I often say I write more like Mickey Spillane than Jane Austen-not that I have anything against Ms. Austen's style or readers.
When you get down to the nitty gritty of the book is a large tome filled with intricate details about house furnishings better than a short but moving story?
How much of the large book is just padding the book out? The recent trend towards shorter reads, may not be a turn away from big books-perhaps readers are tired of writers filling the pages to bulk a story and so dragging the pace down.
I recently tried to read "Sonne in Splendour" by Susan Penman, considering editors like to be hooked with the first fifteen pages, after ten pages I had already lost interest-it may have been a good book later on-but I was losing interest and the amount of intricate detail put me off too, she spent two pages telling us how a character ate an apple.
I realise that details make readers more intimate with the character, but there is a limit and I feel the detail should pertain to the story.
An example being if you are writing about a ball held in a hall, do you have to go into intimate details about the wallpaper and the trimmings?
Most of my stories are kept short because they are action based; I will tell you what somebody is wearing but other than a brief description I don't see the point of going into details-I am writing a story about people, not a clothing article for Vogue.