The print version of The Chicago Manual of Style, 18th edition (CMOS 18), doesn’t come out until September 19, but the new edition soft-launched on the manual’s website last week. Editors are already digging in and sharing their reactions anywhere editors gather.
A new edition of a style guide is always an event. Although no one wants to read every word of the 1,000-plus page behemoth that is CMOS 18, we tend to geek out over changes to our most-used rules and guidance.
Overview of Changes
Because of the time between editions, the changes to a new edition of CMOS are often extensive, and 18 continues that tradition. In comparing the table of contents for the print versions of 17 and 18, I found that just about every chapter was longer by several pages. Only the chapters on source citations were shorter.
Part II, Style and Usage, is where editors spend most of their time and many editors are already comparing notes on those changes. The rest of the guide has plenty for editors to get to know as well, so I’ll focus here on some important changes in both Part I (Publishing and Editing) and Part III (Source Citations and Indexes).
New Guidance on AI and Copyright
I’m pleased to see guidance on AI usage in the manual, much of which is found in chapter 4 (Rights, Permissions, and Copyright Administration). For example, section 4.5 discusses how AI can affect an author’s copyright. Copyright, of course, protects original work in the form of words, sounds, or images. AI-created work is not seen as original, however.
As a result, the manual states, “the human in charge must contribute something that by itself will support a copyright, and the copyright will be limited by what that human author contributes.”
Further, section 4.76 encourages publishers to ask their authors to disclose what has been created by AI and confirm that nothing else has been. “Such disclosure will help the copyright registration process,” this section notes, “but will not of course eliminate the inherent risk of inadvertent reproduction of copyrighted material in AI-generated content.” We don’t know how such legal considerations will evolve over time, but this at least raises the issue and should get all of us thinking.
Clarification of Editing Levels
Perhaps my favorite discovery so far is that CMOS now defines developmental editing, line editing, copyediting, and proofreading (2.53). In the previous edition, developmental editing was mentioned as coming before copyediting and line editing and those weren’t clearly distinguished as two levels of editing (17:2.48). Given the lack of any overseeing authority for editing, the names of the editing levels and their associated tasks can vary from organization to organization. Even editors disagree on what makes up the levels of editing. Having such a well-respected authority define these terms as it uses them can help formalize these levels and terms across the industry.
Following this section is a new section that describes sensitivity and authenticity readings (2.54) as an optional part of the publishing process. CMOS sees these reviews as two different things, though it acknowledges an overlap. Whichever review an author seeks, though, it can help further improve the manuscript over all. It’s validating to see CMOS encourage this review and at the right time in the process.
Enhanced Coverage of Dialogue
Editors and proofreaders who deal with dialogue, particularly those who work with a lot of fiction, are getting a lot more support from CMOS 18. The Quotations and Dialogue chapter (12 in the new edition) has greatly expanded advice on dialogue. No doubt this is in part due to the publication of The Chicago Guide to Editing Fiction by Amy J. Schneider. Schneider goes into a lot of detail in her book, and that seems to be translating to improved advice in CMOS. New topics include speaker tags, interrupted speech, formatting text messages like dialogue, and several others.
Reorganization of Citation Chapters
As I mentioned above, the chapters on source citations (chapters 13 and 14 in the 18th edition) have been reorganized. All the rules for both the notes-and-bibliography and author-date citation systems are now in one chapter (13), with extended examples in another (14). Notes and bibliography are CMOS’s default system and some examples are given only for that system. “Those using the stylistically similar author-date system should be able to adapt these examples simply by reordering the elements” (14.1).
I have my reservations about how well this will work. The American Psychological Association’s current style manual (7th edition) takes this approach as well, and I’ve often found myself flipping between the two chapters. If I’m working in one citation system, I want all the information in one spot. Flipping around takes more time, and citations are already a time suck.
I can see why this organization might make sense for a print manual. As noted above, these are the only chapters that are shorter. But this doesn’t feel user-friendly to me. Time will tell.
Everyone’s opinion on rule changes is going to be different. It will depend on how it affects their work and, let’s face it, their preferences. As editors start to work with new or updated rules, we’ll get a sense of what works, what we can live with, and what we’ll ignore.
Website Accessibility Issues
In the meantime, though, what’s getting the most reactions from editors is the section of the website that houses the 18th edition. The 17th edition remains unchanged; you can access it from the top menu on the site or by clicking here. Subscribers’ bookmarks remain intact, as well.
The main issue with the 18th is in its accessibility. On the left side of the page is a large—and very bright—yellow bar.
While some people love the cheery yellow (it is a happy color), many editors are finding it distracting. It takes up a lot of screen real estate.
Worse, though, is the potential problems this could create for editors with visual sensitivities or limited vision. A couple of editors I’ve talked with find the yellow to be too much and are worried about it triggering migraines. At least one editor reports that the yellow has already caused them to see spots.
Another accessibility issue carries over from the 17th edition: the gray text. It was already hard to read. Placed next to the yellow, more editors will be straining their eyes to read the page. When you consider that editors may have the website open constantly throughout the day, the page’s color scheme and layout could become a big problem.
Please, please, please, CMOS: Reduce the width of that left banner! Or better yet, make it collapsible. And make all that gray text black. With these updates, the site will be usable for all editors.
Overall Impressions and Next Steps
Overall, I think CMOS 18 is a strong step forward. We’re seeing guidance on things editors and others in the publishing process are dealing with every day—much more than I can put here. You can read my earlier post, “The Chicago Manual of Style: 18th Edition Updates,” to learn about some of the previously announced changes, or you can go to the manual’s own update page to get a bigger picture.
Neither of these are a line-by-line list, though, and the manual is huge. Check out your bookmarked sections from the 17th edition to see how they’ve changed. And editor Kristina Lundberg has a great hack for us: “Put ‘departure’ into the search bar to find entries in which the advice has departed from previous editions.”
Next week, I’ll share with you some tips for why you should update to the 18th edition and how to update house style guides with new advice. In the meantime, if you have a question for the CMOS editors, you can share them with Mignon Fogarty on Bluesky for her upcoming Grammar Girl interview with them.
One thoughts on “CMOS 18: A Deep Dive into the Latest Edition’s Updates”