As an editor and sometime writer, I ALWAYS use that final comma. Most of the places I’ve worked as an inhouse proofreader have presented me with quite a challenge to convert them from the current stupid pointless standard of ommitting it, but so far I have always prevailed. It just makes so much sense to use it, and there’s really no justification for not using it, except–and this has been the single universal objection–“that’s the way I was taught.”
This is not an issue of prescriptivism vs descrpitivism and the atrophying of our language as some posters seem to suggest. It’s a simple style issue. If you ever write for a magazine or newspaper, chances are your serial comma is gonna get lopped off because AP Style, which most journalistic publications defer to, prescribes that the final comma be left off in a series.
The Chicago Manual of Style likes the final serial comma and leaves it. Neither is right or wrong; it’s just an issue of style. That said, I’ve been taught AP Style, and that is what I tend to follow. However, I must say, there is an excellent case for the use of the final comma to avoid abiguity, and I would tend to agree that this usage is more logical.
Garner’s the man.
I know some people who hide in cowardly fashion behind the AP Style Book on this issue. Good writers don’t hide behind any style books at all, and the AP Style Book in particular can bite me.
The Chicago Manual of Style is full of things that make no sense. That’s where we got the “rule” that a period cannot follow a closing quote:
Logical writing -> It’s called a “nubbit”.
Ch. Man. of Style -> It’s called a “nubbit.”
They did that because there was a problem at the turn of the century (1900) where a trailing period would get lost between the Linotype machine and the printed page. This technical problem was solved about 1910, but the rule remains.
As do a lot of their other rules that defy logic.
Pulykamell–just a note to say I hadn’t seen your post when I posted, so “hiding in cowardly fashion” wasn’t directed at you!
I understand your post is not directed at me, but I’m having difficulties understanding your logic here. I don’t understand what you mean by “hiding behind … stylebooks.” Stylebooks are there to ensure consistency in copy and clarity. I do think the Chicago Manual of Style makes more sense on this issue, but I don’t see the problem in following this stylebook. If you write for the New York Times, you follow the New York Times stylebook (based on AP). For psychological publications, APA. For literature criticism-type stuff, MLA. Most works outside journalism follow Chicago. But, in terms of sheer volume of what is written, I think in terms of American English, AP Style is the most followed manual of style. Think of how many millions and millions words of copy are churned out daily, weekly, and monthly by such publications, and compare that to the rest of the output put out by the publishing industry. I’m not going by hard numbers here, but I reckon in this sense, AP is the most widely-used stylebook.
I’m not saying that I agree with AP always. They insist on still hypenating “teen-ager” and “teen-aged.” Many (if not most) newspapers make this an exception to the AP in their own stylebooks.
Therefore, I would not call following the style as “hiding behind a stylebook.” It’s the industry standard for a particularly large segment of the publishing industry.
I guess my point is that if you, as a writer or editor, know something is right, then it doesn’t make sense to capitulate to a style book. (On the other hand, I stubbornly refuse to put a period after Dr, since I’m pretty sure nobody’s going to accidentally pronounce it “dur.” I like to think this makes me charmingly quirkly, but the jury still seems to be out on that one.)
I’m all for ensuring clarity, and if a style book can do that, fine. But clarity should never be outranked by consistency, especially a foolish consistency.
Some publishers (mostly British) follow the rule that a terminal period abbreviates letters omitted at a word’s end, but not from a word’s middle. For example, The Economist abbreviates “Mister” as “Mr” and “Doctor” as “Dr”, without a terminal period. Likewise, “Department” is abbreviated as “Dep’t” rather than “Dept.” But “Drive” is still “Dr.”, with a terminal period.
If you are writing for an institutional publisher, as pulykamell points out, then you must follow the publisher’s style. But there is a difference between using a stylebook, and hiding behind a stylebook. When I am uncertain about some debatable stylistic issue, I usually check several style manuals, starting with Bryan Garner and the Chicago Manual, in order to make an informed choice. But if you are following a particular stylistic rule just because some stylebook says to, without necessarily understanding why and without regard to whether the rule makes good sense, then I agree with Dr John of Babylon.
(On the other hand, I put periods and commas inside the quotation marks, just because American practice so dictates. Good story and good point, outburst.)
That’s a very elegant way to put it, and pretty much what I was going for.
I’ve been aware of the British abbreviation technique for some time, but it’s a hard sell here in Iowa.
That is exactly what she implied. That is also exactly what is taught. I have taught school on both junior and high school levels. We are to NOT teach the usage of the serial comma. Then again, we are barely allowed to teach any grammar skills at all.
BTW: It used to be taught as proper grammer when including a list in a sentence. This discrepancy is apparently a historical one between US English verses British English.
I was going to make a sarcastic remark here, but decided against it. There’s no sense trying to explain the English language to a bunch of Americans… 
That (English) is not what we speak anyway.
I totally agree with Dr John of Babylon when he points out that a serial comma prevents ambiguity.
It’s simply correct. Period. I can’t accept the world any other way.
I don’t think it is correct. Here’s why: The “and” is there in place of a comma.
To go with the above example of “I’d like to thank my parents, God and Madonna.”, I could also write “I’d like to thank my parents and God and Madonna.” or “I’d like to thank my parents, God, Madonna.” (though the latter would be considered bad style).
Now if I would write “I’d like to thank my parents, God, and Madonna”, that’d be one “and” too many, as the comma is in place of an “and” (and vice versa).
Furthermore, if I wanted to convey that God and Madonna are my parents, I’d write: “I’d like to thank my parents: God and Madonna”.
List items are separated by a comma or an “and”, not both.
There’s another whole area of life where the serial comma is indeed a matter of life and death and certainly worthy of being a Great Debate: court reporting. Since we take what people say and turn it into readable copy, that means we have to insert all necessary punctuation. Few enough people speak in complete, grammatically correct sentences to make punctuation an easy thing, and clarity becomes paramount.
This having been said, court reporters will fight to the death over the proper use of the serial comma. My experience with both camps is that it appears to be a matter of age – of the court reporter; that is, if you were old enough to have been taught you should use it, you do; if you’re younger and are taught not to use it, you don’t.
Fortunately, I work for diehard Serial Commaists. 
I should have, of course, punctuated that, “of the court reporter, that is;” – for clarity’s sake, of course!
I’m going to start using the last one just to annoy people. That, and I like its economy. It is faster, cheaper, shorter.
By whose authority is it said that a comma REPLACES an understood “and”?
When I say “my parents, God, and Madonna” I mean just that. Not “my parents and God and Madonna.” In fact, if I ever would write the latter polysyndeton, I would write it thus: “my parents, and God, and Madonna.” This example disproves the replacement/redundancy theory.
But purblind application of a rule is no excuse for failure to use a clear and consistent style in one’s writing. Applying your rule that a comma and “and” are synonymous in a totally extreme way, here’s an absurd edit of your post, with each substituted for the other whenever it occurs:
In perhaps 70% of series, the presence or absence of the comma following the penultimate item makes no difference in readability. In the remaining 30%, the absence of the “penultimate comma” causes a “jarring” of the reader, or results in unclarity as illustrated above. Its presence never causes problems. The person who cares for the reader’s ability to smoothly read the text he has written will therefore use it, unconcerned with absurdist rules about what substitutes for what.
Eh? I guess that would be the authority of my elementary school teacher; that’s where I learnt that list items are separated by either commata or "and"s.
I didn’t invent the language, I am just using it. Since I learnt how to read and write at school, I am of the opinion that this is the correct way, because I don’t want to assume the teachers had a reason and / or the intention to trick me
First off, it’s not my rule, it’s the rule I was taught at school.
Secondly, you misunderstood the “rule”, so I’ll repeat my own words: “List items are separated by a comma or an “and”, not both.”
It applies strictly to list items and while there are instances where “and” and a comma are indeed exchangeable, it doesn’t mean that they are synonyms in the strictest sense.
A lot of people here were arguing that the way I write, would be “wrong”, whereas I am of the opinion that it is in fact, correct.
I’ll concede that any language and its usage changes over time, so perhaps my point of view that the serial comma is “wrong”, is too extreme. Perhaps the serial comma is an acceptable way of writing. However, using the word “and” without a comma for the last item in a list, is a viable and correct way of writing as well. Hopefully I managed to clear things up a bit.
I don’t know about the reader’s ability to smoothly read the text. If someone doesn’t expect a serial comma, he (or she) will probably pause for a moment and marvel at a supposedly “mistake”.
Furthermore there was the call for authority. On whose authority do you declare any rules “absurdist” anyway? Ambiguity can be avoided even without a serial comma and if the serial comma is not the “standard” or “approved” way to write, then I won’t use it (after all, I expect my readers to understand a simple enumeration anyway). It’s a free world (more or less) though, so you are entitled to write any way you like.
Any gentleman, would agree to this proposition:
That a writer, should never follow the subject of a sentence with a comma.
Unless your name, is Jane Austen.