Further comments from the authors of The Da Vinci Hoax

In addition to the comments from Carl E. Olson I've already posted, I also received two replies from The Da Vinci Hoax's other author, Sandra Miesel. They follow.

From this morning:

I was indeed a history major, specializing in the religious and social history of the Middle Ages. MA, University of Illinois; abd Indiana University. My old professor, the distinguished Reformation scholar Gerald Strauss, who taught me historiography, could assure you that I am aware of the impossibility of fully recovering the past. But the kinds of errors that Dan Brown makes require no lofty analyses of "discourse." He inverts and invents on matters over which there's not the least disagreement. (ie, who arrested the Templars; the significance of Templar architecture) He attempts to exalt silly, worthless sources at the expense of consensus academic authorities. And no, not all history is "written by the winners." Such revisionism and relativism were our targets. You have not demonstrated that we failed to demolish Brown's claims.

And from this evening:

We appear to be more or less on the same page. I was just annoyed to bereferred to as an amateur. I've used my historical education as a professional writer for more than 30 years--Google me and see.

As Carl said, Brown would like to have it both ways: undercutting the historical consensus while telling people to trust wingnut books by occultists. I had to slog through those and still feel grumpy about it. None of this would matter except that a fair number of people are taking TDVC as Truth. The sales of said wingnut books have soared and Brown's misinformation is sinking deep into popular culture.

But glad to have a response from a knowledgable reader. Thank you for posting about DA VINCI HOAX.

Further thoughts on this tomorrow. I'm rather flattered that Olson and Miesel have seen fit to respond to me, and their responses have helped me sharpen my understanding of their work and that of Dan Brown.