navigating the literary it girl trappings

is there room for more?

following a year of attention, 2024 saw the girls fighting. it was girl’s girls vs pick-mes everywhere, even amongst the intellectual corners of the internet.

the conversation began in october 2023 when sophia june coined “literary it girls” for NYLON’s it girl issue. sophia recognized a type of woman who challenged traditional media and publishing practices through eccentric book promotions, such as claudia dey and rachel rabbit white making perfumes, nada alic creating a series of “book trailers,” and allie rowbottom providing pay-by-donation botox at her novel launch party. to sophia, they’re literary it girls: “savvy writers who are redefining what it means to market a book — and in doing so, tackling the challenges of self-presentation that every artist faces.” however, the internet saw the term literary it girl and ran with it, aestheticizing her into a Hot Bookish Girl with an even richer inner life to write about.

the internet is right to an extent. sophia later writes, “literary it girls may have the standard markers of what we think of when we think of an it girl: they’re beautiful, stylish, and social, with a certain je ne sais quoi.” she’s aware of our visual culture and uses it to her advantage, performing an aspirational idea of an Intelligent Cool Girl. however, sophia re-emphasizes within the same sentence that “what really makes them influential is the creative ways they stage and elevate their work — both on the page and in person.” it never was about her premeditated demeanor — although such is a key factor in the making of a literary it girl — but more so how she objects to standardized marketing plans and outsources her network of creative, possibly clouty, friends to grow an ardent readership through enjoyable, authentic pr. a method underground artists have been using for years, actually.

still, the literary it girl broke her way into twitter discourse before ultimately finding a home on substack notes. she was a feminist and an anti-feminist, the problem and the solution to publishing. then, last april, she crawled back into the spotlight when an associate editor at a big 5 tweeted, “Literary It Girls™ get ready,” along with a cover preview of lili anolik’s didion and babitz. she became clickbait for many publications and substacks. takedowns, dissections, praises, confessions. i kept up with the discussion privately, sharing essays with fellow girl writer friends, becoming more and more addicted to the gossip. we disclosed snarky comments and blunt takes, pretending to be above it all. i wanted my words to speak for themselves, for them to cultivate fans through talent rather than gimmick.

later, i’d go on instagram to post a selfie reading a la marc jacobs after smoothing out the idents on my face, evening out the redness that flares under, and chiseling out barely there shadows, hoping the image would allure readers to my blog filled with glossy sentences, rich with texture and bouncing with flair just like my hair. i’d go on tiktok to document my recent reads of cool girl-coded books featuring a popular sad girl song, hoping to land on the fyp of girls who read, convincing them to check out my blog since my writing must be Amazing based on my perfect taste. i did this all because it feels like the only way to make it as a writer — that to be noticed by publishers, editors, and other writers is to project a writer-influencer persona. as hard as i try to fight it, unfortunately, i am an aspiring literary it girl, which feels far worse than an established literary it girl.

literary it girls seem to have it all - the sponsorships by miu miu, the features in magazines, the bylines on cover stories, and the book deals at indie houses. it may not be mainstream success, although i often interpret it as such since i’m tapped into their niche online corners, yet i’m convinced even a slither of that would ease my depression and anxiety. at least the parts rooted in my unstable financial situation from being an offspring of a pregnant middle school dropout and a latino immigrant. people like me don't make it to nyc, let alone write for magazines and publish bestsellers, but perhaps with enough followers, it's possible. so i work a shitty part-time job to afford my white fridge, brown cabinet ridgewood apartment. i sometimes go to downtown parties in hopes of meeting someone who will be charmed enough by my sardonic personality and unconventional beauty to offer me a glamorous writing-adjacent job. but i'm still a nobody and too aloof to fawn for their approval, so we only interact through resting bitch face stare-downs and the shoving of shoulders as we pass by. any free time is dedicated to writing this blog and participating in unpaid internships. i try to cement myself as a needed employee at those but fail to do so by not socializing enough because i have to clock in elsewhere. and lets be honest, these magazines don’t make enough money to employ people anyway. so i'm left on my own, thinking of criticism apt for literary it girls, hoping in analyzing them, i become one. even blair waldorf dated dan humphrey, after all.

my thirst to become one is a natural symptom of our digital world colliding with the physical world, a lifeline built as social media became tools for self-commodifying. we’re generations who grew up alongside likes and follows transforming into social and physical capital. how can we chase anything else?

in status and culture: how our desire for social rank creates taste, identity, art, fashion, and constant change, american fashion and culture writer w. david marx states: “every community has a status hierarchy, with the famous, powerful, and esteemed at the top; the majority of people in the middle; and the unfortunate, disadvantaged, and despised at the bottom. our position in the hierarchy governs our daily experiences as individuals. if we have high status, things go well, people are nice to us, and we’re relatively happier. if we lack status, we grow bitter and depressed. sociological research demonstrates that our social position affects long-term well-being, motivates our behavior, and becomes a goal in its own right — and thus can be considered a fundamental human desire.”

therefore, it makes sense that literary it girl is a coveted identity for girlbloggers and thought daughters alike — a way for writers to quickly acquire high status online and off without abandoning their passion. this is simply part of the personal branding endeavor that has slipped into every crack and corner of our lives. there even appear to be two routes we can choose: an apolitical autofiction girly backed by bitcoin middle-aged men or a leftist-leaning personal essayist who’s fallen down the cultural criticism pipeline. overlap between the two often occurs, as the new york city literary scene (the girlies are always living in new york city btw) is a small community and working together only generates more visibility for all parties involved. yet the literary it girl has become a scapegoat for the hellscape media and publishing industries. girls we target our disdain towards as we continue to believe in the american myth of meritocracy.

however, their existence and eagerness to market themselves as part of their work have always been inevitable, especially as algorithms continue to create specialized echo chambers for users. the real concern should be how they reinforce their prestige, often keeping disadvantaged girls in their place. in some instances, literary it girls have become the new gatekeepers of alternative media spaces — despite containing many of the qualities needed for general fame — curating a specific cohort of similar girlies — who also contain many of the qualities needed for general fame — to uplift and collaborate within very transactional relationships. the connections may be authentic at first, a chance to cultivate community while developing ideas, offering feedback, and encouraging consistency during an otherwise isolated practice. nobody understands the sufferings of writing better than another writer. yet these friendships can quickly become superficial when the only shared interest is upward mobility. favored then abandoned. it’s always about who you know and there’s someone with more connections a few introductions away.

those who long to appear as morally good virtue signal as someone who wishes to dismantle these oppressive systems, but they don’t actively try to because if they did, their esteem would fall. as w. marx claims, “status is a relative ranking, so not everyone can simultaneously achieve a high position. status is zero-sum. for every person who goes up, someone must go down.” championing marginalized voices may backfire against the entire careers they’ve managed to build for themselves, so of course they choose to surround themselves with similar status individuals and only make space for those who have something enticing to offer. to maintain this status quo, they weaponize girl’s girl antics - that is the blind, infinite support of all women — as part of their strive for stratification and avoidance of criticism. if you disagree with their point, youre a misogynist. if you note that their work resembles one another, youre a misogynist. if you argue penning lists doesn’t amount to the same labor needed to write essays, you’re a misogynist. the worst thing a woman can be in this world.

this girl’s girl feminism is the tiktokification of second-wave feminism’s sisterhood theory, popularized by author and activist robin morgan. initially, the theory encouraged women to support one another to end sexism and point out the internalized misogyny within all women to eradicate the unconscious competition with one another based on our shared gendered oppression. but as bell hooks writes in her essay sisterhood: political solidarity between women, “sisterhood became yet another shield against reality, another support system. their version of sisterhood was informed by racist and classist assumptions about white womanhood, that the white 'lady' (that is to say bourgeois woman) should be protected from all that might upset or discomfort her and shielded from negative realities that might lead to confrontation. their version of sisterhood dictated that sisters were to 'unconditionally' love one another; that they were to avoid conflict and minimize disagreement; that they were not to criticize one another, especially in public. for a time these mandates created an illusion of unity...”

although noted in 1986, this same mindset prevails today as a girl’s girl becomes the ideal identity for righteous women everywhere. there are guides on how to be one, signs that prove you are one, and povs of being one. you dont gatekeep where you bought your clothes, the makeup you use, or the fragrance you wear when another girl compliments you. you no longer care if you’re just like other girls. you publicly like, comment, and agree on every post uploaded by girls. for the most part, these are all generally kind actions. however, this behavior becomes problematic when used as a form of social control — when hate trains are sent to anyone who does not behave in such manner under the pretense of being a good girl’s girl. as sam cummin shares on nymphet alumni’s hitchockian pop and quiet luxury woes episode, “girl’s girl mentality feels a little fascist-ic... like a fascist-ic impulse of control coming from women who exert a lot of their own control and power fantasies among friend groups a little bit... a very subtle emotionally manipulative way to make people do your bidding.” the defendant may have not explicitly called out for a bully rally, but one arises regardless as girls devote their loyalty. it may even double as an attempt to be noticed, in the same way they continue to perform glorification, which ultimately inhibits criticism and facilitates media illiteracy. this phenomenon is bigger than the literary it girl discourse, infiltrating all aspects of culture — from ariana grande to tiktok beef. to continue with hooks, “the emphasis on sisterhood [is] often seen as the emotional appeal masking the opportunism of manipulative bourgeois white women... a cover-up hiding the fact that many women exploit and oppress other women...”

a hesitation to accept criticism is understandable. i’d never open my professor’s feedback on my essays in creative writing classes. i’d spiral whenever an editor sent back the google docs with unending suggestions. i’d cry when my boyf offered opinions on a draft although i initially asked for it. red pen marks on something i put effort in feel like a reflection of myself, like my entire life is a failure because there are stronger ways to present my words that i didnt think of on my own.

but constructive feedback is necessary within the arts and has been a practice for thousands of years, never intended to tear down the artist when done correctly. instead, its purpose is to evaluate and interpret pieces, making sense of them for the public. in doing so, the art becomes Serious — no longer a craft created in a vacuum. an ultimate need for literary it girls as their writing is continuously denounced as trivial diary entries. through thoughtful analysis, meaningful conversations about the discipline and subject at hand arise, cultivating deeper exploration of both while offering a lens to navigate culture, which can transform culture. specifically for the artist, critical thinking, self-reflection, and growth materialize to improve their abilities. and isn’t that something we all want? to become the best writer we possibly can be.

if we are seeking a real sisterhood feminist movement, it has to be built on listening, collaborating, and critiquing all parties involved - those who are seen and those who are not. accepting the current literary it girl landscape mirrors the neoliberal mindset of the 2010s girlboss movement — the belief that progressive breakthroughs has been made because a white woman is at the forefront. hooks says it best with, “racism allows white women to construct feminist theory and praxis in such a way that it is far removed from anything resembling radical struggle. racist socialization teaches bourgeois white women to think they are necessarily more capable of leading masses of women than other groups of women. time and time again, they have shown that they do not want to be part of a feminist movement - they want to lead it even though bourgeois white women's liberationists probably know less about grassroots organizing than many poor and working-class women, they were certain of their leadership ability, as well as confident that theirs should be the dominant role in shaping theory and praxis. racism teaches an inflated sense of importance and value, especially when coupled with class privilege.”

this then raises the question, why do literary it girls write? is to to acquire knowledge or to own knowledge? to uplift others or be on top? to shift culture or to influence culture? theres no right or wrong answer, but being honest with ourselves about our reason for writing may be a more fruitful way to spend our energy rather than going back and forth with another one on what we believe the correct way to write and promote our work should be. in the meantime, im still trying to find out mine...