Young Writers Society

Is the apostrophe in Writer's Digest wrong? I ask because I was looking at the new image I added in the header of the default template, and that apostrophe is bothering me.

Back when YWS first started, there was actually a discussion about whether an apostrophe belonged in Young Writers Society. It really didn't matter as adding that apostrophe caused tremendous errors throughout the site (in the coding, the software looks at that apostrophe and thinks that's the end of the code so it throws an error). I didn't think the apostrophe belonged because Society is a group and you can't own a group. Rather, Young Writers was plural, and saying Young Writer's Society or Young Writers' Society doesn't make sense.

On the other hand, you can own a digest so maybe Writer's Digest works. But it seems to me that you're talking about a group of people rather than just a single writer. If you added a 'The' in the front of it, then I would have no problem.

I guess it is grammatically correct since I'd assume a digest for Writers would get it right, but I don't know.

Thoughts? Kind of a silly, meaningless discussion, but now it's bothering me.

I THINK it's correct, because I suppose technically the digest belongs to the writers so an apostrophe would be appropriate in 'Writer's'.

Whereas with use we are a society OF young writers of which the society does not belong to us, we just use it. I guess....

I think.

You know, Nate, a couple of weeks ago I was talking to my writing teacher and we discussed "Starbucks", and whether it should be "Starbuck's" or "Starbucks'". (In the end, we decided that if we could, we would get a giant red magic marker and travel across America making corrections. LOL.)

My one comment to add to this is: grammar nazis own, if you'll pardon me.

Starbucks is kind of a different story, though. I don't know what the origin of the name is, but there are basically two choice's: assuming it's a name, the persons last name was either Starbuck or Starbucks...if it were the latter it would be correct as is, if it were the former it would need an apostrophe.

HOWEVER, it could have just been some guy who said "I think I'll open this business and make it into a national, overly priced coffee house chain. It will be my star buck maker! Hey! Let's call it Starbucks! *rubs hands together* mmm I like being rich..." In which case, although it isn't technically a word, the grammar would be correct.

Hmm. I might do some research on this now haha!

EDIT: "Starbucks began in 1971 when three academics—English teacher Jerry Baldwin, history teacher Zev Siegel, and writer Gordon Bowker—opened a store called Starbucks Coffee, Tea, and Spice in the touristy Pikes Place Market in Seattle. The three partners shared a love of fine coffees and exotic teas and believed they could build a clientele in Seattle much like that which had already emerged in the San Francisco Bay area. Each invested $1,350 and borrowed another $5,000 from a bank to open the Pikes Place store. Baldwin, Siegel, and Bowker chose the name Starbucks in honor of Starbuck, the coffee-loving first mate in Herman Melville's Moby Dick(so company legend has it), and because they thought the name evoked the romance of the high seas and the seafaring tradition of the early coffee traders. The new company's logo, designed by an artist friend, was a two-tailed mermaid encircled by the store's name. "


If this is actually the origin, it needs an apostrophe! What's even better is that they had an English teacher AND a writer starting it!

Hmm...

I think it can go either way. I mean, it can be meant to be plural (as in, "writer's" is plural), which should be "Writers'", or it can be an individual assessment.

Personally, I think it's right. It'd be very embarrassing for WD to have a grammatical mistake.

But it'd be funny.

I think that Writer's is legit, because, if you, personally, own it, it is a digest belonging to a writer. (Plus, from a purely aesthetic point of view, Writers' looks terrible. Terrible!)