New vs. Old

I was talking with a friend a few nights ago, and the conversation turned to fiction.  We discussed how the narrative style of older novels differs from the stories we have today.  In the old days (ie, the turn-of-the-century era) writers took much more time setting up their stories with background and detail.  Perhaps I'm being a touch critical of the classics, but quite often, all of these details, while written well, were often superfluous to what the story proper was all about.  Rudyard Kipling's The Phantom Rickshaw is a good example of this.  While it is a very good story, I found myself bored with the details after a while and wanted to get to the true plot of the story.  Even in later times, authours such as H.P. Lovecraft still held to this long-winded style of prose.  While there is something to be said for detail and backstory, I find that it is pointless unless relevant to the story.  For instance, the leadup to The Phantom Rickshaw is not near as memorable as the incident with the rickshaw itself.
I am a bit curious as to when this style of storytelling changed in popular fiction.  The earliest authour I can think of who used a more minimalist style is probably Hemingway, but I'm sure there were others before him.  Today, the writers I enjoy most use this sort of style.  In fact, it's something I try to use in my own work as well.  It's a fine balance, really.  There needs to be detail of course, but the writer can't stop for too long to point things out.  To put it another way, it's something like a long bus tour:  a guide who goes on and on about the history of one building will bore you, but a good one will say just enough, then be ready to talk about the next thing coming up the road.