Soon after, The Times published another article refuting Larkin, written by Felicity Blackwood, a literary scholar from Oxford University.
She wrote, " Larkin brings up Dickens as an analogy, but Dickens's success is different from that of Harry Potter."
" Dickens wrote about social realities; he incorporated class contradictions of the industrial age into his stories, and his works are critical."
"And what about Harry Potter? It's a beautiful dream detached from reality from beginning to end."
" The Muggle world is depicted as a mundane and boring backdrop, while the magical world is the truly important place. You can't say that this escapism has any social value."
"I don't object to people reading it. I just object to people mistaking it for 'literature'."
"In my classes, I teach my students to read Joyce, Woolf, and Faulkner. What they need to learn is how language is shaped into a tool for thinking."
"The language in Harry Potter is merely instrumental; it exists solely to convey the plot. If you finish reading it and remember the plot, not the language itself, then it cannot be called literature."
But her article clearly failed to convince most people, and the backlash came quickly.
The Daily Mail published a reader's letter signed by an author named Thomas Quick, who has written several detective novels and enjoys a good reputation within the genre.
His letter was blunt, even rude. "Professor Felicity Blackwood says that the language of Harry Potter is merely instrumental."
"I want to ask: So what? Language is inherently an instrument; its purpose is to make people understand."
"You can teach your students to read those books with sentences that are so long they're practically spiraling out of control, no problem. But don't tell me that only those kinds of books deserve to be called literature."
What exactly is literature? Literature is the way human experience is recorded and passed down.
"An eleven-year-old boy sat in the cupboard under the stairs, talking to a spider... A mother died protecting her child..."
"If you finish reading it and don't feel anything, then I can only say that your perception may have been dulled by your academic training."
"As for those who constantly regard 'obscurity' as a virtue, I think they are not defending literature, they are defending their own sense of superiority."
"Because if the standard of literature becomes 'things that ordinary people can't understand,' then those who make a living by interpreting these 'incomprehensible things' can forever stand on high and look down on others."
Following his remarks, the winds of change in the literary world began to shift into a more nuanced pattern.
The Independent published a short article entitled "Jealousy is a Literary Productivity." The article was unsigned, but judging from the tone, it was likely written by the newspaper's culture editor.
The article states, "Let's be a little more honest—is Martin Amis's attitude towards Harry Potter really just an aesthetic judgment?"
"His * The Time's Arrow * sold 80,000 copies, while Allen Wayne's books sold nine million copies."
"Although he said he didn't care about sales (maybe he wasn't really sincere?), it's hard not to feel a certain... bitterness when your peers achieve an influence you can't reach."
"This is not to say that Martin Amis's motives for criticizing Harry Potter were impure."
"What I mean is, when someone criticizes something, they are often criticizing what that thing represents—something they themselves don't possess."
" Allen Wayne represents the adoration of the masses, while Martin Amis has never received that kind of adoration (of course, perhaps he wouldn't even bother to receive it). But 'disdain' and 'not wanting' are two different things."
"Those who have read * The Time's Arrow * know that it is a novel about self-examination."
"If Martin Amis could apply the same scrutiny he uses for his own work to scrutinizing his own emotions, perhaps he would discover that every criticism he makes of Harry Potter can be said to him in reverse."
The article immediately sparked another uproar in the public sphere.
Some people thought it made sense, while others felt it was a personal attack on Martin Amis.
However, the debate has extended from a question of "literary standards" to the levels of "motivation" and "jealousy".
Finally, the day before the official release of Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (Part 1), the Times Literary Supplement, the most authoritative and influential literary journal in the world, published a short review that brought this controversy to a close.
The article's title consists of only four characters: "May everyone be well."
The article begins with extreme restraint. "Over the past week, the debate surrounding the two novels has dominated our pages."
One side believes that literature should be judged by innovation in language and form, while the other side believes that the ultimate value of literature lies in its resonance with the reader.
Both sides have valid reasons, and both have exposed their own blind spots.
"We have no intention of mediating this debate, because debate itself is healthy. But we would like to point out one thing: great literature is never the product of a single standard."
The article continues, " Martin Amis's * The Time's Arrow * is a serious and experimental work."
"It attempts to examine the moral dilemmas of the twentieth century through an inverted narrative structure, an attempt worthy of respect, and its achievements are indeed rare in contemporary novels."
"At the same time, Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone did something else."
"It has allowed millions of people to rediscover the joy of reading, a joy that is not 'superficial'; it is value in itself."
The editorial maintained its consistently neutral tone. "We must be wary of both extremes."
One approach equates "obscure" with "profound," as if something must be good if it's incomprehensible.
"Another approach equates 'bestseller' with 'correct,' as if high sales volume automatically equates to a good product. Both of these standards are lazy."
"Literary history tells us that many works criticized as 'vulgar' at the time later became classics; while many books praised as 'masterpieces' at the time were later forgotten."
"Time is the ultimate judge, and we who live in the present have no right to make decisions for posterity."
The article concludes, "Therefore, we suggest that both parties put aside their arguments."
"Mr. Martin Amis can continue writing works like his * Time's Arrow *, and Mr. Allen Wayne can continue writing his magical world."
Readers are free to choose, or they can read both. The literary world is vast enough to accommodate different talents.
"As for those debates that insist on determining a superiority or inferiority—we'd like to quote an old editor."
"If you absolutely must ask which book is better, then wait another fifty years and see if anyone still remembers them."
For a moment, the entire literary world fell silent.
The involvement of this semi-official newspaper has essentially sealed the fate of this literary debate.
Whether or not everyone agrees, at least openly no one is expressing any different opinions anymore.
The eyes of people from all walks of life in the literary world have turned to the upcoming release of " Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (Part 1)".
Is it just a passing fad or a timeless classic?
Is it a work of literature or just emotional fast food?
Was the success of the first book a fluke or a testament to the author's skill?
Finally, amidst everyone's eager anticipation—
September 1st arrived as scheduled, and " Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (Part 1)" was released on time!