as much as it pains me to say this, i stand corrected about an itty bitty, curly little mark. and here’s why.
i have never been a fan of the oxford (serial) comma. i find it superfluous, and just flat out don’t like using it. if–and only if–a sentence is ambiguous without it, then i make exceptions.
i began my writing career in newspapers, which would explain said exclusion. (the AP style is so cool–obvy.) but when i moved onto consumer advertising, the exclusion remained. (see! nobody likes the dang thing.) then i got a job at a pharmaceutical advertising agency and everything i thought was right turned out to be dead wrong. my copy editor tells me the american medical association manual of style says i must use it. and so i do. but only at work, damn it. in my personal writing, my resistance to this oxford–aka, serial–aka, harvard–comma has remained steadfast.
until today. (doom and gloom, people. doom. and. gloom.)
while editing a friend’s résumé, a google search about commas slapped my grammatical rebellion into submission. turns out, not only does the AMA require its inclusion, but so does my beloved MLA. (son of a bee sting, babe. i was wrong all along. ouch. that stings.)
henceforth, my commas will appear here, here, here, and even right there in front of that 3-letter conjunction. bummer.
so, who cares now, oh ye merry lads of vampire weekend? my buddy and fellow editor/writer, radigan, does. and–reluctantly–i now do, too.