The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage : The Official Style Guide Used by the Writers and Editors of the World's Most Authoritative Newspaper

Rating:
Summary: Say it as simply as possible.
Review: I would expect the world's leading daily newspaper to produce a pretty decent style guide and I was not disappointed with this edition. Having always worked in the design side of publishing, where it is necessary to be much more familiar with words and language than other areas of print design, I've collected a few style guides over the years. This manual and the one from The Economist I have found the most interesting.

The New York Times book offers clarity and sensibly an alphabetical solution to the contents so that you can look up, for instance, elements of punctuation individually rather than have them all grouped under Punctuation. The manual takes a whole page to explain the use of hyphens and intriguingly uses this example 'Use the suspensive hyphen rather than repeat the second part of a modifier, in cases like this: On successive days there were three-, five- and nine-inch snowfalls' Quite correct but not very elegant I thought. It is this attention to detail and the thoroughness of the manual that impressed me.

I think it is worth mentioning here a rather unique style guide by Keith Waterhouse (author of 'Billy Liar) called 'Waterhouse on newspaper style'. I frequently get this out because it such a joy to read. Originally produced for journalists on the Daily Mirror (in the past the leading British tabloid) it is alphabetical but concerned with style more than anything, part of the contents might give you a feel of the subject matter, Adjectives, Alliteration, And now, The asthmatic comma, Captions, Catchwords, Cliches (standard), Cliches (trade), Compression, Consequences, Crossheads, Dead letters, Dots and dashes. It was published in the UK by Viking in 1989 and is well worth searching out.

Rating:
Summary: Say it as simply as possible.
Review: I would expect the world's leading daily newspaper to produce a pretty decent style guide and I was not disappointed with this edition. Having always worked in the design side of publishing, where it is necessary to be much more familiar with words and language than other areas of print design, I've collected a few style guides over the years. This manual and the one from The Economist I have found the most interesting.

The New York Times book offers clarity and sensibly an alphabetical solution to the contents so that you can look up, for instance, elements of punctuation individually rather than have them all grouped under Punctuation. The manual takes a whole page to explain the use of hyphens and intriguingly uses this example 'Use the suspensive hyphen rather than repeat the second part of a modifier, in cases like this: On successive days there were three-, five- and nine-inch snowfalls' Quite correct but not very elegant I thought. It is this attention to detail and the thoroughness of the manual that impressed me.

I think it is worth mentioning here a rather unique style guide by Keith Waterhouse (author of 'Billy Liar) called 'Waterhouse on newspaper style'. I frequently get this out because it such a joy to read. Originally produced for journalists on the Daily Mirror (in the past the leading British tabloid) it is alphabetical but concerned with style more than anything, part of the contents might give you a feel of the subject matter, Adjectives, Alliteration, And now, The asthmatic comma, Captions, Catchwords, Clichés (standard), Clichés (trade), Compression, Consequences, Crossheads, Dead letters, Dots and dashes. It was published in the UK by Viking in 1989 and is well worth searching out.

Rating:
Summary: Next best thing
Review: If you want to get ahead in journalism - and don't fancy sleeping your editor - this book is priceless. Clean copy, with no spelling mistakes and correct word usage is all anyone can ask for. Some noticable omissions though.

Rating:
Summary: Use it as a standard for commercial writing
Review: Not often does a newspaper of The Times' eminence publish its in-house style and usage guide. (Writers of 1976 last saw an edition of this book.) This guide gives students, teachers and professionals the tools to write well. I have found many usage notes that I did not previously know.

I found that this book borders on being a tad too politically correct.

It doesn't reach the point of crossing this border, but it does come close. It insists that people call cripples a people who have lost the use of their legs.

Also, this book could have included a few more grammar terms that the average person would not know. There are too many terms that the average educated person knows, like when to use "a/an." What the book could have summed up in two sentences encompassed almost a page. Conversely, what should have taken up a page, the book treated in a few sentences.

Further, it seems like the book purposely omitted esoteric newspaper terms that would be found in the in-house edition found at The Times' headquarters at 229 West 43rd. I'd really like to have read about the various font sizes and columns and the like. But the authors decided for me that I was apt not to be interested in reading about that arcanca.

Otherwise, this book is an enjoyable read. BUY IT, STUDY IT! (You should also buy Stunk's and White's The Elements of Style, also available for purchase here on Amazon.com)

Rating:
Summary: A Potential 5 Stars -- But Somewhat Lacking
Review: Not often does a newspaper of The Times' eminence publish its in-house style and usage guide. (Writers of 1976 last saw an edition of this book.) This guide gives students, teachers and professionals the tools to write well. I have found many usage notes that I did not previously know.

I found that this book borders on being a tad too politically correct.

It doesn't reach the point of crossing this border, but it does come close. It insists that people call cripples a people who have lost the use of their legs.

Also, this book could have included a few more grammar terms that the average person would not know. There are too many terms that the average educated person knows, like when to use "a/an." What the book could have summed up in two sentences encompassed almost a page. Conversely, what should have taken up a page, the book treated in a few sentences.

Further, it seems like the book purposely omitted esoteric newspaper terms that would be found in the in-house edition found at The Times' headquarters at 229 West 43rd. I'd really like to have read about the various font sizes and columns and the like. But the authors decided for me that I was apt not to be interested in reading about that arcanca.

Otherwise, this book is an enjoyable read. BUY IT, STUDY IT! (You should also buy Stunk's and White's The Elements of Style, also available for purchase here on Amazon.com)

Rating:
Summary: Clear, fun, informative
Review: This cover on the new volume from the Times says it is a "manual" and a "guide." Technically, and perhaps, legally, it is. What it really is is what a librarian would call an "annotated authority list" - a simple alphabetical list of preferred terms, some with explanatory text, some without.

Imagine a travel "guide" in which points of interest, lodgings, local history, restaurants and climate were all jumbled together in one alphabet soup and you get the flavor of newspaper stylebooks. It is an awkward genre.

This is a shame because a world of rapidly changing technology, world politics, economics and culture puts a real strain on publishers without the resources to research style questions themselves. Publishers, editors and writers have questions far deeper than simple spelling or punctuation. What are the rules for applying the publication's preferred usage to columnists? Do you grant them carte blanche choice of words, but draw the line at spelling? Do celebrity contributors get special treatment?

What about court papers? (on September 28, 1999 The New York Times report on the outcome of the U.S. Second Court of Appeals decision on the Tasini case quoted Judge Winter's comments on "data bases" (two words separated by a space) while the official transcript of the case spelled the word "database." (one word). Since databases were what the case was all about, one would have thought that the Times copydesk would have been scrupulous in quoting the transcript precisely. Or is this a case where a stylebook spelling trumps all others? One wonders. If there is a rationale for changing the spelling of a court transcript, it belongs in a style guide.

Are style changes made on a rolling basis? If so, how are they promulgated? By the company intranet? By paper memo? Or are a great bundle of changes saved up and put in place at once in the manner of an industrial model changeover? (this is evidently the Times' preference) These are vital questions to many publishers. If an intranet is used, are staff members invited to contribute their opinions on specific usage questions. If so, does the style editor abide by a clear consensus?

Another question concerns reliance on dictionaries as authoritative resources for questions not found in a stylebook. The new NYT stylebook says it relies principally on the Webster New World College Dictionary. But dictionaries are now subject to the shrinkage of resources that afflicts other publishing; they sometimes make do with carry-over entries that in prior years would have been thoroughly and freshly researched. They also outsource whole categories of topics without insisting on impartial research (I once tracked down the reason the hyphenated version of "online" was lingering into the 90's and discovered that it was embedded in the spellchecker of Microsoft Word. Microsoft based the spellchecker on the American Heritage dictionary, which had outsourced its computer terms to a British-born professor of computer science in an obscure Virginia college. Reached by phone, he said he put the hyphen in online because "it looks so nice that way, don't you think?" This is authoritative?

So the question is, should a stylebook advise readers to put blind faith in dictionaries, or do their own research when an important term is at issue?

The question of power comes into play in two ways in publication usage. At the Times, ultimate power on usage rests with the publisher. The decision to adopt the title, "Ms.", was made very tardily and after considerable argument, by publisher fiat, according to Times executives' accounts. So a discussion of how the politics of usage questions get resolved would be in order.

Perhaps more important is the question of whether a superpower of journalism, such as the Times, should exert its influence to bat down ugly neologisms when they first appear and to offer plausible alternatives. The term "Gen X" to describe people in their twenties is just such an ugly weed. The new NYT stylebook says Gen X is "faddish" but offers no alternative, nor clear advice on how to proceed. Could the Times have worked to advance a more intelligent term? The new stylebook says GenX applies to people born in the 60's and 70's. Are people born in the 80's and 90's thus Gen Y? And what do we do after Gen Z ? A discussion of such issues is needed.

The bottom line: the sheer quality of editorial output, its quality, the immense worldwide respect for the New York Times confer superpower status to its style and usage practices. A well-organized narrative text that examines the infrastructure of its practices would have been an outstanding contribution to journalism.

Should you buy this book? Sure; it's the newest, most comprehensive of its type. Take a look at the entry for "men and women" and you'll find an admirable exposition of the Times' efforts to maintain equality of treatment in its editorial voice. But it is too bad that such a grand opportunity for a true `guide" has been missed.

(It should be noted that there seem to be no provisions for updating the stylebook for the general public, either on the company's web site or via CD-ROM.)

Jeff Pemberton CEO, Online Inc.

Rating:
Summary: A great and indispensable reference book
Review: This excellent manual shows some of the care and thought that went into Fowler's, Modern English Usage first published in an Oxford University edition of the 1920's. Newer writers have filled the need to update old Fowler and "Americanize" the examples without markedly changing the rules of our language. In this respect, the present authors Siegal and Connelly have done a great job of updating everything that crossed their desks. It was revealing to see, for example, the use of MIRV in two conflicting applications. Also, the small caps font for related entries is very useful.
Yet, I am frustrated; the glossy cover conceals an unfortunate economy in its production. The paper reminds me of pulp novel stock and the binding of these 369 pages which will be well-thumbed, is likely to fall apart if the pages are opened for the book to rest flat on a table. The print size is fairly small, but most important, the print is weak, the paper greyish -- a hard combination to live with. If you have any vision problem, you will need to read this with a strong light.
The thoughtfully presented Foreword (yes, this book has a Foreword well worth reading) with its well-chosen examples of style is excellent -- on any kind of paper!

It's difficult, if not impossible, to produce an error-free text, even after more than one edition, but when it's more than a spelling or language error, it's worthy of mention: Entries for both Fahrenheit and Celsius should give conversions to each other, but the Fahrenheit does not convert to Celsius; you'll have to reverse the math yourself.

If you are going to use this as a frequent reference, opt for the hard-cover edition.

Rating:
Summary: Don't buy this.
Review: This is a book which will tell you that using "data" as a plural is "stilted and deservedly obscure". This book essentially surveys the current mis-use of language and writes it down for all to follow. I expect they would have to issue a new version every year to keep up with the drift, which I suppose would be a good money-maker for the publisher.

Rating:
Summary: Superb - for fiction writers, too!
Review: _
Easy to navigate, has the answers to the questions you want, and you can find them instantly. I use this far more often than the Chicago Manual of Style or Strunk and White. It's small, well-organized, and has it all (most of it all, anyway).

I write fiction, and this guide works wonderfully anyway; I wouldn't hesitate to recommend it to a fiction writer. Sometimes--but only rarely--entries don't apply to fiction writing, or the rules differ.

The manual is organized alphabetically, not just by subject, but the entire book is alphabetical. This makes it *so* much easier to find what I'm looking for than the other reference guides.
E.g.: Do titles of books go in quotes? Look up "book" and the answer is there. If the answer isn't there, this manual anticipates what you may be looking for and tells you: for titles, see "title." If you look up the word, "quote," it will tell you how to use quotation marks (not 2nd grade information, but every permutation of those gnawing things you just aren't quite sure about when writing a professional cover letter or a story). And again, it can anticipate what was left out of the "quote" entry and send you elsewhere.

It's a keyword book, organized alphabetically, beginning to end. It *is* the glossary, in a sense, but the glossary doesn't send you to a wordy, where's-what-I-want chapter; the info is succintly at hand. No need to spend any amount of time searching for your question, or answer; it's there for you, as is the reason for the usage. I'd call this the opposite of the Chicago Manual of Style, where time spent searching for where they may have chosen to put my question is an exercise in frustration.

This is a great reference guide for any writer's desk, and within my reach at all times.

Rating:
Summary: Superb - for fiction writers, too!
Review: _
Easy to navigate, has the answers to the questions you want, and you can find them instantly. I use this far more often than the Chicago Manual of Style or Strunk and White. It's small, well-organized, and has it all (most of it all, anyway).

I write fiction, and this guide works wonderfully anyway; I wouldn't hesitate to recommend it to a fiction writer. Sometimes--but only rarely--entries don't apply to fiction writing, or the rules differ.

The manual is organized alphabetically, not just by subject, but the entire book is alphabetical. This makes it *so* much easier to find what I'm looking for than the other reference guides.
E.g.: Do titles of books go in quotes? Look up "book" and the answer is there. If the answer isn't there, this manual anticipates what you may be looking for and tells you: for titles, see "title." If you look up the word, "quote," it will tell you how to use quotation marks (not 2nd grade information, but every permutation of those gnawing things you just aren't quite sure about when writing a professional cover letter or a story). And again, it can anticipate what was left out of the "quote" entry and send you elsewhere.

It's a keyword book, organized alphabetically, beginning to end. It *is* the glossary, in a sense, but the glossary doesn't send you to a wordy, where's-what-I-want chapter; the info is succintly at hand. No need to spend any amount of time searching for your question, or answer; it's there for you, as is the reason for the usage. I'd call this the opposite of the Chicago Manual of Style, where time spent searching for where they may have chosen to put my question is an exercise in frustration.

This is a great reference guide for any writer's desk, and within my reach at all times.