If your work for or with a business or organization involves publishing content in print or online, that decision has (or should have been) made for you in a style guide, a manual to be followed in production of all the content published by that business or organization. If you determine a business or organization’s style, or you self-publish in print or online, the decision is up to you.

In most journalistic print and online publications and in much other online content, the serial comma is omitted. (This omission is also common in British English.) However, in most books and in many other publications published in the United States, it is required.

I strongly favor the serial comma. Why?

In a sentence such as “I bought one apple, two bananas and three oranges,” no ambiguity exists. But in “I ordered ham and eggs, toast and jam and pie and ice cream,” the cavalcade of conjunctions gets confusing, and in contexts in which it’s not as clear which list items might be distinct and which might be linked, the absence of the final comma might require readers to reread the sentence to establish the organization. So, the solution in this case is to use a serial comma when confusion could arise.

That means that no-serial-comma publications will print or post “I bought one apple, two bananas and three oranges” but “I ordered ham and eggs, toast and jam, and pie and ice cream.” The resulting obvious question is why not, for the sake of consistency, just insert a serial comma in all cases?

Another complication is illustrated in this well-known hypothetical statement: “I dedicate this book to my parents, Ayn Rand and God.” Without the serial comma, the statement could be read as acknowledging four entities: two parents, an author, and a deity. But it could also refer to two parents, one of whom is an author and other of whom is a deity. Again, the presence of the serial comma eliminates the ambiguity.

This issue may seem trivial, but the English language is constructed of myriad trivialities that combine into an imperfect system but one that has supported the world’s predominant language. (Yes, twice as many people speak Mandarin as English, but my reference point is global significance.)

Commas are an abundant resource, and you can pull any ordinary one out of your comma bucket to serve as a serial comma.

A main clause can form a complete sentence. (The preceding statement is both a clause and a sentence.) A subordinate clause, by contrast, depends on a main clause to provide the primary proposition of the sentence, which is why it’s also called a dependent clause.

“Which is why it’s also called a dependent clause” is itself a dependent clause. One could write or speak that sequence of words on its own, and listeners and readers would understand that it pertains to the previous sentence. However, in formal writing, it’s best to link such constructions to a main clause with a punctuation mark — usually a comma though a dash can also link a main clause to a dependent clause, as it does in this sentence.

A sentence may contain two main clauses; in this sentence, a semicolon separates the two main clauses, although a dash may also be employed. Note that the semicolon could be replaced with a period — the segments of the sentence that precede and follow the semicolon could be formatted as a separate sentence. The preceding sentence could also be divided into two: One sentence could be formed from the clause preceding the dash, and another could consist of the clause following the dash.

The sentence preceding this statement shows another punctuation mark that can distinguish one main clause from another: the colon. Note, however, that in the sentence before this one, what follows the colon is a sentence fragment — “the colon” includes a subject but no verb phrase — so it contains a main clause and a dependent clause.

It’s a good thing for written communication that English allows — even encourages — dependent clauses. Otherwise, writing would consist solely of main clauses. A succession of main clauses causes reader fatigue. Engagement in a piece of text is enhanced by a variety of sentence structure. (I’ll stop annoying you with this string of main clauses now.)

In an upcoming post, I’ll describe the various types of dependent clauses and their uses.

The compensation for this work, after the initial fifty articles are written, is more than a thousand dollars a month — about fifty thousand dollars a year, a fair income for a freelance writer. But back up a bit: The writer is being asked to produce 20,000 words per week. At that rate, one could churn out a good-sized novel or nonfiction book each month — if not for the fact that writers are human beings who need to eat and sleep and would like to indulge in luxuries like recreation and socialization.

Assuming that a 1,000-word article can be written in around two hours, that’s a full-time workweek. The problem? Salaried writers don’t write for forty hours a week. They attend meetings and confer with colleagues, and perhaps do some editing and proofreading as well as writing. It’s unrealistic to expect someone to put in that many hours churning out content, even if one finds writing about widgets an exhilarating prospect. It’s unsustainable for a writer to do so, and disingenuous for an employer to expect that the writer can do so.

What’s most disheartening about this job posting — even more than the fact that it would be more reasonable for the client to hire more writers to produce fewer articles each — is that it’s one of the more generous offers I’ve seen online lately.

There’s no writing tip buried among these observations. There’s simply a plea to any readers who might be posting job listings such as the one I’ve described to ask themselves whether they could actually sustain this workload, whether they could live on the meager compensation usually offered for such assignments. Do they want to attract writers, or are they content with typists? (No offense intended against transcribers, of course.)

If there’s any tip to be shared, it’s to my fellow freelance writers out there: Yes, projects may generally be scarce and poorly compensated, and it’s tempting to take grueling assignments such as the one described in this job listing. (I’ve done so — for a while.) But never forget that unless you’re a novice, or you’re a merely competent writer, you deserve better than this — and novices and competent writers will get better and deserve better — and you must be diligent about finding the best offers. And, once you’re hired and have proven your value, be diligent about assertively requesting periodic boosts in pay as a reward for your increasingly valuable contributions to the success of the enterprise.

1. Aged: advanced in age, typical of old age; also, at an age
2. Aging: advancing in age, or the concept of growing older
3. Ancient: aged, old-fashioned, or pertaining to long-ago times, or see venerable
4. Anile: pertaining to or resembling an old woman, or see senile
5. Antiquated: of advanced age, or out of fashion or style
6. Archaic: pertaining to an earlier time
7. Dated: old-fashioned; also, provided with a date
8. Decrepit: infirm because of old age, or dilapidated, run down, or worn out
9. Démodé: unfashionable
10. Demoded: see démodé
11. Doddering: see senile
12. Elderly: pertaining to the late period of life, or old-fashioned
13. Fossilized: see outmoded; also, fixed or rigid, or converted into a fossil
14. Geriatric: old or out of style, or pertaining to older people or to the process of aging
15. Kaput: outmoded; also, broken, or defeated or destroyed
16. Long lived: characterized by a long life span
17. Medieval: see antiquated and outmoded; also, pertaining to the Middle Ages in Europe
18. Moribund: inactive, obsolete, or nearing death
19. Mossy: see antiquated; also, something similar to moss, or covered by moss or something similar
20. Moth eaten: see antiquated and outmoded; also, eaten by moths or their larvae
21. Noachian: see ancient and antiquated; also, pertaining to Noah or the era in which he lived
22. Neolithic: old-fashioned because a holdover from another era; also, a scientific term (always capitalized) referring to the later Stone Age
23. Obsolete: old-fashioned, or no longer useful; also, in biology, flawed or vestigial in comparison to similar features
24. Out of date: see outmoded
25. Outdated: see outmoded
26. Outmoded: out of style, or not acceptable or current
27. Outworn: see outmoded
28. Overage: too old to be of use, or older than normal
29. Over the hill: advanced in age, or past one’s prime
30. Passé: past one’s prime, and see outmoded
31. Prehistoric: see outmoded; also, in archaeology and language, from before written history
32. Quaint: old-fashioned; also, odd, elegant, or skillfully designed
33. Retro: see retrograde (however, the short form is from the French term rétrospectif, not from retrograde)
34. Retrograde: fashionable nostalgic, or trendily old-fashioned; also, various technical senses of moving backward or contrary to normal motion
35. Rusty: clumsy or slow due to old age or lack of practice
36. Senescent: old, or becoming old; also, the part of a plant’s life cycle from full maturity onward
37. Senile: pertaining to old age, especially to loss of mental faculties
38. Senior: older, or older than another; also, someone in the highest level in an institution or organization or with high rank or status
39. Spavined: see decrepit; also, afflicted with swelling
40. Stone Age: a period or a stage in the development of a field or institution considered old or old-fashioned; also, in archeology, the earliest period of human culture (always capitalized in both senses)
41. Superannuated: older than is typical, disqualified for active duty because of age, or old-fashioned
42. Tottery: infirm or precarious
43. Unyoung: old
44. Venerable: prompting respect because of age and attendant wisdom or skill, or impressive because of age; also, sacred or deserving of reverence
45. Vintage: old or old-fashioned; also, among the best (said of a particular person or thing), or of enduring interest or worth

Most important is the form of the submission. Generally, writers pitch articles and interviews as pieces they are prepared to write; you summarize a story and your approach, name sources and resources you plan to consult, and await a go-ahead to write. But submitting essays is more akin to sending an entire fiction manuscript, rather than an outline and a sample chapter or two of a nonfiction work, to a literary agent: Write first, then query. (Articles and interviews are sometimes written like this — on spec — but in this case it’s best to have a buyer before you build your product.)

We all have favorite print or online publications we’d love to see our byline in, but adopt a realistic approach — or a combination of approaches to get started:

Self-Publish
Launch your own blog, and build a portfolio of posts on a single theme or topic. (If you have more than one interest, separate your blog into distinct areas by subject matter, or even create a different website for each category.) Use social networking and link sharing to build an audience. Once you’ve amassed a body of writing, even if you have no paid publishing credits, you’ll be able to point editors to an impressive collection of your writings.

Enter Contests
Innumerable organizations sponsor writing contests, many of them with more scintillating topics than the “What freedom means to me”–type scholarship-essay contests you may remember from high school. Search online, targeting a few that cater to your writing niche, because the accumulated entry fees of multiple submissions can be hazardous to your financial health. Some contests offer publication as a prize; though the magazine or journal is likely to be obscure, you will be able to call yourself a published writer.

Go Specific
Just as when you enter contests, invest your time and energy wisely when seeking to have your work published. Print and online journals and magazines, and anthologies, exist for just about any topic you can imagine. Consult the latest edition of Writer’s Market, certainly, but conduct online research to find niche publications that seek writers just like you.

How to Pitch an Essay
Once you’ve identified one or more ideal print or online publications, sell your initial essay. Obviously, the recipients of your pitch will read your overture before perusing the essay itself, so catch their attention with a brief introduction that will impress them.

Not only must your grammar, usage, and punctuation be impeccable, but your pitch must demonstrate that anything else you include is worth reading. If you’re a storyteller, tell a story. If you’re submitting an opinion piece, dazzle the editor with your observations. If you’re a humor writer, make ’em laugh. Be confident but not arrogant, and be authentic: Sell who you are and what you have to offer, not what you would like to be or wish you could do.

The pitch itself should be concise: Greet the recipient, briefly describe the essay you’ve attached to your message, explain (with some heartfelt flattery) why it’s appropriate for the publication, inform the recipient that you will provide other material on request and that you’re happy to revise the submission based on feedback, thank the recipient, and get out of the way. If you do have a blog, provide the link so that the person can look at other writing samples.

Send your sample to as many publications as you can identify — don’t wait for responses. If you don’t hear back, follow up every week or two with a simple reminder until you get a definitive response. Once someone has published your work, or after a few months, select your new favorite piece and submit again to publications that rejected you. And, as much at it may seem difficult, shrug off the rejections. There are millions of writers out there, and at least a few of them are going to be better than you (or their material is better suited for particular publications). As I alluded in this post, focus on getting yeses, not dwelling on nos.