I must admit, I had fun reading Dan Brown (Illuminati and Da Vinci) - more fun than reading Crichton. I knew that it was total nonsense, but it was entertaining. I think Crichton's main goal was also to entertain and make lots of money, so where is the big difference?

Dan Brown's writing is just atrocious. It's hacky, stilted and cliche. His dialogue is ridiculous, and he uses it to expose everything.

I wrote better fiction in third grade.

Maybe I missed out on that, because I read a borrowed copy in German translation.

I found it amusing that De Vinci Code manages to attract so many fans, by using the simplest, oldest puzzles ever. I mean making those old puzzles appear cutting edge was an achievement.

Well, Dan Brown or Robert Ludlum are shit, the bottom of the trash pile. This is like saying that relative to Hitler or Stalin, Bush was a great president.