Go read somewhere else.

There might be a library with a reading room nearby. A library is much better than home for reading, because it's a space functionally (mostly) for interacting with books. It's surprising how strong the psychological effect of this can be. Also there are other people there being quiet and serious and so you feel an odd peer pressure not to goof off. And you don't have to murder your family for some peace and quiet.

Essentially, you argue that reading (fiction) is self-improvement.

Is it true? Can you measure such improvement somehow? If you can't, is it meaningful?

Regardless of whether it is true, if your goal is persuasion, I don't think this argument will work.

It puts you in the rhetorical position of knowing better than they do, because you've exercised your mind and they haven't. This is only likely to make your interlocutor more defensive and disparaging of your "book-learning".

People who disparage "book-learning" generally do so out of insecurity, because they don't have any. You can't win an "argument" with such a person by making them more insecure.

You're free not to like it; why would anyone here want to convince you otherwise?

What is so bad about the dialogue, in your opinion? Paste in a few examples.

What sorts of meaningless details does he include? An example or two would be interesting to talk about.

Rankings and ratings are a less reliable metric because unfortunately they can be manipulated and there is often strong commercial incentive to do so.

The easiest way is to find someone who is a trusted authority in the subject area and get them to give you a bibliography that is suited to your level of knowledge. (You don't necessarily need personal access; they may have a blog or have posted online course syllabi, etc.) To identify an expert, look for traditional credentials, like publications in peer-reviewed journals and tenured positions at respected universities. This sort of structure is a lot more reliable than star ratings on online platforms.

A librarian at a good library can also be a really a good resource. If there are any universities in your area you can inquire whether you are allowed to use their library.

Ugh, I'm more likely to complain of crude trolling, bland lecturing and clumsy virtue-signalling than I am of forced diversity

It's complicated! (I'm not an expert, just a curious person who likes to read about reading strategies.) People who subvocalize are sometimes trained to stop as a strategy for reading faster. However, it's important to note subvocalization is a matter of degree: it's not on or off, but comes in many levels of intensity. It seems to affect certain types of comprehension and memory retention, particularly increasing comprehension at a high level and retention into short-term memory. It's not clear it's such a bad thing, but maybe being able to turn it off (or up and down) might also be a good skill to have?

This is a very interesting subject. Maybe you already know, but it has a name: subvocalization. It can be physically measured: our speech apparatus makes little movements while we're "hearing" this voice in our heads!

Some claim it actually improves retention of information.

You're right, Tolkien was certainly thinking of works like the Völsunga, along with various other sources!

But look at the names: Ungoliant, Amon Amarth, Fingolfin, Tol-in-Gaurhoth! His abilities as a linguist and student of comparative folklore really shine in his names. Each of them encompasses an essence, a history, a character.

If you're interested in this sort of thing (modern attempts at fictional cosmogonies and creation myths) Dunsany's Gods of Pegana is another seminal work. What it lacks in Tolkien's meticulousness and painstaking, life-long development, it makes up for in sheer power of imagination and entertainment.

My psychic powers are waning of late. I have no way of knowing whether you'll find them interesting. That, Mr. Holes, is something you'll just have to find out yourself. Go, read, live! I eagerly await your progress reports.

But yes, the movies fail to convey a lot. Tolkien is the gold standard for fantasy worldbuilding. No one has ever come remotely close to the depth of his Middle Earth. That is not to say everyone else pales in comparison, just that no one has ever done anywhere near as much worldbuilding as Tolkien. The movies absolutely do not concern themselves with this because they don't have time for it.

I find it is so much more interesting discussing books with people who have actually bothered to read them first.