decrementsf t1_jebuv0w wrote on March 30, 2023 at 9:44 PM

Reply to comment by Infinity9999x in Finally reading Tolkien by jdbrew

Detecting the inverse is going on. Education has dropped and redefined language with deep meaning. It was going on when the Inklings, Tolkien and CS Lewis writers club, were producing their works. They've got some comments deriding the erosion of language. CS Lewis more openly attacks the urge that leads to this in That Hideous Strength. JRRT is superior dialogue. Those of us today are less accustomed to it.

For concrete example consider the rewrite of the Hardy Boys books in the 1980s. The publisher edited to reduce the grade level of the writing, stripped literary elements such as suspense, turned it into a more action emphasized experience intended to match pacing of action television shows in that era. This sort of major revisions have occurred little by little over the last hundred years. What kids are receiving in school today is far more stripped down than kids received 100 years ago.

Reading older works from that distance means much of the nuance is lost. You do not pick up on the references or the connections baked in.

Infinity9999x t1_jecalhq wrote on March 30, 2023 at 11:35 PM

I agree to an extent but I also don’t. I don’t think language has simplified as much as it has changed. Yes, going back in time the English language was far more verbose. Literally. In Shakespeare’s time, they literally used more words than we do today.

Is that because generations today are “dumbing down” language, or because we’re getting more efficient with our strange hodgepodge of a language? Or a combination of both, it obviously doesn’t have to be a binary.

Also, one must consider that visual storytelling became far more sophisticated, and moved away from “telling” and focused on “showing”. A few hundred years ago people used to say “I’m going to hear a play” now they say they’re going to watch a play. Theatre used to be more about the written prose or verse, and the language was the focal point. In a post-checkov world, that just isn’t the case. And even more so with film. Film is far more about the emotions conveyed when NOT speaking than otherwise. Unless you’re specifically going for writers who focus on dialogue like a Sorkin.

Language and how we communicate is evolving. And I’m more akin to take the stance that it’s not good or bad, it’s just different. I certainly do agree that the state of education is not in a good spot in modern America, but I don’t think that’s the driving force behind why language has changed. That’s got more to do with societal influences, people of different ethnicities moving into the country and influencing the culture, technological advancements etc.

Will it mean some art forms will fade? Yes, it does, and that’s a bummer. But it’s a fact of life. People decried the death of the radio drama when film began to grow, but things change and some things become obsolete. Such is life.

That said, I still never found Tolkien’s dialogue particularly gripping. I prefer characters to have more nuance, play with more subtext, and be more naturalistic. Doesn’t mean my preferences are right, they’re just what I prefer.