| 
Provided by Amazon.com, The World Trusted Store. |
|
|
The Chicago Manual of Style: The Essential Guide for Writers, Editors, and Publishers (14th Edition) | 
 enlarge | Author: Chicago Editorial Staff
Publisher: University Of Chicago Press
Category: Book
List Price: $45.00
Buy Used: $1.97
You Save: $43.03 (96%)
New (17) Used (84) Collectible (4) from $1.97
Rating:  36 reviews
Sales Rank: 14777
Media: Hardcover
Edition: 14th
Number Of Items: 1
Pages: 933
Shipping Weight (lbs): 3
Dimensions (in): 9.5 x 6.5 x 2
ISBN: 0226103897
Dewey Decimal Number: 808.0270973
EAN: 9780226103891
ASIN: 0226103897
Publication Date: September 1, 1993
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
| |
| |
| Similar Items:
|
| Editorial Reviews:
Amazon.com Review
What can we say? This weighty tome is the essential reference for all who work with words--writers, editors, proofreaders, indexers, copywriters, designers, publishers, and students. Discover who Ibid is, how to deftly avoid the split infinitive, and how to format your manuscripts to impress any professor or editor (no, putting it in a blue plastic folder is just not enough).
Product Description
The 14th edition of The Chicago Manual of Style has now been superseded by the 15th edition.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.
|
| Customer Reviews: Read 31 more reviews...
 Right up there with "Machinerys Handbook and NEC" January 29, 2008
Excellent reference, now my standard for writing. As necessary as the "National Electrical Code" is to EE's
 Complicated September 26, 2007
What can you say about the Chicago Manual of Style? It's supposedly beyond reproach, although I find it incredibly frustrating. I often have a very particular punctuation or grammar question, and I spend hours looking through references and cross-references without ever finding exactly the information I want. I think I'd recommend taking a Chicago Manual of Style course before using the Chicago Manual of Style. I'm thinking of getting the Oxford Guide to Style. I hear it's much more straightforward. Besides, who wants to know that much about book-binding?The Oxford Style Manual
Prescriptionist McKinnon is off base April 8, 2004
16 out of 19 found this review helpful
Arlo McKinnon writes, "Many of the 'rules' expounded in the Chicago Manual of Style are in direct contradiction to accepted convention; to name just two examples, the placement of a serial comma before the 'and' and the addition of an 's' following the apostrophe in a possessive already ending in "s.'"
McKinnon's ignorance regarding the serial comma rule certainly calls into question his authority as an editor. The only place I've seen this so-called convention of omitting the comma is in the AP Manual--not an authority to be relying for serious editorial work, I think. Besides, how well would McKinnon's blind obedience to this so-called convention apply in the possibly apocryphal book dedication, "I'd like to thank my parents, Ayn Rand and God"? Aren't editors supposed to improve the flow and logic of writing, not force it into some straitjacket of rigid rules that only exist inside the editor's head?
People seeking editorial advice would be better off with the Chicago Manual than they would be with a hyperbolic prescriptionist like McKinnon. My office has both the 14th AND 15th editions on the shelf, and they get used--usefully--every single week.
Putting the Exceptions Where they Belong April 10, 2003
17 out of 19 found this review helpful
As a freelance editor and typesetter, I find myself using CHICAGO nearly every day. At first, I thought it was unnecessarily thick and dense, but as I compared it to other style manuals, I found CHICAGO to be more comprehensive, thorough, and well-organized than others.As with any reference of this type, it will take the reader a little time to become accustomed to the order. A first-time user will swear at it, but after repeated use, the user becomes more familiar with the how and why of this work. Things that at first I found frustrating I now realize could NOT have been handled in a better or more efficient way. There is often no obvious place to put exceptions or obscure rules, and the editors pick a likely location. For example, suppose that while editing, I encounter a situation which doesn't quite fit a standard rule. At first, I think that this exception obviously belongs in Location A in CHICAGO, and wonder why the editors did not put it there. However, a month later, I may encounter a similar exception, but believe now that it obviously belongs in Location B in CHICAGO, and wonder why the editors did not put it there. Later, I realize that I have now thought that the same exception belonged in two different locations -- obviously, the editors can't just keep putting the same exceptions in every possible tangential location. As I gained familiarity with the book, I came to understand why certain exceptions or certain obscure rules were placed where they were -- and I came to agree that they were generally placed in the best location. That said, there are still a few things I haven't found, but those generally involve simultaneous applications of multiple rules. Each rule is covered, but sometimes, it is unclear how multiple rules intersect. I am entirely unwilling to trade it my CHICAGO for AP, MLA, Turabian, Strunk & White, or any other style manual.
Needs revision March 4, 2003
11 out of 21 found this review helpful
This work has such a reputation, and so much praise has been (rightly) given to it in the reviews, that it certainly does not need an endorsement; what could I say that hasn't been said?That having been said, the Chicago Manual of Style is in need of a revision. Specifically, it does not cover issues that arise when self-typesetting books or journal articles, a common practice among mathematicians and scientists in the age of LaTeX.
|
|
|
| |
