observed Knopf still sold about a thousand copies of No Man Knows My History annually and noted Brodie had "shaped the view of the Prophet for half a century. Nothing we have written has challenged her domination. I had hoped my book would displace hers, but at best it will only be a contender in the ring, whereas before she reigned unchallenged." However, historian Laurie Maffly-Kipp, who is not Mormon, believed the influence of No Man Knows My History was waning, as while it had been "the 'go to' book on Smith's life" for "most historians", Rough Stone Rolling displaced it as a "definitive account" of Smith. Criticism Upon its 1945 release, one of the book's earliest critics was Vardis Fisher, a prolific novelist and former Latter-day Saint. In his review for the New York Times, Fisher approved of Brodie's "painstaking" work and praised her "excellent analysis of the early appeal of Mormonism," but he was unconvinced of Brodie's theory that Smith was a self-interested fraud and accused her of pursuing the idea overzealously, writing, "she has a thesis, and she rides it hard." Fisher also criticized Brodie's willingness to "give the content of a mind or to explain motives which at best can only be surmised," making No Man Knows My History "almost more a novel than a biography." Although scholars of American history for decades considered No Man Knows My History the quintessential biography of Joseph Smith, historians of Mormonism were more critical as early as 1945. The book's portrayal of Smith as irreligious was at odds with the spiritual nature of Smith's personal writings, public discourse, and scriptural production, including the Book of Mormon. Additionally, No Man Knows My History claimed people's interest in and conversion to Mormonism was the result of Smith's charisma and a conjectured "unconscious but positive talent at hypnosis." However, attributing conversions to hypnosis and charisma neglected the broader religious context of nineteenth-century America and failed to account for Mormons who converted or stayed committed in Smith's absence. Historian Marvin S. Hill hypothesized that "general cynicism toward religion among many intellectuals" in the 1940s may have prompted Brodie's characterization of Smith. Brodie's handling of primary sources also drew criticism. For example, No Man Knows My History references Smith's official history as if it is a primary source written or dictated by him, but historians discovered that most of Smith's official history was actually