As I got older I have a very different take on pg's essays than when I was younger. When I was younger these essays motivated me, as I felt that these essays are written for me. PG seemingly addresses many of his essays to 'very ambitious', 'extremely smart', 'independent thinking' people, and writes about topics to achieve extreme success. When I was younger I believed I am such a person. Now I know that I am smarter than average, has a little bit more ambition than average, but I am probably not THAT special. And it is OK. I can be, and am relatively successful. Without pg's grandious motivational writings.
Nowadays I am not motivated by pg's essays as I am much much more conscious about myself and my motivations. When reading his essays I am much more interested in the rhetoric he uses to convince young people. I became an outsider, a third-party observer when it comes to his essays.
One interesting thing I noticed at the start of the essay is that he starts with a descriptive tone: at the first sentence he does not assume that I, as a reader want to do 'great work'. "to create a guide that could be used by someone working in any field." But then suddenly he writes this: "The following recipe assumes you're very ambitious." Now suddenly he makes the reader of the essay and the one he gives advice to equivalent.
Ok, my personal opinion on pg's advice: For fairly ambitious people, who has some life experience these essays are fairly trivial. Absolutely not actionable. Most of us will not do 'great work'. Most of his readers will do 'good enough' work, even slightly above-average work. My advice would be that do what fulfills you. Don't aim for great work, aim for good work. If you are lucky your work can even become great. But you can still be happy if it is just good. Also don't sacrifice yourself too much chasing overly ambitious ideas while you are poor. Try to find joy in work that brings you closer to financial independence with much greater chance than pg's romanticized 'great work'.
I think your advice is good. And definitely better advice than "you should be very ambitious and dedicate yourself to doing great work". But I think it isn't what the essay is about. The essay assumes that it is talking to a person who has failed to take your good advice. I think that describes a lot of people.
A lot of commenters here seem to have read into this essay that it is saying "you should be this kind of person". But I'm not sure which parts of the text support that perspective. The quote you pulled out certainly doesn't:
> The following recipe assumes you're very ambitious.
It doesn't add ", which you should be" or ", which is the only good way to be" or anything like that.
The difference is that great work is achieved by 1 in one million people. Good work can be achieved by one in 1000 people, or one in 100 depending on your definition. You can adjust your definition of good work to your circumstances. The difference is that even if you are much smarter than average you have miniscule chance to achieve the kind of great work pg tells you about. You can have a high chance to achieve good work, if your definition of good work is realistic.
Yeah, I have some contrarian tendencies, always had, but I am not contrarian in every topic and hopefully not contrarian just for the sake of it.
Your definition of good work is so above and beyond that well under one percent can approach the rarified air of your high standards? I don't believe you.
The main problem is that pg does not even try to define what level of success he speaks about. I think he should be more clear and honest about it: Is it the one in a million great work he writes about, or is it the one in 100? These are entirely different stories. Anyway I am afraid he writes about the one in a million kind. And my point is that don't try to optimize for that kind of success, it is better to adjust your approach to your circumstances to have a greater chance of success.
Yeah. His comment is very hard to parse for insight.
One thing that happens the more experienced you get is that more and more of your work seems "not complex"/"too trivial". But then you realize how many people struggle at those trivial things in similar position and realize it's a trait:
- implement simple solutions that provide value.
- empower others to understand and use your solutions and implement their own.
- tackle on more issues that provide the most value (and not necessarily the most complex).
- repeat and expand. Do more with less. Make it less or a battle.
- help and foster collaboration of heterogeneous actors.
- proactively fix projects before they go the wrong way.
- etc
It's not about being particular smart or better but finding methodologies that work and being very conscious and intentional about your work.
Nowadays I am not motivated by pg's essays as I am much much more conscious about myself and my motivations. When reading his essays I am much more interested in the rhetoric he uses to convince young people. I became an outsider, a third-party observer when it comes to his essays.
One interesting thing I noticed at the start of the essay is that he starts with a descriptive tone: at the first sentence he does not assume that I, as a reader want to do 'great work'. "to create a guide that could be used by someone working in any field." But then suddenly he writes this: "The following recipe assumes you're very ambitious." Now suddenly he makes the reader of the essay and the one he gives advice to equivalent.
Ok, my personal opinion on pg's advice: For fairly ambitious people, who has some life experience these essays are fairly trivial. Absolutely not actionable. Most of us will not do 'great work'. Most of his readers will do 'good enough' work, even slightly above-average work. My advice would be that do what fulfills you. Don't aim for great work, aim for good work. If you are lucky your work can even become great. But you can still be happy if it is just good. Also don't sacrifice yourself too much chasing overly ambitious ideas while you are poor. Try to find joy in work that brings you closer to financial independence with much greater chance than pg's romanticized 'great work'.