Opinion: Sources of public debate become marketable

The May 28 column questioned all the hype over Dan Brown’s book and subsequent movie “The Da Vinci Code.” I pointed out that some Christians were upset with both because the plot centered on the search for proof that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married and had a child. The villains of the plot were evil sorts trying to keep secret this tidbit of information that was somehow omitted from the New Testament.

If the story were true, Jesus wasn’t the son of God; hence, Christianity was based on a lie. I suggested it wasn’t surprising that some Christians were upset.

Afterward, I heard and read how foolish it was for anyone to be upset with the book/movie; after all, it was only fiction. The meaning being that fiction isn’t to be taken seriously. Someone might need to explain that to Salman Rushdie, whose book “Satanic Verses” was offensive to some of the Muslim faith. It must have been; a Muslim cleric put a price on Rushdie’s head. Dan Brown is fortunate he chose to offend Christians.

Anyone who believes there is no power in fiction never sat in a college literature class where “Moby Dick,” a work of fiction by Herman Melville about a sea captain’s quest to capture a giant white whale, was discussed in detail. Those who did probably learned more than they wanted to about the impact this fictional story had on literary thought. “Uncle Tom’s Cabin,” another work of fiction, probably had more than anything else to do with awakening Americans in the North to the evils of slavery. In the midst of the Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln met the author, Harriet Beecher Stowe, and quipped: “So, you are the little lady who started this big war.”

Likewise, Harper Lee’s book and movie “To Kill A Mockingbird” was a major force in the cause of the civil rights movements of the 1960s. No nonfiction political discourse could have so forcefully portrayed the sorry realities of segregation as this fictitious story.

Truth be told, most of Shakespeare’s writings were fiction. Anyone up to claiming no one pays any attention to them?

Well, “The Da Vinci Code” is finally fading from the best-sellers lists; the movie had one boffo week as the Hollywood box office champion. A week later, it was replaced with another movie-land box office bonanza. Soon it will go to that DVD rental store in the sky.

Face value

The June 12 Rusty Saber questioned what the country music trio, the Dixie Chicks, did to land on the cover of Time magazine.

I concluded the honor came following a sequence that began with them badmouthing President Bush in England; apologizing when fans stopped buying their records and when radio stations stopped playing them. Later, they apologized for the apology and again trashed Bush; next, they put out a rock ‘n’ roll album. I could see no other reason for making the cover.

Since then, I have heard talk about the loss of First Amendment rights by the Dixie Chicks. It goes like this: Radio station managers violated their rights by not playing records their listeners were boycotting because of the remarks.

Some believe it wasn’t very cool to speak ill of the president on foreign soil. But being uncool isn’t against the law. If it were, jails would be filled with nerds. I must be too dense to understand the logic.

As I see it, the Dixie Chicks spoke their minds, as was their constitutional right. Their fans exercised their right to disagree and not buy their records or listen to them on the radio. Station managers had a right to not play what listeners say they don’t want to hear. Am I missing something here?

There is a happy financial ending. All must be forgiven; the new album is selling well.

In terms of record sales, how much is a Time magazine cover worth?

Joe McAdoo is former chairman of the communication department at Drury University.[[In-content Ad]]