I don't think it works all that well in nonfiction. Too much nonfiction writing expresses equivalences between abstract concepts. Abstract concepts have trouble performing actions, because, well, they don't exist.

Fiction benefits greatly, though. Compare these paragraphs:

"Macbeth is malicious. He is staring straight at you. You are getting scared. You start walking away. Your footsteps are the only thing you can hear."

"Macbeth fixes you with a beady-eyed stare. Dark flickers of malice creep across his pupils, and the intensity of his gaze makes you take an involuntary step backwards. A shiver of fear runs down your back, skin crawling. You start tiptoeing backwards across the room, eager to put more distance between you and him, yet too scared to make a sudden move. Your tiny footfalls echo across the great hall, providing the only relief to the oppressive silence."

Yes, the second one uses more words, and yes, it describes more. That's the point. By eliminating "is", it forces you to think more carefully about what you want to say.

P.S. +1 for writing your comment in E-prime. ;-)