If You're Evil and You Know It

Tonight I stumbled -- and by that I mean searched for -- a certain writer's blog. Interesting things there. In one recent post he was addressing the fact that one of his readers -- of the 1st book of his trilogy which shall remain nameless -- insinuated that to write such evil heartless characters he too must be a bit evil and heartless. He went on to defend himself valiantly, stating that he didn't think thriller writers, mystery writers and the like were actually like the characters they wrote. 

 

....Which is funny, because....I always kind of thought they were. Neil Gaiman at times manages to write himself -- perhaps by injecting his voice -- into so many of his stories, and with a highly effective subtlety. I always imagine him as the Sandman (maybe it's just me), and Dave McKean seemingly lent The Dream King Neil's punk rock hair in homage. 

 

Jacqueline Carey's Phedre, in my mind, is poised like an avatar for the author herself. Her voice is so seemingly close to my ear that I imagine the tale comes from Carey's perspective, and although the tale is gorgeously obviously fictitious, there is enough of her voice in it to give Phedre a distinct human texture derived from experience, human error, love, etc. 

 

And let's not even get into Laurell K Hamilton, who (so I have heard) not only has a license to carry a gun in her purse -- tres girl power -- but somewhat looks and acts like her 25 year old serial-dating vampire-hunter Anita Blake. 

 

Octavia Butler blended techno sci-fi with young black heroines who suffered social injustices or who lived through abuses to tell; Charles Dickens famously wrote about himself and/or people he knew; Poe did the same; Orwell took themes of oppression and tyranny from society then blended in characters with his own -- at the time, very rebellious -- thoughts ingrained. Juliet Mariller is a Druidess, and all of her books center around Druids and ancient mystical rites and magic. Blake Charlton is an author who had to overcome learning disabilities, dyslexia specifically, to become an MD, and his character Nicodemus faces similar challenges, overcoming them the only way the author himself knew how, which he presumably acquired through personal experience.

 

And finally-- I made up the character Gianni with myself in mind, not the part about being a boy and getting ass-raped by da Vinci, but the part of him that felt crippled by his own mother and the jumpiness and aloofness he exhibited thenceforth. Also the way he refuses to trust the world, the way he questions the motives of everyone, yet will risk himself and spend himself to nurture the right person. We are too empathetic and we know what the cure is but we pretend we don't. I wrote me into him consciously. I was aware and that was the point; it made him authentic and it made him mine. 

 

What's the point. All authors write, to some extent, what they know, because you have to know about something rather intimately in order to write about it convincingly; either you have to have experienced it or you spend a great deal of time studying it to put yourself in your character's shoes. I studied the Renaissance period extensively, in and out of class, in order to capture the right feeling in Eye of Narkissos; ergo, I had to study one facet, and then derived the rest from what I've gone through. There are self-evident themes and thoughts and demons in my stories. I suspect they are in every author's stories, unless of course they are writing 500 word childrens' fables or Curious George books, and even then the monkey's adventures have to be based on something that someone either a) knows about personally, or b) studied to some extent. 

 

So, I feel like this author made a candy-coated pathetic attempt to deny his own evil, when he might have easily embraced it and pawned it off as- we all have tendencies, and writing is fucking art, and art reflects human nature. What about Bret Easton Ellis, author of American Psycho? He obviously put a personal touch on Patrick, perhaps even Evelyn, as he sculpted the David of sociopathic yuppie serial killers. No one cared how much of himself he put into it. It was controversial, it was genius, enlightening, maddening, and reflection: at one time or another we have all wanted to kill; if not, you are a slug or a side-dish veggie. What about Edgar Allan Poe? What about Stephen King? H.P Lovecraft? Harlan Ellison? That's why horror movies (like Saw and Vacancy) and violent videogames (most if not all are violent) dominate in entertainment, and Law and Order and NCIS and Criminal Minds are always on some channel at some time and probably on now as I type. 

 

I adore this author's work, honestly, and possess a great deal of respect which is why they remain nameless. However in my opinion, which this, my blog, is the enchanted land of, this author came off as inauthentic and graceless. He scuffed the human textures of his characters, so to speak, in an attempt to defend himself against one oddball opinion. You write a book about a villain, and of course you're evil inside; you've got to be. But inside. Where it's okay to think you're own thoughts and be yourself.  Perhaps I should be more upset with the fan, who posed the question in a near accusatory way. . . . Not sure.