[Wowfunhappy]

I agree, and I think this conflict is actually visible within the essay. One particular parenthetical jumped out at me:

> So avoid the kind of distraction that pushes your work out of the top spot, or you'll waste this valuable type of thinking on the distraction instead. (Exception: Don't avoid love.)

PG never explains why love is an exception. Perhaps he thought it was obvious. I disagree.

I agree that familial love is important to the overall human experience. But this isn't an essay on how to live a fulfilling life, it's an essay on "how to do great work," for a so-called "very ambitious" person who wants to achieve "great work" at any cost. In this context, familial love is no less of a distraction than anything else. History is littered with eccentric artists who prioritized their work above any human interaction, and achieved fame for it.

So why does PG say not to avoid love? I believe it's because deep down, he realizes that "great work" isn't the most important thing in life—but he isn't quite aware enough to acknowledge it.

[sanderjd]

I don't think this essay ever actually made the value judgment that doing "great work" is "the most important thing in life" or even a good thing in life. Did I miss that part? I read it as, "for better or worse, some people are driven to do great work, here are some techniques to accomplish that". I think it's true, right?, that such people do exist, whether that is good or bad for them.

I suppose I know enough of his history to know that he would make that value judgment, but I read this particular essay as being fairly agnostic about it, leaving it up to the reader.

[Wowfunhappy]

It's true that I'm mostly responding to tone. But again: if this is just a guide for people who want a certain lifestyle, for better or worse, why the warning to not avoid love? I think it speaks to an unresolved conflict.

The parenthetical shouldn't be there if PG really does want this to be a no-judgement how-to guide. Love is distracting, for better or worse.

[sanderjd]

Playing devil's advocate a bit, imagining an argument that definitely wasn't made in the essay itself, and which I don't necessarily think is right: It's possible that he meant that love seems like a distraction like others, but is actually critical in some way for doing great work. There are both kinds of stories out there, both those whose loving partnership was clearly critical to their work, and those who were isolated and loveless (but maybe would have been even more successful if it were not so?).

But I do tend to agree with you that if it is "how to pursue great work at all cost", then singling out love as the only distraction worth keeping is contradictory to that thesis.