Tag Archives: Commonwealth

Penman No: 490: Unpopular Opinion: Bring AI On

Posted on by
Reply

Penman for Sunday, October 18, 2026

THE LITERARY world has recently been rocked by scandals involving the alleged use of AI in prizewinning entries to prestigious writing competitions.

Last year, the Commonwealth Literary Prize went to the Trinidadian writer Jamir Nazir’s story titled “The Serpent in the Grove,” which had been published in the highly regarded literary magazine Granta. A sophisticated AI-checking software program called Pangram flagged it as 100% AI-generated. The author denied it was, and the Commonwealth Prize people reviewed his drafts and stood by him, but Granta took to the matter to heart and severed its ties with the prize, while retaining the story on its website for the reading public to make up its own mind. Nazir has gone on to start work on a novel, but his reputation has been deeply if not irreparably damaged by a charge that, for legal and perhaps even aesthetic purposes, remains unproven.

Last month, France’s Prix Goncourt—that country’s most renowned literary competition that awards a symbolic 10 euros to the year’s best piece of prose—dropped the debut novel of the Canadian-Haitian Thelyson Orelien titled C’etait ça ou mourir (It Was Either That or Die) from its shortlist following accusations of AI use and plagiarism. The novel had already sold tens of thousands of copies, and had won another prestigious literary prize. Orelien disputed the charges, but the judgment had been made.

And just last week, the Atlantic broke a story accusing the winner of the Caine Prize for African Writing, Zimbabwe’s Simbarashe Steyn Kundizeza, of using AI to produce his story “The Blue Fighter.” Again using Pangram, the Atlantic’s Vauhini Vara noted that the text was laden with typical large language model (LLM) prose markers, pointing to repetitive “not X, but Y” grammatical structures and the story’s frequent metaphors (something markedly present as well in Nazir’s piece). The Caine Prize Foundation said it would look into the charges but insisted on employing human judgment to establish the truth. Its chair, Ellah Wakatama, was quoted as saying that that AI detectors were not conclusive, and that “If there is such an accusation, I want proof that does not come from a machine.”

I have no doubt we haven’t seen the last of these controversies—nor were they even the first. In 2024, Akutagawa Prize winner Rie Qudan had no problem admitting that she had used ChatGPT—just a little, about 5 percent of the text—in writing her novel Sympathy Tower Tokyo, because the novel after all features a chatbot. You’d think that would have quelled any controversy, but it didn’t. Mindless critics called the entire novel “AI-written,” and debates broke out over the use of AI in fiction.

It hasn’t been just the text coming into question. In this year’s Ockham New Zealand Book Awards, two books—Obligate Carnivore by Stephanie Johnson and Angel Train by Elizabeth Smither—were disqualified because their publishers were found to have used AI-generated cover designs.

Clearly, the global world of writing and publishing are up in arms, if not in a panic, over the growing intrusion of AI into a sphere we thought reserved for human creativity and imagination.  While beneficial AI use has been well tracked and established in such fields as medicine, the law, and fintech, writers and artists feel much more vulnerable if not resistant to it because of the direct threat it seems to pose to artistic integrity itself and to the livelihood of creatives.

The backlash has been quick and severe. Locally, the F. Sionil Jose Young Writers Award, administered by Philippine PEN, stipulates that built-in or external AI tools may not be used at any stage of the creative process, including using AI for ideation, outlining, drafting, writing, or editing. I’m expecting other major competitions and workshops, such as the Palancas and the UP and Silliman workshops, to employ similar restrictions, if they haven’t already.

Which brings me to how I feel about the whole brouhaha, a position I’ve been forced to define because of my professed openness to the use of AI in my Professional Writing class in UP and even to the possible employment of AI in fiction, in ways and under protocols we have yet to establish.

A friend recently messaged me privately to ask about guidelines for literary judges when addressing entries with suspected AI involvement. My short answer to him was that “Am not prepared to go public with this”—I guess I am now—“but here’s my unpopular opinion: I think anti-AI vetting is ultimately unworkable. Have to be convinced that AI checking is infallible. So either very strict and accurate checking for all entries, or let it be a free-for-all, with no more than a personal declaration of non-AI use if AI is to be shut out entirely.”

Before my literary friends and detractors pounce on me for this apostasy, let me lay a few things down:

1. I still believe that the best of AI cannot and will not replace the best of human imagination and insight and its literary and artistic expression. I simply cannot see AI achieving the quietly explosive turns of mind and phrase of an Anne Carson. But this will be so relatively rarefied as to offer cold comfort in light of other possible outcomes below.

2. Anything below the best is much less certain and highly negotiable. Let’s be honest: AI as it stands can easily out-write most people in most situations, for all their human sincerity and authenticity. The bar over which AI has to jump is very low, and lowered even further by poor education. The threat posed by AI here isn’t that students will use it to do their work and pass their subjects, but rather that students will pass without learning.

3. I’m not calling for unregulated, unidentified AI use. Ground rules should be laid down—but they should be fair, forward-looking, and enforceable.

As I’ve recently been predicting, I foresee a literary future where publishing will eventually be three-tiered, with 100% AI-produced work at the base, catering to the most popular tastes and trends; mid-range, an explicitly hybrid human-AI segment that offers interesting and exciting prospects for experimentation; and at a premium, 100% human-generated work, the best of which will exhibit human inventiveness and empathy, yes, but also courage, resistance, and risk-taking.

That said, the insidious entry of AI into literary competitions bothers me only because it’s undeclared. I would frankly be open to a competition—or even a category of one such competition—where AI can be employed and accepted with neither shame nor subterfuge, if only to explore the imaginative horizons of human-AI interaction. Retain the 100%-human category, sure and of course, but open a door that will be pushed open anyway by another generation if not us, like it or not. Bring AI on; let’s wrestle with it, curse it, bend it, bed it, tango with it, argue with it, embrace it—but we ignore or deny it at our own risk.

Do I use AI in my own work? In my creative nonfiction, including this very piece, yes, for research and organization, for transcription, and for mechanical tasks; I review all outputs for slop, misattributions, and misreadings. In my fiction, yes, for research (as in the historical novel I’m working on) and nothing more—at least not yet. If and when I do find an interesting use or need for it, I’ll say so and take full responsibility for it, although I still don’t see it happening.

But to return to the matter of literary judging (which I have stopped doing for many years now and have forsaken for good), there’s something ironically odd if not hypocritical about using an AI tool like Pangram to police and catch AI use in a piece of text. (I’ve used Pangram on a trial basis, and it is terrifyingly good.)

At the very least, if you have to, let the pre-screening of entries be done by a technical committee—not by the jurors themselves, who should bring only their discernment and connoisseurship to the judging table. Should a work truly prove outstanding despite certain AI misgivings, give it the benefit of the doubt; a great story remains a great story no matter whom or what it was written by. (I have read both “The Serpent in the Grove” and “The Blue Fighter” and found them powerful and moving.)

We don’t know how many masterpieces of the past were birthed and nursed by angels, demons, and other artificial handmaidens. Why not AI?

Email me at jose@dalisay.ph and visit my blog at http://www.penmanila.ph.

Penman No. 487: A Prize for AI?

Posted on by
Reply

Penman for Sunday, July 12, 2026

LAST MAY, the literary world was rocked by the news that the winner of the Commonwealth Literary Prize—a short story titled “The Serpent in the Grove” by a little-known writer from Trinidad named Jamir Nazir—had been written using AI. Words like “fraud” and “hoax” flew out quickly into cyberspace. Probably suspecting something was off, someone had used an AI-detector app called Pangram to scan the piece, which returned an unequivocally damning judgment: “100% AI-generated.” 

Along with other Commonwealth winners, the story had been published in the respected literary magazine Granta. Given the uproar, the Commonwealth Prize judges reviewed Nazir’s drafts, and pronounced the work authentic; Granta severed its ties with the foundation giving the prize, but has retained the story on its website anyway for all to see and evaluate.

And that’s exactly what I did—go the website and read the work for myself before coming to any conclusion of my own.

Now, it’s not as if literary hoaxes are anything new; it’s happened before, and it’s even happened here. Long before AI, plagiarism and outright invention (a crime in the case of nonfiction) were practiced not only by the lazy and untalented but also by the cunning. Among the most notorious cases in the US were those of James Frey, who fabricated large sections of his bestselling memoirs, and Janet Cooke, whose Pulitzer-prizewinning story for the Washington Post turned out to be based on an entirely fictional character. Here in the Philippines, a postal clerk named Jose Marco duped generations of Filipinos into believing that the Code of Kalantiaw and a novel by Fr. Jose Burgos titled La Loba Negra were the real thing.

The fraud in these cases was uncovered not by programs like Pangram or GPTZero but by dogged scholarship—in the case of Kalantiaw, through the work of the historian William Henry Scott, who showed that Marco’s “code” had words that weren’t in use until centuries later.

Even with software, proving literary deception today is a lot more difficult, because creative writing almost by definition is, well, deception of the highest order, extremely liberal in its methods and means, and devious (without being necessarily evil) in its motivations. Fiction especially is intrinsically ambiguous, unlike journalism which rests on fact. So how can anyone be sure that this prizewinner was faked?

“The Serpent in the Grove” is not a very long short story at less than 3,400 words, and the controversy aside, is certainly an interesting if not significant one in many ways: freshness of language, simplicity of plot but complexity of character, power of imagination. It talks of a man named Vishnu who, enamored of a vamp he meets at the bar, contrives to drown his wife Sita in a well; she falls into it but then manages to crawl out with a neighbor’s help. Sita and even their young son seem to understand exactly what has happened, but no one brings it up and they somehow manage to survive into old age keeping that terrible truth unspoken. 

Some people have savaged the story after the scandal broke, in the way people change their minds instantly about someone after being told that person served time for rape or murder. Personally—and this could well be an unpopular opinion—I found it rich and engrossing, at least partly because of very same startling metaphors that got flagged as AI giveaways. It’s not an easy read, with its localized English, and I could see how Western readers attuned to the kind of language you hear at Walmart would find it painfully artificial (my friends in the Midwest found Nick Joaquin “too lush” when I had them read him). I don’t write that way myself, which is probably why it intrigues me even more. Here are some random excerpts:

“Sita moved quiet as if sound were taxed. Nineteen and brown like dust after rain, she turned roti dough with a rhythm that came not from joy but from endurance.”

“Marsha lived two bends down. If the village had a mouth, it was hers. Big in the way of women who never apologize to furniture, she had a laugh that shook dust from joists and a voice that could soften to coax a child from a ledge. She knew the ways of men hollowed by want until only one thing remained. She noticed the fresh-cut path and the way land bore witness. People talk about bush like it dumb. But bush keeps memory the way hair keeps scent.”

“Sita lifted two planks and slid them aside. Wood complained in a voice too near speech. She lowered the pail until rope slackened. Smell rose—old wet, crushed jasmine, frog skin. On the second haul, the board beneath her shifted the way a tired man shifts in his sleep. The plank gave one long groan and swallowed its word. Stone, shoulder, hip; shock of cold tearing breath. One foot banged and screamed. The wall was slick as lizard. She clawed moss and slid. Water took her and would not return her.”

So what did the software flag? Unlikely metaphors, it said, like the vamp “had the kind of walking that made benches become men.” Or that a character “smiled like sunrise over a sink.” It noted that there were nearly a hundred metaphors in such a short piece. It claimed that in the sentence “Coffee and cocoa leaned wild on a slope that wanted either rain in teeth or none at all,” the phrase “rain in teeth” made no sense, was a hallucination. 

But at this point, my own gut was telling me to trust Pangram less than the author. Call me dumb, but I find “rain in teeth” rather fetching. Any first-time workshopper would get that.

So would I have given the story a prize? That would depend on its competitors, which I haven’t seen, but it’s surely a story I would teach, both for its own merits and for its alleged employment of AI. I might even do that this incoming semester, when, for the first time in many years and possibly the last, I’ll be teaching an undergraduate class in Professional Writing. It’s a course I designed and had been teaching for two decades, but the big difference this time is that we’ll be dealing with AI—which is something that I don’t intend to ban outright (like Canute commanding the waves) but to grapple with head-on, negotiating the line between one’s imagination and what AI might do. I can foresee how controversial this will be, and I recognize the adamant opposition to AI from many writers and artists on both aesthetic and ethical grounds, but at 72, this could be my last look over the horizon. (I’ve already declared that I will no longer judge literary contests nor take part in literary workshops except in my own classes, so this will be my arena for engaging with AI.)

I wouldn’t be surprised if, in the future (and if it hasn’t happened already), some smartass with an ax to grind enters a wholly AI-generated story or poem into the Palancas, only so that when trusting judges make it win, he or she can declare them and the entire literary Establishment (yes, that cabal of superannuated gatekeepers who keep ignoring one’s literary genius) a bunch of fools.

Right now, what I’m thinking is, if you can come up with the kind of prompt that produces “The Serpent in the Grove,” then you deserve a prize—maybe not the Commonwealth one, which is still an open question, but at least one for inventiveness and audacity which seem to remain in short supply in what I’ve been reading, with or without AI.

Penman No. 281: The Writer in Progress

Posted on by
Reply

IMG_3824

Penman for Monday, December 11, 2017

 

(THIS IS the second of three parts of my recent talk on “Celebrating Arguilla” at the Taboan Literary Festival in Bauang, La Union.)

“Midsummer” is of course the quintessential mating story, setting the tone for the younger Arguilla’s lyrical odes to rippling muscles and shapely breasts. The man’s strength is contrasted with the girl’s slenderness, and this dichotomy would repeat itself many times over in the stories ahead: in “Heat,” where the Adonis-like Mero captivates Meliang, she of the “long and supple thighs” and whose body exudes “a healthy sweetness.” We see it again in “The Strongest Man”, where the “tall and shapely Onang” enchants Ondong, whose muscles flow under his sweating skin. Mero and Meliang, Onang and Ondong—it’s tempting to think of Arguilla falling into a mannerism, a romantic formula after Amorsolo’s or Botong’s idealized physiques.

But he quickly disabuses us of our idyllic fantasies, because the same terrain in which so much beauty resides, in both the landscape and the bodies of its fecund youth, is shown to be awash with blood and riven by violence. The second story in the collection, right after “Midsummer,” is “Morning in Nagrebcan,” and it begins with a picturesque description of rustic serenity, depicting “the fine, bluish mist, low over the tobacco fields.” But this mood is soon shattered by the brutal killing of a puppy, and the awakening of the children to the harshness of life—indeed, to evil—in what may seem to be a bucolic paradise.

Sometimes the violence is more subtle and only hinted at. “A Son Is Born” is a long and almost anthropological account of family life and birthing rites, ending on the luminously optimistic note of a Christmas birth and a boy named Jesus, but it is shadowed by its very first line: “It was the year the locusts came and ate the young rice in the fields.” Life is difficult, but it goes on.

“How My Brother Leon Brought Home a Wife” appears midway through the book, providing another tranquil respite, returning us to tall and lovely women meeting male approbation.

And then almost abruptly come the city stories, beginning with tales of marital stress and distress. Here I can sense the young writer and husband flexing his muscles and trying out new material and new approaches, experimenting with the kind of breathy, abstracted adoration you might find in Arcellana, acknowledging his broadening universe, with references to Picasso and Vanity Fair popping up in the prose. There’s even an attempt at comedy in “The Maid, the Man, and the Wife.” “The Long Vacation” is a melodramatic paean to loss, in the spirit of Carlos Angeles’ “Landscape II,” but without its magic. In these so-called “marriage” stories, it is the brooding hulk of Elias, in the story of that name, that most comes alive, but this is the one story in that suite that returns to the countryside, as if to make the point that country folk can also lead terribly complicated lives and make terribly complicated decisions.

The last part of the book, which is divided into three, comprises the “socialist” stories, for want of a better description. “The Socialists,” “Epilogue to Revolt,” “Apes and Men,” and “Rice” return us to a rural setting, but this time with an explicitly political agenda, which is to awaken the reader to the inhuman exploitation of the Filipino farmer and worker of the 1930s.

“Caps and Lower Case” is often hailed as a searing indictment of labor exploitation, and indeed it pleads the case of its protagonist—a proofreader who needs the relief of just a small raise—with eloquent anguish, but ultimately it deals him a crushing defeat. “The Socialists” is a scathing satire of armchair socialism. “Epilogue to Revolt” deals with surrender and complicity, “Apes and Men” with industrial unrest, and “Rice” with hunger among the tillers.

These were all worthy subjects, of course, the stories reflecting the afterglow of the recent Sakdalista rebellion and other such uprisings in both country and city. Among writers then, the same tensions would simmer over what would be called “proletarian literature,” its standard held high by such avatars as S. P. Lopez and Arturo Rotor, and inevitably Manuel Arguilla. On the other side of the argument were ranged the likes of Jose Garcia Villa, A. E. Litiatco, and a young Nick Joaquin, who in a 1985 essay would dismiss proletarian literature as little more than that generation’s adoption of the latest American fad. It “failed to sweep the local scene,” Joaquin would chortle, “and the only writer of importance who may have been influenced by it was poor Manuel Arguilla—who got derailed.”

Arguilla’s avowals notwithstanding, however—and at the risk of committing blasphemy in the Vatican—let me opine that it would be a mistake to deify Arguilla as any kind of socialist icon. True, he embraced “proletarian literature,” but his proletarian stories are thoroughly depressing, their desperate protagonists broken and beaten, with the sole exception of “Epilogue to Revolt,” which is one of my favorites because it breaks the mold while remaining absolutely true to character and situation. His realism owes more to Charles Dickens than to Maxim Gorky.

Manuel Arguilla was, to me, very much a writer in progress—a writer still coming to terms with his material and his society, one who had explored the range of his talents and was arriving at a fusion of those extremes. Arguilla’s stories have to be read as a continuum, where country and city were beginning to come together in his artistic and political sensibilities. But then, all too soon, he died, leaving us to wonder if his stories could have taken a brighter and more hopeful turn in the postwar world he never saw.