“Goodness, which we praise so highly in life, is infertile terrain for a writer, whether a novelist or a journalist,” says poet and editor Adam Kirsch.
Does Kirsch mean that goodness isn’t material for writers because it is boring? Or does Kirsch mean that goodness is commonplace and, therefore, not newsworthy. Or maybe goodness is boring because it is commonplace.
Kirsch may also have in mind the fascination that some have with horror and gore. For those writers and readers I suppose that bad people grab their attention more than good people.
A response to Kirsch depends on what you mean by ‘goodness.’ If it simply refers to following rules, then Kirsch is right. Most people follow most rules most of the time. Conformity hardly makes for exciting reading.
Goodness is commonplace in another sense. Most people conform to principles of decency. Most people tell the truth most of the time and most people are honest most of the time.
But we also find conflicts between those who are ethical and those who aren’t. Those who choose the ethical path are certainly as interesting as those who succumb to self-interest. Another fertile area for writers is a person needing to choose between two ethical values. And it is of more than passing interest to readers to read about those who are good in the face of enormous obstacles.
I think Kirsch is mistaken in thinking that people are either all good or not good at all. This is far from reality. There are as few saintly people as there are mass murderers. Ordinary people are a mix of impulses: wanting to satisfy our personal desires irrespective of others and the impulse to help others.
People are neither devils nor angels. They are human. And I find those who struggle with trying to be better as interesting than those who are ethically dubious.