Average Customer Review:
 ( 132 customer reviews )
Write an online review and share your thoughts with other customers.
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
207 of 220 found the following review helpful:
 Still a classicJul 25, 2003
By Jonathan E. Bruner
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.
62 of 62 found the following review helpful:
Very fine resourceMay 18, 2004
By sadhana444
"sadhana444"
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
53 of 57 found the following review helpful:
Simply the best; An absolute must for writersSep 18, 2003
By R. Shaff
"Velocipede"
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.
98 of 111 found the following review helpful:
 CHICAGO�S 15th�A BIG DISAPPOINTMENTMar 05, 2004
By LeRoy Johnson
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.
76 of 86 found the following review helpful:
An Essential GuideSep 12, 2003
By Craig L. Howe
"The Pointed Pundit"
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.
See all 132 customer reviews on Amazon.com
| 
based on 132 reviews
