comment: >
  
  It's a wonder how I got through two of Riordan's book series with what you said and the obvious lack of distinct character voice. It's pretty aggravating to me.
context: Depends on the author. A good author knows how to use descriptions to get you to feel certain things or imagine specific things. A good author knows how to balance descriptions. >
  
  Yeah, I don't mean to say there shouldn't be any descriptions, I just think it should be kept to what is necessary to the story and themes.
  An example of this done right is Poe's Fall of the House of Usher. He describes the house and the way a character looks in quite a bit of detail, but it serves to deliver the themes of the story (death and decay, a visual display of the wretched nature of the family history).
  The issue is explaining things for the sake of explaining things. I probably don't need to know what a character is wearing if they're already well established as a character. >
  
  You would really enjoy analyst brief sheets. Absolutely no fluff and all bullet points. >
  
  Lmao >
  
  I agree with everything you said, except:
  
  which I think is selfish
  
  I don't think so. It is their writing after all and coming from their imagination. And I'm sure plenty of people find how the author sees things to be interesting and maybe prefer it that way. >
  
  Reading a fantasy novel specifically is supposed to take you to the world that you’re reading about. You need those descriptive adjectives. Have you ever played DnD? >
  
  Fantastic detail. If it's something I've never seen it's fine but if I want a cliche decription of what a field of wildflowers looks like, I'll read Virginia Woolf. >
  
  "The field looked wild and flowery." >
  
  Nods in aphantasia >
  
  Lol same. I love books, but skip most of the boring physical descriptions >
  
  Sapkowski is the worst IMO. I'm re-reading the Witcher series, and there are CHAPTERS of needless exposition and pontificating, with pointless timejumps and narrators switching back and forth within the same chapter.
  The entire 'saga' part could be covered in 3 tight novels instead of 5. Some books, despite being quite long, barely advance the stories of Ciri and Geralt at all, but we have pointless chapters about background intrigue and political situation in Covir (a country NOBODY of the lead characters ever visits).
  He is good with story and characters, but this guy desperately needed a good editor. >
  
  Yeah, I was disappointed when I picked up The Witcher books after playing TW3 and watching s1 of the show. I found them barely above young adult fiction, and the story was just told in such a clunky way.
  Crazy an adaptation is the better work in the case of the games. >
  
  I think of all the three mediums (literature, tv series, video games), video game iteration of the witcher is by far the superior one.
  Although I have to admit that the first two books which are collections of standalone stories are the better ones. Then the saga itself is a slog, with occasional interesting moments every now and then. So I always assumed that the author was just better suited for shorter stories.
  I picked up the Season of Storms, which was released later as a standalone novel, and is meant to be close in spirit to the short story collections. But I've found it to be just as frustrating as the saga.
  I think Sapkowski got too pompous with age, and his writing shows that. It almost reads like the author believes himself to be more witty and humorous than he actually is. >
  
  I actually think most fantasy writers aren’t precise enough, which leads to the purple prose falling flat. Flaubert once wrote that 
  “Writing would be as rhythmical as verse, as precise as the language of science, and with the undulations, the humming of a cello, the plumes of fire, a style that would enter your mind like a rapier thrust, and on which finally your thoughts would slide as if over a smooth surface”
  When you compare classic literature with most fantasy novels, the quality of writing becomes all the more apparent. Of course, they are always exceptional exception such as Tolkien. >
  
  This is why I couldn’t get into Anne Rice. 100 pages to describe Lestat’s mouth.
  (Yes I am exaggerating, but it sure felt that way). >
  
  What about those 17 chapters of whale anatomy! We needed every last one! /s >
  
  Lol, I swear there's a heap of books where the plot just feels like an excuse for the writer to harp on about their recent hyperfixation >
  
  Example: Bret easton ellis in American Psycho.
  I know the whole "overly descriptive and obssesive" idea is intentional, but it's still annoying whenever those long chapters that only talk about whatever Patrick is wearing pop out. Or the 4 page sex scenes Lord...
  Dostoevsky did it well though. He didn't really exaggerate it, but if he did then it was all worth it. >
  
  I recently decided to read the Percy Jackson series to see if they are really that different from the movies. 
  It was super frustrating. Rick Riordan doesn't go to great lengths in describing things, but he does something equally atrocious, continually reusing those descriptions through multiple books. 
  When he stops the story to remind us everything that happened in the first book halfway through the second, I let it slide, it's the 2nd book so a refresher is warranted I guess. 
  But it kept happening. 3rd book, 4th book, whenever a character appeared we had to get the description again. 
  I mean, we're in the literal final battle, 20 chapters in to the 5th and final book of the series and he felt the need to remind us that Grover is a Satyr with hooves instead of feet...