Making Peace with the Oxford Comma

 In Blog

Sally, Molly and Eli will be with me for the first time in a year on June 15.

Hmm. Wait a minute. That sentence could mean two things. You might think I’m telling Sally that Molly and Eli will be with me for the first time in a year on that date, but really, I’m telling you, my faithful blog reader, that we will all be together because Molly is coming home from her first year in Majuro.

I need to bring in the Oxford comma, one of the tools in the writer and editor’s toolbox, to help clarify things.

Sally, Molly, and Eli will be with me for the first time in a year on June 15.

There, that’s better.

The Oxford comma—also known as the serial comma—is typically used to separate items in a series, and it comes before the “and,” so, in this case, the comma falls after “Molly.”

It’s a simple thing, really, but believe it or not, there are power struggles, arguments, and tussles among writers and editors over its use. (Hey, there’s one right back there.) People either love the Oxford comma, or they hate it.

For many years, I was one who had only disdain for the serial comma because my training began in the journalists’ realm, and never, in this world, is it put to use.

That’s because The Associated Press Stylebook and Briefing on Media Law—more commonly known as the AP Stylebook—which dictates usage of commas, abbreviations, and other matters of style, says not to use the serial comma, presumably to save space in typesetting. (Did you notice another one?)

When I was a newspaper editor, it was my job to delete Oxford commas wherever I found the pesky buggers. Each time I’d eradicate one, I’d shake my righteous head at reporters who didn’t know better than to just insert them willy nilly.

My world has expanded, though, to pieces of writing such as magazine articles and books , for which style is governed by The Chicago Manual of Style. And Chicago dictates use of the Oxford comma.

On my website, and in my blogs and printed collateral, I have long taken a stance against the Oxford comma; with this blog, I acknowledge that it does have its purpose, and I am considering using it exclusively in my own materials going forward. That would mean editing my whole website, so if I make that transformation, it will show I’m all Oxford comma in.

While many alumni magazines that I write for use the Oxford comma, in my role as editor of Westfield State University’s Focus magazine, I stood firm against it for over 10 years. Then, last year, along came the suggestion from a university staff member that I begin to use the comma.

We did not have fisticuffs. I gave in easily because, as I say, I have begun to see that the Oxford comma has merit. The staff member, whose name was Paula, offered me these favorite examples of “the power of the Oxford comma.” They are random, but they make the point well:

“Among those interviewed were Merle Haggard’s two ex-wives, Kris Kristofferson and Robert Duvall.”

“This book is dedicated to my parents, Ayn Rand and God.”

“Highlights of Peter Ustinov’s global tour include encounters with Nelson Mandela, an 800-year old demigod and a dildo collector.”

On the last, rather eyebrow-raising example, Paula said, “You might say that there are a couple of clues that indicate that Nelson Mandela is neither an 800-year old demigod nor a dildo collector. But you see what I mean.”

In fairness to the AP Stylebook, it does say that a serial comma can be inserted when clarification is needed, but to Paula’s point, why not then simply use it when you’re not writing for a newspaper, just to be on the safe side?

As I say, I’m thinking about it still. It’s a big thing to give up: a haughty attitude over a comma. Perhaps I’ll talk with Sally, Molly and Eli about it.

Or do I mean, Sally, Molly, and Eli?

Recommended Posts

Leave a Comment

Contact Us

We're not around right now. But you can send us an email and we'll get back to you, asap.

Not readable? Change text.