xavi's comment "high level, low quality" (above) shows that the word quality in RL equals level in ArM5, and RL readability is ArM5 quality.
This also explains why the expression virtue is irrelevant for writing books.
we are wayyyy off topic here, but this is a fun conversation 
being not boring is important. I don't find Shakespear boring, but unlike many people, I am actually able to understand that style of English. It is having to translate in your head that causes Shakespear to be boring for most people, not the actual writing itself. Not everything by Shakespear is awesome either. I prefer his "low-brow" stuff, like MacBeth.
I am not as well educated as I may seem, so I have no idea whom the other three authors you mentioned are. Thus, I would say that his Fame and populatity indicate that Shakespear was indeed the superior author. Being accesable to the mass publis is also important for a great writer, which is what marks Stephen King as great and others as merely mediocre. For the same reason, I dislike neo-classical music. Inaccesible to the majority public. What good is art if it doesn't speak to anyone?
But let us compare Tolkien to a contemporary, another British author from the same period, C.S. Lewis. The Narnia stories have a much better pacing, are just as rich in folklore, have a deep philisophical layer, and they are entertaining. I remember reading "Lion, Witch, and the Wardrobe" when I was a little kid. I ejoyed it thouroughly and vompletly understood it. Revisiting it many years later, I found layers of deeper meaning that I did not realize as a child, and yet the pacing and prose still held my interest throughout. In my judgement, that makes him the better writer.
Let me clairify myself though. Tolkien is indeed a great writer, but not not that great. He does have the power to attract and retain loyal fans, so that indicates that there must be something great about him. I just think he is over-rated because of this fan following.
Well, that's MY take on the subject. Do not take it necessarily as the official position of the line at all, though! 
Cheers,
Xavi
For starters - Macbeth isn't "low-brow"; try Merry Wives of Windsor some day. Macbeth is a piece of political propaganda, written to be comfortable fare for the upper-class.
Joyce opens a whole other can of worms - he wrote solely for artistry and not at all for readability. Famously, he said that his magnum opus, Finnegan's Wake (which I think of as a perfect example of an intensely odd high-level summa), was written "to keep the critics guessing for a hundred years". And as for neoclassical music... well, some of us like it. raises hand
What we have to remember is that, like magi, professors of Old English (like Tolkien) or artists (like Joyce) were -not- writing for a general audience. Magi write for other magi. Joyce wrote for students of literature. Tolkien's finest work, in my mind, is his superlative translation of Gawain and the Green Knight. If you hand a book to a grog, even a literate and latinate one, most of the underlying hermetic theory will be incomprehensible - just as Finnegan's Wake is incomprehensible to non-scholars.
It's important to remember that when people make statements like this, they are never wrong. It's just that they are saying much more about themselves than about the subject.
Never read Paradise Lost, Sons & Lovers, The Sound and the Fury, The Old Man and the Sea, or War & Peace. I fear you will find that John Milton, James Joyce, Wm. Faulkner, Earnest Hemmingway and Leo Tolstoy were all lousy, boring writers too, along with most other so-called "greats".
(Unless you can find the Comics-Classics versions, those are less lousy and boring.)
Just stick to what you like, and accept the word of people like me that they have value - just not, apparently, for you.
(edit - Or Moby Dick. Or anything by Charles Dickens - gawdz, light a match.)
Actually I have read all those. Some are good. Others I didn't like. Don't be so haughty CH, please 
Tolkien is not as good as most of those by a large yardstick.
Best,
Xavi
I'ts hard not to sound superior when you make a blanket statement like "Tolkien is a lousy writer". By what yardstick? That he can't keep your interest? Because his writing is not non-stop action? pffft. Is that his writing or your attention span that is weak? I know which I choose to believe, and in the end that's all it is, a matter of opinion. And that's pretty much exactly what I said.
If that's "superior", to think that my opinion is mine, and yours is yours, and yours isn't worth much to me - I don't accept that.
Your comments say much about you, and mine much about me. I can live with that.
I will admit to having drifed way off topic, but I cannot accept your call for no discussion. If everyone agreed with everyone, conversation would get boring. I like to debate, to test my ideas, to learn new things through discussion and perhaps re-evaluate my ideas.
OK, I will leave this for a day to see if CH corrects his post before replying. I will assume that he has had a hard day and so is being more aggressive than he would otherwise be 
Just mention that your post assumes a lot of things that are utterly false. I can write down whole parts of the lord of the rings and the silmarillion by memory. Saying that tolkien is a losy writer and "tolkien has not been able to hold my interest" or that "you have a short atention span" is a far cry from reality. In fact they are completely unrelated one to the other.
Think twice before posting a direct insult to an other poster, please. Specially if you don't know who you are talking about, what his literary culture and preferences are or what his level of education is. Thank you very much.
You are assuming a lot of things that are plainly false. The ONLY thing that you can draw from my comment is "Xavi thinks tolkien is not a great writer". No more no less. You cannot draw conclusions of the fact that I enjoyed the books or not, what are my reading preferences, my cultural level or if I have ever read any other books or not, or what is my favourite kind of literature, how many books I read per year and what kind, etc etc...
So before making your own plain statement, please think twice 
I found your comment both offensive on a personal level and completely misinformed. I might not coincide with your reading preferences, but that is not a justification to be rude, specially making WORSE statements than the one that you were supposedly replying to.
Have a nice day,
Xavi
PD: FYI, currently reading for whom the bell tolls, the catcher in the rye and a calvin & hobbes comic book.
, I knew assaulting Tolkien was dangerous. But anyway, no one ever said he was lousy. Just that he is not as great as some people say. And it isn't "non-stop action". Though that is a gift Howard had, CS Lewis was not like that at all. But what those two don't do is bore me with endless pages of sceanery. Tolkien is a great story-teller, and he was a good writer. Not Great, just good. Paradise Lost was cool, not brilliant, but it was cool. Milton is not as good as Shakespeare. Hemmingway was awesome as a writer. I don't think he was such a good storyteller, but his mastery of prose was amazing. Faulkner was not so good. Not me Faulkner, I mean William. Interesting style, dull stories. Hemming way was better than Tolkien, but Tolkien was better than Faulkner. Howard trumps them all.