The AI Accusation Heard ’Round BookTok: You Thought It Was AI, But It Was Just Strategy
Let's put down the pitchforks.
So let’s talk about the literary witch hunt currently devouring everyone's For You Page and turning Publishing Twitter/BookThreads into The Hunger Games.
Two indie authors using a pen name just landed a major traditional publishing deal—we're talking splashy, high-five-your-agent money. And instead of the usual “congrats!” or quiet envy, the internet lit its torches and screamed: “IT WAS WRITTEN BY AI!!!”
Now. Is there any proof? Nope. Just vibes. Suspicion. And a lot of people saying things like, “The voice is too clean” or “It just feels... off.” Also the internet: “This kind of success is suspicious. Publishing doesn’t work that way.”
Which is interesting, because those same people didn’t bat an eye when ten other traditionally published novels read like trauma-informed romantasy Mad Libs.
What we’re actually seeing isn’t about AI. It’s about jealousy.
Why Y’All Are Mad
Another plot twist: The book in question was written by two seasoned publishing insiders using a pseudonym. And they went indie on purpose.
Every time someone “outside the system” lands a major deal, the pitchforks come out. (Even though these authors are not outside the system, they’re seasoned publishing veterans). Because it threatens the myth many people (understandably) cling to in publishing: That if you work hard, follow the rules, pay your dues, suffer long enough—you will be chosen.
Almost as if getting an MFA, writing manuscript after manuscript, and suffering in the trenches entitles us to a desirable publishing income.
But sometimes, someone builds their own movement. Sometimes they break in through the indie route, which is becoming more and more viable, as traditional publishers are busily scouting indie releases for a project with a proven track record and built-in audience. Sometimes they self-publish and make readers care. And when that happens?
People lose it—because it proves the system isn’t about fairness. It’s about positioning, marketing, timing, and yes, sometimes luck. (But not a ChatGPT prompt.)
If AI was used at any point—say, to brainstorm plot points or clean up phrasing—does that invalidate the authors’ achievement? Only if you believe that authors should live in caves and chisel their first drafts into stone tablets with their own blood.
AI isn’t going away. Publishing knows this. Agents know this. And the authors who survive this era will be the ones who know how to adapt and tune up their own strategies without panicking every time a tool enters the chat. Because AI is a great villain in this story. All we have to do in order to discredit the book deal is clutch our pearls and scream that it couldn’t possibly have been done by mere mortals because it looks too easy.
Bursting the Literary Bubble
The “cheating” people are mad about isn’t technology. It’s strategy. What is going away—very quickly—is the illusion that publishing rewards the pure of heart. It rewards the strategic. The bold. The ones who bet on themselves before anyone else would.
These two authors knew that traditional publishing is slow, gatekept, and allergic to risk. So they flipped the script. They self-published with purpose. Built an audience. Stoked curiosity. And then dropped the mask once the offer was on the table. They played the game better—and that’s what’s really pissing people off.
Because it means an MFA doesn’t guarantee success.
Because it means shouting “but AI!!!” won’t save most writers from having to figure out their route to publication the hard way.
Because it means there are people who actually understand the ecosystem of readers, timing, positioning, and trend-jacking—and they’re not waiting for anyone’s permission.
This isn’t about ethics. It’s about people who followed all the “rules” and still didn’t haven’t gotten their book deal (yet). And now that someone else did, and did it deliberately, and did it better—the only way to explain that is to scream “FAKE!”
But it’s not fake. It’s just smarter. Sharper. Savvier.
You’re mad they hacked the system? They helped build the system and learned its guts for years. They just stopped pretending it still works the way you want it to. It’s not a scandal. It’s a masterclass—in audience-building, narrative control, and understanding how the current publishing landscape actually functions.
They didn’t break the rules. They just stopped pretending the old ones still mattered. Publishing’s always been driven by perception, momentum, and packaging—this is just the 2025 remix. These two insiders:
Created a proof of concept
Chose to self-publish not as a fallback, but as bait
Built buzz on their own terms
Let the traditional house come to them
And now the internet is mad because the book worked as a product. It performed. It converted. It looked hot on paper and in a publisher’s P&L spreadsheet. The outrage isn’t about ethics or literature—it’s because someone played chess while the rest of BookTok was still lining up for the “hard way.” (And in most cases, the “hard way” is what will and continue to lead writers to traditional success, unless they figure out how to hack the system.)
So yeah: it is strategy. And if we were honest, more authors would be studying it—not slandering it. You want to make waves in modern publishing? Don’t wait to be discovered. Build something worth discovering.
Trad Gatekeeping and Virtue Signalling
And there’s another plot twist: It wasn’t just Twitter randos or aspiring writers dragging the indie-to-trad deal—it was established authors clutching their pearls and sharpening their Regina George Burn Books.
They came out of their blurb bunkers with the energy of, “If you didn’t suffer the exact way I did, you don’t deserve your success.” Well, sorry, but just because someone skipped your personal publishing crucifixion doesn’t make them less of a writer.
Let’s call it out as hierarchical gatekeeping dressed up as literary purity, with a thick slice of anti-indie bias. The authors who were supposed to be rooting for boldness, experimentation, and outsider wins instead became the morality police of a system they quietly depend on for their status. And because they got in the hard way, they want everyone else to suffer for sport.
This is performative outrage. They’re not mad the system’s being gamed. They’re mad it was gamed successfully—without them.
And let’s be honest, they’re not rallying around “the sanctity of books.” They’re rallying around the sanctity of their own pain. Because if this particular strategy works? If you don’t have to query for five years and get 47 rejections and go on submission three times just to get a modest deal with no marketing … then what were they doing all that time? That’s the part that stings.
They’re not just defending publishing’s past. They’re defending their identities as the ones who made it through. Their message? “You didn’t earn it the right way.”
It’s the fear that, if success no longer requires gatekeepers, then maybe those who benefited most from the gates … the ones acting like the gatekeepers of the gatekeepers … aren’t as essential as they thought.
And if these ideas threaten you? Maybe it’s not AI you’re mad at.
Please, please come at me for being an AI bootlicker. I have an MFA, I’ve spent fifteen years working in—and complaining about—publishing. I’ve been a literary agent and gatekeeper dream-crusher (not my goal or intention at all, but a common perception).
Even if AI was used in any facet of the book at the center of this meltdown, the humans behind it were still the prime movers. Feeding the chatbot prompts, generating ideas, and plotting out how to get readers engaged. That’s something artificial intelligence is currently incapable of doing. It’s a tool, not a threat, and if they used it—though, again, there’s no evidence they did—they used it well and they got their bag.
About Good Story Company: If you have a story in your head, we’re here to help you get it out into the world. We help writers of all skill sets, all genres, and all categories, at all stages of the writing process. Need a hand with brainstorming? Want to find a critique partner? Looking for an editor to help polish up your pitch, your idea, or your entire manuscript? We have all of it and more in our community. If you’re ready to take the next step (or the first step) on your writing journey, we’re here to help you.
Website: https://www.goodstorycompany.com
Membership: https://www.thrivingwriters.com/
Writing Workshop: https://www.storymastermind.com
About Mary Kole: Former literary agent Mary Kole founded Good Story Company as an educational, editorial, and community resource for writers. She provides consulting and developmental editing services to writers of all categories and genres, working on children’s book projects from picture book to young adult, and all kinds of trade market literature, including fantasy, sci-fi, romance, and memoir. She holds an MFA in Creative Writing and has worked at Chronicle Books, the Andrea Brown Literary Agency, and Movable Type Management. She has been blogging at Kidlit.com since 2009. Her book, Writing Irresistible Kidlit, a writing reference guide for middle grade and young adult writers, is available from Writer's Digest Books.
More resources:
Manuscript Submission Blueprint: https://bit.ly/kolesub
Writing Irresistible Kidlit: http://bit.ly/kolekidlit
Irresistible Query Letters: https://amzn.to/3YnjW4A
Writing Irresistible Picture Books: https://amzn.to/3MHPZFL
How to Write a Book Now: https://BookHip.com/ZHXAAKQ
Writing Interiority: Crafting Irresistible Characters: https://amzn.to/3T3SVQj
NEW! Writing Irresistible First Pages: https://amzn.to/4aSstB6
Get social with us:
YouTube: https://youtube.com/c/goodstory
Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/goodstory.bsky.social
Instagram: https://instagram.com/goodstorycompany
TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@goodstoryco
Facebook: https://facebook.com/goodstoryco
The 1930s saying is work smarter, not harder. It fits this situation. Congratulations to the authors!
Yep. Stuff like this always makes me think, you're not mad at them, you're just mad that you didn't think of it first. Because a strategy like this won't always work twice.