My original thesis, for the record, wasn't really that Dan Brown's books were bad. I wasn't making a judgement call, it's not like I'm going to be winning any literary prizes any time soon, so I probably shouldn't criticise.
I had previously made the point that I felt that he could pull off a reasonable non-demanding read. On attempting to read it, I discovered that I was wrong, and for that error, I was asking forgiveness. I'm not really a highbrow chap, in fact much of what I do is guided by the mantra "what would Chuck Norris do" and as mentioned I find deep philosophical meaning in stuffed crust pizza. I'd read Dan Brown with a kind of demented pride.
Except it went wrong. I discovered that I had pushed myself too far. It was dire. I figure a decent – even lowbrow read – needs the following things, and not all of them:
1. Good plot. It needs a hook. It needs a story. It's got to flow. Given this, you can get away will all manner of sins.
2. Good characterisation. This helps with (1), of course, but it gets you involved. Even if the plot is flapping about in the wind, you'll still care enough to keep reading.
3. Good writing. This is nice, but oddly optional. Even a workaday assemblage of words will take to the air if there's a decent plot under the wings. In the absence of a good plot however, even fantastic writing just becomes a slog (this is the problem I have with a lot of literary stuff, to be honest).
All said, I'm happy for anyone to read, watch, or do what they want. I just reserve the right to take the piss out of them.