Yeah, Nix is fantasy (right?).
Tooker (why the name change, and:) McCarthy wrote No Country for Old Men.
I don't understand the parenthesis part of that quote. :(
I just watched that movie last Thursday on my plane ride home. I can easily see how it would have come out of a book written as you describe it. I guess I misunderstood part of your original question. You're saying that some authors put the emphasis on the writing style rather than the substance, and asking if that's a good thing, right? (That's the way I'm reading it now.)
While I do enjoy a good "form," I have always felt that it can't get in the way of the "function." To cite another fantasy example (sorry, best one I can think of right now), Piers Anthony's Xanth series is one I have a love-hate relationship with. He seems to be obsessed with puns (and panties, but that's another story), and some of his books are so riddled with puns that they get in the way of the story. I like the stories, and to some extent, I even like the puns, but when you have to analyze everything that's going on to decide "is this a pun I'm supposed to be chuckling at," the form is blocking the function.
On the other hand, David Eddings is a guy with very simple form. If you've read one of his fantasy series (or even the standalone Redemption of Althalus), you've read them all. I'm reading a book he put out called "The Rivan Codex," which is about how he and his wife wrote two of their series (The Belgariad and The Malloreon), and he actually set down the formula pretty early on. Despite that simple form, I've read all of his series at least once, and I've read most more than once. (I believe I've read the five-book Belgariad series three or four times over the almost 20 years since I first started it.)
So I guess for me, the choice is function. I want a good story. If you can make it fancy too, more power to you, but when the fancy stops me from enjoying the story, I'm putting the book down and moving on to something else.