[retsibsi]

That's how I feel about visual descriptions in many books. I have a weak visual imagination, so most of it goes straight through me without leaving an impression. I wonder if non-visual sensory description is especially valuable to people like me? I'm not particularly interested in food (or in fantasy for that matter), but the snippets of description in Kuiper's comment helped me to understand why those non-visual sensory elements can make a setting feel real.

[rand_r]

Stephen King’s “On Writing” has an illustration of the opposite approach to this style: being judicious in description and still creating a rich environment in the reader’s mind, with just enough of the important details.

It begins “Look - here’s a table covered with a red cloth.” https://www.google.ca/amp/s/mukundacharan.wordpress.com/2011...

As someone like you who hates too much description, I’m comforted in the idea that judicious description is a skill to be appreciated.

[netzone]

I think you'll just find enjoyment in other non-descriptive genres, that I would likely not enjoy. Personally I can practically see the things I read, and it's colored my reading so much that I almost get bored reading stuff that's not as descriptive. I also theorise that this is the reason I usually dislike movie adaptions - it doesn't fit with the "movie" my brain created.