Punctuation is a strange animal and the comma, especially, has always been hard to pin-down. This conversation came up multiple times while I was teaching overseas. Uniquely, the comma is one of the few punctuation-marks that can be used in any which way, and actually doesn’t have any specific rule—unlike all the other punctuation-marks, which should always be used within strict parameters: by that I mean that the comma can be put anywhere the writer wishes. The comma, more than any other mark, also steers the reader’s imagery and thinking in a very specific way. And that’s why the comma causes such a problem. Less so to experienced writers, and more to people who write only occasionally. By putting a comma in the wrong place you can a) fail to communicate a story in the desired way, b) change the meaning of a story entirely, or c) lead the reader into accidentally / deliberately misunderstanding the plot. Because of all these reasons the comma is a strange animal. And then it gets more complicated. Some writers choose not to use commas at all, instead favouring long sentences, allowing the reader to interpret the text as he or she wishes.

Personally, I don’t have a problem with text without commas. But that may be that I read so much text that my brain has automatically learned where and where not to put them. In the case of a beginner reader, barely familiar with the rules and logic of punctuation, I can see comma-less text—and all text written in a non-orthodox way—interrupting the reader’s flow. There again, should a writer have to dumb down his text to suit those not yet well versed enough to appreciate it?

Another point is that writing without commas—as is the case with writing with a lot of commas—requires great skill. Done properly, however, both forms of writing can excel a book’s concept.