The Oxford comma

Until I read Anne Curzan's Says Who? I didn't know the term "the Oxford comma." I was well aware of the question the term refers to, but I didn't recall hearing the term itself previously.

The question, which most people never think about and is important mainly to writers and editors, is this: When words are printed in a series, should there be a comma before the and?

That is, should the title of the Steve Martin-John Candy movie be Planes, Trains and Automobiles," as it actually is, or should it have been called Planes, Trains, and Automobiles? Who cares? you ask. Well, those in the word business do care.

I have a newspaper background, and so I almost always eliminate this comma. (I do include it in quotations.)  In newspapers we try to save space wherever we can, and even a little comma takes up space. Why bother with an unnecessary comma?

The trouble is, sometimes the comma is necessary. Curzan gives an example, often cited. A book dedication supposedly read, "This book is dedicated to my parents, Ayn Rand and God." Without the comma, the dedication suggests that God and Ayn Rand are the author's parents. That is probably not the case. And so a comma is needed.

But take another phrase mentioned by Curzan: "my brother, the doctor, and the nurse." The comma indicates the brother is a doctor. If that is not the case, the comma is misleading and should have been left out.

It is called the Oxford comma because way back in 1893 Oxford University Press adopted a style that this comma be included in any series. The Associated Press thinks differently, and most U.S. newspapers follow the AP Stylebook.

Yet, as the two examples above show us, the comma is sometimes needed. Other times it should be left out. Most of time, of course, it doesn't matter at all. Do whatever you please.