The Daily Mail

4.3.3 The Daily Mail

The somewhat less highbrow yet conservative tabloid newspaper the Daily Mail also published a book review on Wetlands on 2^nd February 2009 with the title ‘Un-erotica? As another female writer publishes an explicit novel is this new feminism or a tawdry betrayal of women?’ written by Rowan Pelling. The tone of the title is very sensationalist, insinuating scepticism about whether or not the book truly is a feminist novel.

Similar to the graphic description of the novel in Chapter 3 of this thesis, Pelling describes the optical exterior of the novel as a “tasteful chick-lit cover that caught his attention in a book shop”. She somewhat ridicules the increase in women’s erotic literature in recent years, with book covers that “are designed for public transport and belie the contents. They're

invariably a pale sugar pink with a cute line drawing of a slim girl's body in tasteful, girlie lingerie – very Carrie Bradshaw” (Pelling, 2009, paras 1 & 2).

Pelling has her doubts about whether Wetlands can really be seen as a literary work that liberates women or if it is just vulgar and attention-seeking. Furthermore, she does not agree that the explicit content is revolutionary in any sense.

This may well be a revolutionary idea in Germany, where Roche lives, but in Britain anybody who sees drunken young women on the pull in city centres knows that, for that generation, feminine mystique is already well-nigh extinct. (Pelling, 2009, para. 11)

Her tone is very ‘laddish’ and somewhat dismissive of women. In recent years for some Brits, who often belong to the demographic that the Daily Mail seeks to attract, it has become customary for people to go out, get drunk and go ‘on the pull’, which means finding someone to engage in casual sexual relations with. Pelling dismisses the book as being a feminist manifesto fighting for women’s sexual freedoms, a cause that she would happily support, by arguing that it is, in fact, just a gross novel looking for the shock factor.

Pelling further criticises contemporary popular culture, which objectifies and puts pressure on men and women to “behave as if they're hot, horny and 'up for it', twenty-four seven” (Pelling, 2009, para. 54). She admits that she did not “lose my [her] virginity until I [she] was 20, but today's young women are being pressured to think that anything less than hooker-style knowledge of multiple partners and outré sexual positions is abnormal” (Pelling, 2009, para. 55). She criticises the depressing 'raunch culture' identified by US feminist Ariel Levy, and doubts that “promiscuity suits more than a very small handful of women. The boring

truth is that most women prefer sex when their emotions are deeply engaged as part of a proper, involved relationship” (Pelling, 2009, para. 66).

Finally, Pelling concludes the article by saying: “There's nothing cutting-edge about women having a lot of sex, as the eloquent ladies of the Bloomsbury set could tell you. It is just rather sad and undignified if it's all you've got to say for yourself – or, indeed, to write about”.

What stands out is that Pelling did not really reflect or engage on the book. Instead, she jumped straight to a narrative that resonates with a typical Daily Mail reader. While some arguments such as the objectification and sexualisation of women in mainstream media does prove fruitful grounds for further discussion, she also mentions how men are objectified and made to suffer under the current overly sexualised climate. Her claim that women do not actually enjoy being promiscuous or having casual sexual relations is very dismissive and generalises women’s sexuality. Her sensationalist and ‘laddish’ tone seem to suggest that her main objective is to egg on the reader, who will most likely be male, with the aim of boosting the newspaper’s sales figures. Attempts at political intervention or framing the author are unlikely, as the content discussed is too narrow to be deemed politically motivated.

Overall, the analysis of British left-wing and more conservative online newspapers suggests that in most cases, they were indeed used as sites of political intervention. Except for the Daily Mail, I believe the main purpose of each article was merely to appeal to its readership as no convincing political or commercial function was evident in the material studied.

However, the articles in The Guardian and The Times newspapers pointed to a politically and commercially motivated function using the authorial image to promote these goals.

4.3.4 Amazon

Compared to the German Amazon site, which boasted more than 2000 book ratings and reviews, the British version only has 256 ratings. This is a strong indicator that Wetlands was not as popular and well-received in the UK as it was in Germany. Some of the very positive reviews included:

1. “This book is completely disgusting, and I thought it would be gratuitous but despite that I absolutely loved it. She managed to write a book quite unlike anything I had ever read before and I couldn't put it down” (written by Sera on 15^th June 2015).

2. “Often hilarious in its page by page obsession with bodily functions and plunging thereby almost into the areas of existential inescapability’s as Sartre did with his reference to dirty underpants, this book is fearless and brilliant [and gave me a fascination with the author]”

(written by anonymous on 4^th December 2013).

Negative reviews described Wetlands as lacking ‘substance’:

On 29th July 2014, Sarah S. wrote:

I bought this as I was quite frankly intrigued by all the talk! It is as described: disgusting.

And if you can get past that, it's actually got very little substance to it! I found it rather boring and lacking an actual purpose and storyline. I gave up after a bit and went back to it just so I could finish the damn thing and say I'd read it! In my opinion it just wants to shock and when you take away all of that it leaves very little for the reader to get involved in.

Another user named One Star wrote on 17^th September 2016: “This book is awful and tries too hard to be shocking and is just lewd in the process.”

Again, the reviews are very mixed and confirm that it is a literary work that polarises.

Furthermore, the mixed responses to Wetlands show that people have differing views when it comes to feminist ideas. Despite the Western world being credited for being the most progressive when it comes to the liberation of women’s sexuality, the varying reviews on the book seem to suggest that the situation might not be as ideal as previously thought and that there is a huge discrepancy between what different women perceive as sexual liberation. This problem is definitely reflected in the various data analysed.

Despite Wetlands landing on the British bestseller charts (Fuchs, 2012), the proportionately lower number of UK reviews of the book seem to suggest that it was not nearly as successful and well received in British society as in Germany. This could be due to differing norms and values regarding nudity and women’s sexuality, thus making this paratextual research paramount in determining the ideologies and norms circulating in target contexts;

however, this approach would require further sociological study.

Another explanation could be the framing of the authorial image in epitextual material and the fact that Roche was not a well-known celebrity in the UK prior to the book’s publication, which would support the argument that the authorial image is vital in the commercial promotion of books.