The Powerless Controversy: What is the Line Between Inspiration and Plagiarism?

There shouldn’t be a fine line between inspiration and plagiarism. But over the past few months, there has been discourse online regarding both plagiarism and the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)  in published books. More specifically, the discussion focuses on whether the Powerless series written by Lauren Roberts is a "ripoff" of other titles and if it was written by AI. The outrage comes especially from the fact that the Powerless series is being rewarded for its (allegedly) blatant theft: Funko Pops, hoodies and jewelry, and a live-action TV series from Amazon Prime. Meanwhile, the books from which the series got its “inspiration” lack this sort of attention and are being accused of copying Powerless, even if they were written and published before it. 

But where do these accusations even come from? Of course, many works have been inspired  by other works, and there are some common tropes within genres that are often repeated. Where do plagiarism and the use of AI even begin? It all started when readers began noticing the uncanny similarity between the first instalment of the Powerless series, Powerless (published in 2023), and titles such as Red Queen (2015), by Victoria Aveyard, and The Hunger Games (2008), by Suzanne Collins. Other creators such as Meredith Novaco and Kim Argyle have compared the two novels extensively, and checking their videos analyzing the two titles will bring a more extensive list of the tremendous number of similarities between titles, especially with Red Queen. 

However, here are some notable resemblances: both works are divided between those with powers and those without, and feature government systems and royal families with the exact same structure, including two princes who are half-brothers. Additionally, in both stories, the FMC (female main character) is a thief that steals from the MMC (male main character), a prince. 

Other similarities can be found in specific scenes: in both works, the MMC’s brother asks the FMC to a ball, where the MMC eventually takes her away for private dance lessons. But the most astounding resemblance, in my opinion, is the fact that the FMC has a sister (or a sisterly bond with someone) who loves to sew but has her “sewing hand” broken. This last similarity is particularly striking because the phrase is a direct quote from both titles, making the resemblance even more difficult to overlook. 

Those are just a few similarities that I decided to mention, similarities that happen only in the first book. The second instalment of the series, Reckless, further deepens the suspicions that the series plagiarises other works. Furthermore, it is the second instalment of the series in which the idea that Roberts used AI becomes more substantial. Reckless was published in 2024, written between 2023 and 2024. And, as the previously mentioned creator Kim Argyle states, various AI writing tools were available at that time, tools that already were mature enough to aid in the creation of novels.

Nonetheless, noticing how Roberts had the necessary instruments to create a book for her doesn't necessarily indicate that she used AI. Right? That's where Mary E. Pearson Dance of Thieves (2018) comes in. The book, published years before Reckless, has a protagonist with a very memorable trait: she loves oranges. And in the beginning of Reckless, the FMC suddenly starts craving oranges, a fruit that was not even mentioned in the previous book. That orange craving appears again later on, establishing a new character trait that has no setup whatsoever. But how can this indicate the use of AI? Well, AI is designed to recognize patterns and reproduce them. So if a prompt asked ChatGPT to write a chapter or a scene inspired by Dance of Thieves, then the machine would recognize the orange trait as a pattern that can be added to a scene without preserving the original purposes it previously had in the first title. 

These damning suggestions could be evidence of the alleged plagiarised and AI-made work. However,  all claims made in this article are suppositions, allegations. Nonetheless, those vast “similarities” and “coincidences” begin to sound less and less like accidents and more as proof that Lauren Roberts used AI and plagiarised other authors’ works.