What do you think?
Rate this book
The Bluebook: A Uniform System of Citation
Book by
391 pages, Spiral-bound
First published January 1, 1926
33 people are currently reading
304 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 117 reviews
September 26, 2008
The story is slow and plodding, and the characters are unlikeable. The ending is hackneyed, and the foreshadowing was heavy handed.
In addition, I found the Bluebook's nihilistic and pedantic worldview disheartening, depressing, and not very well fleshed out.
In addition, I found the Bluebook's nihilistic and pedantic worldview disheartening, depressing, and not very well fleshed out.
April 26, 2012
I used to be against book burning. It seemed like the highest crime; to permanently snuff out knowledge is a treason not only against the intellect, but perhaps near the very soul of humanity. Knowledge, however repugnant, must be preserved. The only way to defeat ideas is by facing them, not destroying them.
The Bluebook changed my mind.
It is the most obtuse, esoteric, self contradictory, painful, and mind destroying work I have ever read. It claims to be a uniform system of citation, but it is full of so many provisos and exceptions that it's hard to say if there's even a rule inside the book. There are rules in the strictest sense in the world, but a quick examination suggests that the rules have no force.
Suppose you want to re-cite something, with no changes. Of course you'd use "Id." Ah, but how do you set it off from the rest of the text? Do you italicize it? Perhaps underline? There will be no real guidance from the Bluebook here. If you're in a trial brief, you must cite it one way, using in text citations. What if you're citing in a law review article? Even more rules! You might italicize "Id," but if you cite something in full, the actual name is not italicized. There is no reason for this change, except perhaps to give clerks something to snicker at.
Perhaps you want to cite a law review article in your own article. How do you go about it? If you were to use most citation systems, you would have to italicize or otherwise set off the article name in quotation marks. But this is the Bluebook. We can't have something sensible. No, we have to use small caps (Yes, there's such a thing as small caps). How do you get small caps? Well, obviously that's something you learned in high school.
When you cite a case, you might need to put some information about the case in a parenthetical after the case. If you want to quote something in your parenthetical, you are most certainly free to do so. But what if you need to cite previous history? Well, that's just asking too much. That must never, ever go in a parenthetical. Even if it goes after your cite.
And of course there are the abbreviations. There are several tables devoted to them. Putting aside the concern that the Bluebook is not explicitly clear about whether or not you should abbreviate the first word in a party name, consider a few things. If you are faced with something being "southern," such as the Southern District of New York, you must abbreviate it to "S." BUT if you are faced with the Southern Reporter, you must abbreviate "So." I'm not sure what difference it truly makes.
And let's not forget that the Bluebook mandates that "County" be abbreviated to "Cnty." Yes, it seriously tells you to do this. If you do not see the unfortunate profanity indicated, then bless you. Perhaps the Bluebook authors are so cherubic as to miss such foibles, but considering how long it has been in publication, I doubt it.
Spacings between abbreviations? Well, let’s see. You’re supposed to abbreviate when it’s only single letters, but if there’s a word with more than one letter in the abbreviation series there should be spaces between all abbreviated words UNLESS it’s a law review article in which case the spaces are closed up BUT GUESS WHAT there’s also a trend in court citation to close up spaces in some words but not others so this rule is practically useless so we will spend twenty pages on it.
What if you want a rule on how to cite multiple sections of a statute? You certainly won’t find it in the big section marked “statutes.” Instead, you will find it under “subdivisions." Why you would think to look there first, I have no idea.
And at over 500 pages, it's difficult to discern how it would help a writer cite information such that the cites are easily traceable. Instead, it seems to function more as a way of custom, and the only way to know the custom is to practice it.
The problem is that this book exists for mostly its own sake. With each new generation of editors, changes and expansions must be made so that each editor may put his or her own stamp on the work. The rest of us are left to flounder.
The Bluebook changed my mind.
It is the most obtuse, esoteric, self contradictory, painful, and mind destroying work I have ever read. It claims to be a uniform system of citation, but it is full of so many provisos and exceptions that it's hard to say if there's even a rule inside the book. There are rules in the strictest sense in the world, but a quick examination suggests that the rules have no force.
Suppose you want to re-cite something, with no changes. Of course you'd use "Id." Ah, but how do you set it off from the rest of the text? Do you italicize it? Perhaps underline? There will be no real guidance from the Bluebook here. If you're in a trial brief, you must cite it one way, using in text citations. What if you're citing in a law review article? Even more rules! You might italicize "Id," but if you cite something in full, the actual name is not italicized. There is no reason for this change, except perhaps to give clerks something to snicker at.
Perhaps you want to cite a law review article in your own article. How do you go about it? If you were to use most citation systems, you would have to italicize or otherwise set off the article name in quotation marks. But this is the Bluebook. We can't have something sensible. No, we have to use small caps (Yes, there's such a thing as small caps). How do you get small caps? Well, obviously that's something you learned in high school.
When you cite a case, you might need to put some information about the case in a parenthetical after the case. If you want to quote something in your parenthetical, you are most certainly free to do so. But what if you need to cite previous history? Well, that's just asking too much. That must never, ever go in a parenthetical. Even if it goes after your cite.
And of course there are the abbreviations. There are several tables devoted to them. Putting aside the concern that the Bluebook is not explicitly clear about whether or not you should abbreviate the first word in a party name, consider a few things. If you are faced with something being "southern," such as the Southern District of New York, you must abbreviate it to "S." BUT if you are faced with the Southern Reporter, you must abbreviate "So." I'm not sure what difference it truly makes.
And let's not forget that the Bluebook mandates that "County" be abbreviated to "Cnty." Yes, it seriously tells you to do this. If you do not see the unfortunate profanity indicated, then bless you. Perhaps the Bluebook authors are so cherubic as to miss such foibles, but considering how long it has been in publication, I doubt it.
Spacings between abbreviations? Well, let’s see. You’re supposed to abbreviate when it’s only single letters, but if there’s a word with more than one letter in the abbreviation series there should be spaces between all abbreviated words UNLESS it’s a law review article in which case the spaces are closed up BUT GUESS WHAT there’s also a trend in court citation to close up spaces in some words but not others so this rule is practically useless so we will spend twenty pages on it.
What if you want a rule on how to cite multiple sections of a statute? You certainly won’t find it in the big section marked “statutes.” Instead, you will find it under “subdivisions." Why you would think to look there first, I have no idea.
And at over 500 pages, it's difficult to discern how it would help a writer cite information such that the cites are easily traceable. Instead, it seems to function more as a way of custom, and the only way to know the custom is to practice it.
The problem is that this book exists for mostly its own sake. With each new generation of editors, changes and expansions must be made so that each editor may put his or her own stamp on the work. The rest of us are left to flounder.
October 23, 2007
Yes, perhaps The Bluebook can be confusing at times, but it is that mystery and suspense that keeps me coming back to it again, and again. :-)
October 22, 2024
Super quick read. All my friends and I read it at the same time last March during Spring break which was super fun. Love the plot twist on page 61. I honestly keep rereading it every week because I loved it so much the first time.
March 26, 2012
A white knuckle read to be sure. All the offices of American and international government have conspired here; commas lurk and slashes ambush. No high speed chases but more dashing about and hashing than anything else on the market. Entire sentences are imprisoned by parenthesis -- sometimes double and even triple parenthesis.
The main characters are too oblique to describe and a reader can be forgiven for remaining as mystified at the end of the book as she was at the beginning. Tears of frustration are to be expected as well.
The main characters are too oblique to describe and a reader can be forgiven for remaining as mystified at the end of the book as she was at the beginning. Tears of frustration are to be expected as well.
July 27, 2007
If you own this book, chances are it gives you horrible PTSD flashbacks to sadistic professors, endless hours spent in dusty library stacks, and psychological torture by your classmates on the Law Review. And putting all that aside, it's virtually impossible to find the answer to any question that doesn't fit neatly on the back summary page, that is, any question that would require you to look up the answer in a style guide.
July 3, 2011
I would have given this zero stars, but the new plastic spiral binding that doesn't bend or come undone deserves a star.
May 10, 2025
Save your sanity, do not read.
February 23, 2008
I rated this book one star. I also was not on a journal in law school (but i WAS on the hard drinking, academically delinquent, coed slowpitch team that went to UVA to party, eat gusburgers and occasionally lob softballs at each other a mere two weeks before finals, which I've found impresses potential employers at least as much as law review would). Coincidence? But seriously. Even now, as a practicing atty, I find the Bluebook incomprehensible, overly complicated, and more often than not, extremely and ludicrously unhelpful. I feel bad giving it one star since a friend of mine was on Harvard law review and probably edited the most recent version. But that friend will be a Supreme Court clerk next year, so I think said friend can absorb the blow of my not being able to figure out how to cite the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights from the Bluebook.
June 20, 2018
Much like the English language, this book contains nearly endless amounts of incomprehensible rules, which are then followed by an even greater number of illogical exceptions.
March 7, 2021
A refreshing tonic, goes down easy, cover-to-cover. Or open to any page and find a passage that will speak to you in that moment. Truly inspiring.
May 17, 2018
Nope NOPE NOPE NOPE NOPPPPPPEEEEE.
November 27, 2023
truly read this while trying to understand how to cite. I still don’t know how to cite. but at least my cites will look good even if they’re incorrect? Idk man law school is hard!
February 8, 2025
- worst book ever
- not a good read
- very confusing
- stressed me out
- not a good read
- very confusing
- stressed me out
Read
August 21, 2022😬
Read
December 16, 2025it's me and you against the world
Read
October 16, 2024Lord knows this should count towards my goodreads count
December 3, 2010
My Bluebook is pretty much falling apart and there is only one reason for this--INTERNET SOURCES. *stab, stab, gouge, gouge* Once upon a time, I was researching for an environmental law professor o' mine and a large portion of the information was from the internet because it was about current practices of corporations to lower energy emissions and blahbittyblahblah. It was actually fascinating stuff but you know what wasn't fascinating? Trying to frakking cite all the internet sources. I spent hours typing (and drinking) and citing (and drinking) and staring at the bluebook (and playing video games) and wanting to punt my bluebook through some field goal posts into a pool of ravenous paper-eating piranhas who abhor uniform systems of legal citation. (as all piranhas do)
Anyone for some ceremonial burning? I'll bring the matches! Let's make it 10 years from now at 9 or 9:30. (Let's say 9:30 and you make it your beeswax to be there at 9:30)
Anyone for some ceremonial burning? I'll bring the matches! Let's make it 10 years from now at 9 or 9:30. (Let's say 9:30 and you make it your beeswax to be there at 9:30)
August 23, 2008
Why all the hatin' on our little blue law school friend? I do have a lot of obsessive-compulsive Virgo in me, maybe that's why I am fonder of this book than most people seem to be. I was born to love anything that is going to advance "A Uniform System" whether it's legal citation, organizing hair care products or matching the right color socks to your clothes. I guess I'd equate it to going to church or to military school - you don't necessarily love the Bluebook, but you gain a sense of respect for it. Of course, if I had been forced to pick this book up more than once in the past eight years, maybe I'd feel differently. Time is a great healer!
August 27, 2009
the one place in the legal world where there are actual rules that lawyers can actually apply.
Loses a star for Rule 10.4.
Loses a star for Rule 10.4.
April 26, 2011
Incredibly confusing.
August 12, 2012
I have a love-hate relationship with this book. I need it, it helps me cite properly, but I can't say I truly "like" it. At best, it's useful.
August 7, 2018
die young and save yourself.
February 22, 2022
theyve got a lot of nerve calling a book with rules so disparate and confusing "a unified system of citations". i wouldnt be surprised if the thing is this complicated specifically to keep the field as incomprehensible to the general public as possible. i guess that might make a bit of sense since you dont want joe smith down the street thinking he can practice law & attempt/fail to show up a lawyer or judge with whatever stupid argument cobbled together from google (sing-song-mocking voice You cant access Westlaw or Lexis, ha ha hahahaaaaa) but still. hate this stupid little book. excited for my "life-long relationship" with it.
....................../´¯/)
....................,/¯../
.................../..../
............./´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸
........../'/.../..../......./¨¯\
........('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...')
.........\.................'...../
..........''...\.......... _.·´
............\..............(
..............\.............\...
Mercury Skyline Yacht Charters v. the Dave Matthews Band, No. 05 C 1698 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 22, 2005)
....................../´¯/)
....................,/¯../
.................../..../
............./´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸
........../'/.../..../......./¨¯\
........('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...')
.........\.................'...../
..........''...\.......... _.·´
............\..............(
..............\.............\...
Mercury Skyline Yacht Charters v. the Dave Matthews Band, No. 05 C 1698 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 22, 2005)
June 24, 2024
I've worked in disciplines that use MLA, APA, Chicago, and even the University of Oxford's in-house citation style. Amazingly, I was able to competently use those styles after truly minimal training. For some reason, though, the Bluebook writers decided to give next to zero guidance for some of their most commonly used rules. Law Schools now spend several months teaching a citation style instead of any other writing skills, all because the Bluebook editors have made what must be an intentionally flawed and exclusive style guide.
November 18, 2020
Very helpful, but was the source of a lot of tears. Glad I bought the 20th Edition before they announced the newer editions would have sections exclusively found online (very inconvenient). I 100% recommend buying it - you will use it more than you think. I wish there were more examples of each thing though.
November 28, 2021
This book sucks and I hated it the entire time I took my Legal Communication and Professionalism class. If I did not need it for the second semester of that subject I would have used it to help light my fireplace. Some people at Harvard had to come up with something completely different then the rest of academia uses for citations.
May 29, 2025
Basically biblical for law school & lawyers, but doesn’t even have the answers you need all the time. I spent way too long jumping between pages just to find a rule for something that seems remotely easy until I actually look.
Need more cohesion.
Need more cohesion.
August 31, 2020
Confusing and not well laid out but of course helpful and necessary.
October 21, 2020
I really, really dislike this book. I really, dont recommend this to anyone if they can help it. **cries** citations suck, they hurt my brain but gotta credit my sources.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 117 reviews