Customer Reviews

MLA Style Manual and Guide to Scholarly Publishing, 3rd Edition

5 star:		(7)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

NOTE: The previous three reviews, obviously, are reviews of the previous, second edition of this manual; I address the current, third edition--and only with regard to citation format.

The changes this edition introduces, on the whole, constitute a catastrophe for the MLA. If these changes are reflected in the next edition of the _MLA Handbook_, most students, scholars, teachers, and professors in the humanities are sure to abandon the MLA. Here are just a few of the inexplicable gaffes I have noticed so far:

1. DELETION OF THE APPENDIX ON FOOTNOTES/ENDNOTES (former Appendix A). This is the whopper. Most students and scholars in the humanities use footnotes/endnotes. Without the old appendix--which should never have been a mere appendix, to begin with--the book is rendered useless to most students and scholars. Certainly, teachers and professors can no longer recommend it, or any subsequent edition of the _MLA Handbook_ based on it, to their students.

2. PLACEMENT OF SERIES INFORMATION AT END OF CITATIONS (section 6.6.15, formerly 6.6.16). This one baffles me. Who could think such placement even remotely aesthetically pleasing? On a practical level, such placement tends to burry the ever-so-important year of publication.

3. UBIQUITOUS MEDIUM OF PUBLICATION DATA. Okay, this one baffles me too. Despite feeble protestations to the contrary, "print" and "film" are default assumptions within their respective domains. Having to write those designations at the end of all relevant citations is silly, superfluous, ugly, wordy, and a waste of ink and paper. Aren't we supposed to be "green" now?

4. CITATION OF ONLINE SOURCES. Yet another baffler! Anyone who thinks getting rid of URL addresses in citations is a good idea is just plain nuts. URLs are the easiest way of locating websites. The editors' argument that reproducing URLs is a process prone to error is specious. A simple "copy and paste" operation solves the problem easily and quickly. With citations of online sources, more is better--though, obviously, with a URL, the "web" designation would be superfluous.

5. DELETION OF BRACKETED ELLIPSES (former and current section 3.9.5). Bracketed ellipses provided the simplest way of distinguishing between original and inserted ellipses. Now, one must return to the parenthetical "ellipsis in original."

6. DELETION OF METHOD OF INDICATING ITALICS/UNDERSCORING ELECTRONICALLY (former and current section 3.5). The old recommendation was ideally suited for online boards and chatrooms and for email.

7. ERROR REGARDING COMPLETE PUBLICATION DATA FOR SPECIAL ISSUES OF JOURNALS. The end of section 6.5.13 claims to provide guidance for those wishing to provide full publication data but provides no publication data. Presumably, the intent must have been along the lines of the final example of section 6.6.16.

I have found only two welcome changes in this edition: (1) the long-overdue change from underscoring to italics; and (2) the revised format for republished journal issues, section 6.6.16, though this latter matter is rather subtle. Otherwise, as far as I have been able to check thus far, the new edition's changes in citation format are a travesty. The next edition of the _MLA Handbook_ must ignore this edition, which must be discontinued at once; otherwise, the MLA will find its influence greatly diminished and its publications staff downsized. As a longtime user of MLA format (with footnotes), it saddens me that I may have no choice but to turn to and recommend _The Chicago Manual of Style_ in the future. Certainly, I will be using this edition only as a paperweight.

For citation style, I still recommend the current, sixth edition of the _MLA Handbook_ above all other guides.

I basically agree with the review of E. Garcia ("A Shocking Debacle!" August 18, 2008), but wanted to add some comments.

For all those confused ones out there: this book is the professional publishing guide, which goes beyond the student's guide to writing papers. It also went into the 3rd (THIRD) edition, which is substantially different from prior editions, and that is what I am speaking of here. I don't believe there is much of a point in comparing citation formats, especially qualitatively, and I have used APA, MLA, and some things individual professors made up. However, I have encountered some radical, narrow-minded ideologies in the academia, with one senior social scientist essentially spelling out a future of ignorance for anyone who dared use the MLA. (I know they spoke of publications in the field, but the way it was put was rather childish.)

So far, I like the MLA fine, and so far was happy to use the format. Which brings me to the reason I had to write something: after having written a few papers last quarter using the new edition...and boy was that fun! MLA, what on earth made you put in that insane rule about adding "Print." to every print resource in the works cited section? Has it come to this? CDs, YouTube, and random web resources are easier to enter??? This is insanity, tedious, and useless.

For a very systematic, concise review I again refer to Garcia, but overall I want to add that I don't find many of the changes quite as disgusting as they do...perhaps I still lack the necessary experience. However, when one of my professors told us about the bad news of the 3rd ed., she almost lost her breakfast. The poor woman is one of the countless editors and publishers of small professional periodicals, and now all these folks have to re-learn everything that made sense. The new edition is not just another step, another improvement, fine-tuning, or repair job, but a radical break and a basic change in their logic, and the result is less than satisfying. No smiley star for you, MLA!

This book does everything it is advertised to do.

A fault of the book: The book (on p. 214) should clarify what is considered the "title" of a web-page: Is it that which is written on the title bar, or the actual title heading the text?

However, I do not like the MLA citation style. In-text citations are much more intrusive than are footnotes or endnotes. They are also more difficult for the reader to match to the writer's documentation, if, for instance, the writer is using several works from the same source (e.g., the same government agency, where author's names are not usually given). In such a case, especially if the titles of the cited works are similar, the long title would have to be inserted parenthetically in the text, instead of just having a footnote number. It is a cumbersome citation style.

The Modern Language Association is referenced throughout academia and the publishing industry as the standard setter for matters of grammar and other aspects of writing. Now available in a newly updated and expanded third edition, the "MLA Style Manual: And Guide to Scholarly Publishing" is their thoroughly comprehensive and 'user friendly' guide for publishing a useful reference that will be especially appreciated by those new to publishing and an indispensable reference for anyone needing a reference work on publishing standards. The newly expanded and updated third edition offers invaluable and practical advice on a broad spectrum of publishing issues ranging from stating sources and electronic submission, to new information on copyright and fair use practices. "MLA Style Manual" is an essential and indispensable reference work for any publishing company or self-published author looking for the best way to make their books viable in today's volatile and competitive marketplace.

This is the real deal on MLA. Don't pay more for an abridged version of MLA "enhanced" with filler.

This product is a must for anyone studying English Literature. It will walk you through correctly citing books, articles, movies etc. It will also show you how to organize an annotated bibliography. This is the newest edition and since it's published every 5 years you're good to go until 2013.

As a freelance copyeditor I have to make sure the ms. is in the editor's requested format. Some of my work must be in the MLA style and this book is the best reference book available. I used the 2nd edition and when I got another job requesting MLA style, I ordered the 3rd edition.

This is a mandatory document I need for school. I know it is going to be helpful. Everything I need to know is in there.

This product shipped quickly (arrived earlier than estimated) and arrived in perfect condition. Thank you.

39 and Just went back to school. First college paper and have never heard of the MLA format. This book didn't help much I did better with a quick google search. Just me but I don't recommend. Find something with sample papers in it.