MLA Style Manual and Guide to Scholarly Publishing, 3rd Edition

MLA Style Manual and Guide to Scholarly Publishing, 3rd Edition [Hardcover]

Author: Amazon Prime Sign in to turn on 1-Click ordering | Language: English | ISBN: 0873522974 | Format: PDF, EPUB

• Description
• Book Details
• Table of Contents
• Reviews

MLA Style Manual and Guide to Scholarly Publishing, 3rd Edition
You can download MLA Style Manual and Guide to Scholarly Publishing, 3rd Edition from mediafire, rapishare, and mirror link

Reorganized and revised, the third edition of the MLA Style Manual offers complete, up-to-date guidance on writing scholarly texts, documenting research sources, submitting manuscripts to publishers, and dealing with legal issues surrounding publication.

Books with free ebook downloads available MLA Style Manual and Guide to Scholarly Publishing, 3rd Edition

• Hardcover: 336 pages
• Publisher: Modern Language Association; 3 edition (January 1, 2008)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0873522974
• ISBN-13: 978-0873522977
• Product Dimensions: 9.2 x 6.6 x 1.2 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1.4 pounds (View shipping rates and policies)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #58,895 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
  • #61 in Books > Medical Books > Research
  • #67 in Books > Textbooks > Medicine & Health Sciences > Research
  • #97 in Books > Reference > Words, Language & Grammar > Reference

NOTE: The previous three reviews, obviously, are reviews of the previous, second edition of this manual; I address the current, third edition--and only with regard to citation format.

The changes this edition introduces, on the whole, constitute a catastrophe for the MLA. If these changes are reflected in the next edition of the _MLA Handbook_, most students, scholars, teachers, and professors in the humanities are sure to abandon the MLA. Here are just a few of the inexplicable gaffes I have noticed so far:

1. DELETION OF THE APPENDIX ON FOOTNOTES/ENDNOTES (former Appendix A). This is the whopper. Most students and scholars in the humanities use footnotes/endnotes. Without the old appendix--which should never have been a mere appendix, to begin with--the book is rendered useless to most students and scholars. Certainly, teachers and professors can no longer recommend it, or any subsequent edition of the _MLA Handbook_ based on it, to their students.

2. PLACEMENT OF SERIES INFORMATION AT END OF CITATIONS (section 6.6.15, formerly 6.6.16). This one baffles me. Who could think such placement even remotely aesthetically pleasing? On a practical level, such placement tends to burry the ever-so-important year of publication.

3. UBIQUITOUS MEDIUM OF PUBLICATION DATA. Okay, this one baffles me too. Despite feeble protestations to the contrary, "print" and "film" are default assumptions within their respective domains. Having to write those designations at the end of all relevant citations is silly, superfluous, ugly, wordy, and a waste of ink and paper. Aren't we supposed to be "green" now?

4. CITATION OF ONLINE SOURCES. Yet another baffler! Anyone who thinks getting rid of URL addresses in citations is a good idea is just plain nuts.

I basically agree with the review of E. Garcia ("A Shocking Debacle!" August 18, 2008), but wanted to add some comments.

For all those confused ones out there: this book is the professional publishing guide, which goes beyond the student's guide to writing papers. It also went into the 3rd (THIRD) edition, which is substantially different from prior editions, and that is what I am speaking of here. I don't believe there is much of a point in comparing citation formats, especially qualitatively, and I have used APA, MLA, and some things individual professors made up. However, I have encountered some radical, narrow-minded ideologies in the academia, with one senior social scientist essentially spelling out a future of ignorance for anyone who dared use the MLA. (I know they spoke of publications in the field, but the way it was put was rather childish.)

So far, I like the MLA fine, and so far was happy to use the format. Which brings me to the reason I had to write something: after having written a few papers last quarter using the new edition...and boy was that fun! MLA, what on earth made you put in that insane rule about adding "Print." to every print resource in the works cited section? Has it come to this? CDs, YouTube, and random web resources are easier to enter??? This is insanity, tedious, and useless.

For a very systematic, concise review I again refer to Garcia, but overall I want to add that I don't find many of the changes quite as disgusting as they do...perhaps I still lack the necessary experience. However, when one of my professors told us about the bad news of the 3rd ed., she almost lost her breakfast.

MLA Style Manual and Guide to Scholarly Publishing, 3rd Edition Download

Please Wait...