I have no quibble with those who enjoy Pete's work. I can see how some would enjoy it.
I have a big problem with those who say his work is very playable from the correct set of tees. I personally believe the whole notion of a proper set of tees for virtually ANY course is completely invalid, in that it completely misunderstands how many - maybe even most - play the game.
What little I've seen of Pete's work seems to emphasize repetitive consistency over all other things. There is some room for error, but not a lot. And my limited exposure to lesser golfers like myself leads me to conclude that lack of consistency is the #1 problem. I personally don't have a problem with a 220 yard carry - most of the time. But that caveat creates a great big wide gulf between agreement and disagreement.
The courses I've seen - played, toured, watched on TV - all seem to emphasize stop and drop target golf. That's great, if that's what you enjoy. It doesn't happen to be what I enjoy. I don't mind duffing a shot and being left with something rather horrendous, but I don't like duffing a shot and trying to figure out where my drop is. And it has nothing to do with my score. If I attached my enjoyment to the game to that I'd have quit long ago.
Horses for courses, I guess. If you play a lot and have a relatively consistent game - at any level - I can see enjoying Pete's courses. For someone like me, who doesn't get out often, but enjoys the game immensely when he does, well, it's not a good fit.
I really don't see what an architect who designs courses for all levels of golfers to enjoy would have to learn from Pete Dye, but that's a conversation that will have to wait for an in-person opportunity, hopefully, someday.