Customer Reviews

The Chicago Manual of Style

5 star:		(103)
4 star:		(18)
3 star:		(4)
2 star:		(4)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

The Chicago Manual of Style has always been a steady companion. It discusses every imaginable style question to the point of exhaustion and speaks with the authority of the nation's largest academic press and the country's most academically serious university. The University of Chicago Press is not burdened by the scholarly dubiousness that plagues the MLA, which happens to publish a competing style guide.

This edition of the Manual of Style includes a number of improvements and additions. The Chicago manual has finally spoken on citing electronic publications, and even includes advice on assembling manuscripts for electronic journals. Flow charts in the back give broad overviews of the publishing process. The index seems easier to use than the index in the last edition, and the chapters are arranged more thoughtfully. Most striking upon first picking up the 15th edition is its stunning graphic design--not only is it beautiful, but it helps readability by highlighting examples and making sections easier to find. The manual includes some information on editing foreign-language publications. As always, the manual includes some very subtle humor in its sentence structure, verbiage, and choice of examples.

The Chicago Manual of Style is also equiped to be an arbiter of many a college dining hall argument on language, with extensive chapters on grammar and usage.

I heartily recommend the Chicago Manual of Style to anyone who ever finds himself with a question on some detail of English style.

The Chicago Manual of Style (CMOS) is without question my favorite style manual. The fact that this manual is one of the best of its kind does not seem to be in question for most people. What does seem to be in question is whether or not the CMOS is a fit for an individual's needs. What also seems to be in question is whether or not the 15th edition is an improvement from the 14th edition.

In terms of fit, I would say that the CMOS is probably a good fit for advanced writers, editors, and publishers; however, most of these advanced professionals already know this. College students might be better served by a style manual specific to their discipline - for example, The Modern Language Association (MLA) Handbook for English students, or the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (APA) for psychology students. Beginning students might also be better served by a general handbook (such as The Little, Brown Handbook or The Holt Handbook). For office workers, administrative assistants, and secretaries, a better fit might be "The Gregg Reference Manual," which has an emphasis on business correspondence. In each of these cases; however, the CMOS would be a useful backup reference.

In regard to the editions, my overall opinion is that the 15th edition is a significant improvement in content to the 14th, and well worth the purchase. The 13th edition was published in 1982, the 14th in 1993, and this 15th in 2003, so the CMOS is updated approximately every 10 years, which feels like a good revision pace to me. The content revisions are summarized on the back cover, and I'll list them at the end of this review.

In addition to content, the layout of the new edition is also revised. There is a bit of risk and daring in using a light blue font to distinguish examples within paragraphs, and in using a new font for numbering. The light blue text is a bit hard to read at times, but for the main, it seems to add clarity. The daring numbering font is a bit less clear than the last edition, but probably only a keen font connoisseur would even notice.

Content revisions:

- Updated Materials throughout to reflect current style, technology, and professional practice

- New coverage of journals and electronic publications

- Comprehensive new chapter on American English grammar and usage by Bryan A. Garner (author of A Dictionary of Modern American Usage)

- Updated and rewritten chapter on preparing mathematical copy

- Reorganized and updated chapters on documentation, including guidance on citing electronic sources

- Streamlined coverage of current design and production processes, with a glossary of key terms

- New diagrams of the editing and production process4es for both books and journals, keyed to chapter discussions

- Descriptive headings on all numbered paragraphs for ease of reference

- New expanded Web site with special tools and features for Manual users - www.chicagomanualofstyle.org

I've been passionate about writing for some time now and situations always seem to arise-where to put the hyphen-that must be dealt with properly. The new edition (15th) of THE CHICAGO MANUAL OF STYLE is the Bible for writers (I can't speak for editors or publishers but since this prize solves most writing conundrums, it must work well for those reviewing the written word). As I've used the 14th edition for some time, I was somewhat dubious about giving up my well-oiled saftey blanket. Keep the safety blanket and buy the 15th also. The 15th implements a variety of changes befitting current wisdom; a must in today's literary world. As has been the modus operandi for some time now, the 15th edition of CMS is still in the relatively unattractive orange dust jacket but has been "brightened" inside with two ink tones. Contrary to another reviewer, I find the ink offset to be quite helpful.

One of the more useful additions to the 15th CMS is the paramenters addressed relative to citations from electronic publications. In the internet age, this is a must for technical and non-fiction writers. Additionally and as mandated by most interpretations of copyright law, whenever one draws from another's work, one must provide documentation. CMS follows a basic documentation style for either footnotes or endnotes. This documentation would include direct quotes, paraphrases or someone else's words or ideas, and facts and figures.

As a writer of technical articles, I use this manual as a guide through the morass of style. An article can be poorly written but sparkle with style and grammar. This article will, at the very least, garner some respect. A kick-bum article delving into the meat of a timely subject, yet penned with poor grammar and distasteful style, will be look upon with disdain.

If you're going to write, spend the bucks for CMS. It will be the best investment relative to broad acceptance of your published words.

Because of the size of the print used in the 15th edition, I could not read the text so I rushed downtown (14 miles one way) and bought a stronger pair of reading spectacles. With the new glasses, I noted strange looking numbers announcing each paragraph. Paragraphs 1.33 and 3.11 looked as though they were set by an inebriated typesetter. The "one" numerals in both paragraphs appeared to be superscripted.

My curiosity led me to the colophon where I learned the manual is set with Scala and Scala Sans fonts. I used my favorite search engine and discovered these fonts were "invented" in 1999. I also discovered numerals 1, 2, and 0 are diminutive and the remainder are mega size and numerals 6 and 8 are superscripted. Mystery solved: The Chicago Press did not have an inebriated type setter.

Even with my more powerful spectacles, I still had trouble reading the text. I used my microscope and measured the capital letters in the 14th edition; they are 0.2 millimeters taller than the Scala capitals. This seems trivial, but it is not (particularly for older writers and editors). More bothersome than the small type size is the bluish type found in chapter 5. At first I thought there were sections of the text missing. All the text within the curly brackets is printed with barely discernable blue ink, which is virtually invisible under certain artificial light conditions. On page 148, note 5, we are told the curly brackets were used to save space. I don't have the Scala on my Mac but I tested several commonly used fonts and discovered words and phrases enclosed in square brackets use less space!

On the plus side Chicago has seen the light and dumped a couple of their old, long-standing edicts that made little or no sense. They now recommend the month-day-year method of recording dates (p. xii & 6.46); I was elated to find this change. I reasoned some of the curmudgeons who had ruled Chicago for eons retired and vanished from the scene-I was wrong. In paragraphs 17.186 and 17.225, Chicago recommends using the day-month-year system when there is a string of dates because it supposedly eliminates or reduces clutter. I was wrong again; there are still curmudgeons on the staff who won't totally abandon the military day-month-year rule.

I then went to the inclusive numbers paragraphs and was momentarily delighted to read "a foolproof system is to give the full form of numbers everywhere" (9.65). Then I looked at the preceding paragraph and was disheartened to learn Chicago does not like the foolproof system. Instead of 101-108 (the foolproof method) they want us to use 101-8 (presumably there are lots of fools who need placating).

Chapters 16 and 17 go on ad nauseam explaining how identical citation entries are handled differently in notes, bibliographies, or in reference lists (16.8-16.120 and 17.3-17.264). My wife and I have chaired several Death Valley historical conferences; she edits and prepares the camera ready text for the proceedings. Our instruction to the authors is simple: "We see no need to use different styles of literature citations in references and notes. Therefore, use the same literature citation format in your notes as used in references," which is the author-date system.

Scrutinizing the literature citation examples in the15th edition (e.g., 17.25-17.179), it is difficult to discern some of the subtle differences demanded by Chicago. The only way I could find them was to use a magnifying glass along with my more powerful reading glasses. Life, for authors, would be much simpler if Chicago would eliminate the frustrating nuances of the three systems and adopt the author-date system for notes, bibliographies, and literature citations.

In Chicago's discussion as to when to use the word "percent" or the "%" symbol we are told "in humanistic copy the word percent is used ... [but, presumably, for we non-humanistic scientists] the symbol % is more appropriate" (9.19). As long as I am on trivia, here's another one: Paragraph 17.169 lays down the rules for making the momentous decision as to when you leave a space following a colon. There's a rule for the space and one against the space. Wouldn't it be easier to simply say: A space always follows a colon or no space following the colon if followed by a number. Unquestionably this would be simpler but it wouldn't provide nits for an editor to pick.

Chicago now disallows op. cit. (opere citato: in the work previously cited) (16.50). The careless use of this helpful term is ubiquitous in the historical books I read. I've wasted many hours canvassing the previous notes in a book frantically attempting to track down, for example, "Wheat, op. cit. p. 47." When something is broken, fix it. The op. cit. "break" is easy to repair and here is how: Wheat, op. cit. [n. 3] p. 47. This immediately refers you back to the original note 3 where Wheat was first cited and tells you the author is now citing something on page 47 from Wheat's work.

The 14th edition, with its legible text has 921 pages and the barely readable 15th edition has 966 pages. Chicago added an excellent Grammar and Usage chapter, which consumed 92 pages. This chapter is a valuable addition to the tome.

It is now obvious Chicago will have to dump some sections if a readable 16th edition ever rolls off the press. Chicago could, as they did in the 15th edition, reduce the size of the font (heaven forbid!). If they do this, they'll have to supply a magnifying glass with each book.

A far better suggestion would be to whack away at the superfluous text with Occam's Razor and eliminate their insistence on having different standards for notes, references, and bibliographies. If they adopted the author-date system, widely used in the scientific community, the razor could trim a couple hundred pages of trivia. They then could go back to a readable font size.

Aesthetics supersedes practicality in most matters of my life, but there are times when you just want to USE something. As an editor, I want my reference books to decrease my work time, not add to it. I admit I haven't discovered a plethora of new style info simply because the style of the book itself precludes my perusal of it.

Chicago 15 is a big, beautiful disaster. Whoever designed it should be forced to use it -- after reading manuscripts every day, all day, all year -- as punishment. What were they thinking when they chose the typestyles and font sizes, especially for the reference numbers? Perhaps it was obvious we would just disregard this book and stick with our 14th editions anyway, so the designers thumbed their noses at us and decided to just make it pretty (which it is).

Must I mention the barely legible pale blue print? An attempt at setting apart the examples is laudable, though unnecessary (Is that not what the braces are for? I was always taught that ONE form of distinction is enough), but the chosen color is insulting to those of us who actually read for a living.

As an artist, I love the fonts and design. As an editor, I hate this book -- and I have no use for it as an artist. The best thing about this book is that no one wants to use it, so I'm not forced to either. None of the NYC book publishers I edit for have abandoned the 14th (although we all readily switched over to Webster's 11th). The second-best thing about this book is that I still have the 14th edition and WIT to turn to. The third-best thing is that at least the business expense is tax-deductible.

If you work with words, this is the reference book you must own. Updated approximately once a decade, the 15th edition is the most significant revision I can remember.

Publishing has changed dramatically and the Manual has changed with it. The editors promise that every aspect of their coverage has been examined and updated. In addition to books, the Manual also provides guidelines for journals and electronic publications.

There is a new chapter on American Grammar usage and usage. Design and manufacturing coverage has been streamlined to reflect current procedures.

A major improvement is the adding of descriptive headings to each numbered paragraph. This results in the Manual easier to search.

If you are looking for clear, concise advice, the 15th edition is reference stylebook you must own.

I hate this book. Can I say it clearer? Following its detailed formatting for bibliographies is challenging, but I need it. I don't like that either. What can I say? It is making me a better writer, and assisting me in my ability to persuade publications to print my work. It helps me earn money.

Like the Associated Press book, it is an absolute requirement for any writer serious about presenting his work professionally and with a consistent style.

Keep both Chicago and the AP on your desk if you write grants, white papers, marketing communications, press releases, feature articles. You get the idea. The only kind of professional business writer who may not need "The Chicago Manual of Style" might be a pure ad copywriter. The rest of us, even those us who are hip and modern, and work largely online, will not escape from it.

More academic publications require Chicago. More journalistic publications require AP. See? You need them both. In fact, you'll need several other style manuals if you make a living (or intend to) as a writer and/or editor. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. (Look! I used Chicago already. Notice the use of commas in a series.)

This is not a book I can say, "It is difficult to use. Buy its competitor." There is only one "Chicago Manual of Style." You will learn the structure quickly enough.

Buy this book. Hate it, but in an appreciated way.

I fully recommend this book.

Anthony Trendl
editor, HungarianBookstore.com

The 15th edition of the Chicago Manual of Style is the first great reference text of the 21st century. Writers, researchers, indexers, proofreaders, editors, publishers, archivists, and educators will all find common ground in the collective wisdom found here.

Those already familiar with other incarnations of this guide will find that is still the authority on a multitude of topics. Most of my initial forays have been in the fifth chapter on grammar and usage, a chapter that exhaustively covers all the parts of speech and provides an excellent guide to word usage. A separate chapter covers all aspects of spelling and the distinctive treatment accorded many works, including compounds. If only the eighth chapter on terms and names could be passed into law, then maybe some of the nonsensical and false capitalization that is applied so rampantly to military, political, scientific, religious, geographic, and government names could be controlled. Still, this information provides those willing to take on the fight with plenty of ammo to do it unreservedly. Likewise, the sixth chapter on punctuation will vindicate language purists who insist (as I do) that we have to uphold our standards and rules for punctuation to avoid anarchy in our writing.

A chapter on numbers jumps right into the common fray about whether to use numerals or words, providing myriad examples and not displacing the use of common sense in certain instances. There are plenty of nitty-gritty details here: when to use the en dash with inclusive numbers; how to form plurals of numbers (no apostrophes need apply); what is the correct way to express currency. Chapter 14, which is one of the many sections that reflects how technology has advanced our options and choices regarding printed communications, is essential reading for those in the scientific and technology fields and offers details likely not found in other guides of this sort, such as listing fonts frequently used for mathematical symbols.

The chapters on references, documentation, manuscript preparation, and indexing will likely be touchstones for the next decade. In these chapters, as throughout this guide, the articulate discussions of principals, guidelines, and rules are augmented with examples. The examples reflect a wide mode of communications, from print to the Internet. A chapter on rights and permissions ought to be mandatory reading for all college students. It pretty much covers what is and is not legal without smothering one with legalese.

Appendix A: Design and Production is not for everyone, but I've always be intrigued by the whole process of making books from the first scribbled outline to the binding process, so I find it an interesting read. And if you need more information, a generous 15-page bibliography offers more resources.

This edition is easy to search and use. The typography is more modern and less tiring on the eyes though the light blue type can be hard to read. (Was this "nonrepro blue" used as a countermeasure against photocopying and scanning?) There is also a deft touch of humility here, as noted in the preface: "As always, most Chicago rules are guidelines not imperatives; where options are offered, the first is normally our preference."

As hard as it is to give up my well-thumbed, annotated, and tagged 14th edition of the Chicago Manual of Style, I know that is well past time I retired it to sit along side my 13th edition. Too much has changed since the 14th edition was published, but not much has escaped the radar of those responsible for crafting this superb reference.

This is to "The Elements of Style" what a good encyclopedia is to a good dictionary. "The Elements of Style" will tell you the basics of what you need to know, but "The Chicago Manual of Style" will tell you everything else.
Everything else.
Every nagging question you've ever had about writing and grammar and punctuation is in here.
The proper rules for ellipsis marks?
Check.
The complete rules for making and organizing an index?
Check.
Extensive elaborations on the proper use of quotation marks, the active voice, and Roman numerals?
Check, check, check!
It's all here. It's all here, it's clearly written, and it's as complete as can be. It also has a good index for easier access to all its information.
If the book has any faults, it's that it employs a really baffling system of arranging its material, using a system of numbers and decimal points that's never really explained, and that even professional editors have puzzled over.
If you're a writer though, and if you want your work to look and read as professional as clear and as possible, you really ought to own and study and learn from this book. It can only help you.

I work as a freelance commercial writer. Since I deal with words for a living, I've built a substantial library of reference material. One would think that my Chicago Manual of Style (CMS) would be threadbare from constant use.

If only that were the case.

Our language bends and flexes, and most writing references keep pace with those changes. The CMS may, in fact, bend and flex with the best of them. Unfortunately, most people won't know if it does because accessing the wealth of information in its pages is dramatically crippled by an inability to locate the information users need.

The index for the CMS fails to consider how users actually search for information. The beauty of a Web-based search engine comes through its adaptability to user input. Different groups of keywords will lead a user to the necessary information. But the rigid indexing system of the CMS defies this kind of use. Its creators thought they knew how to sort information, but time and again, I simply cannot locate the information I need to know by using the index. This makes even simple info searches trying. In the end, this lack defeats the entire purpose of the CMS. Like the joke about the sound of one hand clapping, what is the usefulness of a printed reference you can't reference?

While some grace must be afforded the compilers of the CMS for sheer breadth of information, I'm routinely baffled why some obvious needs aren't covered. For instance, the correct rules for writing lists of items don't take into account those lists that use something other than colons to precede them. The CMS doesn't cover multiple-response lists preceded by ellipses or by a partial sentence. That seems to be a terrible oversight. If these simple lists are missing, what else isn't covered?

Likewise, the usage examples seem obvious compared with the more complex sentences I'm asked to write. A wider variety of given examples would help. Otherwise, I'm left to wonder if more than one rule exists to cover the sentence I'm writing and I just can't find those other rules in the CMS.

The University of Chicago Press offers an electronic version of the CMS, but the reviews here at Amazon universally denounce the interface. This is ironic, since the proper interface makes or breaks a reference. We may not think of a paper book as having an interface, but it's the poor interface of the current print edition of the CMS that garners it this lukewarm review.

IF one can find needed information, this reference excels. Yet that inability to find what one needs in the CMS makes it less than useful in today's Internet Age. I find more proper grammar usage using search engines than I do paging through the CMS. I hope its editors are listening.