Thélyson Orélien affair: its Quebec publisher admits not being able to provide proof against the accusation of AI

The novel's promotional tour in Quebec was suspended on September 25, when sales continued. The Boréal publishing house announced this Wednesday, in a press release, that it would keep the novel It Was That or Die by Thélyson Orélien in bookstores, reiterating its support. “The publisher does not have to demand proof from (the authors), but must stand by their side and that is what we do,” said Boréal, denouncing a writer who has become a “scapegoat” for the great dizziness of writers in the face of artificial intelligence.

Yesterday, in a statement sent to the media through the same publishing house, Thélyson Orélien acknowledged the plagiarism cases, apologizing: “I made unacceptable errors, despite my youth and inexperience. I deeply regret this and apologize unreservedly.” Concerning the suspicion of massive use of AI for his novel, which was scrutinized by the Pangram AI detector by Internet users behind the “Balance ton Claude” account, the author denied everything. “But I wrote this novel myself,” he wrote. It comes from my injuries and those of other migrants. This wound of exile from which we cannot heal. This novel is the fruit of it, it is the fruit of my work, it is my creation.”

On September 25, four days after the start of the controversy, the Quebec publishing house Boréal explained “having collaborated with Thélyson Orélien in order to help him put together a file detailing the work which preceded Boréal’s intervention”. The author, for his part, recalled having started working on the text in 2017. A file which could have put the end to a controversy which caused a lot of ink to be spilled, the jurors of the literary prizes not knowing whether to keep or remove the novel from their list (yes for the Goncourt, no for the Renaudot), and the booksellers no longer really knowing which foot to dance on, the novel prancing at the top of sales (65,000 copies) without any indication warning the reader.

The publishing house, however, regretted today that it was “not able to provide definitive answers to the allegations” which targeted its flagship author: “We do not have, to date, any elements allowing us to accurately trace the history of the manuscript before September 12, 2025, the date on which it was received by our team.”