Shadow Of The Dolls

Customer Reviews

• Valley of the Placebos  Jul 3, 2001 (9 of 9 found this helpful)

  I tore through this book, first reading it, hoping for a satisfactory followup to my favorite book of all time...then I tore through it again with my bare hands, ripping to shreds this slap in the face to Jacqueline Susann. The promotions for the book brag that this is based on an outline by Miss Susann. An outline is all you get in this book, as characters that were filled out with depth in the original, become charicatures. This is not a sequel: times have been changed, characters backgrounds have been changed and the overall tone of the story is completely different. Remember Helen Lawson? Apparently the "author" skimmed over her parts in the original, and Jennifer North is nothing but a castoff one line reference. According to biographies and interviews, Jaqueline was very protective of her characters, and SHADOW OF THE DOLLS attempts to please the hardcore fan and the first time reader, but fails miserably in pleasing either one. Avoid this book and reread the original Valley of the Dolls, or the Love Machine. The best thing I can say about this book, is that I hope it will spark interest in a deluxe DVD edition of the film, Valley of the Dolls.

• SHADOW OF SUSANN  Aug 29, 2001 (7 of 7 found this helpful)

  "Valley Of The Dolls" was an international sensation, penned by the Queen of Sensational Trash who wrote the book after tearing apart another novel by a different author, pasting the the entire story of index cards and teaching herself how to write something that would sell. I remember sneaking the paperback from my grandmother's nightstand and running down to the beach to read and revel while she was out shopping. Valley works just as well today as it did the day it was published. Shadow, sadly, doesn't. We follow our same characters out of the valley, but they never seem to evolve with time. A leopard, it is said, cannot change its spots, but it sure can learn a new way to go after its prey. This just was not written that way. Based on notes Jackie left behind upon her death, Lawrence sets out to complete the story of what happened to our girls. Neely O'Hara, entertainer and spoiled brat, is back looking for the respect she feels her due. Poor Anne Welles, once the high fashion model, is now a single mother and really poor, with no visible means of support until she launches a whole new career for herself. The men are there, acting just as horribly as they did almost three decades ago. And those beautiful "dolls" may have new prescription names, but the song remains the same. There is simply nothing new, just more of the old. I was and am a fan of Jackie's very special genre she slashed out of conventional literature for herself. I greatly anticipated this sequel to take me back to that special time when one could still be shocked and to see what happened to all of the characters who made up the number one best selling phenomena. I was disappointed, I did enjoy the snappy dialogue which was so close to Susann's writing as well as visiting "old friends" but it is only a must read if you read the first one and want to know how it all turned out. I can't help but wonder what changes may have occurred for the characters had the Queen not have gone on to a bigger assignment.

• A Waste of Time and Money  Jul 20, 2001 (6 of 6 found this helpful)

  I spent $... for this book at a wholesale club -- $... too much! The plot is fragmented, but what can one expect when the lives of the characters are as disfunctional as they are. What a waste of time to read about people who consistently mess up when there is a world of great literature to choose from. I just selected this title as a relaxing break between some quality titles. What a colossal bore! I did not find it the page turner some readers claim it to be. Just finished the last page, so this afternoon this book goes to the local used book store as a donation. Can't wait to get rid of it. And, by the way, I read "Valley of the Dolls" when it was published in 1966. This book is certainly a poor excuse for a sequel. Like I say -- save your time; save your money.

• a very pale shadow indeed  Sep 12, 2002 (5 of 5 found this helpful)

  Jacqueline Susann wasn't Milton, but she told a good story. She also set us up at the end of "Valley of the Dolls" (New Year's Eve 1964, If I remember correctly) for a great sequel. Unfortunately, this wasn't it.

  The prospect of Neely and Anne leaving their marks on the women's movement and the sexual revolution could have been fascinating and fun,(Think Neely in a group therapy session or Anne burning her maidenform in front of Gillian Cosmetics) but Rae Lawrence opts to move our girls to the vapid 90's, where she subsitutes plot and character for boring name-dropping, which makes this book about as exciting as a back issue of Town & Country.

  There's a whole new cast of inance characters, all of whom I think would make Jackie wince. They are all so similar and one-dimensional that before long you can't tell one Waspy boyfriend of Anne's from another. And loads of bratty children, all of whom are annoying in their own right.

  The ending is particularly idiotic. I won't give away the plot (such as it is) but suffice to say that where they end up is just about as stupid as where they began.

  I bought this book as a light read on a cross country rail trip, and it was a strugle to finish. Do yourself a favor and re-read the original. This one just doesn't cut it.

• Had its moments, but kind of empty  Jul 4, 2001 (5 of 5 found this helpful)

  The original Valley was one of my favorite all-time books, and I had my doubts that anyone could write a good sequel, but I remembered reading Rae Lawrence's "Satisfaction" years ago and enjoying it. I could even live with the critics' warnings that the characters were only ten years older in 1987 than they had been when the first story ended. That was grossly incorrect. The original Valley started in September 1945. Anne was 20, Neely 17. When it ended on New Years' Day 1965 Anne was 39 and Neely 36. Fast forward 22 years. Anne is 34 and Neely younger than that, so they weren't 10 years older, they were YOUNGER. A dozen lost years I could deal with, but this is just silly. Trying to cram the original story in a span of 3 or 4 years is impossible (and will someone tell Ms. Lawrence it was Kevin GILLMORE, not GILLIAN, who founded the Gillian cosmetics line.) Some snappy dialogue here and there, the same ridiculous fear of aging (I know some people age fast, but the average 35-year-old does NOT need to see a plastic surgeon to remove forehead lines,) and a few couple of good, unexpected plot turns, but at the end I was left with an empty feeling, i.e., "Is that all there is?"