A freelance author has confessed to using AI in order to write a New York Times book review.
Alex Preston’s review of Jean-Baptiste Andrea’s novel Watching Over Her published in the New York Times on January 20, 2026, borrows phrases and paragraphs directly from Christobel Kent’s Guardian review.
A reader brought the “error” to light, alerting the New York Times of the similarity.
Preston said to the Guardian that he was “hugely embarrassed” and had “made a big mistake”.
Alex Preston admitted that he used AI in order to write his book reviews.
Hachette
The Times dropped Preston immediately, citing his “reliance upon A.I. His use of work that was not credited by another author is a clear violation of Times standards.
The review is now accompanied by an editor’s notice, which informs readers about the problem and provides a link for the Guardian review.
Preston’s apology in the Guardian is more confusing than helpful. This portion of Preston’s apology to The Guardian seems to be more about the unattributed work rather than AI. The text reads, “I made an AI mistake on a review draft I wrote, and failed to remove the overlapping language that was dropped into another review by the AI.”
The deeper question, as a scholar and literary critic, is not whether critics should hide the use of AI more – it’s the ethics behind using AI at all.
Why AI can’t do criticism
It is not the role of a critic to summarize or repackage artwork, but rather to participate actively in a discussion about it. Jane Howard is The Conversation’s Arts + Culture Editor and a critic. She writes, “Good criticism flourishes in a complex environment.” Each review is in dialogue with the other reviews of an artwork, and with all other reviews that the critic has written.
The critic converses with the artist as well as the audience.
As mediators, the critic’s intellectual and emotional engagement with art and its translation into language and meaning is integral to his or her role. This role is very human.
Information can certainly be sourced but not emotional engagement. A human perspective, which is filtered by reading, watching, listening, and experiencing, cannot be outsourced.
The Art of AI and the controversies surrounding it
AI has many valid uses, but there are also arguments that warn against its significant impact on climate change.
There is also a growing concern about the integration of AI in creative expression.
The cancellation of Shy Girl is due to AI allegations against the author.
Author Mia Ballard has been accused last month of using AI in her horror novel Shy Girl. The book was pulled from the shelves in the UK, and the US publication date cancelled after readers on Goodreads or Reddit questioned whether certain sections of text were AI-generated.
The Electrician, a prize-winning photo by German artist Boris Eldagsen in 2023, sparked controversy after he announced that it was AI created. Tilly Norwood was the first AI-generated actress in 2025. She ignited a debate about whether synthetic actors are a means of creative expression or a danger to humans.
Meta, a company that trains AI systems with stolen work in 2025 was “horrible” for the writers who discovered it.
This latest scandal adds, “and what responsibility does the critic have?” to the questions that are at the heart of these recent examples.
Breaking of a Pact
Howard calls art criticism “a niche within a small niche” in Australia.
Because the sector is so small, most art critics also have a day job. They are therefore in close proximity with artists they review.
Some critics have suggested that this culture has resulted in what Emmett S. Stinson, a literary scholar, called ‘too nice’ criticism.
However, I believe that generosity is the foundation of public criticism. The critic who reviews in public has an obligation to both writers and readers.
When we publish a book review summarizing the successes and failures of their book, the writer can assume we took the time to carefully read their work and consider our response.
The unspoken agreement is violated when a writer uses AI, especially when an expert reviewer such as Preston appears to delegate his evaluation to the AI.
These failures indicate a future in which readers will be unable to engage with literature to develop their empathy and build community.
Julieanne Lamond, a professor of Australian Literature at the University of Sydney said that “when writing reviews we must do it naked” – as individuals readers with an audience to judge our judgments.
We are in the middle of an agreement between a writer and a potential reader.
Literature can also be criticism
When done well, good criticism can be considered literature. In 1946 Australian playwright, author and critic Leslie Rees said that good literary criticism was a real and creative service for literature.
Watching Over Her has been at the center of controversy regarding the use of AI to write a New York Times Book Review.
Scholarly criticism and popular criticism are on different fields. Its obligation to the readers, to give real and honest reviews of books and to engage them in a discussion about literature is not less important. It is important to maintain honesty, which includes being transparent about AI.
Phillipe Lejeune is a French essayist and professor best known for autobiography.
He used the phrase “autobiographical contract” to describe the relation between the author of the memoir and the reader. The reader is willing to accept the truth of the memoirist’s words if the author admits their biases.
The reviewer could also be asked to sign a similar agreement with their readers. The reader should be able trust the fact that they are reading the critics review.
Hannah Bowman is a literary representative at Liza Dawson Associates. She recently said that mistrust was the greatest danger to the book business: “It’s important for everyone involved in the publishing industry to be transparent and clear in their conversations regarding how AI tools will be used, particularly in the creative processes”.
Preston’s failure to reveal his AI use has embarrassed him and broken his readership trust.
