The Brontés had to describe because people travelled less and saw fewer pictures of the world. The internet has rendered almost all description pointless. Flowery passages about sweeping moors only serve as nostalgia for readers and a platform for writers to show off. Discuss.
That's what I mean, Mark. It's those magnificent words that can describe a most ordinary still life and transform it into an explosion of colors. If that makes me happy I think it must make everyone who reads such a descriptive prose exquisitely happy too.
We all know what a tree looks like. We all know, really, what a forest looks like. Come to think of it, we probably all know what a magic tree surrounded by white flowers in a deep woodland hollow looks like.
But I still have enormous fun describing them :D
Not quite sure how those last few answers relate to the question. The discussion was about whether the internet had rendered creative imagery in writing pointless. This was from the point of view of the reader and was a question about our reading needs in modern life. I raised Adrian's point because I thought it answered the question as to why less narrative was currently preferred. Jonathan and Adrian seemed to agree but Louise, who we all consider well-read in modern literature, doesn't think there is less narrative across the board. The next step might have been to ask Louise if she thought there were certain genres long description was used in more than others.
The last two posters seem to think we should write for no one but ourselves. It clearly doesn't matter to them if people want to read long, flowery descriptions, short, tight descriptions or the shipping forecast. FYI consideration of your readers' needs is not commercialism at work but a factor in the formation of good and relevant writing.