comment: >
  
  You would really enjoy analyst brief sheets. Absolutely no fluff and all bullet points.
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... >
  
  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. >
  
  As someone who write his works much closer to movie script compared to a novel, I appreciate this opinion a lot. I tend to be less descriptive and wordy on my worldbuilding and let my dialogues do the job for me. Sometimes I doubt myself for writing this way but this post right here give me motivation to finish it >
  
  Right before a fight start ;
  ' and James noticed the man beside him, quivering in anticipation of the fight ahead, his armor revealing his noble background, for no average soldier in Nippopolis could afford such well crafted armor without vast riches, another thing caught James attention...what appears to be...gum...not a big piece, but enough to distract James, or could it be seagull shit, it has some black spots, so it definitely is one of the two, the thought that he might also have a less then holy mark of Seagull shit on his armor started to worry James, for is not seagull shit a insult from the gods themselves ' and so on and so on. >
  
  Lmao glorious piece of prose. Beautiful. >
  
  This is exactly why I couldn’t appreciate Tolkien until I was older. I do still find him to be a little too wordy for my tastes tbh. >
  
  I was tempted to name Tolkein as the perfect example of this.
  I respect how well crafted his world is, but it's just a slog to read through. >
  
  I tried to read 20 000 Leagues Under the Sea when I was about 12. I remember complaining to my mom about the author being overly descriptive about the kelp. 2 pages (or however long) talking about the colours and how it moves in the current. I couldn't understand why am author would waste time describing seaweed when we all know what it looks like. Even if we haven't seen it in person, we have seen it on tv or in movies. My mom quietly pointes out that the book I was reading was before tv and movies, and that people living away from seas and oceans did not know what it looked like, and needed the descriptions. You know what an elf looks like because Tolkien wrote about them in such detail that everyone could use his template. You might prefer more modern books that don't have to world build if you don't like those parts. >
  
  Your mother is a wise woman. >
  
  I was actually going to point out what their mother said.
  At one time, kelp was something exotic and unknown to the majority of people, and just like Elves, and ogres, and everything else we don't normally encounter in our every day lives, it helps to have some of those descriptions.
  I read a book where the author basically said 'like coffee but not quite' and gave them their own names, and I saw people complaining about that because 'just call it coffee'.  Now we have the opposite where if someone wants to describe what the 'like coffee but not quite' means, they get upset.
  I do agree I have run into authors that ARE too wordy.  I ran into one author I decided to coin a new word for: adjectiveitist.  Every noun had like two or three adjectives on it.  Long, wavy, glossy hip length black hair. 
  There does need to be a balance, but I sometimes prefer the ones who are quite happy to describe things to help me fully get into the whole 'hey this is a fantasy novel' vibe. >
  
  I have the same taste in books as you, I skip the paragraphs that are all flowery description of really generic things. >
  
  Reading the Lightbringer series by Brent Weeks, and dear Orholam there’s a shot ton of detail. Just like 25% less detail might be nice. >
  
  I'd like about 95% less horny from Brent Weeks. Not every female needs to be spanked or fall down and have her mage robes fly up over her head. >
  
  So true lol. And the falling for the fat kid trope was played too. All the girls lusting after him huh? >
  
  I was obsessed with the Outlander series but sometimes I’d just skip whole pages because it was just boring descriptions. I finally stopped at ~book 5. >
  
  I feel this so bad.
  I'm on chapter 6 right now and it's still setting the story up. >
  
  Yeah setup is important, but you need a bit of meat too. >
  
  Gresham same problem. Goes on for pages about legalese. Boring.
  As an author, I appreciate the short version of description. Leave some imagination to the reader. >
  
  I agree, and I think it was fabulously mocked by Douglas Adams in "Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective agency." He spends at least a page and a half describing a bathroom in very specific detail, and ends the description with "Also, there was a large horse in it."
  The guy is a genius writer - highly recommend that book, you have to read it to get the humor, I obviously can't do it justice. >
  
  "All these words are making me think too much god dammit" >
  
  But that's the thing, they're not making me think. I'd much rather get to what the characters are thinking and feeling. It's not thinking just to read a description. >
  
  It's also too restrictive if there's an abundance of descriptions.
  One of my favourite things with some books is creating my own little world for things to take place in. They stop at a hotel? Okay sure tell me its modern/traditional/big/small etc but let my mind decide if the bed's on the right or the left etc if its not important to the overall plot. >
  
  I mean there are children's books you can read. >
  
  Or, I can read the works of non-hacks. I find plenty of classics tend to avoid this. It's just genre fiction that tends to fall into this silliness.
  Nice attempt at being condescending though. >
  
  just give me the overly descriptive authors! i love these authors! >
  
  I myself like heavy description in books. To me, reading a book is like watching a movie in my head. The more detail, the better. >
  
  I'm guessing you're a Brandon Sanderson fan. >
  
  Ain't nothing wrong with that >
  
  There's one book that I've been reading where the actual story is great but the author spend way too much this time describing a bunch of extra stuff >
  
  because most of them are Tolkien wannebes. Wanna read great series? Cheack out David Eddings >
  
  Personally I don’t mind long detailed descriptions as long as they add to the story in some way. Take for example one of my favorite novels, Spring Snow by Yukio Mishima. It’s not the most description-heavy book of all time but there’s a fair amount of it, although a lot of the environmental imagery works towards reinforcing the story’s motifs so I have absolutely no issue with it. I can totally see why someone wouldn’t dig that though. The one book I really found this to be an issue with was The Hunchback of Notre Dame. When the novel focuses on its plot it’s absolutely great, but sometimes there will be breaks lasting several chapters dedicated to describing how Paris looked like at the time and while I appreciate the commitment I really had a hard time with those. >
  
  Pillars of eternity 2 and 1 did the describing amazingly >
  
  They get paid by the word. Whaddya expect? >
  
  
  He put out his hand and secured one of the wrinkled pears. Lifting it to
   his mouth he noticed that a bite had already been taken from its side.
   Making use of the miniature and fluted precipice of hard, white
   discoloured flesh, where Fuchsia's teeth had left their parallel grooves, he
   bit greedily, his top teeth severing the wrinkled skin of the pear, and the
   teeth of his lower jaw entering the pale cliff about halfway up its face; they
   met in the secret and dank centre of the fruit—in that abactinal region
   where, since the petals of the pear flower had been scattered in some far
   June breeze, a stealthy and profound maturing had progressed by day and
   night.
   As he bit, for the second time, into the fruit his weakness filled him
   again as with a thin atmosphere, and he carefully lowered himself face
   down over the table until he had recovered strength to continue his
   clandestine meal. As he lifted his head, he noticed the long couch with its
   elegant lines.
  
  Description of someone eating a pear from Titus Groan >
  
  Sometimes this annoys me too but sometimes it's too cute to skip coz of characters chemistry, you know when you wish that this must go on and on- if it's in this kinda book gimme more if not than I'm gonna skip the whole paragraph of those overly description >
  
  So true, I skipped through so much wheel.of time because the author described each room they went into EVERY time they went into it. I get it, the throne is nice. I enjoyed the books Brandon Sanderson wrote much better. >
  
  OP would fucking hate "Gormenghast"... >
  
  Chuck Palahniuk does a good job with this, he’s overly descriptive of the setting, it’s cool because it makes you relate to the character more and connects you with the book. >
  
  High School English teacher eat that shit up though >
  
  Dont read American Psycho. There will be whole chapters for you to skip. >
  
  Fahrenheit 451 is a good example of this and that book single handedly made me hate reading >
  
  French classic author Flaubert is good at it. When it is done correctly, it allows the author to play with the time and the rythm of the reading >
  
  Not as annoying as putting an 8 syllable name on every place, some of which will only differ by a few letters to make it extra confusing >
  
  Do you have an example of “overly descriptive authors”?
  Like is it the super long stuff like Christopher Paolini’s Eragon (more specifically Eldest) or do we also dislike descriptions from authors like Kurt Vonnegut? >
  
  In general, how much you describe is depending on your style & audience. It's tedious when you just get a long list of "this is how it looks like". It's better if you combine it with action and detail along the way.
  Like I'm a very descriptive writer due to my executive dysfunction. I could go miles with just describing stuff. In the end I need to look if my flow is going correctly >
  
  So true, I start to get bored and skim over it. >
  
  I assume you hate Stephen R Donaldson then. 1 chapter to describer a fucking tree.   
  The thing is, many people like the overly verbose descriptive styles. I know I certainly do.  
  "Emerald green phosphorus splashed across Victor's smooth,
  perfect face as his fingers danced loudly, pounding keys on his customized
  IBM 3270 terminal. The clicking stopped for a moment as a Camel was lifted
  from a Coke can acting as an ashtray. A long drag was taken and release.
  The butt hissed as it was snuffed by cigarette polluted Coke after being
  inserted into the can. A few light key strokes were followed by one heavy
  slam of the enter key, sending the destructive daemon across the net, to
  it's target. A smile cracked at the thought of one of his current rivals
  precious data being shredded into electronic strings of vomit. The store of
  six month back ups was nothing more than strings of "All work and no play
  makes jack a dull boy." Even the uber-hackers wouldn't be able to recover a
  single one or zero." - the first paragraph of an unfished cyberpunk horror story i was writing in the 90s. Kinda cheesy. >
  
  I bet you hate Tom clancy then lol >
  
  I’d really hope you wouldn’t be pointing at Tolkien here, considering his work is more so world building instead of being tedious details to follow. If world building is done correctly, you can still completely interpret things and discuss your interpretations openly. 
  The only reason I mention Tolkien here is that he has done everything the OP described as being “selfish,” which is a very interesting critique for the author of the most well done fantasy world. It’s not like it’s their world or anything. Are autobiographies selfish, then, considering there is an abundance of detail about one’s own life? That I can get on top of, but not calling someone selfish because they are sharing how they view a fantasy world that they created. >
  
  Not an unpopular opinion >
  
  TLDR; you don’t like fantasy books
  Honestly agree >
  
  Lord of Rings, could not read.  I quit when a door description lasted a page and half.
  Open the door already! >
  
  Yea that proves that Tolkien is not for everyone, especially not for you. I absolutely love when I see a large passage clearly describing something simple as a thought or an object. >
  
  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.