What is it with the Swedish Crime fiction and TV shows...

...that they tend to be so gripping and completely worth the time spent?

This week I finished the second season of 'Bron/Broen' or The Bridge, the award winning Swedish/Danish TV crime fiction show; with Saga Norén and Martin Rohde in the lead, played by Sofia Helin and Kim Bodni. This was right after I finished the first season; because I had to see it! Odd as Saga maybe, real and in-touch-with-his-feelings that Martin maybe, and what a complementary pair they make, the characters just grow on you. If you have seen Bones, the US show, and remember Dr. Temperence 'Bones' Brennan, played skillfully by Emily Deschanel, you know a milder cousin of Saga! European shows make no bones of (no pun intended!) what they want to show or portray. The story line of Bron is simply gripping, the suspense creeps up on you, and in the end you get more than you expected. The cinematography seems largely 'grey' which adds to the drama and emphasizes the serious (sometimes Saga is really funny in her naiveté of emotions around people!) theme.

End of second season two, especially, brought out facets of Martin and Saga each that made you sit and think how do the writers and directors (several credited) pack so much into their work. The story line remains multidimensional throughout Helin and Bodni as well as a couple of others display immense talent. While the crime remains the main focus of the story, and you are in the detective mode all through, you cannot but wonder how the Saga and Norén's personalities will pan out given how their individual and separate lives are panning out as the series progresses. How many shows do that to you? (The Americans is an exceptional show in the same way).  Relationships are never easy, but the imminence of the inevitable lurks around in your mind even as you know things wouldn't workout how much ever you wish they would. I am sure I missed some dimensions even as I saw the original Swedish/Danish version with English subtitles. But what I felt watching Bron has made me start searching for more of the crime fiction shows from Scandinavia.

It all started last year, when I got in to a reading spree and managed to read about 50 books, mostly fiction, in the year. About a dozen or so were Swedish crime, starting with (of course!) Stieg Larsson's Millennium Trilogy, first of which is The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo. I have not seen the movie yet, but I am not in a hurry. Some of the other writers I have managed to read so far include Karin Alvtegen (The Missing), Camilla Läckberg (The Preacher) and Henning Mankell (The Fifth Woman). I plan to read  Jo Nesbø's The Leapord, among others, soon. 

It had been a long time since I had read crime fiction. But, Swedish crime fiction pulled me back in to it. I must admit, I am a big fan of Jack Reacher by Lee Child. I have read all the books including novellas on Jack Reacher. That said, while I like Reacher for completely different reasons, little comes close the intense narrative of Swedish crime fiction, as far as crime fiction works go. I admit I am able to read the English translated version of these fine writings. So, while it would be great to have been able to read the books and watch the shows in native tongue, I am floored by what I have managed to gain from the translated or subtitled works.

A couple more useful links: 

My favourite page on Scandinavian Crime Writers

My Facebook page on Jack Reacher

Social network experience and its impact

Since being introduced into Google+, I have tried to understand the why of what's fundamentally different about it. Google couldn't have created it as just another social portal, as they already have Orkut, which today is a been-there-done-that for most users in my Facebook network.

Android users have  several real-time integration benefits with Google+, but for now, let me focus on just the convergance aspect of a social portal. If Facebook is about a Wall, why does Google have Circles? That's where the fundamental difference lies, more than just the terminology. What does this mean to our interactions with the two different tools?

In real life, down to ground level away from the cyberspace, do we consider all friends 'similarly'? We mentally slot people we meet as just acquaintances, friends, like-family, family and many other nuances of relationships tedious to compile here. But what happens when you log onto Facebook? There is one Wall and it is up there for everyone to write as they please and for everyone else to read, even if it is not just 'apt' to share it with everyone.  With a Wall on a Network, you are essentially bringing all to the same plane, whether you like it or not. We have accepted this as this is all we got.

Admit it, there are level of friends and you'd like to share not everything with all of them, at the same time, even if eventually you would.  Then, there is the local 'circle' (school, college, dorm, special interest) specific language that you'd like to use with the right set of people. But hovering at the back of your mind is the point that maybe others that who do not understand what's being said might not 'get it'. What happens then? Think of what happens when a group within a party starts talking about a specialised topic or event that is of no relevance to others. The group rares out. Sure, a Wall is asynchronous or not 'live' since not everyone is not interacting at the same time. But the behavior is nevertheless impacted since everyone consumes the same content, eventually. There might be self-selection in what one consumes. But the fact that the information or impressions were put out there has some impact on the user who put it there and those who read it.

For example, there are some friends you will let 'take you for granted'. This, on Facebook might mean you will let them say anything i.e. metaphorically speaking, piss on your Wall. The implication of this is wider than just that it is for there for all to see. In two recent examples my friends 'violated' discretion by writing things that were not for public consumption. They might have done that under a misguided sense of humor. You cannot avoid such indiscretions, as much as you cannot blame them for their behaviour. One of them, in an offline conversation, even went on to call me hypocritical for having deleted his posts. I am still not sure what impression the online exchange might have left on others. The fact that this problem even occured is an implication.

Circles solves some of these issues. But is the Circles or Circles of Circles (Extended Circles) the ultimate answer? This is a great change toward the right direction, but not a panacea. When we create our own Circles, we still end up adding A and B who are each known to U, but not to each other. How fine tuned would you make your circles? How many Circles can you manage? I am sure there is a smaller Dunbar's Number for Circles you can manage. Will your network set-up imitate exactly what you have in your mind?

So, essentially, bogged down by lack of choices, what are the users doing? They might be either getting used to the idea of 'sharing it all with all', or using discretion in what they share, so that they at least deliver a 'common mimimum' content to the 'Wall' or 'Circles'. In a sense, therefore, even the best tools today still give us a compromised experience, even if they are, innovative, technically well executed and design-wise state-of-the-art. Another question to consider is, how is this group level behaviour changing us at the individual level as we continue to use the available social tools in current formats? There are more questions than answers.

My bigger problem right now is learning to juggle my time for Google+ and Facebook.