If she hated Book 2, Issue 1 so much, what did she think of the Barrettstown storyline in Book 1? Was it passable to her solely because Julia and Barnabas were a part of it? One does have to wonder...
Though be that as it may, I can understand why Book 2, Issue 1 may have come as a shock to her because a great deal of it is dominated by Nathan, Fred and Pete, characters that had no relationship to the '91 DS Series. However, that being said, Vicki and Barnabas play a substantial role in the proceedings, and Fred and Pete are simply a means to an end to put Vicki in danger and have Nathan and especially Barnabas react to that. Though simply judging by Issue 1, one has no idea that Fred and Pete have already served their entire purpose, nor is there any indications of the great scenes Willie, Julia and Barnabas will be involved in when it comes to future issues. Perhaps Dominique might have held off judgment and waited a bit longer before she jumped the gun and condemned the first installment before she saw what foundations it was setting for future issues in Book 2.
Though with all that being said, in Dominique's defense, one thing that might have contributed to her displeasure that Book 2 wasn't a continuation to Book 1 is how Maggie Thompson may have given a wrong impression when she briefly summarized Barnabas and Julia exploits in Book 1 in her essay on the inside cover of Issue 1 and then wrote "Now that they have returned to Collinwood, the story continues with events not shown to viewers." That could easily be interpreted as Book 2 being a continuation of Book 1 so it should have been phrased differently, especially when it turns out that, as David Campiti explained in SG, the events in Book 2 take place before the events in Book 1. One might think as editors with full knowledge of the timelines for Book 1 and Book 2, David Campiti or Scott Rockwell might have caught that and corrected it - but, well...