Tina is completely devoid of selfish desires.

[alpacinou]

I already know I can say X is devoid of something positive: Jane is devoid of compassion.

But can I say something or someone is devoid of a negative thing? Are these okay?

1. Tina is completely devoid of selfish desires.
2. The report is devoid of superfluous details.

 

[teechar]

Not really.
"devoid: to lack or be without something that is necessary or usual" - from the Cambridge Dictionary.

devoid

1. to lack or be without something that is necessary or usual: 2. to lack or…

dictionary.cambridge.org

 

[alpacinou]

Not really.
"devoid: to lack or be without something that is necessary or usual" - from the Cambridge Dictionary.

devoid

1. to lack or be without something that is necessary or usual: 2. to lack or…

dictionary.cambridge.org

Is it correct to use 'lacking' for something negative? Are these okay?

1. I found Tina to be completely lacking selfish desires.
2. I found the report to be refreshingly lacking any unnecessary details.

 

[teechar]

No. Again, "lacking" can suggest that something which should be there is missing.
Try:
"I found Tina to be completely without (any) selfish desires".
"I found the report to be refreshingly direct and without (any) unnecessary details".

 

[tedmc]

I think "lacking" can be ambiguous as it could also mean "short of something", not necessarily without it. "Without/free of something" would be more precise. "Devoid" is usually used in the negative sense, which is not appropriate in the context.

 

[jutfrank]

You can use 'free' for negative things.

I'm now cancer-free.
They became free of all desire.