The Chicago Manual of Style: The Essential Guide for Writers, Editors, and Publishers (14th Edition)

THE CHICAGO MANUAL OF STYLE is one of those books that no professional - writer, publisher, scientist, lawyer, teacher - should be without. At nearly 900 pages, it covers almost any writing issue you can imagine, from the huge range of different requirements for citations to pluralizing foreign words to dealing with mathematics in type. Of course, the more common problems of spelling, grammar, and punctuation are discussed exhaustively as well. Divided into three parts (Bookmaking, Style, and Production and Printing), the target readership is without doubt those in the book trade; however, the style section is by far the largest and most useful for the average person.

My only problem with this volume is accessibility. It's not always easy to find the section dealing with a particular problem. For example, you may have to wade through several pages before you can determine which version of a citation is correct for your situation. Despite this difficulty, I cannot deduct a star from my rating since no other book compares in scope and accuracy when it comes to the mechanics of writing.

I highly recommend this book for anyone who writes articles, technical papers, or books as part of his or her profession. College students should consider buying it as a reference tool that will never steer them wrong.

This is an essential text for writers who write for publication. While it has a great amount of grammar and style content, it also a bunch of technical content of interest primarily to professional authors (e.g., the proper way to number pages in a book).

If you are a student or business writer, you may be better served by a usage guide such as Follet's Modern American Usage, Elements of Style by Stunk and White, etc.

I hate this book. Can I say it clearer? Following its detailed formatting for bibliographies... UGH!... 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 pursuade 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.

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!)

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

I fully recommend this book.

Anthony Trendl

If I somehow found myself in a scenario where I was coerced to operate a grammar hotline but restricted to having a single reference at my disposal, then the Chicago Manual of Style would be my weapon of choice. This venerable, thorough guide to editing and writing may be getting a bit dated, yet it remains an indispensable reference for serious editors and writers in nearly all disciplines.

Two main attributes---its organization and its completeness---make this reference so valuable. For example, chapter 5, a treatise on the pleasure and pain of punctuation, starts with the various forms of terminal punctuation before moving into a substantial discussion on the comma (there are more than 20 subpoints discussed on the uses of the comma) and concluding with a roundup of the remaining commonly used marks of punctuation. It's easy to find out the distinction between, say an en-dash and an em-dash, or get a definitive answer about why we need to include serial commas (despite the outdated advice offered by the badly out-of-step AP Style Manual).

The advice about names and terms found in chapter 7 seems daunting at first, but the presentation is, again, so well-organized and complete, that, after some study, you will start catching all the errors that make their way into too much printed material these days. The advice here about when to capitalize words such as "federal," "government," or "state" trumps the misleading, confusing dictums of other outmoded texts such as the United States Government Printing Office Style Manual.

One more example of why the Chicago Manual of Style is a beacon of calm authority can be found in the common sense approach to the difficult issue of being consistent in the use of numbers. Nothing drives me crazier than fighting with a manager, copy editor, or researcher about the use of numbers. Here the emphasis is on laying on the general principles not as absolute rules but as guidelines followed by a generous overview about the myriad exception and variations to these principles. Numerous examples cover virtually all the situations one might encounter.

Any new copy editor worth his or her salt will have highlighted practically the whole second chapter on copyediting; veterans will return here frequently, too. Both will likely have, at some point, thumb tacked or taped a photocopy of Figure 3.1 Proofreaders' Marks within easy viewing distance.

Detailed discussions about references and bibliographies, indexing, marking manuscripts, and copyright law (though this is one place where the book is beginning to show its age, for the impact of the Internet on copyright matters was not foreseen when this book was published) round out this reference. Sections on foreign languages, scientific terms, and mathematics in type illustrate further why this book anchors the writer-editor's reference collection.

I eagerly wait for the 15th edition to be published.

Despite the complaints, despite its exhaustive nature, despite the nitty-gritty approach, The Chicago Manual of Style is THE standard in the book publishing industry. Even when you make exceptions to a rule described in Chicago, you reference the book itself.

That being said, know your area of writing. If you are writing for a newspaper or magazine, for example, use the AP manual. If you are writing a term paper or thesis, know your professor's bias. There many elements of grammar and punctuation that are stylistic elements, for example the serial comma. Chicago recommends using the serial comma, but in a journalistic article this is considered inappropriate.

Chicago is exhaustive in nature, but as a copyeditor, I find it extremely useful. Use what you need, and don't worry about the rest.