Can an AI detector threaten the success of a literary bestseller that is in the running for one of the country’s biggest literary prizes?
In France, the novel “C’était ça ou mourir” by Thélyson Orélien, hailed as one of the revelations of the autumn publishing season and already selling more than 35,000 copies, now stands accused of having been written by artificial intelligence.
The controversy was sparked by a message posted (source in French) on X on Monday 21 September by an anonymous account, “Balance ton Claude”. “According to Pangram, this novel was written almost entirely by an artificial intelligence,” it claims, saying it had tested several passages from the “manuscript” and almost always obtained “the same result: 100% AI”.
According to the people behind the account, the US tool Pangram is “by far the most reliable AI detector”, with a “false-positive rate of 0.0041%.”
It is a particularly sensitive allegation for the 38-year-old author of Haitian origin, whose novel is being translated into more than 20 languages and has been included on the initial longlists for the Goncourt, Goncourt des lycéens, Femina, Médicis and Renaudot prizes.
The story follows Jonas, a young Haitian history and geography teacher forced to flee his country because of violence and insecurity, on his journey across the Americas. Before this debut novel, published last winter in Quebec and whose rights for French-speaking Europe have been acquired by Grasset, Thélyson Orélien had mainly published poetry.
From “rumours” to “racist attacks”?
Grasset initially insisted it was not paying attention to these “rumours”.
“This is fake news. (…) These tools that are supposed to detect AI are themselves AIs that fantasise that the Bible was written artificially,” the publisher told BFMTV (source in French) on Tuesday morning.
The publishing house with the yellow covers also said that dozens of AI-written novels are on offer on Amazon but that “none of them is successful” because “not one has any distinctiveness”. “The exact opposite of Thélyson,” Grasset, owned by the Vivendi group controlled by billionaire Vincent Bolloré, added.
By early Tuesday evening, the scale of the affair prompted Grasset to send a statement to several media outlets, including Euronews, giving the author the floor. In it, Thélyson Orélien explains that the “repetitions” he is accused of, presented as typical of AI-generated text, stem from “a Haitian and Caribbean literary tradition” with its own poetics.
He adds: “People can argue about my style, but turning its devices into proof of artificial intelligence has nothing to do with literary criticism.”
The writer also took the opportunity to thank those readers who “make room in their lives” for his book: “In a world where some people always want to check where you come from before listening to what you say, this welcome moves me deeply.”
In the same statement, the Grasset team say they are renewing “their absolute confidence” in the author, “against any machine or attempt to measure, standardise or silence writing that is forever free.”
Contacted by Euronews, Thélyson Orélien declined to respond to our requests for comment. He did, however, tell Libération (source in French) that he has been the target of “numerous racist attacks” since arriving in France.
AI and a “creolised” language
Before the mainstream media picked it up, the controversy exploded on X. After the first post from “Balance ton Claude”, many users relayed the anonymous account’s accusations – including in English – as established fact, some even going so far as to mock (source in French) the literary world of criticism for having “fallen for it, hailing as wonderful a style not only written by AI but fundamentally mediocre and repetitive.”
Others amused themselves by feeding Thélyson Orélien’s reaction statement into Pangram, claiming (source in French) that it too was “100% AI.”
The accusations also drew sceptical responses.
“I don’t understand what would be problematic about using AI to write a book in 2026. Not using it would be the stupid thing,” wrote (source in French) journalist Jérôme Colombain. “Ghostwriters have always existed. What matters, ultimately, is the author’s responsibility,” he added in the same post.
For his part, François Negroni (source in French), a writer who openly uses AI to produce books on aeronautics, explains that AI detectors analyse a text “by identifying statistical regularities: distribution of words, syntactic structure, sentence rhythm, lexical predictability.” He goes on to say that Thélyson Orélien “doesn’t fit into the boxes” of standard French on which the software is trained.
“He writes in a French that critics unanimously describe as ‘creolised’, mixed with Haitian Creole, Spanish and Portuguese, shot through with orality, aphorisms and rhythms from elsewhere,” he argues, while stressing that he “doesn’t know” whether the novel was written “wholly or partly with the help of an AI.”
Writer Christophe Boutry (source in French) replies that it is “possible” that Pangram picked up on Thélyson Orélien’s “creolised” style. “The studies that show bias against non-native speakers concern other detectors, other versions and, above all, English. That does not allow us to claim that Pangram 4 is confusing Haitian French with generated text here.”
It should be noted that suspicions of AI use had already been voiced by readers on social media. One such case is that of Alphaleer, on Babelio (source in French). “It’s a pity the entire book is written with… artificial intelligence. It gives the impression of being pretty, but it’s hollow,” this user wrote on 12 September. “The narrator is a sort of shadow, moving from step to step, from one border to another, without anything precise or in-depth,” she goes on, pointing to the novel’s “major inconsistencies”.
On Facebook (source in French), writer Fabrice Colin highlights “stylistic tics that are, to say the least, off-putting,” “end-of-chapter aphorisms” and “charming but distinctly questionable metaphors”. While insisting he is not accusing the author of using AI and has no opinion on Pangram, he says he is pointing out “writing tics that harm the text”, inviting everyone to make up their own mind.
“Balance ton Claude” calls for calm
On Tuesday, the previously obscure “Balance ton Claude” account enjoyed exceptional visibility, and now has more than 6,600 followers.
Late in the evening, the five people said by Radio France to be behind the name posted a final message calling on people to “go easy on the attacks against Thélyson Orélien,” acknowledging that “there is a non-zero chance (…) that he is acting in good faith.”
The collective then tried to explain its approach, saying it had “flagged this book” because it had “success”, while admitting that the author had “a certain merit in managing to produce a coherent narrative that has satisfied many readers.”
In their view, “the Paris intelligentsia probably still underestimates what AIs can do” and makes “little or no use of LLMs” – short for “large language models” – nor do they spend time on LinkedIn. This, they say, is why the literary press failed to recognise “the formulaic turns of phrase.”
“What is the point for a creator in outsourcing their invention?”
Independent Lyon bookseller Gwilherm Perthuis says he is following the controversy from a distance and not taking sides.
“Obviously, I think it would be catastrophic to write a book by asking a generative AI,” the manager of the bookshop L’œil cacodylate told Euronews, adding that this is “the polar opposite of my idea of literary creation, which is a singular, innovative working of language and form.”
While, in his view, the machine “will create archetypes based on pre-existing average data,” he asks: “In what way can AI help to invent? And what is the point for a creator in outsourcing their invention?”
The bookseller does, however, qualify his remarks, mentioning authors who “rely on AI to prepare their documentation and speed up their research before they start writing, when they need to access complex data.”
“For me, that is AI’s only real use, (…) its ability to produce almost instant results from among millions of data points that would take us years to sift through ourselves.”
Will the “Balance ton Claude” affair derail “C’était ça ou mourir” in its race for the major literary prizes, or will it instead prompt readers who have not yet read it to make up their own minds?
The consequences for the novel’s reputation, meanwhile, could quickly become apparent. The Goncourt and Renaudot prizes will be announced on Tuesday 3 November, the day after the Médicis prize. On Wednesday 4 November, it will be the turn of the Femina jury to reveal its winner. Finally, the Renaudot des lycéens and the Goncourt des lycéens will be awarded on Tuesday 17 and Thursday 26 November respectively.