When people try to make the case that the Oxford comma is essential to clear communication, they usually inadvertently prove the opposite with absurd examples devoid of any context. Like this:
Anyone who is genuinely confused by sentences like these has problems that no amount of punctuation can address. And by the Oxford comma promoters’ own logic, the last example would still be misread. Adding the comma does not eliminate the (supposed) risk that readers will think Nelson Mandela is an 800-year-old demigod.
Commas should be used only where they are needed. If the word “and” does not provide the necessary pause in rhythm and visual separation for clarity, then you should restructure the sentence.
We invited JFK, Stalin and strippers.
My heroes are Superman, Wonder Woman and my parents.
Highlights of his global tour include encounters with an 800-year-old demigod, a dildo collector and Nelson Mandela.
See how easy that is?
There may be occasions when you can’t avoid ambiguity through reorganization. In those case, by all means, use as many commas as you need (unless a semicolon is what you’re really looking for). But those cases are rare. Until you encounter one, stop relying on commas to clarify your sloppy writing!
For a thorough, amusing and like-minded take on the debate, read this. (Mostly like-minded. I disagree with this assertion: “The comma wears many hats, and none of them has anything to do with where you think there’s a natural break when you read a sentence to yourself.” I argue that how writing sounds — to the ears or in the reader’s mind — is important.)
Incidentally, an informal poll by FiveThirtyEight showed that the Oxford comma’s most ardent defenders are those who rate their own grammar as “excellent.” Journalist and educator Merrill Perlman noted:
Many people who think they are good at grammar are good at following what they think are the rules: Don’t start a sentence with a conjunction, don’t end them with a preposition, etc. They may be less good at knowing why the “rules” exist, and I’ve yet to hear a coherent explanation of why you can’t do any of those things that didn’t involve Latinate references or such deep parsing of parts of speech and linguistics that the goal is lost — was the thought clear and unambiguous?