This confuses me. The serial comma NEVER adds clarity, and often obscures the meaning. It’s omission is exactly nothing more than a superstition; a rule for rule’s sake, enforced only because it’s traditional to do so, not because it makes any sense. An editor of mine once said that the reason to use the serial comma is that it often adds clarity, and is never wrong. That’s pretty clear to me. But in your honor, I dedicate this post to my parents, Ayn Rand and God.
Right. I phrased it that way because the way this always comes up is when someone who thinks they’re a grammar maven points it out to me as a “mistake,” and then I have to explain to them why it is not, in fact, incorrect. This is a current issue for me because I recently undertook the huge project of copyediting an entire website. It’s the site of a film distributor, and thus has lots of series that are lists of titles. This is HUGELY confusing without the series comma. As an imaginary example (with real enough parallels on the site): Tango and Cash, Bob and Carol and Ted and Alice and McCabe and Mrs. Miller. I have a coworker who would actually argue to leave the comma out in an example like that. When I ask her why, she says, “Because that’s the rule.”
No, it’s not.
Wouldn’t it be Tango and Cash, Bob and Carol and Ted and Alice and McCabe and Mrs. Miller? The “and” that isn’t part of any of the movie titles isn’t italicized so the extra comma isn’t needed for clarity.
Are you talking about journalism? Because the rules for newspapers are in part based on the physical space limitations of the page - a stricture few other forms of writing face. Editors are often willing to sacrifice clarity in the name of succintness for this reason. Which means that some of the journalistic rules of style need not apply to any other form of writing.
Who gives a fuck about an Oxford comma?
Do you mean, “Omitting the serial comma NEVER adds clarity…”?
'Cause I agree with that. Long live the serial comma!
Snark!
The Boston Tea Party was not waged because taxes were increased on tea. It was waged because taxes were decreased.
It’s a bit complicated, so here’s the overly-simplistic version of what happened:
There was legal tea imported from England, and illegal/smuggled tea imported from other places (e.g. Netherlands). Many colonists preferred the latter. In an effort to combat the illegal importation of smuggled tea, taxes were lowered on the legal tea to make it cheaper.
The colonists were pissed off over this. They didn’t like how the government was trying to drive smugglers out of business.
Is that correct? I thought the taxes were lowered on tea consumed IN ENGLAND, and the duty was also refunded to EITC for tea exported to the colonies. But, in turn, tea was now DIRECTLY taxed in the colonies. It was this tax on the colonists that they objected to! Not a decrease in tax on tea, but the fact that they were now being directly taxed. They didn’t think Britain had the right to tax them directly since they were not represented in Parliment.
Is this not the case?
My take on it is that journalistic writing strives to be pretty much free of personal style, and thus is far more conservative and entrenched; that changing a style which so many people adhere to rigidly is seen as more disruptive than it’s worth.
My understanding is that the old law was that the East India Company sold all of its tea in England, were it paid a relatively high tax. The law also said that Americans were only supposed to buy English goods (this was part of the mercantilist economic theory) so supposedly Americans would be buying their tea from England where the tax had already been paid.
Now as a result of being heavily taxed in England and also having the cost of re-shipping it to America afterwards, this legal English tea was expensive, In addition, some Americans objected in principle to having to pay a tax (even if it was indirectly) when they had no representation in Parliament. As a result most of the tea that was actually sold in America was smuggled in from Dutch territory directly to America with no tax was ever paid on it.
Now London misread the situation in America. They didn’t understand that some Americans saw this as a political stand. They thought it was just an economic issue - Americans were buying smuggled Dutch tea because legal English tea was more expensive. So Parliament enacted a solution they thought would make everyone happy. They lowered the tax and allowed the East India Company to deliver its tea directly to America (and pay the tax there). This reduction in the tax and transportation cost would greatly lower the price of English tea. And Parliemnt decided that as long as they were addressing the tea issue anyway, they might as well increase enforcement of the existing laws and crack down on people smuggling tea in from other countries.
Parliament had not seen this as a big deal. The only new law they had enacted was to lower the tax and allow direct sales - they thought they had done America a favor. The anti-smuggling laws had been around a long time, so what was the big deal about enforcing them more?
Americans obviously did not see this the same way. Most Americans were somewhat opposed to the lack of representation but it was not a big priority for the average American. Buying smuggled tea was a way of quietly registering their opposition while not directly defying the law (and without making any sacrifice). It allowed Americans to feel they were sticking it to London and probably served to keep resentment at a minimal level.
So when Parliament changed its tea policy it appeared to Americans that it had been designed to provoke a confrontation. A tax that they didn’t like when they were paying it indirectly was now being collected on their doorstep. Smuggling which had seemed like a mostly harmless way of protesting was now being treated like a serious crime. This caused resentment to rise and political agitators played into that. The next step was vandalizing tea shipments from England aka the Boston Tea Party.
Well done! Exactly as you say.
Personally, I find that a comma after the second item and before the “and” makes the writing seem choppy to me and causes an interruption in the flow of the sentence. Apparently, I read a lot more newspapers and magazines than anything else, because the omitted comma seems far more common to me.
I would definitely make an exception, as do those who argue against the serial comma in most instances, for a series in which each element has a lot of words. And of course, in a “gotcha” kind of construction like the “my parents, Ayn Rand, and God” one.
In those limited instances, a serial comma does add clarity. In most others, it’s not at all necessary for clarity, so why add an unnecessary element?
It was once widely believed that Rod Stewart played the harmonica solo on Millie Small’s 1964 hit “My Boy Lollipop.”
In fact, the harmonica was played by Jimmy Powell of the Five Dimensions (cite).
So . . . your solution is that those who omit the serial comma should italicize all the items in the list? OK I’ll try it: “Dedicated to my parents,* Ayn Rand* and God.”
You do realize the movie titles were just a random example, right? And your solution still leaves unaddressed the vast majority of similar situations? And that its usage is considered standard by most writers and editors? Bottom line, per the OP, it’s a myth that it’s a rule.
It’s just a matter of what you’re used to. Me, I hang up on the missing comma every time, and I read the last two times on the list as a single, linked pair, set apart from the rest of the list of single items. I have to stop and mentally insert a comma for flow.
Consistency has an inherent value of its own; a “rule” you have to throw out the window in the service of clarity on a case by case basis is a pain in the ass and serves no one, except those who can’t get out of the habit.
Granted, when I’m editing another’s work, and they omit the comma, I will rarely actively replace it. I usually let them have their style choice, except in cases where a comma is necessary simply to make sense of a list. But if I’m editing a larger work made up of the work of different individuals, for consistency’s sake I generally insert the comma, so that the overall work is consistent within itself.
Nice! 
I feel vindicated! I’ve been adding the Oxford comma sometimes without even realizing some style guides didn’t disallow it. :smack: