>The Simarillion leaves all the details out, it has little direct speech, and only mentions what's important.
The Silmarillion is basically Elder Edda Pastiche.
Le Guin talks about the need for linguistic distancing in fantasy in one of her essays in The Language of The Night, that is to say language that sounds too close to our world is unsatisfying in Fantasy (by which of course she does means fantasy that is a completely other world, like Earthsea, LOTR, or similar) because an Elven Prince should not talk like a Senator on an appropriations committee.
It is probably this that you found objectionable about modern fantasy rather than verbosity. What do you feel about E. R. Eddison? The man was verbose, but not in any way modern.
I haven't read Eddison. I meant "modern" in a wide sense that even includes Tolkien's prose to some degree. He doesn't sound very modern, but he still sounds to me more modern than Grimm's tales, even in the Silmarillion, which is the opposite of verbose. Tolkien is more "realistic". He goes more in the direction of pseudo history, he mentions family trees and specific years. I don't think the Edda does that to a similar extent either, though I haven't read it. It's possible that Eddison is again different.
The Silmarillion is basically Elder Edda Pastiche.
Le Guin talks about the need for linguistic distancing in fantasy in one of her essays in The Language of The Night, that is to say language that sounds too close to our world is unsatisfying in Fantasy (by which of course she does means fantasy that is a completely other world, like Earthsea, LOTR, or similar) because an Elven Prince should not talk like a Senator on an appropriations committee.
It is probably this that you found objectionable about modern fantasy rather than verbosity. What do you feel about E. R. Eddison? The man was verbose, but not in any way modern.