Final thoughts on The Da Vinci Hoax, relativism and revisionism

Last week I wrote a critique of The Da Vinci Hoax, by Carl E. Olson and Sandra Miesel. That critique prompted responses from both Olson and Miesel. Those replies have caused me to reevaluate my opinion of Olson and Miesel. I originally believed that their grasp on how history was rather naive and unsophisticated. It's now clear that they both have a firm grasp on the various problems historians face. However, I stand by my critique of The Da Vinci Hoax as a misreading of Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code.

My purpose was to illustrate how Olson and Miesel misread and misinterpreted Brown's work and broadly tarred him with charges of relativism and revisionism, charges that are, respectively, unfounded and intellectually lazy.

Revisionism
Regarding Brown's alleged postmodernism and relativism, Olson and Miesel have made the following statements:

This [statement by Dan Brown] may strike some as thoughtful commentary, but it is simple sophistry, based on a mixture of popularized post-modernism and deconstructionism. (DVH, p. 27).

The offending statement by Brown, as far as I can tell, is this question: "How historically accurate is history itself?" I fail to see how asking this question is in any way "postmodern." To be sure, postmodernism is a notoriously difficult concept to define precisely, but is it really postmodern to question the accuracy of written history?

One of the great dangers of a popular, entertaining work such as The Da Vinci Code is that it reinforces the relativistic attitudes that are already prevalent in Western culture and offers additional reasons for readers to embrace such attitudes. [...] This idea [of relativism] is evident in remarks made by the character Robert Langdon, who talks about "faith" as being built upon "fabrication" and beliefs that cannot be proven in any way (DVH, p. 37).

Olson and Miesel's insistence that Langdon (and therefore Brown) is a relativist would be far more compelling if he weren't simultaneously obsessed with discovering the truth of the Holy Grail. At its heart, The Da Vinci Code is a detective story. Sure, there are bits of romance thrown in, but the central action of the novel is concerned with discovering the nature and location of the Holy Grail. And by the end, Robert Langdon has found the answer. This last bit bears repeating: Robert Langdon has found the answer.

Put as simply as possible, The Da Vinci Code is deeply anti-relativist in its basic assumption that the Truth is out there. The protagonist, Robert Langdon, makes one potentially relativist statement in the whole of the novel (at least as substantiated by Olson and Miesel). And it is this relativism that Olson and Miesel so thoroughly decry as a dangerous element of Brown's work.

Revisionism
On the question of revisionism, Olson and Miesel are entirely correct. Dan Brown's version of the past is revisionist and explicitly challenges long-held beliefs.

But there is absolutely nothing wrong with revisionism in of itself. All good history is revisionist, for it changes our understanding of the past.

Calling someone a revisionist is a lazy and almost meaningless attack. Anyone who suggests an analysis or interpretation that in any way differs from the current consensus is a revisionist. To be sure, some historians write more extreme versions of revisionist history. But this is not a bad thing. Only when revisionist views are based on shoddy research and interpretation are they bad, just as "traditional" views are disproved in light of new evidence and more enlightening analyses.

Olson and Miesel are tilting at windmills: the problem with DVC is not its revisionism but its inability to present the facts accurately.