The former would apply if just one tortured poet owned the department,an unlikely scenario given the general impoverishment of tormented souls hoping to be paid for their rhyming couplets. But what about poets’ department? Could that be what’s called for and do we need to fume over the absence of a certain squiggle in Taylor’s version?
Unlike the case of the infamous greengrocer’s apostrophe (three carrot’s,anyone?) and the damaging effect unwarranted tadpole-shaped objects have on garden-variety plurals,what Swift has delivered is a fine version of a reminder that apostrophes can come with nuance,and that sympathising with those trying to do the right thing is what humanity needs.
If the word poetsis meant to be merely descriptive,telling us this is a department where tortured poets are studied,Swift can safely stand her ground. If it’s a club where tortured poets can go and be morose together,implying a certain sense of ownership,an apostrophe wouldn’t be out of the question. Note that an apostrophe in the title of the Robin Williams movieDead Poets Society,however,would have misleadingly suggested it was a zombie flick.
Dead or facing torture – no wonder jolly poets are in such short supply. Jolly apostrophe sticklers may also be in short supply,as when nuance comes on the scene,so do the disagreements and possibilities for things to go either way. Rights and wrongs can blur.
The assistant standards editor atThe New York Timesbacked Swift’s choice by saying,“The title is fine without an apostrophe;the Department of Veterans Affairs doesn’t use one. What’s good enough for the official nomenclature of the United States government should be good enough for Taylor Swift.”
However,the apostrophe-possessing Australian Department of Veterans’ Affairs may beg to differ.