Drout's missed something - there is a strong tradition in British writing (and Art and Music) to bestow the very earth itself with a personality - Tolkien is following in the footsteps of others, and others would follow him. This is why we are given such lengthy descriptions of place, to establish Middle-earth itself as the primary character in this work, and it is the protagonist more than any single character is. Tolkien's works on Middle-earth are ensemble pieces in terms of 'human' characters, but the one constant that everyone fights so hard to dominate, control or save is the land itself. On many occasions it also heaves itself and reasserts its dominance (the sinking of Numenor, the storm on Caradhras, the fog on the Barrow Downs etc).
If you want to find other living landscapes look to Wordsworth, the Brontes, Thomas Hardy, Ted Hughes, Vaughan Williams, Turner, Constable, Goldsworthy...and if you want to read more about this look to Peter Ackroyd's Albion.
Remove the living landscape from Tolkien's work and you will be left with something very different, and with a very different, even meaningless, drive and purpose for all those who live there.
So Drout's missed a trick there.
And not even every critic criticises the extensive writing about the land - Ackroyd acknowledges it for one!
And I can't let Drout's criticism of the 'archaic' language pass - a lot of it is anything but odd to me, as I'm used to people who often use 'archaic' English; growing up in Lancashire and living in Yorkshire you hear a lot of 'theeing' and 'thouing' every day, plus some very odd words. I knew right away what Attercops were. Thrawn is not far away from Thrawp. As someone points out in his blog, not everyone speaks the same 'brand' of English.