Lists/Descriptions and Commas

It's a conjunction.

The first sentence is fine with or without the 'and.'

The second sentence is throwing you, I think, because generally, 'hoping and praying,' is one thing, thus there should be no other comma after the one following 'sound.'

Yes, it's a style thing, and an Oxford comma thing.

It seems like this should read:

He sat down, face downcast, shoulders hunched, (and?) with his fingers steepled in front of him.

(I know it's just an example, but it's sorta hard to say when the and doesn't seem to have a place contextually to begin with.)
Just my two cents. I'm not much good with grammatical complexities, either, so I tend to skirt 'em.

Shameful to be sure.

upsidedown said:

Do you need an "and" when you do stuff like this:

He sat down, face downcast, shoulders hunched, (and?) fingers steepled in front of him.

Click to expand...

Strictly speaking, no you don't need the and each and every time. You may occasionally leave out the final conjunction in a series by employing a grammatical device called an asyndeton. It's when normally occurring conjunctions (and, or, but, for, nor, so, yet) are intentionally omitted in successive phrases.

Thus,He sat down, face downcast, shoulders hunched, fingers steepled in front of him. is technically correct. However, "occasionally" is key. To employ an asymdeton omission more than once in a great while would not create the best writing.

upsidedown said:

He ran through the woods, looking back at every turn, panicking at the slightest sound, hoping, (and?) praying he wouldn't get caught.

Click to expand...

As Cornflake said, in the previous sentence, "and" does not function to link items in a series. It is a simple conjunction linking "hoping and praying" and is definitely necessary. In fact, even with the "and," your second sentence is technically an asymdeton.

Perhaps this rule may help:

Comma Rule Number 3: Commas separate items in a series:
James found blondes attractive, redheads adorable, and brunettes irresistible.

The final comma before the conjunction is always correct. However, the journalistic practice to omit the serial (or Oxford) comma is every author’s option:
James found blondes attractive, redheads adorable and brunettes irresistible.

Also correct is an occasional asyndeton (a-SIN-dih-tawn), the intentional omission of the normally occurring conjunction (and, or, but, for, nor, so, yet) in a series of words, phrases, or clauses:
James found blondes attractive, redheads adorable, brunettes irresistible.

upsidedown said:

The "and" just sounds so off to me. I've tried looking it up but I don't know what that part of a sentence is called. They're not always adjectives.

Click to expand...

They're never adjectives. Again, as Cornflake said, "and" in this case is one of seven simple and coordinating conjunctions: and, or, nor, but, for, yet, and so.

upsidedown said:

I looked at some published books and found something similar in To Kill a Mockingbird:

Hours of wintertime had found me in the treehouse, looking over at the schoolyard, spying on multitudes of children through a two-power telescope Jem had given me, learning their games, following Jem’s red jacket through wriggling circles of blind man’s bluff, secretly sharing their misfortunes and minor victories.

It basically does the same thing (the last "and" doesn't count to me as it's part of secretly sharing...). Is it correct or should it be "...bluff, AND secretly sharing..."

Is it a style thing? Sometimes the "and" sounds fine and other times it seems to halt everything.

Click to expand...

At the risk of repeating: Yes, it is a style thing, and in the above sentence from her book, Harper Lee chose an asyndeton and omitted the final conjunction. However, if you read all of To Kill a Mocking Bird, you'll find asyndetons are used sparingly.

Did this help or am I ?

upsidedown said:

do you recommend any good grammar books (or sites?) that go into the complex stuff like this?

Click to expand...

Purdue OWL. Gooooogle will get you the URL instantly. It's by far the best free grammar/style site on the Net. Find it and bookmark it.

caw

An answer and a question:

Remember to consider who your audience will be when deciding whether to break grammar rules in the interest of style. I've told my formerly-homeschooled, currently-in-college kids that there can be a difference between writing that's good and writing that's good to turn in to their E101 prof. I'd even go so far as to say that if something (e.g., a comma or the word "and') is optional (and the grammar books say it's optional), still use it for an E101 prof. (We learned that the hard way--a point deducted--eek!) If they go on to take creative writing courses, then maybe they'll want to break grammar rules when there are good reasons to do so.

And here comes my question.

upsidedown said:

He ran through the woods, looking back at every turn, panicking at the slightest sound, hoping, (and?) praying he wouldn't get caught.
​

Click to expand...

I know sometimes people put "hoping and praying" together, and they kinda become one thing to them. But I think there's a difference. To me, hoping is basically thinking good thoughts. Praying is communicating with God, and can mean asking the all-powerful ruler of the universe to intervene on our behalf. What if a writer wanted to use this sentence to convey that the character wasn't merely hoping he wouldn't get caught, but was also praying he wouldn't get caught. If that were the intended meaning, would it be correct to omit "and"?

He ran through the woods, looking back at every turn, panicking at the slightest sound, hoping, praying he wouldn't get caught.

I guess italicizing "praying" would be a way to emphasize that the character wasn't merely hoping but was also praying. But I prefer to find ways to emphasize things without using italics.

Any thoughts? Thanks.