Against the Oxford Comma (sort of)

A comma (not necessarily Oxford)

One hears a lot of hubbub on the internet about how the Oxford comma is the most important piece of punctuation in the English language, and to neglect it is the equivalent of leaving your dog in the car on a hot day while you go into the corner store to buy cigarettes, which you proceed to smoke in the car with the windows up while your poor pooch cries pitifully on the back seat. A typical polemic against Oxford comma non-use goes like this:

"We invited the rhinoceri, Washington and Lincoln." — THAT MEANS WASHINGTON AND LINCOLN ARE RHINOCERI! YOU CAN'T GET AWAY WITH THIS YOU IGNORANT APE! YOU ARE JOHN WILKES BOOTH REINCARNATED! SIC SEMPER GRAMMARIST! THE PRESIDENTS SHALL BE AVENGED WITH PROPER PUNCTUATION!"

The thing about examples like this is that they are contrived to make the OC look necessary. If you had simply rephrased the sentence (We invited Washington, Lincoln and the rhinoceri) there is no risk of being misunderstood. Furthermore, in 99 percent of sentences there is no possibility of the absent comma leading to this type of misunderstanding.

Example: I want eggs, bacon and toast. YOU WANT BACON AND TOAST TOGETHER... AND ALSO EGGS!?!?!?!? THE HORROR!!! HAVE A SIDE OF GRAMMAR WITH YOUR BREAKFAST YOU MINDLESS SLOUCH!!!! USE A COMMA OR I'LL PUT YOU IN A COMA!!!

I generally don't use the Oxford comma for three reasons:

1. As noted, it almost never adds clarity (other than in sentences that are designed to be misunderstood without it).

2. Despite my flagrant use of all caps in this post, I care about the aesthetic of the texts I produce. By minimizing the number of marks on any given page (i.e. by removing superfluous punctuation) there is an overall cleaner aesthetic.

3. Converting one's thoughts into text so that they are perfectly understood by the reader is a challenge. Conscientiously reworking sentences so there is no possibility of being misunderstood is a skill, and organizing lists so they can't be misunderstood, with or without useless commas, is a chance to work on that skill.

You may have noticed that I said I generally don't use the OC. This reflects a flexible approach to grammar that I think is under-appreciated by high-school English teachers and internet trolls alike. Grammar, like language itself, wasn't given from on high. It was created by humans over thousands of years. Modern linguists tend to describe language as it is used rather than prescribing 'proper' language use. Grammar exists for our benefit. It exists to make written language clear and understandable, not to constrain our ability to express ourselves or to cause endless online shouting matches. I'm not saying you should do one thing or the other. Use the OC if the sentence can't be organized any other way and will be misunderstood without it. Don't use it if the list is perfectly understandable the way it is. You'll be saving on ink! Or just use it. I don't care. Do what works for you. But in my opinion the Oxford comma is overrated, unnecessary and superfluous.

On Looking Normal, or a reflection on positive deception

A businessman and a hippie walk into a bar. They both look the part. Before speaking to each other they already know what the other will say. Any topic they discuss will be filtered through assumptions. “I already disagree with you” is the point of departure. Even if they strike up a congenial conversation, even if they happen to agree on most things, even if they could gain real, potentially life-changing insight from one another, their discussion will no doubt remain guarded, tempered by grains of salt on either side.

When we present ourselves in a particular way, when we cover our faces in tattoos, say, or wear expensive watches and jewellery, we are saying something about our worldview and our values. These things are inherently unifying and divisive. They are a badge that invites the confidences of the likeminded while at the same time repelling those of a different persuasion. Of course we can all long for a world where we will overlook such superficial differences, but the fact is first impressions are one of the primary ways that people organize and understand the world.

As a professor, I don’t want people to look at me and think “Oh, he’s that type of guy. I’ve already made up my mind about that type. I will note his ideas and regurgitate them back to him but keep myself insulated from taking them to heart.” In order to make an impact I need to navigate first impressions. For the same reason, when I travel I try to look fairly neutral. I don’t want to be judged as a wealthy tourist or a spoiled American kid when I visit Haiti. Unable to change the colour of my skin, I want to minimize preconceptions and let my voice and my ideas speak for themselves.

I’m not a “normal person.” I have particular (some might say eccentric) beliefs and interests. I have specific ideas about what’s wrong with the world and what needs to change. But if I want people to listen to my abnormal opinions I need to present myself as relatively normal. I’m not a normal person, but I appreciate the usefulness of looking like one.