Actually, I really like Dan Brown's writing style. It really draws you in and is really effective. The only problem is that Brown has only written one book, really. All his novels have the same, highly specific format. It's only the details that are different. The plot exposition, the characters etc are all mostly the same.

Lots of popular novel writers use formulaic writing, applying the same recipes again and again, and that seems to please their readers. Pretty much all Agatha Christie novels share the same basic plots (one character is killed, sleuth asks questions to everyone, finally everybody is in the same room of a castle / manor and sleuth gives the answer), with the same stock characters (rich people), for instance, and she is one of the biggest book sellers ever.

Dan Brown's writing, at the sentence level, is infantile, and the dialogue is didactic and patronising. I will never read another of his books.

Pacing is what Brown is good at. He knows how to end chapters with cliff-hangers that make you want to keep on reading.

Totally agree but they are entertaining fast reads. Realistic dialog is always lacking in his novels.

Realistic dialog, characterisation, plot, etc, is lacking. Sure, I've read several, but they simultaneously annoy and entertain.

Wikipedia's plot summaries have sure saved me finishing a lot of gripping but bad books

Perhaps he ascribes to the aphorism "if it ain't broke don't fix it". People keep buying it for better or worse, if he wants to break out and try alternate styles he's probably better to use a pseudonym. Sometimes you like to have an idea of what you're getting in to with a book, sometimes not.

This is exactly how pop music today is made. It's all the same generic formula.

Why change a winning formula?

Because at the third book I go "WTF? I'm not reading the same story thrice!" and put it down at page 30 or something.

The "difficult third album syndrome".

http://www.whiteink.org/blog.php?pg=31

Because some of the best pop songs succeeded by breaking the rules.

The narrative quality of The Da Vinci Code does indeed scream PowerPoint. A quick Google search does not immediately yield support, but I'm going with this anyway as it meshes with my loathing for that particular work. :)

Since when is London Fields considered "bad literature"? It's certainly not in the same category as the other two.

Amis sure has his detractors. I'm not from the UK so maybe that's why I don't get it.

Was just me expressing my distaste for Amis in general and London Fields in particular. He is highly regarded in the UK, but I cannot fathom why (I'm a Brit).

I think London Fields and Time's Arrow employ a lot of clever but bad prose (bad in that the prose does not flow). And specifically for London Fields I felt it quite misogynistic. Currently wading through The Information to see if there's something else that grabs me, giving him the benefit of the doubt.

So far I think Amis is massively over-rated. Not enjoyable.