Oh the story itself is very accessible, I agree, and foundational for a lot of "magician's journey"-type storytelling we see today. The issue is that the writing itself is very...not dry per se... but definitely almost academic. It's closer to Tolkien's Two Towers than any of the Song of Ice and Fire series, to make a basic comparison.

Even reading the first chapter of Wizards, you see a lot of exposition and sentence structures that aren't as popular in modern writing today. For example, we have the author talk to us (the reader) directly, instead of through Sparrowhawk. That really isn't used anymore nowadays unless for comedic effect. Sparrowhawk himself is also kind of distant to us readers. We're reading his journey as a tale, but we're not necessarily experiencing it with him, if that makes sense.

If you're used to reading older sci-fi/fantasy, you'll be fine with most of this. If you've grown up in the Harry Potter/Percy Jackson/Song of Ice and Fire/ era, this will be incredibly jarring. I would actually say that Tombs of Atuan (the second book) is a better entry point to the series for these readers.

None of this means Wizards is badly written by the way. It is intentionally written like a "modern" (1960s) saga akin to the Poetic Edda, and it works extremely well in that sense. For me personally, the Earthsea Cycle is probably my favourite fantasy series of all time, and nothing (sorry Tolkienites, not even LotR) comes close to the experience I had reading for the first time. But I can't recommend Wizards of Earthsea as the entry point to le Guin without asking whether or not you read the Silmarillion by yourself front to back of your own volition, lol.