The Chicago Manual of Style

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.


An Essential Guide   September 12, 2003
 85 out of 94 found this review helpful

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.


Sorry, it's the editor in me   September 24, 2003
 66 out of 89 found this review helpful

Well, the spine type on the copy I bought is right-side up. But what's with the '40s typeface on said spine?

Sloppy printing job! And the grid was not thought out carefully; the pages do not back properly. [Tip to newbie book designers: Check your margin and gutter settings on your master pages.]

Am I picky? You bet. How am I supposed to use this as a training tool? This is THE style bible for books, so it should be a shining example in itself. It seems as though the attention to design and typesetting issues is dwindling away with each revision. I can't claim to have read the new edition in its entirety, so perhaps much of that information has been assimilated into other chapters. My experience is that a designer who is new to books is not going to read the entire manual to find the finer points about specifications and composition.

By the way, I save my old versions to look up style examples not covered in the newest edition. And I still use my old WIT for help with grammatical constructions that Chicago doesn't cover.


Design disaster   January 13, 2004
 50 out of 56 found this review helpful

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.


Simply the best; An absolute must for writers   September 18, 2003
 48 out of 50 found this review helpful

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.