When is it overkill?

In most English classes, especially AP Junior, we were taught to analyze an author's style, but very rarely do we actually talk about whether we like it or not. This article that Mr. Mullins posted a link to on his webpage (http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/15/a-short-defense-of-literary-excess/?src=recg) gives his view on what the best writing is. The author is pro-putting-as-many-words-as-possible-into-a-sentence, as opposed to more simplistic writing styles that may be easier to understand.

This is one of the sentences that this journalist says is "teeming with life"
"Outside the window, there slides past that unimaginable and deserted vastness where night is coming on, the sun declining in ghastly blood-streaked splendour like a public execution across, it would seem, half a continent, where live only bears and shooting stars and the wolves who lap congealing ice from water that holds within it the entire sky." - Angela Carter

Now, the easiest way to write this sentence is something like:
"The sun set over a vast landscape and the wilderness seemed to go on forever."

I'm not trying to say that my sentence is better, but I would like to argue for a middle ground. Not that I know more about English than Angela Carter (whoever that is), but I really don't see the need for all those words. Good writing doesn't always mean more writing. Think about Hills Like White Elephants. It was simplistic, didn't have a lot to it, but it was still good writing because of all that wasn't on the surface.

I think that sometimes writers who use too many words or too much description are just trying too hard. They lose people's interest because it's boring, but also I think it sometimes sounds like they just want their writing to be impressive. Work hard on it, by all means, but don't try to make yourself sound like Shakespeare when you're not. I think that writers shouldn't go overboard, but they should try to use good writing to tell a good story.