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

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.

_
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.

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.

I wish I had known about this book ten years ago. It's got almost everything I need, as a newsletter editor and technical writer. I love it and use it every day.

Strengths: In-depth explanation of hyphenation with prefixes (pre-, in-, under-), very useful for a technical writer.
Flaws: It's got a strong NY regional focus (to be expected) and omits some useful words such as "hitchhike".

I back it up with the AP stylebook and Fowler's Modern English Usage.

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.