The Chicago Manual of Style

Thanks for the advice, Medievalist, much appreciated! I already bought a copy though, so I'll have to do my best to wade through it. I read some of the reviews on Amazon and a lot of people said it was helpful but difficult/tedious to find information.

Keep in mind CMOS is a style guide, not a grammar manual.

It presents the acceptable options, or, the options chosen by the University of Chicago for UCP publications. It's not authoritative in the ordinary sense. It's just one of many style guides.

Medievalist said:

Keep in mind CMOS is a style guide, not a grammar manual.

It presents the acceptable options, or, the options chosen by the University of Chicago for UCP publications. It's not authoritative in the ordinary sense. It's just one of many style guides.

Click to expand...

The implied advice here is super sage. A good editor (not saying I'm one, but I've worked under several) has a number of style guides to backup experience and update education. Most are listed in this thread, and CMoS isn't always the best choice.

A good writer (not saying I'm one, but I've read thousands) only needs a dictionary and a grammar handbook to backup experience and education.

The title of Elements of Style doesn't lie. It isn't a grammar handbook. The better grammars for writers are those for junior high and high school, such as Little, Brown Handbook (any edition 1 through 12) or those for college 101 as Medievalist recommended. The one I keep at hand is Hodges Harbrace Handbook.

Online dictionaries include one of Medievalist's favorites: American Heritage Dictionary. https://www.ahdictionary.com/

Blacbird's favorite online grammar guide is mine, too: https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/section/1/5/

AnnaPappenheim said:

I read some of the reviews on Amazon and a lot of people said it was helpful but difficult/tedious to find information.

Click to expand...

The first thing to do when trying to find something in CMOS is to skim the table of contents and look for the section that seems appropriate. It's quite specific and, often, this is enough.

The second method is the index.

I'd suggest looking for a used copy of one of the grammar handbooks Chase mentions; my favorites are by Diana Hacker, largely because they're well organized, but Little, Brown is also very good.

These are used largely for college freshman comp classes, and in addition to grammar and usage information, they typically include the salient points of most of the major style guides.

A publisher will have their own favorite "house" dictionary and style / usage manual, as well as a "house" style sheet. There's not a lot of point if you're writing fiction is worry too much about usage/style details. You can't predict what your editor will require. The best practice is to use standard grammar, usage and spelling, and most of all, be consistent.

Thank you both very, very much, Medievalist and Chase! Really, I can't thank you enough for the advice and recommendations.

I will pick up a copy of Little, Brown and one by Diana Hacker. I do have a book on grammar around somewhere, I will dig it up too. Perhaps it is one mentioned; I don't remember the title.

Unfortunately, I won't have a publisher to turn to, as I'm self-publishing. Everything I've read on self-publishing advice, though, says you MUST hire an editor, even if that's the only thing you spend money on. That being said, I'm still going to try to go as far as possible on my own with the editing process. But I've read self-published books with typos and it comes across unprofessional, and must be embarrassing to the author. People are unforgiving about typos in published works, and one or two can be very off-putting.

Okay, so I just ordered Little, Brown Handbook on Amazon. (Yay!) I bought it used for a heavily discounted price, and in the latest edition. I was considering also buying A Writer's Reference, by Diana Hacker, but thought it might be redundant. I'll see how the one I ordered goes first.

Also, next time I'm about to go Amazon shopping, I need to walk over to my bookshelves and look around for ten minutes. And for Christmas, I could just wrap a few and "surprise" myself. Turns out I don't know I own half the books I own.

In the specific area of what I was looking for, I found: The Essential Writer’s Companion: A Concise Guide to Writing Effectively for School, Home, or Office; Rex Barks: Diagramming Sentences Made Easy; and, my favorite, Writing and Thinking. (Wrote a review of this last one on Goodreads: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/1042114217 .)

I even have this book: A Grammar of Murder, though I somehow think this has less to do with grammar and more to do with film studies.

I should have looked at all of this before ordering Little, Brown , but I'm still hopeful it would be helpful. Read lots of great reviews on it after it was recommended here.

AnnaPappenheim said:

Unfortunately, I won't have a publisher to turn to, as I'm self-publishing.

Click to expand...

I agree that writers don't need CMoS, or any other style guide: they just have to be consistent, and present their work clearly.

However, you're not just a writer: you're going to be a publisher too. You might therefore find some value in CMoS: but I second Medievalit's cautions and concerns. I've worked with CMoS and it's dense and complex and goes into great detail. Much of what it covers is not relevant to most self publishers; and if you're not aware that your use of dashes is incorrect (I'm not saying it is--that's just an example) then you're not going to know to look it up in CMoS, and so it won't help you.

Everything I've read on self-publishing advice, though, says you MUST hire an editor, even if that's the only thing you spend money on. That being said, I'm still going to try to go as far as possible on my own with the editing process. But I've read self-published books with typos and it comes across unprofessional, and must be embarrassing to the author. People are unforgiving about typos in published works, and one or two can be very off-putting.

Click to expand...

Using CMoS is not the same as editing, and I really wouldn't want to refer to it while I was editing: it's probably more appropriate for the copy editing stage.

It will help you get some of the small details right--for example, how to punctuate ellipses (always a fun thing to work out), or how to number your subheadings appropriately. But it won't give you any help at all with structure, or plot, or characterisation, for example, or for ensuring you have a compelling and believable story. All these things are more important for a reader than how you use your brackets, and your use (or not) of the Oxford comma. Far better for readers to notice a couple of typos than for them to not finish your book because they don't believe your characters would do the things they do.

I'll post a link to the style manual I use at work:

U.S. Government Publishing Office Style Manual

Like all style manuals, it is a specific reference for that House's style. I would also suggest (with tongue firmly planted in cheek) that it fits the needs of fiction and fantasy writers.

Pippi said:

Do you know of any alternatives?

Click to expand...

Find it at a used book store or a library sale. It doesn't change dramatically over time anyway and 99% of a decade-old copy is perfectly fine.

Unless you're a professional (and usually an editor), the cost really isn't justified. Most of the style guide can be looked up in other ways and a lot of it is pretty esoteric for most writing. I used it frequently during my journalism career, rarely would I go back to it now.

The AP style guide is not the same, and not often used in mainstream fiction publishing. College and research papers, scientific reports and news stories are where it applies.

Plus, I've found that editors will adapt your style anyway. Take numbers as an example. Spelling out 1-10, 1-100 or whether you use thousands, millions or billions is dependent on the publication as much as whether they follow the CMoS.

Jeff

Duncan J Macdonald said:

I'll post a link to the style manual I use at work:

U.S. Government Publishing Office Style Manual

Like all style manuals, it is a specific reference for that House's style. I would also suggest (with tongue firmly planted in cheek) that it fits the needs of fiction and fantasy writers.

Click to expand...

There certainly is plenty of fantasy in that style.

Old Hack said:

I agree that writers don't need CMoS, or any other style guide: they just have to be consistent, and present their work clearly.

However, you're not just a writer: you're going to be a publisher too. You might therefore find some value in CMoS: but I second Medievalit's cautions and concerns. I've worked with CMoS and it's dense and complex and goes into great detail. Much of what it covers is not relevant to most self publishers; and if you're not aware that your use of dashes is incorrect (I'm not saying it is--that's just an example) then you're not going to know to look it up in CMoS, and so it won't help you.

Click to expand...

That makes sense, Old Hack. Thank you!I guess what I'll do with CMoS is flip through it a few times when it arrives, and from there on check out the Table of Contents and try to figure things out from there.

Using CMoS is not the same as editing, and I really wouldn't want to refer to it while I was editing: it's probably more appropriate for the copy editing stage.

It will help you get some of the small details right--for example, how to punctuate ellipses (always a fun thing to work out), or how to number your subheadings appropriately. But it won't give you any help at all with structure, or plot, or characterisation, for example, or for ensuring you have a compelling and believable story. All these things are more important for a reader than how you use your brackets, and your use (or not) of the Oxford comma. Far better for readers to notice a couple of typos than for them to not finish your book because they don't believe your characters would do the things they do.

Click to expand...

Okay, as per usual, you're waaaaay ahead of me, Old Hack. I just looked up copyediting (you know… that term I keep seeing and not understanding. *Smacks head*). Yes, copyediting is what I'm looking for with the CMoS. Editing is what I'm familiar with, and (somewhat) good at. Oh geez. Much to learn. Maybe a dictionary is what I should be reading

Medievalist said:

Wait until you have someone directing you to CMOS before you buy a copy. A new edition comes out about every two years.

Click to expand...

Eh, well, that was true in the early 1900s. But since about 1930, the frequency has been closer to once a decade: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Chicago_Manual_of_Style#History_of_editions

Also, a lot of people in this thread sing the praises of The Elements of Style, but I think it was on this forum that I came across this link to an article that rather thoroughly eviscerates it, with numerous, concrete examples of all the things it got wrong.

I ususally log on to Abebooks when I'm looking for a used book:

http://www.abebooks.com/?cm_mmc=ggl...d-_-abebooks&gclid=CMWp28WlmbMCFUWo4AodXzwAMA

Abebooks puts you in touch with used bookstores in the US, Canada, the UK and other English-speaking countries. Prices are sometimes phenomenally low. I just checked and saw four copies of The Chicago Manual of Style priced at $1 each and another at $3.45. The books' conditions are accurately described.

Books are not sold directly by Abebooks but by the hundreds of used bookstores that sell through the website. I have ordered a number of books there and have never been disappointed.

WWWalt said:

Eh, well, that was true in the early 1900s. But since about 1930, the frequency has been closer to once a decade: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Chicago_Manual_of_Style#History_of_editions

Click to expand...

That's interesting. Because I remember new editions coming more frequently than that in the last two decades. Perhaps there are revised editions which don't count as completely new ones, and which so aren't listed there? I don't know; and I might be misremembering, too. But still.

Also, a lot of people in this thread sing the praises of The Elements of Style, but I think it was on this forum that I came across this link to an article that rather thoroughly eviscerates it, with numerous, concrete examples of all the things it got wrong.

Click to expand...

The article you link to is flawed, and I'm not sure I agree with its author on many of the points raised. However, I am not a fan of The Elements of Style. It's useful as a guide if you're writing non-fiction; but it's far too rigid, particularly when you're writing fiction.

Have you considered subscribing to the online CMoS? It also gives you access to the editorial forum etc. Again, though, as rightly said above, it's mostly for grammar, syntax, and punctuation.

Unless you are using the book regularly, there's not much need for a style manual. It's cheaper and easier to use one of the many online style manuals. Search around, because they are not the same, because they are intended for different audiences.

Old Hack said:

Perhaps there are revised editions which don't count as completely new ones, and which so aren't listed there?

Click to expand...

No, that would defeat the purpose of having an edition number. "Fifteenth edition" refers to a specific, immutable set of rules. If a publisher refers to a rule in the fifteenth edition and the editor has to query whether that means the October 2005 or the August 2007 or the Holiday Season 2008 version of the fifteenth edition, chaos would ensue, and the universe would explode.

The article you link to is flawed, and I'm not sure I agree with its author on many of the points raised.

Click to expand...

I'd like to know what you consider its flaws. I find I agree with the article's points more often than not, so I might be more predisposed to overlook its inaccuracies.

WWWalt said:

No, that would defeat the purpose of having an edition number. "Fifteenth edition" refers to a specific, immutable set of rules. If a publisher refers to a rule in the fifteenth edition and the editor has to query whether that means the October 2005 or the August 2007 or the Holiday Season 2008 version of the fifteenth edition, chaos would ensue, and the universe would explode.

Click to expand...

Count the universe as all explodey, then, because books do get changed without new editions being created.

It's not good practice, but it happens. I know: I've done it. Each new printing allows us to correct mistakes which have been spotted; new editions only arise when substantial changes are made.

I'd like to know what you consider its flaws. I find I agree with the article's points more often than not, so I might be more predisposed to overlook its inaccuracies.

Click to expand...

Here are a few of its points which I disagree with:

Elements settled in as the primary vehicle through which grammar was taught to college students and presented to the general public

Click to expand...

both authors were grammatical incompetents.

Click to expand...

Some of the recommendations are vapid, like "Be clear" (how could one disagree?). Some are tautologous, like "Do not explain too much." (Explaining too much means explaining more than you should, so of course you shouldn't.) Many are useless, like "Omit needless words."

Click to expand...

I'm not going to do a line-by-line of the article, but I find it overly picky and negative. As I said, I'm no fan of Strunk and White, but I see no reason to find fault where none exists.

Old Hack said:

Count the universe as all explodey, then, because books do get changed without new editions being created.

It's not good practice, but it happens. I know: I've done it. Each new printing allows us to correct mistakes which have been spotted; new editions only arise when substantial changes are made.

Click to expand...

I confess I'm not sure what your point is anymore. You originally said you "remember new editions coming more frequently than that", but you are now talking about corrections of misspellings or errant semicolons that happen between printings, and which would thus not be marked as a new edition.

I'm not going to do a line-by-line of the article, but I find it overly picky and negative.

Click to expand...

I suppose it's hard to be upbeat when your article's thesis is that the book you're discussing is deeply flawed. "Grammatical incompetents" may be harsh and unduly derogatory, but the specific examples he cites of their grammatical missteps hardly paints the authors as grammatically competent.

"Overly picky" is an interesting criticism to level against an article about a book whose raison d'être is attention to detail.

As it states in its title, the CMoS is about style, not correct grammar. It's handy if an author wants consistency, but not helpful for deciding when to use whom or I. The cheap cheat sheet sounds like the best investment.