Help navigation
Log in to TheBookseller.com
What’s Hot:
News
-
RELATED STORIES
-
Waterstones to close Epsom store
Waterstones is to close its...
-
B&N profit sinks, launches new Nook
Profit at US bookseller Bar...
-
Deadline close for Art category preview
The deadline for The Bookse...
-
Get organised
The high street is under th...
-
Brent terminates Willesden Bookshop lease
Willesden Bookshop is searc...
Media reacts to Waterstones' logo change
12.01.12 | Bookseller Staff
The chairman of the Apostrophe Society has called Waterstones' dropping of its apostrophe "just plain wrong", as the national press reacted to the change.
The move was reported in the Daily Mail, Daily Telegraph and on BBC Radio 4's "Today" programme this morning (12th January), with Apostrophe Society chairman John Richards reported as saying: "It's just plain wrong. It's gramatically incorrect. If Sainsbury's and McDonald's can get it right, then why can't Waterstones? You would really hope that a bookshop is the last place to be so slapdash with English."
The Telegraph said the brand reverting to its former style and typeface, using the Baskerville serif font and reinstating the capital "W", was a "consolation for grammar traditionalists", whereas the Mail said dropping the apostrophe "appeared to be a slight to Mr Waterstone, who founded the chain in 1982 with one store in Kensington".
In the Mail's online story, it also reported Twitter users commenting on the move, with one quoted as saying: "Seeing as Waterstones thinks the public is too stupid to manage apostrophes, maybe it's time they just stopped selling books."
M.d. James Daunt called the move "a more versatile and practical spelling" in a "digital world of URLs and email addresses", which "reflects an altogether truer picture of our business today which, while created by one, is now built on the continued contribution of thousands of individual booksellers".
Trackback URL for this post:
http://www.thebookseller.com/trackback/92891
©2012 The Bookseller Media Group. All rights reserved.
Comments: Scroll down for the latest comments and to have your say
By posting on this website you agree to the Bookseller comments policy. Comments go direct to live please be relevant, brief and definitely not abusive. Report any "unsuitable comments by clicking the links"
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first | Readers' most recommended
On QI Mr Fry said that this whole grocer's apostrophe thing has been going on for over a century. It's Mr. Daunt's company and if they take away the apostrophe it's quite different from taking away the quality of the merchandise that they sell. Controversy breeds publicity and there's no such thing as bad publicity. Over a decade ago the booksellers were agog at the idea of dumbing down, look at the affect that's had. It'll be the same for the apostrophe.
But I miss it.
Does the average person going in to buy a book really care or even notice whether or not there is an apostrophe?
In the current climate there are more important things for the media and the book industry to discuss.
Surely as the shop does not now belong to a [person] Waterstone , then Waterstones is simply a plural and therefore does not require an apostrophe ?
Is "It's just plain wrong" gramatically correct?
Deck chairs and Titanic spring to mind.
If Tim Waterstone had not founded Waterstone's, there would not be a company in place to change their logo! Where, grammatically, an apostrophe is required, it should remain.
Remember Eats, Shoots and Leaves? Or, more correctly (although not so much fun!), Eats shoots, and leaves.
I've been trying to get churches, including my own, former one, to insert an apostrophe, where it is called-for: e.g., St Giles' Church or, in full , the Church of St Giles.
Thank goodness for The Apostrophe Society. Long may you remain in existence!
...............and the band played on
The headline of this article calls them Waterstones'. Is there more than one Waterstone?
Scratching head. There is a business now called Waterstones, and an individual (more than one probably) called Waterstone (Tim). The media was reacting to Waterstones' decision to drop the apostrophe.
Not at all, it's the possessive form of the new singular "Waterstones". That is, the new logo of Waterstones.
Nobody goes to Marks's and Spencer's. Why shouldn't Waterstones drop the apostrophe if they want to? It's their damn apostrophe. If people get so upset about such a footling irrelevance as this, how on earth do they cope with earthquakes and tsunamis?
Surely the possessive is now "Waterstones's" just as in St. James's Park?
Whatever, it is a marvellous distraction from the fact that W is having a torrid time, and actually the high street is looking doomed and book sales through traditional tills are just slightly worrying for the industry!
An anagram of James Daunt: Adjust Name. A coincidence? I think not...
The apostrophe society is just trying to promote itself. Just because McDonald's spells it one way and Waterstones spells it another doesn't mean one is right and one is wrong. It's often the case that two approaches can both be right. One spelling is a possessive and one is a plural. Both are grammatically correct.
I do normally agree with the need to keep apostrophes, because it really irritates me, as an editor, to see them removed where the sense is clearly possessive. But that isn't the case with Waterstones.
I've commented on the importance of branding and why such a small thing as an apostrophe can be important in my post on the other discussion here. So I won't repeat it.
How dull. I hope Stephen Fry wades in. He'll sort it out. Waterstones can call itself what it wants. English is flexible, evolving and creative. Yet why don't we put the apostrophe back in just to please a few odd fellows and whilst doing that destroy these lower case i and e letters that appear in names. iPod? Dear God. How awful. Worst thing to happen. In fact, life isn't worth living. Where's the language gestapo when you need it. All that's wonderful about language, humans, communication, no no. Let's focus on an apostrophe. Let's make a debate out of nothing. Let's pick and choose our examples (MacDonald's) and ignore others (Marks and Spencers).
Or how about the name is now 'Waterstones'. Not named after Tim Waterstone - when did he last work for the company? 1988 or sometime just after? What about the fact most shops have names that have a mixed of uppercase, lowercase, colours and designs that are more about brand, image, and even creativity than kowtowing to language pedants.
And the Baskerville is back. That's great. A lovely typeface. Now, a call for positivity would be lost on the Bookseller and some of its more trollish comments. So yes, let's carry on being negative. Boo hiss at Waterstones. A bookshop chain. Full of thousands of individual booksellers. The last thing we'd like to retain in this world..
The one thing that struck me about this story, was learning that there is such a thing as the apostrophe society! I bet the meetings at apostrophe tower's are fascinating
Don't get me started on Toys 'R' Us...
latest news, Amazon's bought the apostrophe rights
At Blackwell's, we're in advanced discussions about pouring a crapload of commas into our name. "B,lac,k,well,s". I think it could catch on.
Post new comment