The very next morning, a signed article appeared in the literature section of the Times, titled:
"When Literature Becomes a Consumer Product: On the Dangers of the Harry Potter Phenomenon".
The author is Simon Graham, a professor of literature at University of Cambridge. He has published five monographs on modernist literature, one of which is required reading at many universities in Great Britain.
He began his article by quoting a line from an interview with Martin Amis, and then wrote:
"Mr. Amis's judgment is correct, but he is not harsh enough."
"This is not just a problem of a children's book being overrated; it's a problem of an era actively lowering its reading standards."
"People may think I'm exaggerating, but I have to say, we are experiencing a collective aesthetic downgrade!"
"People are no longer willing to read texts that require thought, but instead turn to stories that have already been pre-digested and have simple structures."
" Harry Potter provides just that comfort zone: a world of clear-cut good and evil, clearly identifiable enemies, and a hero who never truly fails."
"What does this sound like? Like a fairy tale."
"There's nothing wrong with fairy tales themselves. The problem is that when adults start using fairy tales as their primary source of literary nourishment, we have to ask: What's happening to our culture?"
The article concludes by stating, " Martin Amis's * The Time's Arrow *, though less than two hundred thousand words long, contains profound discussions about memory, morality, and the nature of time."
"It requires effort from the reader to understand, and it is precisely this effort that constitutes the true reading experience."
"If we're not even willing to put in this kind of effort, then we no longer deserve to be called 'readers,' but only 'consumers.'"
That same afternoon, the Daily Telegraph's supplement reprinted excerpts from the article, along with an editor's note:
"Professor Graham's stance is clear, but perhaps too harsh. Can literary standards only be defined by academics?"
However, to everyone's surprise, dissenting voices soon emerged.
The Guardian published a commentary by Harold Larkin titled. "Nobody cares what you read, but don't pretend you're judging anything."
Harold Larkin, one of the most influential Literary Review in Great Britain.
Although he has no academic titles, he has single-handedly influenced the reading preferences of several generations of ordinary readers over the past thirty years.
His writing style is always straightforward and never beats around the bush, and this piece is no exception.
"I read Professor Simon Graham's article, and then went back to reread Martin Amis's interview."
"I thought about it for a long time, and the conclusion I came to was: these two gentlemen seem to have confused two things: 'good literature' and 'the only literature'."
Martin Amis said that Harry Potter lacked complexity.
"Then I'd like to ask you, can you really say that a novel that millions of people read late at night with flashlights is 'without complexity'?"
"Perhaps its complexity lies not in sentence structure or grammar, but in emotion. A child who has lost his parents seeks belonging in a magic school... Is this story simple?"
"If you think it's simple, then please explain why so many adults cried while reading it."
"As for Professor Graham's so-called 'aesthetic degradation,' I think it's a kind of elitist arrogance."
"You define literature as something that requires a threshold, keeping out those who are unwilling or unable to cross that threshold, and then say, 'See, they are not worthy of reading.'"
"But who says reading has to be a painful climb?"
He specifically mentioned one point. "I know Professor Graham would argue that classical literature inherently has a threshold."
"I agree. But classics aren't born; they grow from the people."
Dickens ' novels were serialized in cheap magazines back then, and ordinary workers would buy a copy every week to read them. Literary Review at the time also said that Dickens "vulgar," "sentimental," and "lacking in artistry."
"More than a hundred years have passed, Dickens has become a classic, and those who criticized him, we can't even remember their names."
He wrote at the end of the article, " The Time's Arrow may be a very profound work. I admit I gave up after reading twenty pages, but that doesn't stop me from respecting it."
Similarly, while Harry Potter may not be Martin Amis's preferred genre, that doesn't stop it from being a favorite of millions.
"Literature is not a single-plank bridge; it's a wide road. Some walk fast, some walk slowly; some enjoy the scenery along the way, while others bury themselves in the journey."
No one has the right to judge anyone else; only by walking your own path can you truly say you're walking.
Then, this silent battle shifted to the pages of the Literary Review weekly itself.
An author named Erin Harper published an open letter. She wrote poetry in her youth, turned to short stories in middle age, and is now one of the most respected literary figures in Great Britain.
Her tone in the letter was unusually gentle. "I know Martin Amis and have read his * The Time's Arrow *, a courageous work that does what many are unwilling to try."
"I've also read * Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone *, and I admit, I read it very carefully because I didn't want it to end so quickly."
I don't think these two works need to be compared on a scale.
" Martin explored the direction of memory in his own way; Allen Wayne explored the shape of loneliness and belonging in another."
"They serve different readers, different times, and different states of mind. If I had to choose a stance, I would say that the truly rich reader is one who can appreciate both books simultaneously."
"As for those who worry that literary standards will be lowered as a result, I would like to say this: standards will not collapse because of a book's bestseller status. Standards will only collapse because those who uphold the standards give up their voices."
Therefore, instead of criticizing a book you don't want to read, praise a book you're willing to fight for.
The Spectator magazine, on the other hand, published an even more incisive article, written by an anonymous publishing industry insider and signed "An Editor."
In his article, he bluntly stated, " Martin Amis said that Harry Potter is merely a 'product,' not literature."
"I'd like to ask you a question: Mr. Amis, do you know how many copies of your * Time's Arrow * sold in Great Britain last year? Less than 80,000 copies. Do you know how many copies of * Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone * sold? Nine million copies."
"Of course, you might say that sales figures don't reflect literary value. I agree. But have you ever considered that perhaps it sells well precisely because it touches on something people truly need?"
"Perhaps the millions of readers aren't fools; they know what they're reading."
"Perhaps they chose this book because it gave them something that 'serious literature' couldn't provide."
"I do not deny the value of ' The Time's Arrow,' and I respect your achievements as a novelist."
"But when you said you 'don't care about sales,' did you realize that this statement itself reveals your disregard for your readers?"
Why would someone who doesn't care whether they are understood write?
This article sparked considerable controversy after its publication, with some supporting it and others opposing it, but the heated debate shows no signs of abating.