How to Tell Toledo from the Night Sky

Reads like a first novel, in the best possible way (though it's actually a sophomore outing). This story is so full of ideas, histories and emotions that I can't believe it didn't germinate and grow inside the author's brain for an entire lifetime before bursting forth in full bloom. I can't wait to go back and read other works, or for something new to come.

I loved [b:Shine Shine Shine 13167199 Shine Shine Shine Lydia Netzer https://d2arxad8u2l0g7.cloudfront.net/books/1325702786s/13167199.jpg 16422717], so I jumped on this when I found it in our local little library. In conclusion, I think Lydia Netzer basically can only write one book. Also, I'm pretty sure I will happily read that book as many different ways as she would like to write it. The book is this: quirky and star-obsessed scientist(s) – in Shine Shine Shine an astronomer; here a pair of astrophysicists – face obstacles in their love for each other, but are just too quirky to really integrate with the rest of society. The conclusion is a light, but deep-hearted, geeky romantic comedy formula that seems to be just my speed.I was worried the premise of the mothers setting up their children to be soul-mates would turn out to be twee, but the twists it took from the back cover saved it, in addition to the other plot elements. I liked that Irene and George were full characters with personalities and goals beyond their romance and the quirkiness. This isn't a perfect novel – George and Irene's respective initial significant others are pretty one-dimensional and seem to exist for comic relief alone. A bizarre narwhal-filled interlude is cute but unharmonious with the rest of the novel. It's clear it was Netzer's pet scene (and she says as much in the afterword) and she couldn't quite pull it out even when it was clear it wasn't working. Lydia Netzer may only write one book, but, in my foray into literary fiction I've learned that 90% of literary fiction is the same retread “modern novel” over and over and it's very dull. So I'll take her repetitive, but geeky, quirky and fresh novel as many different ways as she wants to write it.

This book right here... well it's probably the weirdest book I've ever read. I spent the entire book trying to figure out if it was bad weird or good weird. I'm still torn... But it was intriguing, which is why I couldn't not finish it. Real review to come.

REAL REVIEW:
How to Tell Toledo from the Night Sky is the story of Irene and George, two astronomists with completely different outlooks on life. George is a dreamer – far more than you would ever think a scientist would be – and a lover, and I mean sleazy, womanizer sleeps-with-his-students type lover because he's searching for the girl that he “used to dream about but can't quite remember”. Irene is an anti-lover and doesn't believe that love even truly exists. She ran away from her drunk mother to pursue her dream of discovering the make-up of a black hole and therefore creating a black hole to revolutionize science. The only outlet she has in life is lucid dreaming where she can visit with the sober version of her mother.

Sound weird? My first thought about 5 pages in was “WHOA”. Here's what I expected based on the book summary: a Rosie Project type story with some smart people romance and a different twist because their parents organized the entire thing. What is not mentioned in the book summary is that there is also some pretty deep philosophical details involving gods (somewhat Greek but more modern), destiny, soul twins, and other astrology related things. The story switches between Irene's mom - Bernice, George's mom – Sally, Irene, and George's points-of-view to explain the set-up and key events from George and Irene's childhoods. There are also lengthy philosophical breakdowns about the stars and destiny. I kept reading through the end of the book still trying to figure out if it is good weird or bad weird... and I finally decided – GOOD weird.

The plot, even with all the philosophical speak, is still pretty fast moving. It starts with Irene and George meeting as adults and then goes back from there to learn the details of their set up. There is a lot of adventure with George – he's a very spontaneous and carefree man, and a lot of brooding from Irene. The love story is a bit cheesy, but this is still a good quirky read. This book is honestly the weirdest book that I have ever read.. it is unlike any other. Was it lacking in some areas? Yes. Good or bad? At the end of the day, I end up choosing good because the philosophical aspects make you think. I hear that's good for you!!