Customer Reviews

Jacqueline Susann's Shadow of the Dolls

5 star:		(11)
4 star:		(8)
3 star:		(15)
2 star:		(8)
1 star:		(12)

 

 

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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?"

While I appreciate that Rae Lawrence sought to warm the hearts of a public who missed Susann's original characters, this book (like "Scarlet", the "sequel" to "Gone With the Wind") is proof that some things are indeed best left alone. The characters in this work seem very flat, lacking the emotion, depth and vibrancy that made "Valley of the Dolls" such an enjoyable work.
Anne, Neely, Lyon are all relegated to plots that are the fodder for typical romance novels that aspire to be good beach reading: adultery, Hollywood, death, a genre well done by someone like Jackie Collins. However, in Lawrence's text they seem only to be placed in these situations. The reader is given very little insight into any character's motivation or emotional reaction.
And then there is the unfortunate "second generation" sub-plot.
If you feel this is something you must read, please check it out of your local library. Your money will definitely be better spent elsewhere.

Having read the original VOTD for the first time almost 30 years ago, I was thrilled to learn that a sequal was being released. I have to confesss that I am a VOTD fanatic, and have an autographed first edition of Ms. Susann's classic, as well as all other books she has written. Thus, my expectations were high.When Shadow arrived (pre-ordered and sent to me in Holland by express mail), I immediately stopped all non essential activites and began to devour it, first in large gulps, then slower and slower, with increasing disappointment and bitterness.

The author has played fast and loose with the characters, updating the time frame by more than 20 years, but making the characters only a few years older than the original. The situations are predictable, the characters one dimensional, and the writing can most charitably described as plodding.

I fail to understand why this travesty of a novel has been so well received by so many readers. Perhaps they were not around to experience the thrill of the original novel--scandalous, controversial, and above all, unputdownable in its acute and acerbic observation of life in the fast lane. Miss Susann must be rolling in her grave. I consider Shadow to be a desecration and insult to one of the cultural pop art triumphs of the mid 20th century. Do not buy this book. Do not read this book. If it is offered to you, follow Nancy Reagan's advice, and JUST SAY NO!

If you haven't already read Valley Of The Dolls, this supposed sequel will make no sense at all. The author relies too heavily on reader's past knowledge of the novel. That said, I found it incredibly hard to wrap my head around "Shadow" and I've read the original "Valley" about a dozen times. The characters have not been properly aged. I disagree that this is a conceit Jacqueline Susann would have approved of. The women of "Valley" dealt head on with issues ranging from infidelity to breast cancer to suicide. Surely they could have easily taken on aging ten years later. Not only do these characters not age, they still speak as if they were in the sixties, using expressions like "in the kip". While some would argue that "Valley Of The Dolls" is trashy fun, "Shadow Of The Dolls" is simply garbage. It's inane and silly. Ms. Susann's book was full of substance, through the trash one could sense that she was trying to communicate something. At the very least, she captured the imaginations of a generation. Rae Lawrence has captured nothing. Poor Jacqueline is rolling in her grave.

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.

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.)