area grammar cop ruthless, uncompromising

Alright ever’body: shut yer yappers, flip those ballots and mark your selection with an X. Choose only one of the five, please…

1) ___You embrace the so-called Oxford comma (also known as the serial comma).
2) ___You reject the so-called Oxford comma.
3) ___You neither embrace nor reject the so-called Oxford comma, for you have no idea what an Oxford comma is.
4) ___You drown, all your writing, with as many commas, as you can, muster, because commas, are great, and, the more, commas the better, so you’re for ‘em, the Oxford commas, whatever they are.
5) ___U hate commas omg their so annoyying and given the choice U prefer to comunnicate ONLY LIKE THIS GRAMMER BE DAMMED HEHE LOVE U LIZA!!!

…and, while you’re at it, please X one of three options down at the bottom of the page:

6) ___You kinda like the innocuous Vampire Weekend, you guess.
7) ___You kinda dislike the innocuous Vampire Weekend, or whatever.
8) ___You have never listened to Vampire Weekend.

Now fold it up real tight and drop it off in one of these wooden boxes. We’ll tally* them all up later.

Your author, this blogger, very much disapproves of the Oxford comma and cares not for Vampire Weekend, band behind the breezy, weightless “Oxford Comma” (first line: “Who gives a fuck about an Oxford comma?”). Within the confines of the above rubric, I’m all of a 2) and ¾ of a 7). That said, I grudgingly admit there’s a time and a place for that stiff-collared protuberance (the comma, not the band), though it’ll be a cold day in hell ‘fore I recognize Missour-ah as a state!

Before we proceed, let’s identify and define this grammatical eyelash I insist on blathering about. Lay your peepers on these two statements:

a) Soundgarden, Bush and The Toadies were all decent 90s bands.
b) Soundgarden, Bush, and The Toadies were all decent 90s bands.

Close observation of statement b) reveals an added comma after Bush; that, folks, is the Oxford comma. Such commas are employed after the penultimate item in a list, right before the conjunction. Both a) and b) are acceptable sentences, technically speaking. Just as a fellow might spell grey (my preferred spelling) with an e OR an a, one sha’nt be chastised for utilizing (or shunning) the Oxford comma as he sees fit.

The literary community seems a bit divided on the issue, and I’ve yet to detect a decisive trend in either direction. Author/pop culture enthusiast Chuck Klosterman proudly wields the comma, and you needn’t look further than the title of his most well-known book (Sex, Drugs, and Cocoa Puffs) to suss him out! His seemingly superfluous comma drove me crazy ‘fore I even cracked the spine.

Last night on the subway I thumbed thru this week’s Onion and came across Klosterman’s guest review of Axl’s Chinese Democracy (an inspired piece, btw). Here’s the caboose of a rather long-winded sentence from the review:

“…a few Robert Plant yowls, dolphin squeaks, wind, overt sentimentality, (←!!!!!) and a caustic modernization of the blues.”

There it is again! Newman!

Needing a grammatical brush up (and preparing to cry foul on Klosterman), I appealed to Wikipedia. Turns out there are very specific instances where that extra comma resolves contextual ambiguity. For that reason (it pains me to admit this), the clunky Oxford deserves a fair shake.

Take Teresa Nielsen Hayden's book dedication (this was pulled straight from the serial comma Wikipedia entry):

To my parents, Ayn Rand and God.

The absence of that second comma makes for a bit of confusion. Who are her parents? Ayn Rand and God? Unlikely. Let’s airbrush in the ol’ Oxford:

To my parents, Ayn Rand, and God.

Ah, better!

Chuck's in the clear, as am I. We’re all** in the right, commatically speaking, so long as we're careful not to misrespresent the listed items.

------------------------------------------------------------------------


*Results not yet in. Appears several ballot boxes have gone missing.

**Except, of course, those who checked 4) or 5). I’m looking at you, Perez Hilton commenters.