Speaking pedantically, if I may, the sentence needs a comma because there is a new subject (“it”) and predicate ("'s like spotting") in the second clause. It wouldn’t need a comma if there was just a second predicate in the second clause. But in formal written English, you are required to use a comma when connecting two complete subject-verb clauses.
/monocle
Simpler example:
no comma needed: I went to the grocery store and drove to the gas station.
comma needed: I went to the grocery store, and then I drove to the gas station.
THE RULES OF GRAMMAR ARE SIMPLE AND FINITE! VIOLATE THEM AT YOUR OWN RISK! THESE ATROCITIES WILL NOT SOON BE FORGOTTEN! STRUNK AND WHITE SHAN’T GO UNAVENGED!
[quote=“Gary “Wombat” Robson, post:40, topic:613446”]
I would certainly agree he’s being hypercritical, but the way The Elements of Style paints their list of firm, hard rules.
[/QUOTE]
Oh, the rules are not presented that rigidly, in my opinion. The intro itself states that the best writers will break these rules, but for the beginner, it’s good to learn them and only after mastering them to break them.
Perhaps it may have something to do with teaching and learning styles. I think some students benefit from a rigid, structured approach, and then better can learn the exceptions and discover their own voice. Perhaps the “rules” can be better phrased, but there’s no “rules” you can come up with that will catch all the exceptions.
In my own profession, when you learn photography, one of the first “rules” you learn is the “rule of thirds.” That is a good general guideline, and for a rule that takes two or three sentences of explanation, it does a lot to compositionally help a learning photographer. That said, the rule is broken left and right by competent photographers every day. But it overwhelms a student to try to teach this rule and show the hundreds of counterexamples to it. Same with “never put a horizon in the center of your frame.” Or “you always want the front eye in critical focus.” (Although that is usually true.) I suppose it’s always better to more explicitly frame it as “guidelines,” but I don’t personally get as strong an authoritative tone from S&W as I get from more contemporary grammar gurus like William Safire, say.
I have opinions about William Safire, too.
And I probably would agree with you opinions about him. I find S&W refreshingly level-headed and open-minded compared to Safire.
I find PITA refreshingly level-headed and open-minded compared to Safire.