I have had a lot of feelings about the “weird girl lit” trend, especially because a lot of books I really love get lumped into it.

I think surface level, it’s harmless. It’s a way for female readers and writers to signify to each other that this is a book that’s going to question or challenge social mores and show a woman doing some fucked up things, yet while her actions my not be justifiable there’s a “good for her” energy that tends to stem from women seeing other women at their breaking point. I think a lot of people want to read those books, and a lot of people enjoy them and the marketing helps them find it.

My biggest struggle comes with the broadness of the definition, and some of the titles that get included. Sayaka Murata is a frequent flier in the weird girl lists, and most of her books are about disabled women. Convenience Store Woman in particular is quite literally just about how an autistic woman struggled with the intense expectations of Japanese society. Why are we calling her a “weird girl?” What does it mean when that book is on a list next to Maeve Fly and Victorian Psycho which are about white women serial killers? Are we creating false equivalences that lessen the messaging of books on both sides?

This is why I personally do not use the term, I think it’s confusing, and generalizes where we don’t need to generalize. I prefer creating and seeking out lists about very specific topics within the weird girl genre. Women and Cannabalism, Women with strange sexual fixations, women who feel alienated by their reality, women at their breaking point. All of these are different types of “weird girl” books, and I think we’re all set up for better success and understanding when we specify what the themes and topics are rather than trying to make them all fit one broad definition ¯_(ツ)_/¯