Of course, not everyone was happy about the bestseller status of the extraordinary adventures of benjamin button, especially Le Figaro and Jules Claretie.
After enduring his disgust and anger, carefully studying Lionel's article and novel, he finally found a literary critique that could also be called a "masterpiece," and handed it to Editor-in-Chief Armand de La Motte.
Armand de La Motte had also been in a bind recently; Le Figaro had lost arguments in pen wars before, but never had it been so thoroughly beaten down on both moral and taste levels.
Especially after its refusal to publish Lionel's rebuttal article was exposed by La République, it drew unanimous criticism from public opinion.
Even Émile Zola, who had a good relationship with Le Figaro, published an article in Morning News, stating that Le Figaro's refusal to publish was "unacceptable" and "a sign of journalistic dictatorship."
Le Figaro's retail sales were also slightly lower by two or three thousand copies than usual.
Although negligible compared to the total sales of 60,000 copies and attributable to "normal fluctuations," Editor-in-Chief La Motte still sensed a crisis.
He urgently needed an article that could turn the tide and restore people's confidence in Le Figaro.
So, when Jules Claretie placed his new work on his desk, Editor-in-Chief La Motte eagerly began to read it.
A few minutes later, he peered over the manuscript with a pair of questioning eyes: "Claretie, are you sure you want to write this?"
Jules Claretie leaned forward slightly, hands braced on the desk, creating a rather imposing posture: "Mr. Armand de La Motte, if we cannot stand firm on our position at this moment, we will truly lose our readers!"
Editor-in-Chief La Motte fell into deep thought, and after a long while, slowly said: "You are right, Le Figaro cannot lose its ground."
A day later, Le Figaro's literary supplement published Claretie's latest long article, and from the title, the scent of gunpowder was exceptionally strong:
"Double Betrayal: On the extraordinary adventures of benjamin button's Dangerous Usurpation of France's Sacred Order and Historical Truth"
This time, Claretie avoided emotional terms like "freak show," which were easy to be used against him, and tried to launch an attack from a more "Le Figaro" perspective:
"The 'reverse growth' setting by Mr. Sorel is not a harmless literary imagination, but a blatant blasphemy and usurpation—a blasphemy and usurpation of the sacred order of nature and life set by God!
Birth, aging, sickness, and death are unchangeable laws of the Creator, the cornerstone of cosmic harmony and human ethics. Mr. Sorel makes an infant 'born old' and then has him 'grow in reverse,' which is tantamount to declaring: God's blueprint can be arbitrarily altered, and the laws of life can be wantonly twisted!
This setting leads readers to nihilism about the essence of life, shaking their reverence for the sacred order, and its harm far exceeds its superficial 'bizarre' nature!
This is a shaking of the foundations of religious faith and a corruption of social morality and ethics! A truly great work of literature should guide people towards goodness, reverence for the divine, and adherence to natural laws, rather than, like the extraordinary adventures of benjamin button, challenging the Creator's authority with sensational fantasies!"
"Bastard!" Maupassant slammed Le Figaro onto the table, pacing angrily in his teacher's apartment living room.
Today, he had originally come to hand his teacher a newly finished play—a five-act play titled "The Writer, The Swindler, The Lady, and The Police," inspired by the true experiences of his good friend Lionel.
As soon as he entered, Flaubert handed him a copy of Le Figaro and told him to read Jules Claretie's article carefully.
Maupassant had only read the beginning before becoming enraged: "He is trying to elevate literary criticism to a religious level, trying to use the church to deal with Lionel!"
Flaubert looked at his young, impulsive disciple and shook his head helplessly: "The church probably won't go so far as to ruthlessly attack the extraordinary adventures of benjamin button; after all, there have been no negative portrayals of them in the novel so far.
Le Figaro is trying to rekindle the enthusiasm of its loyal readers and prevent them from being lost due to the rejection incident."
Maupassant then picked up Le Figaro, still fuming, and continued reading:
"Furthermore, Mr. Sorel's placement of his absurd protagonist in the sacred and tragic historical moment of the Revolution is a serious distortion and disrespect of historical truth! The fall of the Bastille, the collapse of the Old Regime, the rebirth of France—this is a great epic forged with the blood and ideals of countless ancestors!
I ask, when readers are immersed in the adventures of a baby 'growing in reverse,' how much thought will they still have to experience how the great French spirit—'Liberty, Equality, Fraternity'—was born with such difficulty?
Mr. Sorel, with his cheap fantasy, has dissolved the solemnity and gravity of history, reducing a monumental change that determined the fate of the nation to a fantastical story that satisfies curiosity! This is an insult to historical martyrs and a misleading of readers' historical understanding!"
Maupassant deeply felt the insidious nature of Jules Claretie—he accused Lionel of using major historical events as a gimmick, attempting to stir up dissatisfaction among French conservatives.
It didn't end there; Claretie added a final stab based on the latest serialized plot:
"Finally, the so-called 'friendship' between Benjamin and Delphine in Mr. Sorel's writing is also unsettling. The overly intimate relationship between a 'ten-year-old' boy with the appearance of a sixty-year-old man and a real ten-year-old girl is romantically depicted, which can easily lead readers to imagine things that might cross ethical boundaries. Mr. Sorel clearly lacks the necessary prudence in this regard, and the 'pure' friendship in his writing, in the eyes of some readers, is probably no less seductive than the decadent city."
Upon reading this, Maupassant jumped directly from his chair and tore Le Figaro to shreds: "Slander! Slander! Utter slander! Lionel depicted the pure and innocent feelings between children!
How can it be compared to the decadent city? Lionel isn't a philandering charlatan like An Honest Parisian!
Huysmans and I invited him to 'Caesar's Summer Palace,' but he wouldn't go…"
Flaubert, beside him, quickly coughed, interrupting Maupassant's unrestrained speech: "Guy, Lionel is your friend, and also a promising young man…
This is a good opportunity to speak up for your friend Lionel, and also for yourself."
Maupassant instantly understood his teacher's meaning; whether it was Le Figaro, Le Petit Parisien, or La République, their influence was top-notch.
This was simply a golden opportunity for fame!
He nodded quickly: "I'll go find Huysmans and Paul right away."
With that, he hurriedly left his teacher's house, even forgetting to ask about his play.
— — — —
Jules Claretie sat in his office, also holding a copy of Le Figaro.
He reread his article several times, finally revealing a confident smile—Lionel's despicable polemical tricks, after his own contemplation, were now all incorporated into it.
What raising the issue, changing concepts, moral attacks… As a first-rate Parisian commentator, his learning ability was still very strong.
Just as he was feeling pleased, Editor-in-Chief La Motte's assistant arrived: "Mr. Armand de La Motte requests your presence in his office."
Claretie's spirits lifted. He stood up, tidied his clothes and hair, and followed the assistant through Le Figaro's vintage corridor to the door of Armand de La Motte's editor-in-chief office.
After the assistant knocked, a heavy voice from inside said: "Come in."
Claretie then pushed the door open and walked in.
He saw that the atmosphere in the large editor-in-chief's office was solemn. Opposite Editor-in-Chief La Motte sat a figure in a dark blue army uniform with long gold tassels on the epaulets, his back to Claretie.