(C) BoingBoing
This story was originally published by BoingBoing and is unaltered.
 . . . . . . . . . .



Unpublished novel's $2.4m deal pulled over AI concerns [1]

['Rob Beschizza']

Date: 2026-07-31  

An author's debut novel scored $2.4m in licensing deals after Minotaur/Macmillan acquired it, but they unraveled after "questions were raised" over exactly who, or what, wrote it. Deadline reports "there are apparently fingerprints, or something that raised the flags of AI censors," a description that illustrates how well the entertainment industry understands the technology at hand. Parade (Parade!) nails it down a bit tighter:

Sandy Hodgman, an independent from Hodgman Literary who sells foreign rights for Europa Content, pulled back its submission of the novel to international publishers. In an email obtained by the outlet, Hodgman said that the "incredible" manuscript "dazzled" publishers around the world, but they failed to authenticate the evolution of the writing. The email adds that while they vetted the submission and were reassured that AI tools weren't used, they could no longer substantiate any claims. "This raises so many questions about authorship and what AI means for this industry, but those are questions for another day. We regret that our enthusiasm led to this outcome and we apologize to our publishing partners," Hodgman adds.

This news follows The Atlantic reporting that Daggermouth, a self-published hit that scored a seven-figure publishing deal, may be largely the work of AI. That's according to a new ngram-like technique for detecting LLM-generated text and by Pangram, whose accuracy improves with lengthy texts such as novels.

In a new study, researchers randomly selected more than 14,000 Kindle ebooks and ran them through Pangram, an AI-detection tool. One in five came back as more than 25 percent AI-written; Daggermouth returned 60 percent, according to an underlying data set that the authors shared with me. Those numbers, they acknowledge, tell us only so much. The researchers grouped together text that Pangram had flagged as either "AI-generated" or "moderately AI-assisted" (the latter of which can mean that AI was used to edit or polish human writing, or vice versa). And although Pangram has a low rate of false positives, it is not perfect.

The Minotaur/Macmillan novel and its author aren't named, so we can't pick at it. But Daggermouth was widely denounced as AI by human readers long before Science got to work on it, and has all the usual tells. I'm interested in why publishers keep offering big deals to books that, when read, seem quite obvious. Scuttlebutt and assumption tends to go two ways:

1. Publishers know. They thought it wouldn't be a big deal. The public backlash startled them, the perceived accuracy of Pangram against long texts struck them, and now they're correcting.

2. They simply don't see it. The same way that many people think all those impossible glowing cottages on Facebook are real, people who work in publishing don't register the tells. Negative parallelism, the power of three, emotional emptiness, inconsistent motivation? Out of their frequency range.

Allow me to offer a third possibility, inspired by academic publishing, that maybe covers all of the above too:

3. They don't even read it. Like papers that float through peer review and editorial consideration to end up identified as obvious slop instantly upon publication, the work just isn't looked at all that much until it's acquired. Why not is an ecumenical matter; consider the actual text as part of a complex package (like a flooded house in Biloxi securing an 8% mortgage in 2005 or so) that gets tucked in under vibes, buzz, numbers, and the rest of it. It has to exist for the security to layer, but no-one's going to drive out to the fucking house and look at it.





[END]
---
[1] Url: https://boingboing.net/2026/07/31/unpublished-novels-2-4m-deal-pulled-over-ai-concerns.html

Published and (C) by BoingBoing
Content appears here under this condition or license: Creative Commons BY-NC-SA 3.0.

via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds:
gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/boingboing/