Now in its sixth printing, the Manual has become the standard guide for the scholar, graduate student, and professional writer on preparing theses, dissertations, and manuscripts of articles and books. In addition to explaining the mechanics of documentation, including a full description of the recommendations of the MLA, the Manual discusses publishing procedures and presents all the information a practicing scholar needs to submit manuscripts. The Manual also addresses anonymous-submission policies, modern typesetting and printing techniques, and the effect of word processing on publishing."Unencumbered by information intended primarily for editors, the MLA manual will appeal to writers who find the Chicago Manual of Style unwieldy....The prose is exact, and the organization, index, and examples are most helpful. ...A standard source". Choice
Of all the books I've ever read, this is the one that most took me by surprise. I expected to treat this as a mere reference for college essay writing, but found myself returning to it for clarity on specific formatting of bibliographic details so frequently that I eventually sat down and read it cover to cover. The example content was itself interesting enough to keep me occupied, but reading the book completely gave me a much greater appreciation for the goals of the MLA style, and the rationale behind its structure, allowing me to occasionally derive the appropriate approach on new formatting issues when I didn't have the book handy. Believe it or not, this book is actually worth reading.
The first two parts of this manual, that on scholarly publishing and that on legal issues of scholarly publishing, are actually readable. The rest is best used as a reference for professionals in the humanities governed by Modern Language Association conventions. This is not a general style guide. Hold on to your high school grammar and style texts for that or purchase the University of Chicago Manual which is more extensive in its coverage of rules and conventions.
Chicago spoiled me I think. MLA has less than half the information Chicago does and it isn't as well organized. My boss and I spent half an hour trying to figure out a question about block quotes, and we ended up just following Chicago because MLA didn't tell us what to do. Lame.
Not that useful any more, but I can't seem to remove it from my reference shelf. I'd actually go on-line to the Purdue OWL Web site if I had a reference question these days.