I tend to be a minimalist in terms of description, but I like the watch example very much. I suspect that that's because I don't actually interpret it as a description. It doesn't rhapsodize about the glint of light on the case, or burble on about the pattern engraved on that case, or give me a thread-by-thread description of Mr. Oak's waistcoat. Instead, it gives me information - information that in the moment doesn't further the plot, and in fact may never further the plot, but it does make Mr. Oak much closer to real for me. The descriptions that annoy me often seem to be intended to persuade the reader of some simplistic fact by enthusiastic repetition. Descriptions of female characters, for example, often may as well just be translated to, "She's beautiful. Also, she's beautiful. Did I mention her beauty?" So. Hmm.
Seriously people, what's the point in attacking one another for liking/disliking descriptions? You don't have to like something for that very same thing to be good writing. From what I've read of Tolkien, I can tell the writing is very good, but heck it bored me out of my mind. I'm not into details much - I prefer writing like in Hunger Games, where there's little description and where there is description, it is usually put in poetic terms. Namely because I can't imagine a place or a character simply by the author giving me lots of detail, but put in metaphors and similes and I get the picture straight away and "feel" the scene a lot more. But is that the only way to write? Nah. Times have changed and people prefer different things, that's all - the minimalist mindset is very popular nowadays so everyone will tell you to cut to the chase and focus on action rather than description - but it depends on who you're writing for, doesn't it? If you're writing YA then of course you should keep descriptions succinct. If you're writing literary novels you'll be looking at something else altogether. Both approaches serve their own purposes and simply cater to a different audience. As for writing good descriptions, I'd advise looking into poetry. Poetry has a way of bringing everything to life that dry, precise descriptions do not, for me. It takes an equal amount of skill to describe something in detail as it does to put it in poetic terms - but it is my preference to go for the poetic approach, that's all. Or take the Thomas Hardy example posted above - the first line about Farmer Oak's smile would today be taken as "purple prose" - so sometimes the quality of things are very much defined by when it is written. I personally didn't like that line - for me it is too exaggerated. It is a wide smile, a grin perhaps. It is something so simple that it doesn't warrant so much description. Again, it is because I am a child of my time, and not Hardy's. But the second about the watch - while I was bored because I'm not into descriptions, I can tell it has a certain charm about it. It is quirky, kinda quaint, it's the kinda detail that a lot of people like because it tells you quite a bit about Farmer Oak. Now it's a classic so it does not need my approval, but I appreciate it as a good piece of writing indeed - I could not describe a watch in so many words and yet charm the reader. Rather if I'd tried, I'd bore my reader to tears. So it is certainly skilful. But do I have to ENJOY it? Nope. In fact reading that has kinda put me off wanting to read Hardy at all I'd read it for the sake of it being a classic, but not so much for personal enjoyment. But then again I could be surprised, who knows?
Mckk, well said and goes along with precisely with what I was saying. Different people = different tastes, it doesn't mean you are deficient, uneducated, or immature.
