Brevity is best. Period.

From Hardy's The Mayor of Casterbridge
"The thunder of bowls echoed from the backyard; swingels hung behind the blower of the chimney; and ex-poachers and ex-gamekeepers, whom squires had persecuted without a cause, sat elbowing each other- men who in past times had met in fights under the moon, till lapses of sentences on the one part, and loss of favor and expulsion from service on the other, brought them here together to a common level, where they sat calmly discussing old times."

Hardy improved
"This was a place where old poachers and old gamekeepers could meet in peace and talk about the old times."

Do you see how much clearer and more concise my re-phrasing is? I have no doubt I could render the entire 330 page novel down to 42 pages, and possibly 35 if I got rid of all of the adjectives. I am also quite sure that, using my method, one could read Moby Dick on a flight from Chicago to Omaha and still have time to peruse the in-flight magazine. One could read the entire Old Testament while waiting to get his teeth cleaned. The House of the Seven Gables could be finished on two or three commutes to one's workplace by simply reading at the stoplights.

Those who argue against brevity unconsciously argue for the end of reading and the novel in our culture. This is a fast-moving world, and the only effective way to allow literature to compete with film, music etc is to make it more conveniently consummable. The Hardy quote lies steaming on the table before one's eyes like a huge plate of mutton and potatoes, and today's reader would frankly rather have a taco.