Posting generic grumble/grump about how "too much description" and "too much wordiness" are often dependent on style and aesthetic, and while it's good that some people are (edited) Carver and Hemingway, one is glad that some people are Flannery O'Conner, too.
She has a point.
I didn't mean that everyone should try to write like Hemingway; reading wouldn't be fun if people all wrote the same way. I'm in favor of individual voices, and styles ranging from the very simple to the very ornate (with a personal preference for a range somewhere within those two extremes). However, a person who believes she "can't write short" might try studying some Hemingway if she wants to learn how to tell a story in fewer words. That's one method of learning efficiency in writing, but there are other methods, too.
Often the writing I see in the slush is just fine stylistically, from sentence to sentence, but in some cases an author will meander into territory that's outside the boundaries of the story being told. On one hand, it's the author's story, to be told as the author wants to tell it, but on the other hand, it's hard to be objective about what to leave in and what to leave out. I'm all in favor of many ideas being incorporated into a story elegantly, so that they make sense and enhance the tale, but there are times when taking out an ill-fitting idea will make the rest of the story stronger.
Seriously, I admire it when someone can do a great job of writing a one-hundred-word sentence. No matter the length of the sentence, I want it to fit together well with the other sentences around it, and I want them all to build up into a meaningful story.