Parataxis

(Technical) Writing Like Hemingway

Ernest Hemingway was a literary titan - a singular figure whose instantly-recognizable style has drawn zealous praise and eschewed imitation. His figure stands like a monument to the sensibility of the Lost Generation of American writers but simultaneously casts a shadow over successive generations' techniques. Why the split? How does a writer who commands such reverence also elude copycats?

Many Hemingway fans admire his mastery of the narrative style. His stories are, quite simply, compelling. The language, too, carries a unique charm that perfectly merges with his storytelling. The story drives the language; the language lifts the story.

If you look around for words to describe Hemingway's prose, spartan, terse, spare, lean, or direct would be at the top of the list. His sentences are often short and to the point. He avoids any excess: no unnecessary adjectives, no extra description, and no details that distract from the story at hand. Many consider his style without imitation to the point that authors have simply avoided trying. In fact, the International Imitation Hemingway Competition created a tongue-in-cheek contest where overt Hemingway parodies vied for infamy. An ironic literary jaunt (Hemingway famously derided parodies, insisting that bathroom graffiti - in so many words - was a step above them), the so-called Bad Hemingway Contest continued to challenge writers for about 30 years.

Despite Hemingway's elegant simplicity, one thing that entrants may have failed to realize was that they were practicing a skill with a decidedly complicated name: parataxis.

A Pair of Taxis?

Parataxis is a simple concept with a long history. Let's start with the definition (one you might have guessed from the introduction):

A writing technique that favors short, simple independent clauses and avoids subordination.

Though the designation is modern, parataxis is an ancient idea. The earliest Greek and Roman rhetoricians, for example, established that some orators would favor short, direct sentences that stood beside one another and carried equal weight. This is where we derive the word itself; parataxis comes from the Greek words "to arrange side-by-side."

Let's look at parataxis in action. Below are two excerpts that you might find in a troubleshooting FAQ that convey the same idea.

1. Because code commits require a version message, before users can commit new theme files, they must first enter details in the Commit Message field.
2. Code commits require a version message. Users must enter details in the Commit Message field. They may then submit new theme files.

From a strictly grammatical standpoint, the two excerpts are nearly identical. For example, they both use active voice constructions. While brief, they are both direct and orient users to the specific field that requires information. Finally, they both contain the same essential message; they identify a potential troubleshooting that users may encounter and explain how to avoid it.

What, then, is the key difference between the two excerpts? If you haven't already guessed, Excerpt #2 uses parataxis while Excerpt #1 does not. Each sentence in Excerpt #2 is about the same length and can stand independently. For example, if I directly state, "users must enter details in the Commit Message field," the sentence makes perfect sense, even if it does lack context. It has a clear subject and predicate. Nothing restricts it from standing by itself. Likewise, the sentences that flank it on either side have the same qualities. They make perfect sense individually and create context as a single unit.

Excerpt #1 does not follow this pattern. The last clause - they must first enter details in the Commit Message field - is the only one that can stand alone. The first two clauses need the final clause for complete meaning, and they are thus dependent clauses. While this subordination to the final independent clause helps readers identify cause, effect, sequence, and the like, it comes at the price of a longer sentence with additional prepositions. This is the exact opposite of parataxis, its counterpart hypotaxis.

You can boil it down to this:

• Parataxis creates clauses that can stand independently.
• Hypotaxis creates subordinate clauses that require a hierarchical relationship.

As a writer, I personally find that my more creative (or dare I say extravagant) writing favors the flourishing fanciness of dense and dependent hypotaxis. That said, my technical writing is far different. Short. Sharp. Concise. Let's investigate further.

What About FANBOYS?

While paratactic writing avoids subordination, it does not necessarily avoid coordination. Remember the FANBOYS mnemonic for the coordinating conjunctions: For, And, Nor, But, Or, Yet, and So.

One of the ways to master parataxis is to know when and when not to coordinate. I have taken a handful of sentences for the example below from a set of instructions I created to add a client to a two-factor authentication API service. Let's first look at them as discrete statements.

1. Navigate to the API Repository.
2. Create a new Development branch.
3. Navigate to the src/service_implementation/authentication directory.
4. Locate the 2FA_auth.java file.
5. Locate the send_2FA_message function.
6. Add a new CASE to the function.

These statements afford a great opportunity to use parataxis AND coordination to increase the readers' clarity. Lines 1 and 2 seem to stand alone as discrete steps, but lines 3 and 4 both discuss a single task. Likewise, so do lines 5 and 6.

How can we rewrite these instructions paratactically while also combining the similar steps? Coordination is the key:

1. Navigate to the API Repository.
2. Create a new Development branch.
3. Navigate to the src/service_implementation/authentication directory and locate the 2FA_auth.java file.
4. Locate the send_2FA_message function and add a new CASE to the function.

All I needed to do was add the conjunction "and" twice, and I cut out two whole steps!

Parataxis is Everywhere

Just for fun, look at the sentence before this section. I'll rewrite it below:

All I needed to do was add the conjunction "and" twice, and I cut out two whole steps!

Does this pass all the basic tests for paratactic writing? We can run down a short list of all the elements we have already discussed:

1. Can I rewrite the clauses to stand by themselves? Yes!
2. Are there any subordinate clauses? Nope!
3. Are all conjunctions coordinating ones? Most certainly!

I think we have another shining example of parataxis!

In the end, both styles have their place. Technical writers tend to favor concise statements that do not obfuscate or offer any confusion about the meaning. This lends slightly greater credence toward parataxis. If you use paratactic writing, you are not really writing terrible Hemingway (or anything close). You may even find this is your favorite technique, and you now have a name for it.

Regardless, increasing the diversity of your stylistic lexicon not only lets you examine your own technique, it also gives you an easy reference you can use to try out different ideas and ultimately create the best prose you can.