> An Oxford comma is not a flip switch in an author's voice, it's a decision made in the moment to maintain the flow of the idea.
This is simply a run-on, not a use of an Oxford comma as I understand it. And these bother me a lot.
"An oxford comma is not a flip switch in an author's voice"
is a grammatically complete sentence. So is
"it's a decision made in the moment to maintain the flow of the idea."
Separate them by a strong punctuation mark. If you want the rhythm of a comma, separate them by a semi-colon in preference to a stop. Semi-colons are made for this.
I'm saying that punctuation has already solved this problem with the semi-colon. If you have two sentences where the second follows the other so closely that there is barely a breath in between, use a semi-colon rather than a stop. You convey both meaning and flow at the same time, and you keep the grammaticasters happy.
Ah, I love semicolons -- but they're not always as aesthetic as commas (and vice-versa). I find this is mostly a question of overall style and context (the more pretentious the text, the more out of place the semicolon; unless you're aspiring to be a pretentious (post-)modern text -- then the semicolon wins).
This is simply a run-on, not a use of an Oxford comma as I understand it. And these bother me a lot.
"An oxford comma is not a flip switch in an author's voice"
is a grammatically complete sentence. So is
"it's a decision made in the moment to maintain the flow of the idea."
Separate them by a strong punctuation mark. If you want the rhythm of a comma, separate them by a semi-colon in preference to a stop. Semi-colons are made for this.