The Chicago Manual of Style

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.


A must-have reference for writers and editors   August 18, 2004
 46 out of 50 found this review helpful

This is a condensed version of a detailed review posted on my web site, The Purple Crayon.

The 14th edition of The Chicago Manual of Style was for years the standard style reference for many book publishing companies. The new edition, the first revision in ten years, and the most substantial in more than thirty, seems likely to play the same role.

Contents: The new edition opens with "The Parts of a Publshed Work," which covers magazines as well as books. Then come chapters on manuscript preparation and editing, proofs, and rights and permissions (which includes a useful introduction to U.S. copyright law). After these is a new chapter on grammar and usage, followed by what has always seemed to me to be the meat of Chicago: detailed guidance on handling punctuation, spelling, names, numbers, foreight languages, quotations and dialogue, illustrations, and abbreviations. Sizable chapters on documentation of sources in notes and bibliographies and on creating indexes wrap up the body of the book. Then come an appendix on the basics of design and production and another consisting of flowcharts showing the publishing process, the bibliography, and the index.

The 15th compared to the 14th edition: The design is significantly different, to start with. The 14th edition uses a simple approach, which some would call classic and others old-fashioned. The 15th edition uses a greater variety of typefaces and weights in an effort to make information easier to locate on the page. It introduces blue as a second color. Blue has its greatest impact in the grammar information, where it is used to pick out the examples.

What's more important is that there is a considerable amount of new information. They now take account of the fact that much editing is now done on screen, and provide guidance for electronic publication and for citing information found on the Internet. The chapter on grammar and usage means that Chicago now answers many questions that were not addressed in earlier editions. There are many other updates throughout the book, and I see quite a lot of revision. For example, the material on commas has been reorganized, given new sub-headers, and designed to fit in about ten pages instead of fifteen. The intention seems to be to make it easier to use. Those used to the 14th edition may feel otherwise, of course.

Each item is, as before, numbered sequentially within a chapter, so that to find information on interjections, for example, you turn to 7.32. But the numbering of items has changed from the previous edition, so you will not be able to turn to the 14th edition if a copyeditor refers you to "CMS 6.104" on the issue of square brackets. That number will only take you to the right place in the 15th edition.

Comments: Chicago subtitles itself "The Essential Guide for Writers, Editors, and Publishers." I think that is a reasonable claim.... The new edition has quickly been put into use by trade and academic publishers, and anyone with a copy of the 14th edition will find that it is no longer of practical use, as it is the 15th edition that is being used to answer questions of punctuation, capitalization, citation style, and other thorny issues.

Look at this as several different books bound together. One slim book explains the parts of a book or journal, how to prepare and edit a manuscript, and how copyright law underlies publishing. Another small volume covers grammar and usage. A large central chunk covers the minutiae of treatment of names, capitalization, abbreviations, and the like. Then comes another book on footnotes, bibliographies, and indexes. Last of all comes a pamphlet on design and production, followed by a very useful bibliography and index.


Hard on the Eyes   August 14, 2003
 41 out of 57 found this review helpful

Don't throw away your old editions, because CMS 15 is hard on the eyes. It uses blue type that is hard to read and suffers from poor print quality on many pages.


Very fine resource   May 18, 2004
 32 out of 32 found this review helpful

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


Make Sure You Buy the 14th Edition, First   April 7, 2004
 30 out of 44 found this review helpful

The info you want and need is in the 14th Edition -- stick with that one and you'll never go wrong. This is like the "new coke." The 15th Edition seems to be an edition made different if only for the sake of being different (and, of course, to justify making money after a certain amount of years have passed since the 14th was published). I fear for the next generation if the 14th Edition were to become unavailable. I'm willing to bet the 16th Edition will very similar to the 14th, and only include the truly useful from the 15th (of which, I think, there is little).