editing: A Stylistic Approach—Who vs. Whom

In this blog, I'm not going to say how to correctly use "who" and "whom" in a sentence as "who" and "whom" are rather difficult to explain how to do correctly, yet before I even consider addressing how to use them properly, I am going to answer a different yet pertinent question: As a writer, should you even care about the proper grammar of "who" and "whom?"

The truth is that it depends greatly on what sort of effects you want to create. So if you want someone to blame for these numerous nuances that these two words create, blame it on people who don't strictly enforce this grammar rule. As a rule falls to the wayside, (im)proper use suddenly allows for more effect.

Choice # 1 Always Use "Who"

This is, for most writers, the go-to choice when it comes to writing. Most people these days just don't use "whom" at all. In fact, my English teacher once said, "When it comes to using 'who' and 'whom' in spoken, everyday language, unless you're talking to the English department of a university, just always use ‘who’. People won't think badly of you if you don't use ‘whom’." This remark leads me to my first recommendation if a writer simply cannot write grammatically correct "who" and "whom:" Many of the characters of the show just don't take the time to speak, i.e. when writers use quotations, perfectly proper English and shouldn't. Because to make the effort to distinguish between “who,” the nominative case, and “whom,” the accusative case, is not necessary. Spoken language is, as most know, garbled and frenetic. Our brains are just not perfect machines that require and give out precise and accurate language like computers. But that is also a benefit. Our garbled and frenetic brains are more than capable of accepting broken language (not using who/whom correctly) to get the gist of the character's intent. When it comes to speech, the point is to reach your audience in a comprehensible and efficient manner. Distinguishing between "who" and "whom" is generally unnecessary for understanding the idea of the sentence, and as such, it is perfectly acceptable (though not best) for a writer to just drop ever using "whom" in spoken language.

Choice #2 Always Use "Whom"

My second recommendation is to pretty much never go this path. I mean it. Do. Not. Do. That. In most cases of writing, “who” will be the correct form, so when readers consistently read “whom” used improperly, they assume, very correctly, that the writer is trying to act pretentious to his reader (this assumes that you are writing in a classic, omniscient, third person narrative, see next paragraph if not). Not only does this insult the reader, but this may cause him/her to rightfully stop reading. In total, using “whom” improperly creates pretentiousness, even if unintended. As such, when unsure of which to use, go with “who,” as readers will be more forgiving. If you use “whom” when you are not supposed to, well, enjoy insulting the reader.

My recommendation changes a bit if it's a character that always uses “whom.” If, for example, a story is written from the perspective of Rarity, a skillful writer may have Rarity use “whom” all the time to show her strive to break the upper class or show she acts pretentious or both of the previous. This is an example, one outside of quotation marks, in which complete “whom” use is actually okay. The improper use of whom can thus become a useful rhetorical device to shape a character. However, this is a rather a high-awareness, small-use technique and additionally requires careful consideration as to when enough is enough as a transition to proper grammar can signify underlying changes in a character. (I know. So many effects can occur from just this word alone.)

Similarly, within quotation marks, if a character always and improperly (if they use it properly, see the next section) uses whom, that creates the effects I described in the previous paragraph.

Choice # 3: Always Use "Who" and "Whom" Correctly

My final recommendation is to strive for this standard. Using “who” and “whom” correctly shows that the writer is one well educated and two well aware of how the structure of writing works. It also allows a reader to know when a writer purposefully makes a who/whom error with a character. If a writer has no idea when to use “who” and “whom” and wantonly chooses between the two, then the special rhetorical effects of overuse of “whom” can’t be used, and the writer is revealed as grammatically incompetent, a bad omen for the rest of the story.

Writers should also have characters speak proper grammar. Characters don’t necessarily need who/whom grammar, but proper use elevates them intellectually and thus implies inherent complexity behind those characters, a good sign for the rest of the story. Also, when one character breaks proper grammar, it’s clearer to see that the writer did that on purpose.

A general guideline to grammar is that a writer should always use proper grammar and then use singular cases of improper grammar to create rhetorical effects.

Choice # 4 Where You Purposely Use “Who” for “Whom” and “Whom” for “Who”

This is properly a little ridiculous of a case, but I want to be as comprehensive as possible. Writers whom purposely do this are probably writing characters who I may like. Simply, characters whom are childish as they are making severe grammar mistakes and yet who I appreciate as they are trying to strive to be more intelligent and just need a little bit of guidance. However, this device is highly irregular and more up to interpretation. I leave it to the writers whom may be reading this to see how this affects their characters if so they desire.

Finally, I would appreciate PMs and comments about concepts you think I should cover, how I can improve this blog, what went right and wrong, among other criticisms and suggestions.

The next blog, I intend to cover Will vs. Shall for effective and powerful and commanding or submissive language.

Comments

[Alcatraz]

I must confess. I didn't read your whole blog as I'm rather tired and can't really be bothered. That will make me sound like an asshole, but please forgive me. Anyway, allow me to give my two cents.

The way I look at it, 'who' is objective and 'whom' is subjective. Another way of looking at it would be to say 'who' is plural, and 'whom' is singular, but the former is more PC. 'Who' can be used to refer to a group of people to weed out a particular person, whereas 'whom' can be used in a specific sense.

Saying; "You must know whom." is more accurate than saying "You must know who.". While the sentences are largely synonymous, saying "You must know whom.", is referring to a particular individual in a set circumstance.

That's just me. I may or may not be wrong.