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.