Die Welt

Germany’s Die Welt is considered a conservative middle-class newspaper. Similar to Der Spiegel magazine, Die Welt published a review of Roche’s Wetlands in February shortly after the novel’s publication, followed by another review article two months later in April 2008.

The first article published on the 15^th February 2008, is titled ‘Charlotte Roche verirrt sich im Feuchtgebiet’ [‘Charlotte is lost in the Wetland’]. Before readers can start reading said article, they are confronted with a close-up photo of Charlotte Roche at the very top followed by a brief description of the plot and the author underneath. In the sentences, the identity of Roche is discussed and emphasised twice. The content of the story is summarised in one sentence informing the reader that the book evolves around anal fissures and the physical exploration of disgusting body parts. It is also mentioned that Roche used to be a renowned television presenter for the German music channel VIVA.

The official beginning of the review starts off by discussing German classical literary masters such as Theodor Fontane, Hubert Fichte and Sybille Berg, whose works were deemed provocative and taboo-breaking at the time. However, Moritz (2008) claims that after reading Roche’s Wetlands, there are no literary taboos left that one could possibly break.²⁴

The introduction and Roche’s comparison to famous German literary authors could be deemed as representative of a typical Die Welt reader. A middle-class German will have probably read the suggested works mentioned and subsequently, Roche is likened to the likes

24 “scheint es kaum noch möglich, neue Felder des unschönen und Unerlaubten aufzutun”.

of Theodor Fontane, insinuating that Wetlands is a literary masterpiece that a well-educated middle-class German cannot afford to miss.

In the second paragraph, before Moritz talks the reader through the plot of Wetlands, he alludes to Roche’s genius by reminding the reader of the fact that Roche was awarded the Grimme Award, one of the most prestigious awards for German television, during her career as a television presenter. Moritz does not fail to mention that he thinks Roche was more than deserving of said award, indicating his support of Roche.

Through Moritz’s funny, humorous and at times sombre writing style, the reader is familiarised with the somewhat grotesque and unusual nature of the novel. Moritz abstains from ridiculing or solely focussing on the seemingly out-of-the-ordinary and sexualised content, explaining that Wetlands is a profound book that seeks to bring issues like divorce and dysfunctional families to the forefront, pointing to a section in the book where Helen alludes to her mother’s attempted suicide in her childhood. While many reviews resorted to ridiculing the perceived vulgar and peculiar plot of Wetlands, it seems that Moritz credits the book with more gravitas.

Despite an overall positive book review and depiction of the author, Moritz does maintain that Wetlands is not a masterpiece linguistically and posits that writing a taboo-breaking book is by no means a guarantee of success.²⁵ His depiction of the novel is reflective of his own interpretation, namely that it is both highly entertaining and food for thought. The various references to Roche’s previous career success confirm her celebrity status in German

society and suggest that Die Welt newspaper deemed Roche’s status as the best strategy for catching the readers’ attention and promoting the book. The allusions to German literary works and the fact that Wetlands is credited as having profound content, could be seen as a promotional strategy catering to a more conservative and middle-class German reader. Moritz’s critique of Roche’s linguistic style could be seen as an attempt to persuade readers of his ability to critique literary works in an objective manner.

Only two months after the publication of the first review of Wetlands in Die Welt newspaper, another review was published titled: ‘Die Besteller Methoden der Charlotte Roche’

[‘The bestseller methods of Charlotte Roche’] written by journalist Hendrik Werner (2008).

Interestingly enough, the second review boasts a somewhat different tone when referring to Roche and her novel. The tone Werner used is very critical and poses a rhetorical question asking whether this supposedly taboo-breaking book is actually that ground-breaking after all.²⁶

Indeed, Werner posits that the novel is not unprecedented at all and that it merely refers to sexual taboos as a marketing strategy to gain attention. He likens Roche to authors such as Swiss experimental writer Urs Allemann who sparked a lot of controversy with his 1991 book Babyficker [Babyfucker] and French author Catherine Millet, whose work La vie sexuelle de Catherine M. [The sexual life of Catherine M.] provides an intimate account of a woman’s sexual preference for group sex. As Allemann’s book title suggests, Babyfucker is an account by a man written in the first person, who admits to being a paedophile and who describes the act of ‘deflowering a child’. The book caused one of the biggest literary scandals in the

post-26„Hatten wir das nicht alles längst schon? Bis zur Ekel-, bis zur Schmerzgrenze, bis zum Überdruss? Ist das nicht alles schon mal da gewesen in der jüngeren europäischen Literaturgeschichte?“

1945 literary world and won Allemann a Swiss literary prize, for which the literary committee came under a lot of scrutiny. Since Allemann’s book starts with the sentence “I fuck babies!”

[“Ich ficke Babys!”], it can be assumed that journalist Werner deems it apt to draw a comparison between Roche and Allemann, whose novel starts with the sentence: “As far back as I can remember, I’ve had haemorrhoids” [“Solange ich denken kann, habe ich Haemorrhoiden”].

Drawing these two comparisons can be seen as a strategic move by Werner. While the comparison to Catherine Millet could give a reader an idea of what Roche’s book is about, the comparison to Allemann’s Babyfucker can be seen as hyperbolical and in some ways, a vicious attempt to smear Roche’s image. According to Werner, Wetlands lacks a defined purpose and it is not clear what goal Roche is trying to achieve. Furthermore, he condemns the book, calling it a calculated attempt that strategically seeks to shock and increase media polemic by employing controversial and sexually explicit content.²⁷

Werner’s criticism seems somewhat harsh and does not really align with the message conveyed in the Die Welt’s previous review. The sudden change of tone adopted in Die Welt newspaper, could be an indicator that the book was not well received and sparked a lot of controversy amongst the German social demographic that Die Welt seeks to represent and subsequently, the newspaper felt pressure to change its tenor. While this assumption is highly speculative, it could help account for the newspaper’s change of heart towards Wetlands and Roche. What stands out is the seemingly strategic smearing of Roche’s authorial image, an indicator further backing up Summer’s argument (2013) that the author function is vital in the success of a literary work. Werner’s comparison to Swiss writer Allemann, who published a

novel about a man with paedophilic tendencies can be seen as a vicious attempt to discredit Roche and her moral integrity.