If you are involved in business, “writer” is one of the many hats you wear. On any given day, you need to communicate effectively in writing – from texts and emails, to proposals and contracts, to a brochure or website content.

Writing happens to be core to my business. But that doesn't make me immune to anxiety every time my finger hovers above the Send button. The recipient of my missive will be the judge of whether the words I've compiled actually convey the message I've intended. Scarier still, perhaps I've overlooked a grammatical error, or autocorrect has inadvertently turned my cordial greeting into a potential harassment suit. 

When the content is important, it is wise to have a second set of eyes proofread your work before you publish.

Proofreading and writing are separate, yet inseparable, disciplines. Writers intend to convey information, ideas or instruction in words. Proofreaders ensure the written words actually communicate what the writer intended. To achieve this, proofreaders must apply appropriate rules of grammar, spelling and punctuation, while being sensitive to style, tone and content.

Writers make mistakes. Proofreaders save our butts.

Unless you are President of the United States, you probably don’t have the luxury of proofreaders looking over your shoulder, assessing word-for-word every communiqué in real time. Fortunately, readers of your texts, emails and letters are generally forgiving. They will often let you know if a message is confusing or ambiguous, presenting the opportunity to clarify and beg forgiveness. (I find Autocorrect to be a convenient scapegoat.)

However, readers have higher expectations for the veracity and integrity of other communications content. When perusing websites or marketing materials, I am often floored by the volume of grammatical, spelling and punctuation errors they contain. Readers may dismiss a typo or two in a 50-word email, but on a website’s home page errors reflect a lack of professionalism and attention to detail. Worse, a prospective client is unlikely to provide this feedback. She’ll just move on to a competitor’s site that better meets her expectations.

So, the lesson of the day is: Learn from the feedback your clients and colleagues provide on your daily communications. And, for materials that need to stand the test of time, employ a second set of eyes (and perhaps third and fourth…) to ensure you’ve clearly expressed your ideas, information and instruction.

Sometimes, as with this blog, I act as both writer and proofreader. That’s when I get in trouble. It is probable that some errors are posted here. In advance, I humbly apologize, and invite your gentle comments.  

The diminutive comma is the subject of an inordinate amount of debate. In particular: When listing a series of items in a sentence, does one include a comma before the word “and” at the end of a list? Among persnickety people who discuss such things, this is known as the “Oxford comma.”
​
I have clients that are firmly entrenched at both ends of the argument: always “[comma] and…” or never “[comma] and…” Clients who pay their invoices in a timely manner are allowed to choose their preference and receive my grateful compliance.

When writing for myself, I am firmly entrenched in the middle. In some cases a comma before the last item in a series adds clarity and is, in my opinion, necessary. Otherwise, the inclusion or exclusion of a serial comma is at the writer’s discretion.

According to the Oxford University Press, “The 'Oxford comma' is an optional comma before the word 'and' at the end of a list.” They should know. Oxford is the only university in the world named after a punctuation mark.

By definition, the Oxford comma is optional, included or excluded at the writer’s choice. In my view, the utility of a comma is dependent on context.

For example: The 80’s revival included performances by Adam Ant, Echo and the Bunnymen, and Siouxsie and the Banshees.

• Removing the last comma in this series could lead the reader to believe the concert debuted a new super-group formed of Echo, Siouxsie, Bunnymen, and Banshees. While this union might produce heretofore-unimagined musical possibilities, the comma placement clarifies that three acts appeared separately.

In other musical news: Headbanging fans screamed above the hyper-amplified thrashing of Metallica, Slayer and Megadeth.

• The absence of the Oxford comma here creates no ambiguity. On the other hand, inclusion would not alter the reader’s understanding. The writer gets to choose.

Finally: The aging metalheads carped that today’s bands are crap compared to Led Zeppelin, Blue Oyster Cult, and Deep Purple.

• I am inclined to include the serial comma here. Since multiple words identify each item in the series, I argue that including the comma helps more clearly separate each complex item in the list. That said, I certainly would not disparage a writer who might exclude the comma before “and” in a similar instance.

When contemplating commas, my advice is for each writer to punctuate in a style that most effectively communicates his or her intended meaning.

(Note: This entry's title may elicit grins among readers who grew up in the 80’s. Younger readers may wish to Google “Boy George.”)