Must. resist. derailing. thread...AHHHH I have to respond to this. I promise I'll make it relevant somehow 
The distinction we have to make when considering Tolkien's work is that it is not just a collection of "stories"; the concept of "story", in its strictest sense, has a particular meaning, and it can also vary, but that's besides that point.
Tolkien's work is a mythological and philosophical tome, and in particular it is an historical account of the West of Middle Earth; this historical account serves, essentially, as part of the foundational mythologies of the English people, where the overall mythology is another take on creation myths, i.e. this history took place in the very distant past of our world.
These distinctions are important because they helps us understand both the format and content of the tome from an accurate perspective.
But most importantly we have to know that this work is a fairy tale.
The genre of fairy tales has a unique purpose and format, and Tolkien's own essay, On Fairy Stories, gives us an understanding of his perspective on the purpose and format of a fairy tale.
When we take all these things into consideration, we can't apply simplistic rules or expectations of storytelling to this work, and we have to judge it by a different measuring stick.
You're absolutely right that the account is about battles- there are many battles raging in the West of Middle Earth, and one of them, and the reason why you see such abundant accounts of nature, is the battle between Nature and Machine.
I could go on about this one for miles, but all we need to know is this: Nature is essentially a "character" in this work, and especially in LOTR, because its fate hangs in the balance on the outcome of the War. Tom Bombadil, the essence of the English countryside, is another derivative of that type of character.
I understand that this type of work might not appeal to everyone, and that's okay. But it's inaccurate to say that Tolkien was a bad storyteller; he's just not your kind of storyteller.
The movies misrepresented the work by reducing it to some fantasy-action story when it is not that; this is why many movie fans cannot relate to the books, or find them boring.
As for myself, I enjoy storytelling in all sorts of mediums, and I also appreciate when a medium utilizes its tools to the fullest extent possible. So, I like the movies too, but I wouldn't say that the movies are based on Tolkien's work, but that they are an inspired adaptation of them.
The only time I hate the movies is when the pervert the understanding of Tolkien's work.
As it concerns romance, there's plenty of romance in Tolkien's work, both in our conventional understanding of the concept and otherwise; for example, there's romance between the Elves and Nature, and there is also (unrequited and one-sided) romance between Éowyn and Aragorn.
(and I promised I'd make this post relevant so here- )
Tolkien wrote platonic romances really well, and we can see this type of romance in all of his work- Thorin and co. in The Hobbit, the Fellowship in LOTR, to name a few.
What I would really like to see in CP2077 is a platonic romance with an NPC. I think the aspect of fellowship or companionship is an integral component of role-playing, and CP2077, despite its everyone-is-a-hornet-covered-shark atmosphere, could pull it off
TL;DR Tolkien is a different kind of storyteller, but his work is not just "stories". And I kept my promise.
The distinction we have to make when considering Tolkien's work is that it is not just a collection of "stories"; the concept of "story", in its strictest sense, has a particular meaning, and it can also vary, but that's besides that point.
Tolkien's work is a mythological and philosophical tome, and in particular it is an historical account of the West of Middle Earth; this historical account serves, essentially, as part of the foundational mythologies of the English people, where the overall mythology is another take on creation myths, i.e. this history took place in the very distant past of our world.
These distinctions are important because they helps us understand both the format and content of the tome from an accurate perspective.
But most importantly we have to know that this work is a fairy tale.
The genre of fairy tales has a unique purpose and format, and Tolkien's own essay, On Fairy Stories, gives us an understanding of his perspective on the purpose and format of a fairy tale.
When we take all these things into consideration, we can't apply simplistic rules or expectations of storytelling to this work, and we have to judge it by a different measuring stick.
You're absolutely right that the account is about battles- there are many battles raging in the West of Middle Earth, and one of them, and the reason why you see such abundant accounts of nature, is the battle between Nature and Machine.
I could go on about this one for miles, but all we need to know is this: Nature is essentially a "character" in this work, and especially in LOTR, because its fate hangs in the balance on the outcome of the War. Tom Bombadil, the essence of the English countryside, is another derivative of that type of character.
I understand that this type of work might not appeal to everyone, and that's okay. But it's inaccurate to say that Tolkien was a bad storyteller; he's just not your kind of storyteller.
The movies misrepresented the work by reducing it to some fantasy-action story when it is not that; this is why many movie fans cannot relate to the books, or find them boring.
As for myself, I enjoy storytelling in all sorts of mediums, and I also appreciate when a medium utilizes its tools to the fullest extent possible. So, I like the movies too, but I wouldn't say that the movies are based on Tolkien's work, but that they are an inspired adaptation of them.
The only time I hate the movies is when the pervert the understanding of Tolkien's work.
As it concerns romance, there's plenty of romance in Tolkien's work, both in our conventional understanding of the concept and otherwise; for example, there's romance between the Elves and Nature, and there is also (unrequited and one-sided) romance between Éowyn and Aragorn.
(and I promised I'd make this post relevant so here- )
Tolkien wrote platonic romances really well, and we can see this type of romance in all of his work- Thorin and co. in The Hobbit, the Fellowship in LOTR, to name a few.
What I would really like to see in CP2077 is a platonic romance with an NPC. I think the aspect of fellowship or companionship is an integral component of role-playing, and CP2077, despite its everyone-is-a-hornet-covered-shark atmosphere, could pull it off
TL;DR Tolkien is a different kind of storyteller, but his work is not just "stories". And I kept my promise.
