Books

Mostly Cloudy with Showers 15° London Hi 15°C / Lo 8°C

Are these taboo-breaking novels art or porn?

Publishers love it when women talk dirty, as the success of Charlotte Roche's sexually explicit novel 'Wetlands' once more shows. Danuta Kean lifts the covers on a dubious genre

Libidinous literature: Billie Pipe in the TV adaptation of Adventures of a London Call Girl

Rex Features

Libidinous literature: Billie Pipe in the TV adaptation of Adventures of a London Call Girl

Years ago, I heard a story about a group of publishers asked to recommend books for translation. The criteria were that they should be well-written, have literary merit, be commercially viable and have been recently published. One book divided the judges: a novel written from the point of view of a sex-abuse victim who enjoyed her abuse. The women thought it badly written and disgusting. The men thought it ground-breaking and provocative: its explicit content and taboo-breaking perspective were enough to give it "literary cachet". When it comes to sex, the usual rules for judging good literature need not apply.

I recalled the story while reading German author Charlotte Roche's much-hyped Wetlands, a novel that has been hailed by Granta as the modern equivalent of J D Salinger's The Catcher In The Rye, J G Ballard's Crash and Germaine Greer's The Female Eunuch. Wetlands (translated by Tom Mohr; Fourth Estate, £12.99) tells the story of Helen Memel, 18, who is recovering from invasive surgery on her piles. She regales readers with intimate details about her anal sphincter (you will never look at a cauliflower in the same way again), bodily fluids, shaving and general sex life.

Every orifice is explored, every fluid tasted, leaked or smeared. Her fingers seem rarely out of her knickers. Dirty toilet seats are rubbed against, avocado seeds pumped out of her vagina like Thai ping-pong balls and her labia (or "ladyfingers" as Helen tweely calls them) stretched in a way guaranteed to make women want to cross their legs. More The Story of Ugh than The Story of O, Helen's dirt-dodging explains why she has few friends, though no such easy explanation is given for her obsession with sex and fetishisation of filth. Roche feebly indicates that Helen is sex-obsessed because she is lonely, her parents divorced and her mother fixated on hygiene. Even ground-breaking feminists cannot escape the cliché of blaming mummy.

In publishing, where there's muck there's brass. Robust declarations that match literary aspirations with taboo-breaking feminism are a tried-and-tested publicity ploy. It worked for French intellectual Cathérine Millet's The Sexual Life of Catherine M, Italian teenager Melissa P's 100 Strokes of the Brush Before Bed, and even the home-grown Belle de Jour's Intimate Adventures of a London Call Girl.

Marrying the book to female emancipation also takes these titles out of the erotica sections and into the respectable front at WH Smith and Waterstone's, as Millet's British paperback publisher Patrick Janson-Smith, now at HarperCollins, explains: "The people walking into shops to buy a book like Catherine M feel a bit less concerned about being seen buying an explicit book if it has literary cachet."

The success in their native markets is part of the blag. It adds a gloss of sophistication, even exoticism. "There is a literary cachet given to foreign works translated into English. It's just another form of literary snobbery," says erotica author Mitzi Szereto. Szereto, who edited The New Black Lace Book of Women's Sexual Fantasies, adds that "Had Wetlands been written by Tracy in Romford, I doubt anyone would have taken it seriously as a work of literature." I detect something seedier behind the hype. Consciously or subconsciously, it perpetuates stereotypes of Continental European women once promulgated by 1970s porn. They may be clever, these Italian, German and French girls, but oh Miss Jones, they ain't half dirty bitches.

Many women publishers agree, though few will do so openly for fear of ridicule. "All the normal rules of publishing go out of the window when it comes to sex, it can be a badly written book, with poor characterisation, but it will be regarded as literary because it is obscene," says one leading editor. "What is depressing for many female publishers is that the current atmosphere of gender politics has taken away our right to say 'I don't like this', because if you do, you are immediately labelled PC or lacking intellectual depth."

Her objections will not worry Fourth Estate, part of Rupert Murdoch's HarperCollins book-publishing empire. It looks to have hit pay dirt with Wetlands. A media sensation when it became the most talked-about book at last year's London Book Fair, Wetlands has already topped the German bestseller list, selling almost 700,000 – mainly to women. The hype has since reached across the world and turned Roche into a global literary sensation.

But Roche is adamant that she wrote the book with a feminist agenda in mind. "The first thing I wanted to do was write a really honest book about the female body, especially all the taboos, and everything we think is embarrassing about ourselves," she says. Helen is a heroine of our times, she maintains; open, honest and flawed. She is not a role model but a celebration of "real women".

The danger with having a manifesto driving a character is that, instead of a girl with a one-track mind, the lead character is reduced into a one-track girl. What may start out as a strong voice becomes monotone.

Helen knows how to talk dirty but lacks emotional leverage. She is not helped by coy references to women's bits, such as "pearl trunk" for clitoris. Maybe they work better in the original German.

Helen's motivation is just one of many black holes through which Roche's readers are apt to fall, if they haven't given up after being plunged into what she acknowledges with glee as the first of many "disgusting bits" in chapter one. Helen's sexual activities, which occupy almost every page, are described with the mechanistic detail of a car manual.

As with all porn, the relentless repetition of sex act after sex act leaves little room for character development. Helen becomes as objectified as the women paraded in the pages of Readers' Wives.

Claims that Roche is challenging notions of female sexual expression are undermined by Helen's age: she is yet another barely legal girl "discovering herself". Yes, her addiction to her secretions is different, but shown through the filter of an almost sociopathic sexual obsession. It reads like something from Alastair Campbell's youthful stories in Forum. To claim that the sexual confessions of a nubile girl are a breakthrough for women is disingenuous. This has been the currency of erotic fiction since The Story of O, never mind porno in print and film.

Evidently, this appears to be a sore point. Roche robustly rejects accusations that she is pandering to male fantasies. She chose a teenage cipher for her manifesto because "it is such a magical age". Her claims are undermined by the fact that she seems to appreciate male feedback more than female about the book. She boasts that men tell her "all the time" that they were turned on by her book. On the other hand, women "wouldn't dare to say that it turned them on". When I point out that maybe they aren't being coy, but just didn't find it arousing, she seems flustered.

Instead, Roche talks about female masturbation, the gist being that women either don't do it or only do it for men. They certainly don't talk about it in Roche's universe– a point that seems, in Britain at least, at odds with countless magazine articles for women, whole episodes of Sex and the City and record sales of the Rampant Rabbit. Again, when I point this out she seems lost. Sex and the City is a fantasy, she says. But isn't Wetlands fantasy? "Yeah, but that is for me sitting there thinking of these things, being really creative and individual," she says enigmatically.

It is this kind of logic, underpinned by a book relentless in its detail and joyless in its treatment of female sexual appetites, that undermines Roche's intellectual claims. As with so many literary sex objects before her, Helen's rapacious sex drive comes from a place of pain and not passion. In the end, Wetlands reads like any other wank mag. It is a point that Roche does not entirely dispute.

"When I started off, I was always sitting in German TV shows saying: 'This is a book for wanking, for men and women.'" She says this with such dramatic relish, like someone being really naughty in front of the camera, that it makes me realise why her status in Germany is likened to that of Davina McColl. She could be egging on the crowd outside the Big Brother house.

Her failure to convince me will not stop some believing that Wetlands is on a par with the best taboo-breaking novels. This is a Marmite book, one that you either love or loathe. Within publishing, women seem to hate it and men think it is ground-breaking. That shows some things don't change.

Lennie Goodings, editorial director of Virago, and not one to balk at strong content, hates it. "It isn't feminism. It's just shocking," she says. "I don't see why they have to wrap it up in feminism." Over at Canongate, the hugely respected editor Francis Bickmore loves it – though he admits he only read a few pages when it came up for auction.

"I think it is courageous of Fourth Estate to take on this book on," he says. "I think Charlotte Roche is writing Punk Feminism. She is about shocking people. It is porn, but it is also about throwing the cat among the pigeons."

And the avocado seeds and the shaving brush and the haemorrhoids.

Sex, scandal - and success

Anaïs Nin

Delta of Venus, Little Birds

Known primarily for her diaries, which she began writing when she was 11 years old, Anaïs Nin is maybe best remembered as a writer of erotic fiction from a woman's perspective. Writing in the 1940s for an anonymous collector, she produced two collections of stories: 'Delta of Venus' and 'Little Birds'. In her journals she refers to bisexuality and an incestuous relationship with her father. Her lovers included Henry Miller and Gore Vidal, and when she died in 1977 she was discovered to have had a 'husband' on each coast of the USA.

Erica Jong

Fear of Flying

Jong's 1973 novel 'Fear of Flying' coined the term 'zipless fuck' and inspired a generation of women who felt as stuck as its sexual adventuress narrator, Isadora, in their marriages. She denies that the book is autobiographical but admits that elements of it are modelled on her own life. Jong's daughter, Molly Jong-Fast, herself a novelist, says that as a child she was horrified by her mother's 'dirty books'. Last October, New York- born Jong admitted that her fear that Barack Obama would not win the US election had developed into an "obsession. A paralyzing terror."

Cathérine Millet

The Sexual Life Of Catherine M

Until 2001, Cathérine Millet was just a middle-aged Parisian critic, curator and editor who ran a well-regarded journal, Art Press. Then, looking back from a monogamous present on a promiscuous past, she published a graphic confessional account of her many – often anonymous – sexual encounters: "To fuck above and beyond any sense of disgust was... to raise yourself above all prejudice". Her memoir caused as big a stir here as in France. Last year, she followed up with a book about jealousy, 'Jour de Suffrance'.

Melissa P

100 Strokes Of The Brush Before Bed

A 17-year-old in the small Sicilian town of Aci Castello, in 2003 Melissa Panarello published 'One Hundred Strokes of the Brush Before Bed': an erotic novel, supposedly based on her own experiences, but packaged in the form of a diary. The scandalous story of "Melissa P" quickly sold half a million copies in Italy was translated into 30 languages. Since then, she has moved to Rome and published two further novels, neither of which made the same size of splash: 'The Smell of Your Breath' and 'In the Name of Love'.

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

wetlands
[info]3ladylazarus wrote:
Friday, 23 January 2009 at 09:48 am (UTC)
Excellent piece! Joyless, graphically detailed porn like this has nothing to do with feminsim or women's sexuality, and everything to do with grubby, silly people thinking they are clever to buy a bit of posh porn. Every one of these novels, from Wetland to Story of O is horrible and read only by dumb, pretentious people trying to get their rocks off. Read Fanny Hill instead.
Re: wetlands
[info]andrea_2 wrote:
Friday, 23 January 2009 at 10:42 am (UTC)
3ladylazyrus, you say: 'Every one of these novels, from Wetlands to The story of O is horrible and only read by dumb, pretentious people'

But in order to criticize these novels you must have read them yourself. (Surely you wouldn't criticize something you haven't read) So are you saying that you are 'dumb and pretentious'? Or are you saying that you are different from the books' other readers?

When you use abuse: ie nasty names, to condemn people for doing something you don't want them to do, then you are trying to censor and control their actions.

People who read are never dumb or pretentious. They have the right to read whatever they chose without being abused.

And by the way, I have read Fanny Hill.
sex sells
[info]smarttog wrote:
Friday, 23 January 2009 at 10:37 am (UTC)
As one of the most basic human instincts sex will always facinate men and women alike.

The unfortunate thing is that the depiction of sexual activity at it's coursest level demeans both men and women and results in a coresponding lack of respect by both sexes. Some activities are best left to ones private space.

The question of porn or art can only really be decided by peer review because it is we in society whom set our social standards.
[info]dogsolitude_v2 wrote:
Friday, 23 January 2009 at 10:38 am (UTC)
I can't help thinking that people who buy the tomes described here are endeavouring to fill a perfectly natural need, yet on some level are ashamed of erotica.

Why not just admit you want something porny to make you horny, instead of buying essentially the same stuff under a sort of semantic 'plain brown wrapper'? Does anyone recall the Taschen art-photography books a few years ago, designed for people too scared to buy Private?
The ground shifts yet again
[info]poncho_p wrote:
Friday, 23 January 2009 at 11:45 am (UTC)
It seems this "fine line" between porn and so called taboo braking is ever shifting. Is this really an evolution of society, or just the attrition of moral standards? If in fact we were to consider the former argument, I cannot invisage what will be acceptable in 30 or 50 years... stories of people engaging in bestiality, sadomasochism or necrophilia will perhaps be the taboo breaking novels on the shelves and in TV adaptations by 2065.

This is just our lame (and successful) attempt to push the moral bar in our own mind and cosciousness. If it is now published, if it is now mainstream, then it's ok.
Re: The ground shifts yet again
[info]sara_sense wrote:
Friday, 23 January 2009 at 12:47 pm (UTC)
I agree - it hard to know...

What makes me wonder is that most people would read one of these sorts of novels (especially the one about the abuser liking the abuse...) as a raw interpretation of events, or an insight in to the human phsyche, but there may be the minority who would use that as justification for actions they may take. If one person in the world is abused because literature like this (of this genre anyway) seems to condone it, or even bring it into the spotlight, then it is a disgrace, in my eyes.

On the subject of this book, it is a shame when authors set a trap by giving it a 'nu-feminist' agenda, ofr example, which creates the trap of 'love it or be seen as a prude'. I consider myself a liberal person and definitely not a prude, but it's ok not to like a book because it's crap - thats's fair enough!
Re: The ground shifts yet again
[info]andrea_2 wrote:
Friday, 23 January 2009 at 02:52 pm (UTC)
The book about the abused liking the abuse is The Story Of O. There is a follow up novel whose title I can't recall but I have read them both, years ago, and it didn't turn me into an abuser or even come close to making me think that any kind of abuse was okay. It's a fantasy novel. It was written by a woman who had been asked to express a sexual fantasy. And that was it.

It is no more corrupting to its readers than violent films are to their watchers. Yes, there is always going to be a tiny minority of people who are going to be negatively influenced by what they see on the TV, or at the cinema, or in a computer game. But those people are already disturbed. So are we going t stop making any kind of violent film in case it might adversely effect someone? Are we going to censor certain kinds of books for the same reason? Try remembering that the Marquis De Sade was not influenced by any of the above. Such deviant thoughts are always, and have always been with us.

I haven't read Wetlands and have no plans to. But I don't see what the problem is. Try reading The Painted Garden, if you want to get an idea of female sexuality. It is written entirely by women expressing there most secret sexual fantasies. That's because, for 99% of people, fantasy is a safe place to be.

I think if you read The Story Of O, you wouldn't see it is a 'raw interpretation of events' but a just a strange, other world, that is clearly not part of anyone's reality.
Re: The ground shifts yet again
[info]sara_sense wrote:
Friday, 23 January 2009 at 03:19 pm (UTC)
Hi Andrea, I wasn't implying that those sort of novels turn people into abusers, the same way that violent films don't turn people violent. But some people do have violent tendencies and I worry about how breaking down all the taboos could be seen (to someone looking for excuses) as condoning it.

I was just musing really as I haven't read The Story of O or Wetlands so can't really comment on specifics.
Re: The ground shifts yet again
[info]andrea_2 wrote:
Friday, 23 January 2009 at 03:37 pm (UTC)
Erotic literature goes back to the days of the
Ancient Egyptians. I'm not saying that Wetlands is erotic because I haven't read it. And I'd never try and judge a book I hadn't read.

Erotica is a well established genre, and like any other genre, it has its good and bad authors and novels.

Fanny Hill was written in the 1700's and is considered by many to be the first Erotic novel.
It was certainly banned when first published. But are we going to go back to the days when James Joyce's Ulysees was given out from under the counter in plain brown paper?
Or where women were banned from the court when the details of Lady Chatterley's Lover was read out?

I sometimes wonder why, in 2009, we still have these discussions. There is definetly the air of the New Puritan about. (I'm not accusing you, Sara, of being a Puritan, just noting that they're on the rise)

Re: The ground shifts yet again
[info]sara_sense wrote:
Friday, 23 January 2009 at 04:21 pm (UTC)
I realise that erotic literature dates back to the Egyptians, sex is hardly a new phenomenon!

I'm not sure about puritans on the rise, don't really know any, but children today, for example are subjected to su much. I was just reading an article on the Indy yest. abouut Britney Spears' new song 'If you seek Amy' and someone in the article had complained because she heard her five year old singing 'F-U-C-K me'... I'm not at all suggesting any sort of legal censorship, but I sometimes wonder where has the moral censorship gone? Because the taboo has been completely and utterly removed when it comes to talking about sex, a young generation of school children are bombarded with words and pictures. Some of it awful. I have a 14 year old sister and even since I was her age (10 years ago) I'm surprised at how 'open' they are with their language. I only hope that they don't know what some of the words they use mean!

I suppose, to summarise my point and generalise (so you don't accuse me of judging books I haven't read :p), I wonder how we can be open and unrestricted while protecting the young/vulnerable at the same time?
Re: The ground shifts yet again
[info]andrea_2 wrote:
Friday, 23 January 2009 at 05:02 pm (UTC)
Sara, I wasn't accusing you of judging books you've not read, and if it came across that way I'm sorry. It wasn't meant to.

In the nineteen seventies, when I was in my early teens, none of us could wait to get our hands on the Skin Head andHells Angels books that abounded at the time. Because they were explicitand like all adolescents we wanted to read all the gory details.

Nothing has changed. Teenagers will line up to have a look at Wetlands. What harm is it going to do them? Any more harm than reading Lady Chatterly's Lover?

It doesn't matter how much we try to protect our children it is almost impossible. The first time mine heard the word fuck was in the playground. What could I do? Give them earplugs?

Sorry to have offended you.

Re: The ground shifts yet again
[info]sara_sense wrote:
Friday, 23 January 2009 at 05:27 pm (UTC)
Hi Andrea, I was half joking about the being accused of judging books comment, I did a little 'cheeky face' but I know it's hard to get tone of voice across in written comment! Plus, I haven't actually read the book!!

I know what you mean about young people wanting to explore the darker side of life, it is natural, but every time the boundaries are pushed (at the same time as someone wanting to be individual, as the writer of wetlands has said) it becomes further displaced from 'the norm' which, don't get me wrong, in consenting adults is neither here nor there; each to their own and all that. For impressionable children, sometimes younger than teens, when does 'What can you do?' change to 'Enough is enough'. Especially if it's forced on them in one of the many medium contantly on these days: TV, adverts, bill-boards, radios...etc
Re: The ground shifts yet again
[info]andrea_2 wrote:
Saturday, 24 January 2009 at 09:50 am (UTC)
I think parents have to decide when 'enough is enough'. It is their job and their responsibility to protect their children from unsuitable material of all kinds.

Teenagers are something else altogether. It always strikes me as odd, that they can legally have sex at sixteen, but are not allowed to watch an 'x' rated film until they are eighteen. There is a great deal of inconsistency in the law when deciding what they are mature and not mature enough to do.

They will always access unsuitable material. I know I did and today they have the internet, which we didn't have. For as long as there have been magazines like Playboy, parents have been finding them under their teenage son's beds.

In a way it is irrelevant if Wetlands is porn or art. It is an adult book written for adults and adults have the right to read what they like.

There are a plethora of unsuitable books out there for children, not only sex, but horror. Parents have to be vigilant.

But ulimately I am more afraid of those that would censor,than of any book I have ever read.
[info]grievous_angel wrote:
Friday, 23 January 2009 at 02:38 pm (UTC)
9 times out of 10 these books are just plain boring. There's nothing worse, to me, than reading explicit sex. We all know what the mechanics are: why do we want to read about them? It's far more erotic to have the bedroom door close mysteriously than reading about what goes on. Surely I can't be the only person who tends to flick through any sex scene I happen upon in a book.
[info]vreedenhoop wrote:
Saturday, 24 January 2009 at 12:08 pm (UTC)
No, you're not. I no more care to read of the sexual antics of characters in a novel, than I care to watch a close friends having sex.
Actually, the tension is far greater when they DON'T have sex.
Look at the endurability of books such as Jane Eyre, Pride and Prejudice, and Emma. They would lose half of their power if the chaarcters had sex.
And criticizing a social phenomenon is not the same as censoring.
The Story of Ugh
[info]playethics wrote:
Saturday, 24 January 2009 at 12:15 am (UTC)
Love the line 'More The Story of Ugh than The Story of O'!

I'm all for trying to break some of the double standards out there to do with women and sex. That they still exist so much, in spite of the Cosmo covers and Sex and the City torrents, is frequently discouraging and disheartening.

The hunger for freedom from social stigma about our libidos, fluids and kinks (and you bet masturbation - puzzling about the women in Germany) means when there is a rare feast, we eat ravenously.

Book sales for the heaviest smut might go down when we are more accepted for who we are rather than who we are supposed to be... when women's sexual appetites and sexual behaviours receive no more judgement or disapproval than men's.

Until then, move the erotica to the front of the store.
Writer's gender?
[info]playethics wrote:
Saturday, 24 January 2009 at 12:27 am (UTC)
PS - Strange no byline?
I'm just curious whether this story was written by a male or female.
Re: Writer's gender?
[info]vreedenhoop wrote:
Saturday, 24 January 2009 at 12:11 pm (UTC)
The article had a byline in the print version. It is by Danuta Kean, who often writes brilliant articles on literary themes. I don't know why the byline was left out here.
Charlotte Roche
[info]graham_nrw wrote:
Saturday, 24 January 2009 at 06:02 am (UTC)
Charlotte Roche is English. She lives in Germany. She became known as a presenter of pop music TV programmes.
She has suffered many personal tragedies over the years - including the loss of her brothers in a car crash - as they were travelling to her wedding - which was subsequently postponed
Erotica
[info]jcalverttoulmin wrote:
Saturday, 24 January 2009 at 09:53 am (UTC)
> Every one of these novels, from Wetland to Story of O is horrible and read only by dumb, pretentious people trying to get their rocks off. Read Fanny Hill instead.

Well, speaking as an author and a publisher of an erotic novel which is attracting wildly enthusiastic feedback from many of its readers, I have to disagree with you.

Firstly, there is nothing inherently bad about wanting to "get your rocks off". Sex is pleasurable. That's like pointing at diners in a restaurant and sneering that they're all trying to "scoff their faces." Well...er...quite.

You're entitled to your opinion about erotica, of course. However Fanny Hill, although a superbly written book, was written whilst the author, John Cleland, was in jail and sold in sections purely to earn John some much needed money. It was well written, but essentially no different to the other sex books written by men which propagate the myth that prostitutes enjoy being used for sex. I believe that the vast majority of women do not enjoy being used for sex, but of course in patriarchal societies, the prostitute is condemned as being, not only a criminal, but also a 'dirty ho', whereas the user of the prostitute is celebrated as an innocent jack the lad.

I can't comment on Wetlands as I haven't read it, but every controversial book ever written (including the best selling book of all time, The Bible) will elicit the same reaction. Some people will love it, some people will hate it, some people will think the author is a demi-god, some will denounce the author as some kind of anti-christ, most will remain completely indifferent. If a book brings pleasure to some people, it has merit.

In terms of my own erotic novel, Mother-in-Law, Son-in-Law, I wanted to write an erotic novel which made people feel good, which made them laugh, which made them aroused, and which reassured those many people out there who harbour secret fantasies about their mothers-in-law or sons-in-law that they are not alone (I know they're out there, because at least 10 a day of them googling the keywords "mother in law son in law sex" have been inadvertently arriving on my art and music blog at judecalverttoulmin.com since 2007.)

You won't have heard of my novel yet because the official book launch isn't until 21st March in Sheffield, although it is attracting lots of comments on its amazon.co.uk page by dint of word of mouth publicity.

The bottom line is, not every book is going to please every reader. If you don't like it, put it down and read something else instead of going on the internet and slagging it off. Or go and write something better yourself. And then get it published. Mmmmn. Not quite as easy as being an armchair critic, eh? ;)

Whether you like Charlotte's book or not, the point is, that not only did she take the time and trouble to sit down, write it, and get it published, she also had the courage to be a woman writing about sex in a patriarchal society. That is praise-worthy in itself, and is not an endeavour for the faint-hearted. I understand that she has attracted all kinds of personal and vitriolic flak already. How tediously predictable. However it is her work on the bookshelfs, her money in her bank account earned from her writing. That says more than the voice of any poisonous critic.

Re: Erotica
[info]jcalverttoulmin wrote:
Saturday, 24 January 2009 at 10:37 am (UTC)
I just want to clarify that my reference to poisonous critics is aimed at the OP of this thread and not Danuta Kean. I just feel defensive when people go on forums and comment trails slagging off books they've never read in genres they don't like.

The article this comment trail relates to raises some interesting issues, and I am certainly against any woman donning feminism under which to hide work merely designed to titillate men and shock women, but I feel unable to comment further until I've read the book, which unfortunately won't be any time very soon as I have a pile of Hardy, Michael de Larrabeiti and Dostoevsky to get through which is going to take me until 2010.

Most popular

Article Archive

Day In a Page

Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat

Select date