Customer Reviews: Read 78 more reviews...
 mla handbook November 19, 2008
I found this book to be very helpful and in great condition.
thank you
Answers my questions October 12, 2008
This book seems to answer all questions I had and all questions I am likely to have.
 MLA Handbook October 2, 2008
it seems to have everything that i needed in it and has more pertinent information than the internet. Has been pretty useful for me so far
College Book September 19, 2008
This book was for a college class that my sister had, and it worked out just fine.
The Best of Class September 9, 2008
The Modern Language Association has developed a crisp contemporary style with ready application well beyond the realms of modern literature. The style is an evolution of Chicago style. The reference format for the "Works Cited" in MLA-speak, are virtually indistinguishable from those in Chicago-style bibliographies. However, MLA has added a unique parenthetical "author-page" citation to reference sources in the text. This is easy for both scholars and non-scholars alike to comprehend and use, making this a good general-purpose style.
The MLA Handbook does an excellent job of representing the style, though with occasional foibles. These tend to be more a distraction than a nuisance, and are often ignored when the style is used in scholarly publication. For example, there is a marked predisposition for the use of abbreviations in references. This is unnecessary, and can present some rather unsavory phrases when sounded out, such as "U of Chicago P" for University of Chicago Press. Page space is rarely so confined as to make the parsimonious use of letters productive, so many authors and journal editors forgo this frugality. The handbook devotes an entire twenty-page chapter to the topic.
There is a tendency in the handbook expand features beyond their useful application. In the last edition the requirements for presenting quotations was elaborated far beyond the needs of most scholars. This was circumscribed in the current edition, but references to electronic sources were elaborated far beyond their credible application. Such references can have up to fifteen elements! An ephemeral online source cannot be made permanent and credible by elaborating the reference to it, and this appears to be an attempt to do just that. These features, too, can be employed as needed or safely ignored.
Missing from the handbook is any reference to the use of headings and subheadings in research papers. The handbook claims that most instructors discourage their use. However, an informal sampling of articles published in the MLA's own journal, PMLA, found that about half did make use of subheadings. This seems a bit hypocritical, especially in a handbook that gets a mite preachy about plagiarism. Do as I do, do as I say, or what? To be credible the handbook should reflect the style as applied in print.
These criticisms border on the trivial simply because there is nothing else to complain about. At its best, the style employs simple rules. For example, if a number can be written in one or two words write it out. Otherwise use numerals, and always use numerals for precise measures. In contrast, APA (American Psychological Association) style has elaborate rules requiring some small numbers to be written as words, others as numerals. MLA style is free of such exceptions. As long as the style and handbook are approached with a measure of tolerance for its idiosyncrasies, it is easy to use and adequately comprehensive for all the tasks of scholarship. Only if you have delved into other research styles such as APA, AMA (American Medical Association), and Chicago can you appreciate the simplicity of MLA style and the masterly way it has been documented in the handbook. There is elegance in ordered simplicity, and more so than any other research style, MLA style has achieved that elegance.
|
