The Chicago Manual of Style
The 14th edition of The Chicago Manual of Style has now been superseded by the 15th edition. See below for a link to the new edition. The ISBN of the new 15th edition is 0-226-10403-6.
Hardcover, 14th, 933 pages
Published
September 1st 1993
by University of Chicago Press
(first published 1906)
Friend Reviews
To see what your friends thought of this book,
please sign up.
This book is not yet featured on Listopia.
Add this book to your favorite list »
Community Reviews
(showing
1-30
of
3,000)
It doesn't matter if you're a fan of MLA, AP, or even (dare I say it) Franklin Covey, the Chicago Manual of Style will never let real-world writers and editors* down. Sure, at first you'll stagger through its appendix and feel overwhelmed by the layout, but rest assured, with time, you'll come to rely on it like your trusty blankey that has always been there for you through all these years.
*By real-world writers and editors, I mean that elitist class of people who poo poo on people who write for...more
*By real-world writers and editors, I mean that elitist class of people who poo poo on people who write for...more
Anyone who aspires to be an editor of any sort -- developmental, line, but especially copy -- must buy this book and learn how to find what's in it quickly and easily. It seems every other person I meet these days describes herself as an editor, but I rather doubt that they really know what that means. Being literate and knowing about the serial comma do not make you an editor. The U of C Manual of Style is indispensable, a must-have. And when each new, thick, and expensive edition is published,...more
Memo to Goodreads admin people: the 15th edition is old hat. Nowadays it is the 16th edition that is authoritative. The once-proud 15th edition has had its pedestal tugged out from under it. Only losers refer to the old-fashioned, outmoded, antiquated 15th edition anymore, or even hold on to their copy. Screw the 15th edition.
Please create a listing for the Chicago Manual of Style, 16th edition. I'd like to post a review complaining that I see few differences between it and the 15th edition (wh...more
Please create a listing for the Chicago Manual of Style, 16th edition. I'd like to post a review complaining that I see few differences between it and the 15th edition (wh...more
Oct 26, 2007
Katherine
rated it
4 of 5 stars
·
review of another edition
Recommends it for:
editors, authors who work with editors, snarky people
My Bible.
Why did they have to change the rule about a bold or italic punctuation mark being set bold or italic according to the preceding typeface?
Why don't they include better samples of how to abbreviate journal titles for Documentation II style?
Why is the index still horrendous?
I use this book every single day, even if I'm just threatening my dog with it to get her off the furniture.
Why did they have to change the rule about a bold or italic punctuation mark being set bold or italic according to the preceding typeface?
Why don't they include better samples of how to abbreviate journal titles for Documentation II style?
Why is the index still horrendous?
I use this book every single day, even if I'm just threatening my dog with it to get her off the furniture.
Jun 22, 2008
Miriam
rated it
4 of 5 stars
·
review of another edition
Recommends it for:
writers, especially of non-fiction
Recommended to Miriam by:
my dissertation advisor (and it was more an order than a recomme
Shelves:
non-fiction
Too heavy, too expensive, and too orange. Other than that, it is great! Very thorough and well-organized. This is the only style guide I've had where I could both locate the information I needed quickly and get a sufficiently clear and complete explanation to be sure how it applied to my own writing.
The serial comma is a beautiful, perfect thing. This book is nowhere near perfect, but there's nothing else like it.
I am not a grammarian but I appreciate formal language and text.
Out of all the grammar texts available, The Chicago Manual is my absolute fave. So far, c. 20 years of use, they have covered every technical aspect of writing that I have needed to review at work. They also denote variances in opinion (which my comma happy self appreciates).
Out of all the grammar texts available, The Chicago Manual is my absolute fave. So far, c. 20 years of use, they have covered every technical aspect of writing that I have needed to review at work. They also denote variances in opinion (which my comma happy self appreciates).
This is the granddaddy of style guides. This is the guide I refer to as the definitive source unless there is a reason to cite another (specialty). More than once I have found publications that state they follow Chicago to break with what the states. It's too bad that so many do not know/or do not care about style in writing.
This being my first review, it's somehow both appropriate and telling that I choose to comment first on a book that I not only use daily but also refer to in the most literal of terms as "my bible." I give this book five stars because I can trust that it is right, and If I do what it says, it will always have my back.
I guess this is as useful as the other style manuals, in that certain publications & journals only accept manuscripts that strictly adhere to the guidelines. What bothers me are the picayune differences between this, the MLA, the APA manuals, etc. Good writing, organization, citations and footnoting could & should be more universal and not divided into so many versions.
Jan 17, 2011
Erik Graff
rated it
4 of 5 stars
·
review of another edition
Recommends it for:
editors/students/authors
Recommended to Erik by:
no one
Shelves:
reference
Having been laid off from my happy position at Loyola University Chicago, having no luck at finding a similar position there or elsewhere and being semi-employed by a small academic publishing house, I decided to get serious about another career. So, I started publishing lots reviews and one scholarly article and began trying to drum up editorial work. Being already familiar with the MLA style, I picked up a copy of the Chicago Manual of Style and read through the whole thing. It wasn't so bad....more
Sep 03, 2012
ACB
rated it
5 of 5 stars
·
review of another edition
Shelves:
books-about-writing,
nonfiction
my go-to guide for all things writing related. mla and apa manuals could learn much from this magnificent text. (note: although this book is marked as "read," i certainly haven't read it cover to cover. sizable chunks though.)
Besides having all the answers for editors who edit for organizations that require Chicago style, this is a tremendously sexy book, with that distinctive hot orange cover and good heft. I just like holding it.
Mar 16, 2013
Rowena Dela Rosa Yoon
rated it
4 of 5 stars
·
review of another edition
Shelves:
archive
After writing a review on Strunk and White's The Element of Style, I got this recommendation. A must-have reference style. My latest fav though is the Harvard Style.
There are no discussion topics on this book yet.
Be the first to start one »

Loading...
view all 13 comments
































