Is being descriptive an advantage in a historical fiction novel? Does the reader find it emotionally satisfying reading a lot of well described prose with beautiful vocabulary? That is the way most famous classics of yore were written.
Is being descriptive an advantage in a historical fiction novel? Does the reader find it emotionally satisfying reading a lot of well described prose with beautiful vocabulary? That is the way most famous classics of yore were written.
To use a traditional example.
Thomas Hardy's descriptions of Settings are brilliant, but they are much to long for agents or the publishers reader. But you can learn from them. Long descriptive narratives should be avoided like the plague.
Short descriptions are best when describing characters or scenes. It is better to have your characters describe things using thoughts and dialogue.
Budding authors should research how the best short-story authors describe things.
I try to decsribe things in the shortest amount of words.
To quote Henry James , 'In art, economy is beauty.'
Should I describe your kitchen to you? Send me a picture and I'll describe it in the most beautious...or dark...or comical terms.
Or I could describe my own kitchen, in the same selection of terms.
Or you could send me that picture of your kitchen and I'll describe the differences between mine and yours.
Basically, describe what people don't know, and be as minimal or as prosaic as you wish, that's just your style and some will love it and some hate it. My art teacher at school had a sign that read: "Art does not recreate what can be seen; it makes things visible". If you can describe what people already know and make them see it anew then however you write it it will be wonderful, but whether people like it or not will always remain down to their taste.