Writing and cutting

Last week I started to read Tom Wolfe's second novel, "A Man in Full", but I didn't continue. It's a great lump of a book, about five inches wide.... In short (no pun intended) it's too long. He puts every detail he can into his descriptions so that you wonder "has he done this so that he cannot be accused of doing too little research?" for he must have done a tremendous amount of research since it is a book about big business and banks and money dealings and collapse and I'm pretty sure he didn't know much about this when he set out. Something came to mind about Raymond Carver, the short story writer, who when asked how he produced a short story said he'd write it then he'd cut it and cut it and cut it. If only Tom Wolfe had followed this precept then I might have read further because, I have to say, it was quite an interesting novel. I did finish and enjoy "Bonfire of the Vanities", his first novel, and was looking forward to enjoying this one but.... no, I could not spend weeks reading the rest of it (I'm a slow reader).
I once had a story of mine accepted by the BBC on condition that I would cut it from about 3400 words to the Morning Story section of 2400 words. So I set about cutting it; I didn't enjoy this but if that's what the producer wanted then that's what I'd give him. It was accepted as the new 2400 worder. And I have to say it was much improved.
This same story I gave to a class of evening writers I used to teach and asked them to cut it from 3400 to 2400 words approximately, as I had already done. I was surprised and pleased that they all made practically the same cuts I had made.
I'll wait for the film of "A Man in Full" to come out with the hope that it is rather better than the film of "Bonfire of the Vanities".