That reads a lot like a NaNoWriMo novel. Many many word padding and abuse of the 'the'.
However, one should not that the original LOTR was written by a linguist. As such it tended to be pretty wordy and often full of horribly complex sentence structures.
For example:
> That night they heard no noises. But either in his dreams or out of them, he could not tell which, Frodo heard a sweet singing running in his mind: a song that seemed to come like a pale light behind a grey rain-curtain, and growing stronger to turn the veil all to silver and glass, until at last it was rolled back, and a far green country opened before him under a swift sunrise.
> However, one should not that the original LOTR was written by a linguist. As such it tended to be pretty wordy and often full of horribly complex sentence structures.
This is exactly what delighted me in Tolkien (LOTR; Silmarillion was over the top for me) or Maria Semyonova (http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/880518.Maria_Semyonova_ , translator, Russian fantasy writer, bad film, no English translations that I know of) I was disappointed to discover that many other fantasy and fiction writers don't share the love or skill for such flowery language. It never occured to me that some readers might not enjoy it.
When I was reading some of the acclaimed fiction writers e.g. Vernor Vinge's "A Fire Upon The Deep" not once did I think "Heck, I bet I could write better than this!" I have no illusions of my chances of being a writer in English, when I haven't been one in my native Russian yet, but still. I would not think that thought when I was reading Tolkien or Semenova.
> It never occured to me that some readers might not enjoy it.
Well that depends, maybe I just got a bad taste in my mouth having had read the book early in high school as a foreigner. It took me literally 6 months of nearly daily reading to get through. My personal pet peeve was that Tolkien apparently hated the comma, which made sentences particularly difficult for me to parse.
But I should admit, having read a lot of Austen and Dickens ... Tolkien was pretty damn unflowery ... but then you compare him to King and you think "What the hell was Tolkien smoking!"
Then again, King is known for a very direct style, which results in 500 page books one can read in a week. Being very busy I kind of like that :)
Mervyn Peake writes very nice English prose that I think you might enjoy. See his Gormenghast series (Titus Groan, Gormenghast, Titus Alone). It's sort-of-fantasy but not really (no magic, no non-humans).
Omg, yes. I think that Titus Groan has got the most beautiful prose I've ever encountered. Well, that's what I thought when I read it years ago. I must revisit it.
The difference is that Tolkein's words flow naturally, while the ones here are more forced - the translation appears to mangle the English to fit exactly what is said in the source text, leaving it feeling rather awkward.
Tolkein's sentences, regardless of how complex, just "work" in English - A similar "transliteration" of Tolkein into Russian or whatever would likely feel as obtuse as this does.
Being a slav I can attest that it's a pretty common slavic error. Took me years to get it somewhat under control and I used to take english writing as a pretty serious hobby. (nowadays I'm just a english nerd more so than a writer)
However, one should not that the original LOTR was written by a linguist. As such it tended to be pretty wordy and often full of horribly complex sentence structures.
For example: > That night they heard no noises. But either in his dreams or out of them, he could not tell which, Frodo heard a sweet singing running in his mind: a song that seemed to come like a pale light behind a grey rain-curtain, and growing stronger to turn the veil all to silver and glass, until at last it was rolled back, and a far green country opened before him under a swift sunrise.