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.
I agree Victoria.
Long-winded descriptions that are typical of Thomas Hardy do not work any more, but I learned much from Hardy regarding descriptions. We need our descriptions to be somwhere between short story writers like Chekhov, and novel writers like Hardy. It's a question of balance. A telling descriptive line here and there is good.
'Don't tell me the moon is shining; show me the glint of light on broken glass.' - Anton Chekhov.
Short paragraphs of decription are best, but 'Show don't Tell' is better.
Maybe that's why under 80k seems to be preferred by agents/publishers. I reckon it must be difficult to tell a decent story with a lot of description in fewer words.
Contemporary novels might get away with little narrative but I don't see how historical authors can. You must drop the reader into a period with very different sights, sounds and smells.
Anyway, I like sweeping moors. Flowery I can live without :)
This relates back to what Adrian was saying about agents and publishers preferring character driven stories with a lower percentage of narrative compared to dialogue and character thought. Is our higher visual stimulation the reason for our needing less narrative?