sotto voce

Subtle, as in Brown doesn't know fact from fiction, or subtle, as in Brown doesn't want the public to know fact from fiction? Why do people write historical novels, as distinct from histories, that are controversial about history? A novel set in a historical context, that does not conflict with accepted history, is normal, accepted practice. A novel set in a historical context, that apparently re-writes history, is abnormal practice that looks like sleight of hand, particularly if it has popular appeal.

Either particular written content is alleged to be history, or it isn't. Any work claimed to be a history, a record of actuality, is subject to the scrutiny of historians, and must be properly presented. If one wants to propagandise, one might write a 'historical' novel, so that the inexpert reader is confused. Historical novels are neither within the purlieu of historians, nor are they subject to the scrutiny of historians.

The question was asked whether a responsible historian has a duty to tell the general public that the 'Da Vinci Code' has no historical value. This book is apparently a novel, one of some notoriety, and a historian may well disregard it, along with TV soaps. If a reader of a historical novel wishes to refer to a historian a particular issue, mentioned in a novel or otherwise, then of course the historian has a duty to assist where possible.