As an Oxford comma proponent, my solution in such cases is to simply re-arrange the list order to be more clear:
“After the break, I will be interviewing a puppeteer, a sex toy collector, and Nelson Mandela.”
The problem I have with those who advocate “flexibility” is that it’s inconsistent. You’re never quite sure if the comma was left off accidentally or on purpose, and while good writers ensure it was intentional and makes correct sense, most don’t and the reader’s left confused.
One of my favorite examples involves the use of grouped items. For instance, if I write the following phrase:
We will be serving burgers, hot dogs, cake, and ice cream.
It is clear that cake and ice cream are two separate desserts. However, I could also write it like this:
We will be serving burgers, hot dogs, cake and ice cream.
Without the comma it’s now ambiguous if cake and ice cream are separate or a single dessert. With those “flexible” people there’s no way to know which was intended without the editor asking the author to clarify.
If we consistently apply the Oxford comma, then we know if it’s missing there’s a reason for it.
In the latter case, and for all cases where two items are often paired, one need only add and to clarify. “We will be serving burgers, hot dogs, and cake and ice cream.” Or “…roast beef, mashed potatoes, and peas and carrots.” Or “…Groucho Marx, Bob Hope, and Abbot and Costello.”
Yes. I guess (and this is hardly an original thought) it’s all about paying attention to how we convey meaning when we speak aloud, isn’t it?
Not all punctuation falls into this category, of course: quotation marks, for instance, have as far as I know no equivalent in spoken English except sometimes a hastily inserted “quote unquote.” The position of " in relation to other punctuation marks is moreover a matter of “style” in the editorial sense: logic suggests it should go first (where the British put it) but we put it second–because, I seem to remember reading, was it in the Chicago Manual?–it looks better typographically. Not to mention what happens when what’s quoted contains its own punctuation, or quotes something itself.
And then (when it’s not being used as a quotation mark) there’s the apostrophe . . . and the ellipsis . . .
I’m not an English major…but with both of the commas in place it is pretty clear to me that they’re three distinct things…Mr. Mandela…a puppeteer…and a sex toy collector. If the puppeteer was Mr. MandelaI would either use Mr. Mandela who is a puppeteer or Mr. Mandela (a puppeteer). Alternatively, rearranging the order would also remove ambiguity but the 2 commas clearly delineate three different people…or items or whatever…at least that’s the way I read it.
Arguing about the Oxford comma is like musicians arguing over whether to use a pick or not, you use one if the song requires it, and in the case of the Oxford comma there are sentences which require it and ones that don’t.
Adam: Some decades prior to working for Apple, I put in over 10 years of working for a University’s Law Review as their main typist/word processor. I typed a total of 30 books in that amount of time. The student editors heavily relied on that Chicago Manual of Style you mention (book version back then, not the online one) and there was also another book they used that I personally recommend to anyone who is an editor, called “Words Into Type” by Marjorie E. Skillin. It is simply an incredible reference book for anyone who publishes.
Suppose it had said “Nelson Mandela, the president of South Africa, a puppeteer, and a sex toy collector”. Four people?
In reality, this is an example of an excellent opportunity to use semicolons. “Nelson Mandela, president of South Africa; a puppeteer; and a sex toy collector”. Wholly unambiguous.
I get the impression that, perhaps ironically, the Oxford comma is a great deal more popular in the US than in the UK (where it’s very, very seldom used).
Now I’m laughing, because this brings to mind the episode of NCIS where Gibbs is reading a passage out loud and he says “dot, dot, dot” when he gets to the ellipsis. This cures one agent of her infatuation for Gibbs, but had me laughing until I cried. Okay, back to bated/baited breath.
C. S. Lewis had some major clashes with his editors over style and punctuation, including weather or not to use the Oxford comma in “The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe:”
“After arguing for several points of substance, Lewis offers a preemptive surrender on the field of punctuation. “Do anything you like (in reason) to the punctuation.” Lewis’ qualified capitulation was in response to this editorial comment from Gibb:
Do you really favour a comma before an “and” which seems to run all through? If so, why not: The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe?
It’s curious Lewis’ editor would question his inclusion of commas in this manner, since it is not uncommon in British literature. In fact, punctuation in this context is often called an “Oxford comma.” You can read a decent discussion of the subject here. And, lest you deem it an inconsequential matter, check out this interesting article describing how it became “the crux of a $10 million class-action lawsuit . . .” The author of the article notes:
Many style guides, including the Chicago Manual of Style, American Psychological Association (APA), and American Medical Association (AMA), recommend the use of the Oxford comma to prevent ambiguity.”
A careful writer of American English would, indeed, write The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe.
Remember that you are talking about bull-headed people who insist on spelling color as colour just because their thuggish royals once spoke French and the French have a “u” in there somewhere.
What I think is especially interesting here is that C.S. Lewis was a Don of English Literature at both Oxford and Cambridge. At Oxford, along with his best friend J.R.R. Tolkien, he founded the very exclusive Inklings society of authors and poets. Members would read their writings aloud and critique each others’ work. I wonder of the issue of the Oxford comma was ever discussed?
I don’t think it’s all that popular in the US either. The only place I’ve seen it consistently used is in academic writing.
That’s a common misconception. Inclusion or omission of the serial comma wouldn’t change the meaning; either way—“eats, shoots and leaves” or “eats, shoots, and leaves”—you’d interpret it as three verbs because of the presence of the first comma. Omitting all the commas, however, changes the meaning.
I’m pretty sure Tonya has a copy of that too! We have several paper editions of Chicago that are festooned with page markers, but the online reference is so much easier to search.
Just to throw more fuel on the fire: semicolon versus em dash. Discuss. :-)
I’ve never thought of them as equivalent. I’d regard an em-dash as closer to a colon than to a semicolon; but as David L implied, em-dashes are probably best used in pairs, equivalent to parentheses or paired commas.
What I was taught in school — an em dash creates more emphasis than a semi colon. It can be used serially instead of commas. Macs, iPads and iPhones — — Apple products are far superior to Androids and PCs.
This cures one agent of her infatuation for Gibbs, but had me laughing until I cried. Okay, back to bated/baited breath. 
