Rating: 
Summary: A Singular Resource
Review: Anyone in the business of putting words onto paper has no need to read these reviews: He already knows that Words into Type is an indispensable companion in his craft. In a headline, should both words in a hyphenated compound be capitalized? Words into Type lets you know. Does one acquiesce "to," "with," or "in" something? Words into Type has the answer. Should a noun before a gerund always be possessive? Words into Type is ready with reassuring guidance. As this edition of Words into Type approaches the end of its third decade, portions of it may seem quaintly out of date. Other books can give you a more current account of the printing process, for example. But for matters of style--tables, footnotes, typography, copy editing, and much else besides--no other book gives better guidance than this underappreciated volume. As an editor, my reference shelf is brimming with style guides, and Words into Type is the most dog-eared among them. A professional writer or editor would make do with nothing less.
Rating:
Summary: Good as a reference
Review: Good as a reference but not something you pick up everyday. Very good as a reference, however.
Rating:
Summary: Still the Best
Review: Granted, the most recent edition came out in 1974, but Words Into Type is still the reference I turn to first with grammar and usage questions. (For style, I keep the NY Times Manual of Style and Usage handy.) Unlike the Chicago Manual of Style, WIT has a usable index that must have been put together by a mind-reader. It's organized the way people think and usually anticipates the form my bewilderment will take: Does "what" take a plural or singular verb? The answer's under "what" in the index. Should I say "as if it was" or "as if it were"? Look under "If clauses." Is it different from or different than? The index leads me right to my answer. I wish the editors would come out with a new edition, but for now I'm loyal to the increasingly ancient Third.
Rating:
Summary: Old but definitely not obsolete
Review: I can only agree with what other reviewers have said. This book is a classic that far outstrips Chicago Manual of Style for ease of use. An updated version would be wonderful (provided the people doing the updating did as good a job as the original writers did), but in the absence of a new version, I'll happily go on using this one. One of the things I like best is that locating information in it always seems easy. This makes a lovely change from Chicago Style.
Rating: 
Summary: Review of Words into Type with a question
Review: I find this book dated in terms of computer standards and terminology. What is the LATEST version of this? Is it 1974 as previous reviews indicated? How do I find this out? Someone reviewed the Prentice-Hall updated version and found it much poorer than the original. What is the date of that Prentice-Hall version? Is this book out of print as another editor recently told me? We are trying to decide on a standard style guide for our company documentation. I don't want to pick this guide if it is out of date or out of print.
Rating:
Summary: Always look here first!
Review: I have been in textbook publishing for over thirty years and would be lost without this easy-to-use reference. I wanted to buy a copy for my son, a banker and writer, and thought the latest edition would be best. But, to my dismay, my 1974 copy is the latest! So that's what he'll get.
Rating:
Summary: definitely a five-star reference
Review: I've used Words Into Type for eight years and consider it my number-one go-to book if I need to document ANY grammatical issue. It's almost as old as I am, but it seems to be ageless; you'd never know it was pushing 30! There are no cute examples that would tie it to a certain time. Although not style-specific, this book is more aligned with Chicago than with AP but is a useful accompaniment to either. It is logically arranged, well indexed, and easy to fill up with flags and highlights. I don't know any editor who wouldn't agree that this is a must-have.
Rating:
Summary: Old reliable
Review: Never failed to win me the argument over style or usage. Recommendations are clear and logical; moreover, they stand the test of time. I used to read the text -- particularly the grammar -- for lunch at my desk. The examples would conjure up stories in my head, almost as good as a vacation. I must have bought my copy 30 years ago when this edition first came out; still use it fondly. I am very pleased it is still in print and that others will be able to benefit from its sound advice.
Rating:
Summary: Great book in need of an update
Review: This is a great style guide; however, it hasn't been updated to include technology and practice for even the late twentieth century! When talking computer technology, Words into Type talks about cathode ray tubes, for crying out loud. Having said all that, it is in many cases, much more user-friendly than the Chicago Manual of Style. Where Chicago can be vague or indecisive, Words is most helpful. Apart from the fact that Words really needs to be updated, it's an invaluable tool. Since it hasn't been updated since 1974, you'd be better offbuying a used copy than plunking down good dough for a text that's 30 years old.
Rating:
Summary: Great book in need of an update
Review: This is a great style guide; however, it hasn't been updated to include technology and practice for even the late twentieth century! When talking computer technology, Words into Type talks about cathode ray tubes, for crying out loud. Having said all that, it is in many cases, much more user-friendly than the Chicago Manual of Style. Where Chicago can be vague or indecisive, Words is most helpful. Apart from the fact that Words really needs to be updated, it's an invaluable tool. Since it hasn't been updated since 1974, you'd be better offbuying a used copy than plunking down good dough for a text that's 30 years old.
| 
