I subscribe to the philosophy of Lucky Jim, that nice things are nicer than nasty ones.
Unfortunately the two are not symmetrical. It’s much easier to describe nasty things than nice ones. This is possibly because the practical use of such descriptions is not equivalent: we need precise characterisations of nasty things in order to help us avoid them, whereas there is no equivalent purpose in showing us a nice thing because we’re too busy being with it and enjoying it. I don’t need a description of this delightful and beautiful music / food / love etc etc, it would only get in the way; but I really do need to know the exact nature of the conman / psychopath / manager / advertiser currently approaching me with horrible intent. Or more simply: you can’t make things come closer but you can make them keep away. Maybe our descriptive capacities evolved on this principle; but then something went wrong, we started to find the nasty descriptions hypnotic, absorbing, finally attractive. Dickens made a manfully grown-up effort to describe good people as well as bad; and which of his characters do you remember, the good or the bad? Precisely. And yet we’re the smaller for having given up the effort.
This is my self-constructed space to mouth-off about whatever comes to my attention; and for the above reasons, the bias is likely to be towards the nasty (hence “choler”). Feel free to disagree, as long as you remember that I’m just me and you’re just you and none of us understands anything very much.