Orelian Thélyson denies having her novel written by the AI and excuses for ancient plagiarism

Thélyson Orélien responded on two fronts, without giving them the same answer. In "This novel I wrote", a text transmitted to the AFP Tuesday, October 13, 2026, the Canadian-Haitian writer denied having had "It was that or dying" written by artificial intelligence. However, he acknowledged plagiarism after his arrival in Canada and apologized. La Dépêche du Midi, Radio-Canada and RFI report this same speech, which distinguishes accusations against the novel from borrowings from previous texts. [S1] [S5] [S10]

A defense centered on writing the novel

The statement comes three weeks after the accusations of massive recourse to the general AI launched on X by the account "Balance Ton Claude". They refer to the novel published by Grasset, which became one of the successes of the French literary year. Orelia categorically rejects them: "no sentence in this book was created by a machine," he says. [S1] [S10]

However, its denial does not cover any use of digital tools. He admitted that he had used it on an ad hoc basis for research, particularly on foreign idioms. In the full text reproduced by BFMTV, he also claims the meaning and organization of the narrative. The distinction he defends is therefore that between assistance in research and a delegation of writing; its accounting does not detail the tools used or how they are used. [S10] [S14]

To explain the genesis of the book, the author invokes his experience of exile and the stories of other migrants. He said he started writing in Laval, Quebec, in the fall of 2017, and then finished a first jet in 2019. He then describes scenes deletions, passage movements and character changes. The News Agency and RFI point out, however, that it does not provide evidence to prove this chronology. These dates therefore remain those which he advances for his defence. [S1] [S10] [S14]

Apologies for previous writings

On plagiarism, Orélien recognizes his responsibility. He placed these facts in the years following his installation in Canada in 2010, and evoked his youth, inexperience and admiration for several writers. These explanations do not erase, in his own words, the fault: he describes his repetitions as "unacceptable errors" and presents an unreserved apology. Franceinfo also places these plagiarisms in the 2010s. [S10] [S11] [S14]

The full text mentions in particular the influence of Louis Pauwels and Jacques Bergier's "Matin des magiciens", without drawing up a detailed inventory of the publications and passages taken. The author admits that literary admiration did not allow to attribute the texts of others. His apologies therefore do not constitute an admission to the writing of the novel by IA or an explicit recognition of plagiarism in "C. [S10] [S14]

An interrupted promotion, divided juries

The controversy has already affected the public life of the book. Les Éditions du Boréal, its Canadian publisher, announced on September 25 the suspension of the promotional tour. Two days later, Orélien also interrupted his French tour and returned to Quebec. His statement now provides a detailed response after this withdrawal period. [S1] [S10]

Literary prizes did not take the same position. The novel was excluded from the Goncourt selection, while he remained in the run for the Renaudot, reports BFMTV. This difference in treatment describes jury decisions; It does not in itself resolve the question of how the book is written. [S11] [S14]

What the statement leaves open

The media converge on the content of the denial and the apology, but several report on the same text transmitted to the AFP. Their concordance establishes the public position of the writer, not an independent verification of the stages of creation of the novel. The reports of La Dépêche and RFI do not contain any supporting documents for the dates announced. The origin of the phrases in the book remains disputed in the published information. [S1] [S10]

Orélien also claims to be subjected to racist threats and harassment, which he distinguishes from investigative work and criticism, whose legitimacy he recognizes. It is the violence he denounces in his statement. He asks that his novel be judged for himself, while admitting that his past raises legitimate questions: a defence that does not withdraw anything from the recognized plagiarism and is not enough, alone, to solve the controversy over AI. [S14]