Rating: 
Summary: okay, but don't expect much
Review: I enjoyed the first novel so much, that of course I really looked forward to the sequel. I don't think the book was very good. It's too much like Scarlett, in which the sequel to the phenomenal original just doesn't cut it. The book may have been better if it was written by Jacqueline Susann, but I think Rae Lawrence should have done what Alexandra Ripley didn't, and just leave a phenomenon the way it is.
Rating: 
Summary: Reconnect With Your Old Dolls Pals in Shadow of the Dolls
Review: ...1966 was a banner year for me, and for avid readers everywhere. I was 10 years old back then, and discovered my first grown-up trashy novel. It was Jacqueline Susann's best seller, Valley of the Dolls. I purchased the book with my allowance money, telling the clerk at the bookstore that it was a gift for my mother. That novel was my prized possession; I kept it hidden in the piano in the living room where I was certain my parents wouldn't find it, and luckily for me, they didn't. My mother had already grounded me for reading Pearl S. Buck; can you imagine what punishment I would have received for reading Jacqueline Susann?
Valley of the Dolls changed my life. By the time I had finished off the last few tawdry pages, I realized that I was sick of being a goody-goody, much to the chagrin of my conservative family. In 1966, I decided that my goal in life was to become reckless and wild, like character Neely O'Hara, and I guess I was pretty unruly for a few years.
Now I'm a middle-aged woman, and I suppose my reckless days are over. But I was tickled to death to discover the sequel to my favorite 1966 coming-of-age novel, Jacqueline Susann's Shadow of the Dolls, on the shelves of the Marco Island Library. Susann died in 1974 and left behind an outline for a screenplay based on the pill-popping characters of her original Valley of the Dolls. Best-selling author, Rae Lawrence, took Susann's notes and recreated an updated version of the racy classic, starring the same legendary substance-abusing women, except for Jennifer North, of course, who expired tragically in the original book.
The concept is great and cult-followers of Dolls will leap upon this new novel just like I did, but there is a huge problem with the timing of this book. In the year 2002, nothing is racy or smutty anymore. (What a disappointment!) I mean, Jerry Springer is mainstream, half the population has been to rehab, and cheating on your spouse is as commonplace as cracking open a bottle of the latest soft drink. So a new chapter to the lives of groundbreaking psychotics Anne Welles, Neely O'Hara and Lyon Burke is about as interesting as watching 30-year-old reruns of General Hospital.
Not to say that the book was a complete letdown; in fact, it was nice to get back together with my old Dolls pals, sort of like going to a high school reunion and discovering that everyone is pretty much the same, except older and fatter. Especially character Neely O'Hara, who, in her newfound sobriety, took up the hobby of eating large portions of food. Anne Welles is still the sweet, down-to-earth-type; she has become a famous television journalist but spends much of her downtime mooning over her ex-husband Lyon Burke. Burke, who has apparently run out of women to sleep with and has gone into some sort of crazed depression, decides that he needs to "find himself" by pursuing some other avenues of self-satisfaction. Burke and Welles have a teenage daughter together and her name is Jennifer, named after the deceased Jennifer North. This new Jennifer is about as emotionally secure as the rest of the characters, so the story line moves along quite fluidly.
I'm not sure what Lawrence had in mind when she decided to refashion the tale 10 years after the original Dolls, because this new story takes place in the late 1980s. No matter what buttons I press on my calculator, the numbers and ages don't add up. But I suspect that Lawrence was eager to introduce new drugs into the mix and if she had kept to the original format, she would have had to use the same old drugs from the Dolls days. Consequently, in Shadow of the Dolls, the characters' medicine bottles are copiously filled with Xanax and Valiums instead of Black Beauties and Seconals. (It's important to change with the times; that's what I always say.)
Sequels are never as good as the original books, and Shadow of the Dolls is no exception. But Lawrence's new novel is lively and raunchy, and definitely the perfect book to read on the beach. And coming soon, in July of this year, is the paperback version. So when any of you Marco Islanders decide to reclaim your beaches this summer after our busy winter season, be sure to bring along a trashy paperback to read. Shadow of the Dolls is sleazy fun and would make any afternoon more enjoyable...
Rating:
Summary: Nothing like the orginal
Review: Like a lot of the other reviewers I was looking forward to this book because the first one was so good, but I was VERY disappointed. The thing that really bothered me was that it started in the 1980's and acted like they were the same age when we left them in the first book, in the 1960's. It made no sense. It might have been better if it picked up in the 1960's. This book really lost all the fun of the first. The glamour of the "Hollywood" lifestyle that existed in those times was the heart of the first book. Bringing the storyline into the modern age made it like any other Jackie Collins novel. It lost all of the Jacquline Susann Magic. I would have rather wondered what happened in the future than think of it the way Shadow of the Dolls portrays it.Bottomo line: If you are in the mood for more Jacqueline Susann, buy the other books that she actually wrote.
Rating:
Summary: Question: Is Jackie spinning in her grave?
Review: Answer: If she isn't, ...she ought to be!
I looked forward to reading this book for a long time. Even saved it for a Caribbean cruise because I expected it to be the ultimate fun trashy read.
Where the original was indeed fun and trashy, this "sequel" was barely readable. Where the characters in the original were ... well ... original!, the few new characters in this book were lackluster, even boring.
As for whether this book will answer the questions you've been dying to ask -- What ever happened to Neely, Lyon, Anne and the others, I have good news and bad. The good news: it answers those questions. The bad news: they became BORING!!!
I have to pity poor Ms. Susann's spirit. First she is biographed in a perfectly awful film ("Isn't She Great" Answer: NO!) and then her wonderful novel is followed by an apparently authorized sequel that is mediocre at best.
For those looking for a really GOOD sequel to a best selling Hollywood book/movie, I wholeheartedly recommend "Son of Rosemary" from a couple of years back. It is excellent. (Of course, it benefitted from having the original author, Ira Levin, write the sequel.)
Rating:
Summary: Not as good as the original
Review: but "Shadow of the Dolls" is quite entertaining. When I saw that a sequel had been written, I new I had to read it to see what had happened to the crazy Neely and the way to nice Anne. "Valley of the Dolls" is one of my favorite books of all time, and this sequel certainly isn't a personal fave but it isn't entirely terrible. They do tell us right in the front of the book that the dates and times have been changed..why? I have no idea. That part takes away one star for me. Why did they have to do that? I guess that was the writer's decision. By the way, Rae Lawrence is a decent writer. While she doesn't write in the exact same way Susann did(who ever could?), she does have a knack for dialogue. She did a great job writing Neely's choice words. Nothing beats the original.."I AM NEEEEEELY OHARAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!"
Technically, Anne and Neely should have been at least 15 years older than they say in the book. Anyway, that all aside. As long as you remember that this wasn't really written by Susann, even though you see her name on the cover of the book, and you just enjoy "seeing" those "old Friends"..as a lot of reviewers have put, this book is a decent take. I wasn't thrilled with the ending of the book.
I just hoped for something better. But this isn't better. VALLEY OF THE DOLLS is the better of the two. For those die hard fans, of the first, you may be disappointed. Yet, this book is good. It kept me interested.
I really hope a movie is never made. The movie of the first book is such outrageously trashy fun -- That could never be duplicated, so it should be best left alone!
As far as this book is concerned, I didn't love it, but it was good enough to keep me reading.
I won't give away too much, but if you want revisit Neely O'Hara, Anne Welles, and Lyon Burke, you just may enjoy this homage to Susann.
Rating:
Summary: The Time-Warped Sequel Was a Bit of a Let-Down
Review: I really enjoyed the original Valley of the Dolls - for a light, fun, smutty fun-type book it was one of the best. I was really disappointed because the author chose to change the timeline. The first book ended in something like the late 60's. The sequel picks up the same story twenty years later - with no time break. (The characters go to bed and wake up the same age 20 years later?) In fairness, the author warns the reader of this in the beginning of the book. I just thought that the story didn't translate well through the time warp. Part of what makes the original book so enjoyable are all the references to a glamourous age of cinema, starlets, Broadway and the sexual stereotypes of domineering males. The times have changed and the story doesn't flourish in the sequel's new era. I think it would have made a better original book, with the names changed, than a sequel. On a positive note, I thought Rae Lawrence's writing style was consistent with the original book and the story was entertaining.
Rating:
Summary: Quick, I need a better Doll!
Review: In 2002, can we really shock anybody anymore? This sequel tries to be as much trashy fun as the original and leaves the reader unimpressed. Nothing is shocking in this book. No twists come completely out of nowhere. Still to compare this book with the orginal is doing this book a great injustice. Still the "shadow" of Jacqueline Susann lingers and it is very hard not to compare the two works.
Neely is still my favorite ... character and I love all the chapters with her. The contemporary setting didn't brother me, but why didn't the author leave the book in the orginal time period and work through the sexual haze of the 70's and the sobering early 80's? Did she feel it wouldn't sell? I felt sorry for the character of Anne Wells and her quest for love and in the end the book left me wondering if we can ever find a faithful true love? Do we ever have a second chance at true love? Near the end, I though "Yes" but by the end I'm questioning that answer. ...
Rating: 
Summary: Rae Lawrence crashes Valley of the Dolls into the ground
Review: A die-hard Jacqueline Susann fan, I read every book she wrote and celebrated the joy, the glamour, the reality, the dark side, and the pain found in those books. I had to bite when I learned someone had taken an unfinished manuscript for the sequel to Valley of the Dolls and had finished and published the book. I was so disappointed, the line between where Susann writes her last words and the new author picks up with her own is so sharply contrasted it is pathetic. If the sun set when Jackie died it set again in the middle of this book, when our lovely heroine Anne Wells goes right down hill and into oblivion and mediocrity - surrounded by characters who are neither compelling nor charasmatic. By the time you have muddled to the end, if you are still awake, you could truly care less what happens and it is just as well because nothing much happens at all. Jackie is a hard act to follow. Few if any could have taken controls from her and soared on to the brilliant heights with which only she could take the story and its readers.
Rating:
Summary: Entertaining but not satisfying
Review: I recently read this book with my book club in a two part series with the original "Vally of the Dolls". The original is timeless and is just as enjoying today as it was twenty years ago. The same cannot be said for this book. I didn't actually mind the liberties the author took with the dates, what bothered me was that she kept trying to justify the change by throwing in useless references in an attempt to try to tie the characters to the new dates. She also made reference to many recent events that were easily identified by thier descriptions. This book will never be as enjoyable and timeless as the first. It will however, satisfy your hunger for more about the characters. I did enjoy the overall story, but by the end of the book, the main characters had a different feel then they did at the end of the original story. I could definatly detect the two diferent writers and thier styles. I would recommend reading this book if you enjoyed the first, but don't expect the same results. It is entertaing, but not great.
Rating:
Summary: Good, but not Jackie!
Review: When I saw this book in stores, I wanted to read it. I hadn't even read Valley of the Dolls yet, but I had watched some of the movie and liked it. My mom had a copy of it so I read it. I took a long time to finish the 500 page novel, but I loved it! very daring! (for its time, anyway) Then I ordered the Shadow of the Dolls. I didn't really mind the age change or anything, but I found it more shallow that something Susann would write.
Don't get me wrong, Rae Lawrence is a very talented writer from what I can tell, but she's just no Jacequeline Susann! She should have studied more into the way Susann writes and then wrote it. I guess it just can't compare to the original, to me anyway.
|
