Modern Language Association of America. 2008. The MLA Style Manual and Guide to Scholarly Publishing. 3rd ed. New York: Modern Language Association. $32.50 hc. xxiv + 336 pp.
The inside dust flap lists changes to this edition, including a revision of the documentation style and simpler treatment for electronic sources (of which more later), updates to legal matters, a new foreword by Donna C. Stanton, and a new preface by David G. Nicholls. Stanton's discerning essay on style--channeling (while spoiling the ending to) Orhan Pamuk's My Name is Red--establishes the importance of revision to such a standardized form. Nevertheless, for all its strengths, Stanton's essay really should complement, rather than replace, Herbert Lindenberger's excellent foreword from the previous edition; undergraduate instructors will want to keep Lindenberger's foreword at hand, as it presents an explanation of style more suitable for students. Nicholls' preface, on the other hand, is a welcome replacement to the terse acknowledgements of the last edition and offers insight into the process behind some of the additions and changes. The significant amendments to the chapter on legal issues in publishing, for example, were overseen by two authorities. The Committee on MLA Style based other changes more on recognition of changing trends, including italics in place of underlining and french (single) spacing after final punctuation marks.
And yet, whether these changes depend on de facto or de jure standards is another issue altogether. Prior to 2008, MLA style was presented in "The MLA Style Sheet" or in volumes attributed to individuals: William Riley Parker in 1951; Walter S. Achtert and Joseph Gibaldi in 1985; Joseph Gibaldi in 1998. The third edition differs by being published as a work of corporate authorship, with its updated recommendations presented as products of consensus. Stanton notes in her foreword that stylistic concerns of the Manual are limited to spelling, punctuation, and presentation (alongside documentation). Nevertheless, her willingness to cite the definition of "Manual" as the compilation of rules needed for mastery of a field suggests the role of the corporate author is consummate: its manual will always be complicit in defining the disciplinary 'norms' it claims to chronicle. At worst, then, updates to such a manual present readers with the uncomfortable discipline of a nor-mativizing system; at best, they reflect a community with shared and evolving traditions and common goals. Actuality probably lies somewhere between these two poles.
In any event, changes in punctuation quail in importance beside the necessarily systematic documentation style that has come to signify the meaning of "MLA style." The previous edition of the Manual, published in 1998, gave only passing mention to Internet sources. That edition prefaced sections on citing electronic sources with lengthy warnings about the potential questionability of online material and the difficulties of citing unstable references. By including unsightly URLs at the end of references, it negotiated the problem without offering a full solution. With this new edition, the MLA has taken the opportunity to restructure and reorder components within reference entries in a more logical manner. Entries still favor data such as the author and title--necessary for finding a version of a particular source--by including these details first. Other material such as the press and year of publication still come later in an entry. The third edition sets a new precedent, however, by reorganizing optional details and including the medium of publication for every entry. Marking the end of information unique to a source, these media labels come after most other bibliographic data and are followed by optional details relating the publication to other works--the original title of a translation, the name and number of a series, details of the complete multivolume work to which an independently titled volume belongs.
These alterations are both satisfying and logical. The preponderance of "Print" at the end of entries in a list of references might in the short term seem distracting, but with online sources increasingly common, the Manual's changes are focused on long-term stability and consistency. Future editions will doubtlessly improve upon this consistency--for example, original details of reprinted books come after the publication medium, while details of reprinted articles oddly come before--but the revisions of the third edition offer a logical model from which to address future issues more confidently.
Unfortunately, changes to the Manual's presentation are less satisfying. The old table of contents outlined the Manual with a fine granularity, including page references alongside numbers of chapter, section, and subsection. It was ugly, but the specificity made it easy to find useful material in one step. Although the third edition retains the subsection numbering in the text, the new table of contents omits these useful references and offers page numbers only at the chapter and section levels. Finding details on how to cite a brochure, for example, now involves consulting the table of contents for the appropriate section ("Citing Nonperiodical Print Publications"), turning to the start of that section (page 185), and skimming each page to find the relevant subsection (twenty pages later). This process would be easier if the typefaces chosen to distinguish each subsection stood out more: in this regard, the monochromatic Style Manual continues to fare poorly against its dual-color competitors, the Chicago Manual of Style and the MLA Handbook. Subsection numbers are rendered in a bold face in the margins, but with the omission of these numbers from the table of contents, the user will not know these numbers (6.6.19 in this case) without first finding the page.
Thankfully, the content in the MLA Style Manual and Guide to Scholarly Publishing remains definitive despite any frustrating changes to presentation. More than that--and more impressively--with its new edition, the Manual establishes itself as a standard made stable by its willingness to change. There is room for the improvement of future editions, but the certainty that these editions will follow--and the acceptance of the standard in many fields of the humanities, whether such standardization is self-begetting or established by implicit consensus--will earn this edition as wide a readership as the previous. Just be sure to read Pamuk first.
James M. Clawson
University of Edinburgh
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Author:||Clawson, James M.|
|Article Type:||Book review|
|Date:||Jun 22, 2009|
|Previous Article:||Chaudhuri, Amit. Clearing a Space: Essays on Literature, India, and Modernity. 2008. Oxford: Peter Lang. $19.99sc. 330 pp.|
|Next Article:||Zunshine, Lisa. 2008. Strange Concepts and the Stories They Make Possible. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2008. $65.00 hc. $25.00 sc. 232...|