As I said, marketing.
As I said, marketing.
It also apparently had enough clout to get an HBO / RAI TV series produced out of it, which will possibly up the recognition factor for her name and her works considerably depending on the success.
This is not super super stardom level (the top living novelists have sold half a billion novels -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_fiction_a...) but that's still an impressive number, I would say it is within the top tier.
(A fun comparison to another HBO show: When Game of Thrones started, A Song of Ice and Fire had sold 15 million copies worldwide -- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=A_Song_of_Ice_and... . In a similar ballpark, in other words.)
Now when I saw the heavy handedness of my comment's downvoting, I was surprised. Having further looked into this, I now find the root of the rot of modern discourse: the censorship of gender politics. So I stand by all my comments in this thread and I consider your well reasoned market analysis entirely immaterial to this discussion.
Look, I think you're seeing things that aren't there. Your first comment probably got downvoted because it's wrong - you claimed it's "only marketing", but apparently there are good reasons to think she really is superstardom-level popular (or close to it, at least, for an author that is).
Your further comments seem to keep attributing the downvoting to "the censorship of gender politics". But seriously, you are the only one bringing gender politics into this! Like I said I haven't read her books, she wasn't described to me as some #metoo movement hero or anything. Maybe she is and maybe she isn't, but that probably has nothing to do with why you were downvoted!
Stop seeing demons that aren't there.