I first read Lord of the Rings in 1966 and have read the books many times since. I find Tolkiens story telling "round the camp fire" a bonus and a delight. It is different and refreshing and goes off in various directions: sometimes oblique, sometimes subtle, but all to do with Middle Earth.
Tolkien's writing is technically sound and is not bad in that sense. The storyline is good and proven with the test of time.
The down side of Tolkien's books are just that - they are bookish. The professor sitting in his study at the University writing at his desk after the lectures have finished shines through the style of writing.
Every author has his or hers writing style and they are all different - thank God.
Great post 
I don't know why but starting this thread has made me wonder if I should give it another go....it's been a looong time  bit like I find certain movies or TV series Sunday afternoon viewing on a cold, rainy winter's day, this is how I used to view LOTR....
.....And you still can - LOTR is timeless. 
A good set of books, the silmarillion is extremely boring. They're deffinitley something you've got to read for the sake of it in your life but when you try to re-read them they do seem to get worse.
Though the movies are good. The books not as much.
Just stick with it. The 1st book is a bit of a hard read as he tries to explain the history and the holds but stick with it. It just gets better and better. I would suggest reading Ian C Esslemont Knight of Knives and Return of the Crimson guard first as they predate Gardens of the moon and would make Gardens of the moon make more sense.
When Tolkien wrote the LOTR he wasn't so much writing a story as creating an entire history and to a certain extent the books are a detailed account of that history.
The description and detail that he includes is quite incredible and personally I think it was because of this that the films were so good, because Tolkien gave them such specifics to work from.
The Silmarillion again isn't actually a 'story' per se but another historical report and I believe it was a post-humous piece compiled by Christopher Tolkien based on JRR's work?
The net result of this is that it certainly isn't bang, crash, wollop set piece to set piece action but I still rate it as my favourite book and I really should crack out my copies and read it again!
You're right, but that's the big problem.As a fictional history book it isn't exactly gripping....
To you maybe. To me it's my favourite book. No Tolkien no fantasy franchise. It's that simple. Also I keep being reminded of 'Bad News' where they argue they are better than Led Zeppelin as they could play Stairway To Heaven at a younger age. The fact others have done fantasy since doesn't make them better.
Actually, it does imho, but of course I'm omitting the context of time.Tolkein was - as I've said - groundbreaking in his time, but there are countless examples of fantasty fiction done so much better.
Equally there's countless examples of fantasy done badly (Terry Goodkind anyone? ).....
Aside from anything else you can't judge an old book now in the same way as a new book. It's like saying Citizen Kane is a poor film as it's black and white, has no 5.1 surround and better films are around now with lots of CGI.