Yes, I really read every word of Agnes Nixon's All My Children, Volumes 1, 2 and 3 by Rosemarie Santini. Now, I admit, I've watched the show since it started in 1970, and the books were interesting in terms of what I remembered and what I had totally forgotten. This review, however, will be divided into categories much different than those in my regular reviews, specifically grammatical problems, huh, oh-my-God-am-I-really reading-this, and soft porn moments. (BTW, I'm pretty sure Ms Santini wrote the books at the behest of some publisher who wanted to present the All My Children activities without the ABC sponsors.)
Grammatical problems: there were a few—actually more than a few— but I couldn't find them when I reread the dog-eared pages. The one I remember was a place where God was capitalized—just like the rules of grammar it should be—and then a few lines later referred to as he was a small case h. My memory is that is the name of God or any word that refers to him should be capitalized. But then I figured the book was probably written by some gains in Yankee, and it didn't matter.
Huh: Race was, not surprisingly, never mentioned. I considered that odd because a married couple that I remember being African-American arrived in town. Neither one of them was ever described. A few chapters later though, Tyrone, a pimp from the nearby big city, showed up. He was not described either, but I figure the writer assumed the reader would know he was black because he wore a bright pink suit, had thick lips and was a pimp. A few pages later a fight between Mr. Grant and Tyrone provided the opportunity to let the reader know for sure the Grants and Tyrone's race when Tyrone says, "Well, if it ain't a brother." (volume 3, page 232) Possibly I'm reading stuff into these scenes, but I think it would have been a lot less racist simply to refer to one of them as, say, a good looking black man. (The publication date, in case you're interested, was 1981.)
Oh-my-God-am-I-really-reading-this
1) My thoughts when Santini described every detail of every piece of clothing every female character wore.
2) "She fell on her knees, holding him around the ankles. 'Don't do this to me, Paul. I love you. I can't live without you. Please. Don't!'" (volume 3, page 132) Yuck! How un-feminist can you get?
3) "Linc had given her the whipped cream on the cake of life." (volume 3, page 135) Yuck again . But one doesn't read this type of book for its beautiful use of language, or even a clever use of language. Okay. Expecting competence in language might also be a stretch.
4) The last paragraph in volume 3: "She watched him walk down the path and drive away. Darling, devoted, dependable Chuck. So much a part of her life for so long, and now he was gone. What would happen to her? What would happen to them all? If only she could read the future in the fire as the gypsies did. But Tara knew she would simply have to live it. (page 235) Not bad as a lead-in for a continuing soap, but as literature? Another big yuck!
Soft porn moments
1) "At first he looked disinterested. Then is eyes opened wide as Kitty's tongue forced its entrance into his mouth." (volume 1, page 228) Just an example, the first I encountered and when I realized the reason for the book's existence.
2) Repetitious dialogue made me think of a great new rock 'n roll song title: "A whole lot of moanin' goin' on."
Word: epergne. "… long table set with a silver epergne of red roses at its center." (volume 3, page 179) According to www.dictionary.com: "noun, an ornamental piece for the center of a table, for holding fruit, flowers, etc." Guess I don't run in snooty enough circles. Also makes the writer's statement of the position of the epergne totally unnecessary.
I won't get into recommending or not recommending this one. Even for a die hard fan, the book was pretty hard-going.
