How Can a Good Person Write "Evil" Stuff?

My first draft of the novel that became Accidental Soldiers included no profanity beyond an occasional hell or damn. But the book included characters from life's very seamy side. It felt dishonest as I was writing it, as if I was refusing to let my characters be realistic because of fear that I might offend conservative readers or God or my mother.

Then I read an incredible little book called "If You Want to Write" by Brenda Ueland, and I saw a new light. A writer must write truthfully, and truthful includes honestly depicting characters and scenes. To shrink back out of fear that some readers will disapprove of language or behavior is to let the joy be sucked out of the creative process--and it likely leads to timid, unenjoyable writing.

Predictably, some readers asked, in effect, "How can you, supposedly a Christian, possibly use the Lord's name in vain? Or how can a mind that isn't evil possibly write a scene involving unrepentant adultery?"

My answer is simple, but I now realize that non-writers may not believe the answer: Bill Corbin did not swear or commit the adultery. Bill Corbin created characters that he made as real as he knew how to make them. Some of them swear. I put them into conflict-filled life situations in which adultery is a possibility. Some might succumb to temptation. That's simply how life works. I've chosen to write adult contemporary fiction. Adults sometimes do adult things.

It's odd to me that anyone would think that a "good person" can't write evil. Evil is all around us, vividly depicted in the media, even in the Bible. Only a person sequestered in a distant abbey could be unaware how evil speaks and behaves. It's a short leap of writer's imagination to depict how evil people think and feel.

My first reaction to my new-found liberation was excess. My erotic scenes became steamier, my character-language rawer. But reader critiques helped me see two important truths. If I want to show that a character is rough-hewn and profane, he doesn't need to say the F word nine-times per paragraph, even if he conceivably might in real life. I'm pounding unnecessarily on the reader's ears and sensibilities, and I do believe a good writer pays attention to reader ears and sensibilities. In the case of eroticism, less can be more, and I can avoid making readers grimace if they don't enjoy graphic depiction of every grunt, thrust, and body part. So I spent considerable rewrite time creating erotic scenes in which the reader's imagination can fill in the details.

I also learned--via a harsh but accurate female critique--what prurient means in writing. If a female character undresses because that character would likely behave accordingly in that scene, that's honest writing. If she undresses because Bill Corbin's imagination wants to see her naked, that is prurient writing and it deserves harsh critique. It's interesting to see the difference in movies. Without doubt, nudity makes sense in some situations. But it's easy to recognize scenes in which the director seized the opportunity to see the star in her/his skivvies or less. [As a classic example, check the movie called Working Girl in which Melanie Griffin vacuums her apartment in the near-nude.]

As I higher level corollary, I believe it's reasonable that a reader evaluate a work as a whole, and question the writer's central message regarding good and evil. If the fruits of evil are negative, we can have a valuable cautionary tale. If evil is glorified, the reader can reasonably decide that, I don't want to spend chunks of my life being reminded that evil reigns in too much of the world.

Note that I would defend the possibility that an honest writer who honestly feels that evil triumphs can write a solid book to that effect. But ultimately the reader decides whether to continue reading.