An Interview with Siobhan Kelly

Siobhan KellySiobhan Kelly’s novel Through a Shot Glass, Darkly is about a Jersey girl who buys a tavern in the small mid-western college town, fictional Sherman, Nebraska. She makes some friends, learns the culture, when suddenly one of her customers is murdered. It’s up to Alex Fitzpatrick to figure out who the killer is and figure out what’s going on in Sherman.

Siobhan Kelly grew up in New Jersey and taught for thirteen years as a college professor in northeast Nebraska, where she also wrote a food column for the Norfolk Daily News. Today she lives at the Jersey Shore with her partner and three demanding cats, where she is at work on a sequel to Shot Glass.

EB: First, let me say I really enjoyed the descriptions of mid-western food and everyday life–the salads and sandwiches, “dinner” versus “supper,” cards showers and wedding dances, unlocked doors, savvy retired farmers holding court in the donut shops. What is Alex’s relationship to her new environment? Curiosity? Bewilderment?

SK: Both! And amusement. She’s like me, when I moved to Nebraska to teach at a state college. Rural Nebraska really is a different world from the East Coast: much slower-paced, quiet, very conservative. It was culture shock. But whereas my social universe was the “gown” part of town, Alex owns a pub and gets immersed in the “town” part of Sherman. She’s kind of a social anthropologist, standing behind the bar. But it’s not the total shock to her that it was to me, because she has family there and has been out on visits. Of course, living there and owning a business is another story.

EB: Some of the differences that pop up in the book are bigger, like the roles of men and women and religion. The book has a social message but also a mystery—which of those did you find driving the story more? Or can you even tell?

SK: I really can’t separate them because the social stuff is so much a part of the mystery. The best mystery writers today weave social observation and commentary into their mystery plots, and I tried to do that in Shot Glass. Sherman is a town and a culture that doesn’t love change—at least not for the sake of change. And some people seem willing to kill, to stop change.

EB: You burn up a bookstore in the novel! Aren’t you afraid that readers will hate you for that?

SK: Yes! And it was painful to do it. But that was the image that started the novel for me and I built the story around it. I also kill off Alex’s first friend in Sherman and she’s grieving as she investigates. I really wanted to ramp up the stakes for Alex, and for the reader. It bothers me that in so many mysteries, the victim is just kind of a vehicle for the story and the grief happens offstage. Alex is gutted. Then she gets pissed. And the cultural stuff she’s been amused or mystified by becomes material she must decode, to unravel the mystery and get justice for her friend.

EB: I enjoyed the way you used the tavern as a place for people to congregate. You also seem to know a lot about running a tavern. How do you come by that?

SK: A liberal arts degree, of course! No wait, several. That post-college job in publishing never materialized so I started waitressing, and I did that, on and off, and a little bartending, all through grad school. I enjoyed it: the energy, the craziness, the different kind of people you met. And it was a nice contrast to the academic world.

EB: The title adapts a Biblical quote, which was also a Bergman film. Can you elaborate on its significance?

SK: There was a Bergman film with this title?? The quote from Corinthians is about not seeing things clearly. That’s Alex’s challenge, because she’s trying to understand this culture but can only see it through the fog of her East-coast worldview. And she’s a bartender so the glass became a shot glass.

EB: What was your biggest challenge in writing the book? Or your biggest surprise?

SK: Revising. Over and over. I sent various drafts to agents, contests, small presses. Lots of rejections along the way, but with some of them came positive feedback and advice about how to make it better. So I’d go back and revise again. Shot Glass could have become the proverbial first-novel-in-a-drawer but I was too stubborn to let it die. It’s come a long way. My biggest surprise? When a character started doing things on his own! I’d heard of this phenomenon but never quite believed it. It was amazing. Then other characters started developing their own minds, too.

EB: Your main character likes to read Agatha Christie. Is Alex what Miss Marple would be like if she were young, gay, and ran a bar?

SK: LOL! Now there’s an image. I can’t imagine Miss Marple dispensing anything but tea, though.

EB: Seriously though, your protagonist is gay but her sexual preference doesn’t seem to play a big role in this story. Was that intentional?

SK: I’ve had readers say that before and it surprised me, so no, it wasn’t intentional. But I guess it’s just a reflection of how I live my life. I’m gay and not closeted but I also don’t make a big deal of it. And I think more and more people are living their lives that way.

EB: Who would play Alex if there was a movie?

SK: What a fun question. Hmmm. How about Helen Mirren? No, I’m just saying that because she’s my favorite. How about Rachel Maddow? She’s got that kind of lesbian-girl-nextdoor vibe that I like to think Alex has. But Alex isn’t as sexy as Rachel, and not quite as smart! As for Alex’s love interest, Chris, that’s a different story…

EB: Do you have a sequel planned? Will we see more of Sherman, Nebraska?

SK: Yes, and this time you’ll see more of the “gown” part of Sherman: the state college. So it’s partly an academic mystery this time. Alex has professor customers in Shot Glass but I develop them further in the sequel, and draw on my experience as a professor. Stay tuned for satire.

EB: I think it would be fun to have Alex and some of her Nebraska friends visit New Jersey. How about it?

SK: Love it! I’m picturing Alex, Kathy, and Chris on a road trip. Of course, once in New Jersey, Alex would have to do all the driving!

Posted in Interviews | Comments Off on An Interview with Siobhan Kelly

2012 favorites

I asked some Literary Ashlanders about their favorite books of 2012. Here are some of their replies:

Patty Wixon: We the Animal s by Justin Torres.

Vince Wixon: The Richard Pevear/Larissa Volokhonsky translation of Anna Karenina.

Don Morris: favorite non-fiction: Rachel Maddow’s Drift; favorite fiction was Wolves Eat Dogs by Martin Cruz Smith.

Molly Beth Tinsley: Cologne, by Sarah Pleydell.

Geoff Ridden: The Weird Sister s by Eleanor Brown.

Bill Gholson: About a Mountain by John D’Agata.

Maggie McLaughlin: Under the Glacier by Halldor Laxness.

Bobby Arellano: The Sisters Brothers by Patrick deWitt.

Marianne Golding: Un Heureux événement (A Happy Event) by Eliette Abecassis

Mine was Babel No More: The Search for the World’s Most Extraordinary Language Learners by Michael Erard.

How about you?

Posted in What People Are Reading | Comments Off on 2012 favorites

Arithmetic Depends on Grammar

If you get all of the presents in the song “The Twelve Days of Christmas,” how many presents do you get?

364 (because of the AND)

Here’s the formula: ((1 x 12)+ (2 x 11)+(3 x 10)+(4 x 9)+(5 x 8)+(6 x 7)) x 2
You get the partridge all twelve days, the two turtle doves for eleven, the three French hens for ten days, etc. After the six geese a-laying, which you get for seven days, you get seven swans a-swimming for six days, eight maids a-milking for five days, etc. so you can stop the sequence at the halfway point and multiply by two.

This is all well and good unless you assume that the implied AND is a carryover from the previous day. Then you only get (1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 +7 + 8 + 9 + 10 +11 + 12) or 78, which is (6 X 13) because of there are six pairs that equal 13 (1+12), (2+11), etc.

Which number you choose depends on how you interpret the song. Is “On the twelfth day of Christmas, my true love gave to me…12 Drummers Drumming, 11 Pipers Piping, 10 Lords-a-Leaping, 9 Ladies Dancing, 8 Maids-a-Milking, 7 Swans-a-Swimming, 6 Geese-a-Laying, 5 Golden Rings, 4 Colly Birds, 3 French Hens, 2 Turtle Doves, and a Partridge in a Pear Tree” interpreted with as a noun phrase with the commas representing ANDs.

Or is the lyric understood as an elliptical coordination, shorthand for “On the twelfth day of Christmas, my true love gave to me…12 Drummers Drumming, [and on the eleventh days of Christmas, my true love gave to me] 11 Pipers Piping, [and on the tenth day of Christmas, my true love gave to me] 10 Lords-a-Leaping, [and on the ninth day of Christmas, my true love gave to me] 9 Ladies Dancing, …, etc.”

The arithmetic depends on the grammar. As it usually does.

Posted in Language | Comments Off on Arithmetic Depends on Grammar

Deep (structure) thoughts

It’s Noam Chomsky’s birthday, and through a combination of serendipity and procrastination I’ve just finished a mini-review of Chomsky’s Linguistics (ed. by Peter Graff and Coppe van Urk and published by the MIT Working Papers in Linguistics. It’s a 700 page collection of selected linguistics writing by Chomsky’s from about 1970-2008. You can find the review in an upcoming issue of Choice.

Reading the book caused me to think of two of my favorite Chomsky quotes: “Precisely constructed models for linguistic structure can play an important role, both negative and positive, in the process of discovery itself. By pushing a precise but inadequate formulation to an unacceptable conclusion, we can often expose the exact source of this inadequacy, and consequently, gain a deeper understanding of the linguistic data” (Syntactic Structures, p 5). The other quote whose source escapes me reminds academics that if they are still researching the same things in their fifties as they were in their twenties, they are doing something very wrong.

It also reminded me of three odd misunderstandings about Chomsky and his work: The first is the common mispronunciation or mishearing of Noam as Norm—I once endured a talk by someone who referred to Norm Chomsky and Norman Jakobson. The second is a syntactic Spoonerism. Chomsky’s long and long unpublished book The Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory (Plenum Press, 1975, but written and mimeographed in the 1950s) is often misspoken (even by linguists) as The Logical Theory of Linguistic Structure (you can find this in print as well—ha).

And finally, and seriously, there’s the notion of deep structure. For linguistics, deep structure is (or was, since it is dropped from recent versions of many theories) simply a level of analysis in a formal model, the level in a derivation in which morphemes are inserted. But deep structure has often drifted to be misunderstood as underlying meaning or as universal grammar, three different concepts. We can blame it on the word “deep” or on Chomsky’s sometimes murky exposition or on various extensions by others over the years. In any case, the misunderstanding of deep structure is so wide-spread as to be enshrined in Merriam Webster, which gives these definitions:

    deep structure: a formal representation of the underlying semantic content of a sentence; also : the structure which such a representation specifies

    surface structure: a formal representation of the phonetic form of a sentence; also : the structure which such a representation describes

It’s not accurate, though it represents the way that the average speaker understands uses deep structure rather than specialists. But what if dictionaries used the commonly understood senses for other technical or scientific terms.

Posted in Language | Comments Off on Deep (structure) thoughts