Unless you were to ask, I’ll unlikely recommend. I’ll not impress books, melodies, cinema, recipes, verse, Neo-Victorian embroideries or the inexhaustible variety of enlightening or duller design. The same pertains to the web, video links, blogs, subscriptions, podcasts and whatnot.
I’ll write about such matters. I’ll speak of personal experiences and ways in which they impact me. I might even make general-purpose recommendations addressed to no one in particular, though usually framed for a particular type of audience.
But in private exchange, I’ll avoid the mischievous I recommend you watch/read/listen/experience … … should you not first solicit. If ever I do otherwise, do consider me the hypocrite of the hour.
Likewise, I’d rather you pay me the same due diligence concerning the consummation of content.
The caprice is entirely personal, possibly even blotched in severe conceit; but not unprecedented.
It goes to say, I find most such recommendations unthoughtful. Most, as I can conceive of a far better manner of framing, which, alas, I rarely see respected.
I’ve alluded to the issue in my old, problematically titled write-up on ‘marginal’ value of books, but here I speak more generally.
Content takes time to peruse. It taps into the energy pool. It directs (or misguides) thought engaged in other affairs. Much of it unwillingly primes your thinking in an undesirable trajectory.
You might question the harm in a poor recommendation that steals a mere fraction of time? Easily addressable.
Even a few minutes of active engagement invites new threads into your neural network, generating new feedback, causing the mind to lounge, process, stroll down distracting lanes.
Content perusal thus channels energy and time: one resource replenishable, the other not. Yet how often do I see both maltreated?
Another replenishable resource is the financial, arguably of lesser consequence to the former, though opinions can vary. Yet would you not construe unsolicited financial advice, be it investment or expenditure related, similarly unfounded?
Lacking intel into your financial history, habits, goals, risk heuristic, I would feel rotten to provide you with any such direction.
Or take interior design. I wouldn’t impress interior decoration advice upon you, had I not thorough insight into the nature of your residence, taste, and possessions.
The above comparison might appear a bit incongruent. But the way I see it, our mental real estate is a gallery of sorts: a very particular gallery, whose management demands energy, time and financing. It would be ill-conceived of me to offer you direction in that enterprise, were I not better familiarized with its operation.
If you absolutely sport the urge to recommend, either cater to the parameters of your subject, should they be familiar; otherwise, do so conditionally.
In the first case, strive to identify:
What additional (marginal) benefit you expect the content to render upon the person, beyond the already assimilated and experienced.
How it respects the person’s parameters, taste, election heuristic.
How it respects the degree of challenge the subject aims to undertake.
Due to limited resources, every serving of content consumed is another serving not consumed (a book read equates to a book not read, a film watched is a film not watched).
What makes your recommendation a strong replacement candidate?
In the second, conditional scenario above mentioned, frame your recommendation respectfully. Explicitly acknowledge the time/investment it might necessitate. State any assumptions.
Example. “Based on X, Y and Z that I know of you, I suspect you might find the following inspiring for such and such reason.”
Be specific. “You’ll likely enjoy the following work because it contains the properties Α, Β, Γ, but maybe it’s not worth your time if you’ve already explored similar material, or something to the likes of Δ or Λ.” Such due diligence demonstrates respect.
With books, if you know the person to heavily prefer original, untranslated works of medieval authors of perplexing poetic device, don’t suggest contemporary sources composed in sterile vernacular. Or be explicit as to what makes this a worthwhile exception.
If you can’t maintain the etiquette presented in one of the above cases, don’t recommend.
A quality recommendation can surpass the best birthday gift: inspire and spawn infinite imaginative avenues for the lifetime remainder.
A mindless one squanders resources and fosters resentment. But it’s easily avoidable.
Just be very explicit with what you believe it might entail. The time required to articulate such a proposal isn’t much in consideration for the subject’s expenditure.
Questions, comments? Connect.