One called it a "glaring collection of misused punctuation."

Another called it "A non orthodox but effective method to establish rythem and mood."

Another called "completely unnessesary, use periods instead"

and another said " How do you even approach comma use- since this story is clear and removal of commas may destroy the entire structure and meaning"

Mind you this story is by a published HWA professional- so the comma choice was intentional.

King said he generally disregards common conventions for comma usage- seeing them as a note to pause in the reading. (in dialogue) And that he recieves tons of criticsm from the punctuation nazis.

Where do you stand? How do you use the comma?

How does being a published HWA professional guarantee a working knowledge of commas? I've seen all kinds of appalling spelling, punctuation, and grammar errors in print; clearly publication is no guarantee that either authors or editors know how to punctuate.

I often feel like no one but me gives a damn any more. Oh, well.

You know Stephen King is a English teacher and he was the one who came up with the term Punctuation Nazi.

But you do bring up a good point. I wonder if we are witnessing a shift in writing styles. From the formal usage of Standard English to the informal usage of internet English. Publishers really don't seem to care anymore nor does it seem the average reader either.

I don't really object much to commas being used where no punctuation is necessary, as long as a pause would be appropriate in that spot, or if they add clarity.

What I do object to is commas being left out when they are needed or used when different punctuation is needed.

When it comes to punctuation rules, I tend to side with clarity over formalism.

For example, according to current usage rules you should not place a comma before the and joining the last item in a list, unless at least one of the items in the list contains and:

* I bought an orange, an apple and a pear.
* I bought a cup and saucer, a knife and fork, and a plate.

Of course, that nice grammatical rule leaves some ambiguity in the following:

As one of the elite team captains, he was expected to be on time.

the comma is correct. However, if the sentence were

As one of the elite team captains, he was expected to be on time, but saving a life seemed more important to him.

then I'd suggest leaving off the first comma. Otherwise, the readability is choppy.

As one of the elite team captains he was expected to be on time, but saving a life seemed more important to him.

Even trimmed, the results are the same:

As team captain, he was expected to be on time.

As team captain he was expeced to be on time.

As team captain, he was expected to be on time, but saving a life seemed more important.

As team captain he was expected to be on time, but saving a life seemed more important.

quote:

---

For example, according to current usage rules you should not place a comma before the and joining the last item in a list, unless at least one of the items in the list contains and:

---

Ah, the infamous Oxford comma. This battle has been raging among editors for centuries. Typically, Americans (possibly including Canadians, though one can never be sure what Canada is up to -- perhaps plotting to take over the world is my guess) will put the comma in, and the UK and others will leave it out.

Which is correct? Both are. You decide. Big deal, right?

In MS Word, you can customize your grammar settings for either usage.

On to JB's point... since I've not seen this story, I can't comment. But misplaced punctuation, intentional or otherwise, makes for difficult reading. Punctuation should be mostly invisible, subtle, and unobtrusive. Signposts, really.

Apparently, someone wrote an entire novel without using one comma. I'm still looking forward to reading that one...

Nevertheless, I hate the artsy-fartsy types who forego all proper conventions just because they feel like being "different." It makes me want to kill kittens... (not again...)

In the end, I want readers to hear rather than see my commas. So if four different readers comment on my usage, I know that there's a problem. Even if all or most of the comments are positive, it means that my commas are sticking out as an artificial contrivence rather than a natural use of effective language. I would much rather only see them mentioned by critics telling me that I should use the Oxford method or whatever than have everyone say they really liked the way I used commas.

For example, I used the following sentence in a recent piece, which, as far as I know, breaks the "rules," but communicates the point quite clearly and succintly: "I watched Mom’s face, unmoving, peaceful."

(And I ALWAYS include the Oxford comma )

I tend to only leave them in where they are necessary either for emphasis, like the one above, or to clarify the structure of the sentence -- e.g. for setting off paranthetical phrases, like this one, from the rest of the sentence. I also always use a comma before a modifier that provides extra information about the main part of the sentence (either adjectival or adverbial), like this one.