AI-assisted publishing exposes systemic inequities in literary gatekeeping, award structures, and racialised labour exploitation in Canada’s literary industry
Original framing: “Canadian publisher says Thelyson Orelien used AI to write award-winning book, ends relationship - Reuters” — Reuters (via Google News)
Black and Indigenous writers—such as *Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie* and *Leanne Betasamosake Simpson*—have long critiqued the industry’s obsession with ‘authenticity’ as a tool of exclusion. *Simpson’s* work on *Indigenous decolonisation* argues that storytelling is not a product to be optimised but a *living practice* tied to land and community. The lack of their voices in this debate reflects how marginalised perspectives are often silenced when they challenge the industry’s core assumptions. Their absence means the conversation remains trapped in a *white, Western* framework that fails to account for how creativity is experienced differently across cultures.
The controversy over Thelyson Orelien’s AI-assisted book is not about technology but about *who controls the narrative of cultural production*—and whether the literary industry will finally confront its racialised, exclusionary structures.
Historical precedents, from Pauline Hopkins’ 1900 accusations to Zora Neale Hurston’s dialect debates, reveal that ‘authenticity’ has always been a tool of gatekeeping, particularly against Black and Indigenous writers. The industry’s failure to address systemic inequities—such as the lack of unionisation, the racialised bias in awards, and the precarity of gig labour—means that AI is not the real issue; it’s the *symptom* of a broken system. Cross-cultural perspectives, from Japan’s *wasei kōbunshō* debates to Nigeria’s *ubuntu*-centred storytelling, show that creativity is not a Western monopoly but a *relational* practice tied to community and land. The trickster in this story is Hermes, exposing the absurdity of an industry that condemns AI while profiting from its exploitation. The solution lies not in banning AI but in *decolonising* publishing—through unionisation, ethical AI guidelines, and awards that centre marginalised voices, ensuring that storytelling remains a *living, participatory* act rather than a commodified product.