I really really really really really (enough?) hate Grisham and all those (a million clone writers) that describe things right down to the shoes and socks the characters are wearing. These writers destroy the reader's imagination, feeding their brains with 100% of information, with no room on the page to 'breathe'.
I guess my writing style is a reaction to that, writing sparse description, giving the reader almost complete control of how they 'see' the scenes/places/characters, with the reader using their own previous knowledge and schemata to fill in the details, with myself only giving essential information, and of course, the dialogue and story, which are always full of ideas and humour.
'The Bethlehem Fiasco' is the easiest to get into, as everyone has some idea of what it looks like in the book, it's hot and sandy, plus everyone already knows the story, and probably watched 'Life of Brian'.
'Man by a tree' and 'Rage of Atlantis' take about 50 pages to get into, as the worlds inside them are 'new' to the reader, but once they're 'in', they race through the fast-paced stories and say...'wow'.
So...do you know how good this 'non-descriptive narrative' is for you? Do you
know how much your brain / mind will be energised? Some readers say
they read a random chapter or two every day to keep (wait for it, wait
for it)...open / creative / charged / happy / healthy / a smile on their