Could be better organized, more thorough. I have lots of mixed feelings towards this edition.

This edition has shifted all the information about page layout onto their online MLA Style Center. On the one hand, that's much more accessible than having to flip open a copy of the book, and makes it more available to those don't own a copy, for whatever reason. On the other hand, this omission does make the Handbook slightly incomplete as a style guide. I can't think of any changes to the page structure... it's not like "size 12 double-spaced font" is going to be changing on the fly, so why not print it?

I'm going to dodge nitpicking on changes to how citations are actually written following the universal format: I appreciate what they were trying to do, and while I don't think they stuck the landing, I can live with it, especially once I get around the learning curve.

The citation part of the book is organized by each element, and so the examples you might be looking for may be spread out. Gone is the ability to flip to the section on books and look for the heading that describes your situation. Now, in theory, this is all right because everything is supposed to fit the same template, and besides, MLA has foresworn being an authority, anyway.* I was just working on our online guide for the library and double-checking how to cite TV shows. Well, there are examples-- each slightly different with no particular word of differentiation -- on pages 40, 38, 33, 30, 28, 24. If I want an example of a source, I don't want to have to go element by element to land on the complete example closest to my situation. Not useless, but I wish there was the section breaking down all the elements followed by section dedicated to examples.

Okay, I lied, I do have to rant a bit about how the citations are written, because this is SO ASS-BACKWARD:
URLs are back, supposedly by popular demand. What cracks me up is that the section that introduces them gives 3 very good for why URLs are a clunky waste, but eh, go ahead and use them anyway, they might be useful! I noticed that the examples they give that include URLs are all precious, tidy, succinct URLS, too. Ever looked at the permalink for an EBSCOhost database? Woof. They also advise against using URL shorteners because if the service dies, the link dies, too-- but but but previously we weren't including info at all on the URL! The rest of the citation is supposed to provide that context! Contrary to what students may wish, citation pages are not yet simply a list of URLs without any other information provided! Booo. Boo, I say!

They do have an example online referring to EBSCO (MLA seems to have lost the capacity to distinguish between the provider and the database, and again, the Shrug of God says ehhh, either way-- no! That's not how that works!), but it's much, much shorter and tidier than the permalinks I get. I even tried strategically chopping parts off the permalink to see if they'd still work, trying to get it down to their version, but no dice. Not that I'd make a student put up with that, either. On that note, everything is clear and written out... except URLs have to have the http://www. hacked off. On a personal level, I'm okay with that and often do that myself anyway; as a librarian I'm not looking forward to trying to get students to pay that much attention.

On that note, again, the semi-simplified nature of this edition means we don't have to figure out abbreviations for composers or translators anyway. Citations get longer to include the more colloquial "performance by....," "created by...," "season X, episode Y..." but we do shorten the previously unlabeled volume and issue into vol. X, no. Y. Again, mixed feelings! In and of itself, that's not bad, but it just feels arbitrary that we're not writing out "volume X, issue Y."

*What's up with that? Again, mixed feelings-- yeah, I'll tell students this isn't brain surgery, and that writing citations are often more of an art than a science, and that they should try to be descriptive but internal consistency is more important than adhering to the stylebook. But-- for the originating authority on this style to take the same stance is frustrating. No, I want to know how to cite thing X so I can know what I'm talking about when teaching students how to cite thing X, instead of having to shrug and say, I dunno, close enough, just cite it however.


On the plus side, the universal style lends itself to a nice universal worksheet/template to guide students, which the student workers I've tested it out on liked. We made our own version that includes some lightly-colored notes to elaborate on what's meant by version or number or location.

--
Ooh, speaking of location-- the one change I really do whole-heartedly embrace: no more place of publication for books! Hallelujah! I hope you're listening, APA! ( )