This is a biased, distorted view of a TV show that many don't even remember, one that has become just a footnote in TV history. It's mostly an episode guide with two-thirds of the material in the book being cast lists (yes, repeated for each episode!), lines from each episode, and plot summaries--namely, deadly dull and a sloppy way to write a book. It includes a lot of non-Soap material as an attempt to put the show in context (Bobby Kennedy? Fay? Peyton Place?). It's a really weird way to write a TV show history and doesn't work. There's not much here when it comes to adding insight into the history or making of the show. And the book is way overpriced for what is just a fan's episode guide.
The program wasn't even that groundbreaking, a fact that the author does allude to but chooses to ignore. Mary Hartman, Mary Hartman actually used a similar structure a year earlier and introduced many of the wacky plot ideas. Then the author wonders why Susan Harris didn't get an Emmy for Soap? The answer is that the show isn't quite as good as the writer claims--take a look back at it (which I did recently) and you'll see a very funny, enjoyable series that isn't as good as this guy claims. The book's subtitle calls Soap "the sitcom that broke all the rules," but in truth it just pushed the edge a bit and for the most part kept the content pretty clean (which we can thank ABC censors for instead of condemning them the way the author does here--keeping it clean probably kept the series on the air a few years past certain cancellation).
The problem with this book is really the author--he has some of his facts just plain wrong, has way too many pages devoted to non-Soap material, wastes a lot of pages quoting lines from the show, and uses the book as his own personal "soap" box to bash those he doesn't agree with while overpraising the creator/producers of the series. The author is an off-the-deep-end liberal who uses the book to constantly slam anything conservative without any serious consideration of why a viewer at home might object to a a storyline of a priest being seduced by a young woman in the confessional. It does appear he did quite a bit of research, including talking to many of the major players, but all of that is wasted by disorganization and a distracted ADHD publication style where pages skip ahead and are interrupted by full-page sidebars. Even when he gets a big find in the history of the show (like a Newsweek article published before the show aired that rallied anti-Soap protests) he blows it--he contacts the writer of the article who doesn't even remember writing it, knew nothing of the supposed reaction, and basically says the article was no big deal. There may be a great book that could be written about the making of this series but this isn't it. If this book were a soap opera it would have been cancelled quickly due to the author's inability to tell a compelling story.