I've read two books
that I thought were shit:

1) The Rule of Four, by Iain Caldwell and Dustin Thomason. It was a Da Vinci Code-like plot, except for the fact that it had very little actual story to it, and was mostly concerned with what life was like at an American university (may have been Stanford, or possibly Harvard. It's so shite that I've forgotten). Now Dan Brown has his critics, but he's head and shoulders above this tosh.

2) Yellow Dog by Martin Amis. I read one of Amis's books, and really enjoyed it. It was a bit hard going, but rewarding in the end. So I bought Yellow Dog when it came out. I struggled to the end, and to this day have no idea what it was about, other than there was some King who called his aide "Bugger".
( K2k6 has a proper job these days, Thu 8 Apr 2010, 9:26, 2 replies, latest was 16 years ago)

Martin Amis' dad was a professional rival of my grandfather's
His autobiography is (apparently) full of spiteful remarks about him. My mother dimly remembers being made to play with the Amis children as a little girl. She didn't like them.
( Monty Boyce, My cheese game is strong, Thu 8 Apr 2010, 9:34, Reply)

I thought "The Rule of Four" was leagues above Dan Brown
due to the fact that the sentences were longer than four one-syllable words.
( crackhouseceilidhband Fuck off back to Mumsnet, Thu 8 Apr 2010, 9:36, Reply)

I did a poo this morning
that was leagues above Dan Brown.
( Monty Boyce, My cheese game is strong, Thu 8 Apr 2010, 9:37, Reply)

Maybe
but at least Brown's books have a plot, albeit a highly improbable and contrived one.
( K2k6 has a proper job these days, Thu 8 Apr 2010, 9:38, Reply)