I believe Igg and myself, had this very argument, some time ago. Funny how it has arisen again.
I have read all four of Dan Browns work, and must agree that they are good in parts. But I do find them terrible similar, but as with any writer, they have a formula that works, and they stick to it.
However I have to agree with Igg, in the fact that the books are badly written, but I also hold this opinion of the Pullman series, (which I think is even worse), Brown is an excellent suspense writer, and sets a wonderful scene, but as someone said earlier, once you have read one or two, you realise the forumla, and can usually unravel the book before the end.
Also I hear alot of talk of Robert Langdon, but the guy is supposed to be a world renowned symbologist, yet I worked out the twists and answers to the questions, 3 or 4 chapters, before Langdon.
Brown has some excellent ideas within his books, but they sometimes lack something. All in all, Brown is an good literatist, as everyone discusses his books with differing views, and that is a compliment to any author.
Personally I will read a Dan Brown book with vigour, whereas Igg would read a Pullman book with viguor, different people like different things, thats life. As for shouting at someone because they have expressed an opinion, even if the opinion was not very well expressed is not acceptable.
Igg you know the drill. Brown rules, and Pullman drools.