I believe in descriptive writing as long as it's not overdone. A description should slide into the story without effort. It should not irritate the reader and force him to skip a few lines or more.
Recently I read or tried to read a book written by someone who loved descriptions but there were so many the story’s plots were almost forgotten by me, the reader. I gave up half way through and gave the book away. Interestingly, the person who took it off my hands came to the same conclusion. She too gave up half way through.
It is my belief that descriptive writing should blend with the story or, as my tutor put it, paint a picture but avoid unnecessary images.
I am now reading a book written by Lee Child who is an expert in descriptions. His work is full of them and I read every word. Why is it that some authors can describe something in a way that compels the reader to carry on reading, whilst others bore us to death with metaphors that litter the tale? I think what Lee does is to keep his images short so that the reader barely notices. Lee Child can make a grain of sand sound interesting, a talent I wish I and others had. Even if he extended the length of his metaphors and similes the readers would carry on reading because they would be so wrapped up in the story they wouldn’t even notice. I wish I possessed such an art.