Filling In Gaps (That Don't Need Filling)
Um...no. Few things in recent memory of the Comic Multiverse caused as much of a stir as the whole "Before Watchmen" brouhaha. Personally, I'm usually against reboots and prequels and the like, but there are worthwhile exceptions (such as Battlestar Galactica), so when I saw this on the library shelf I checked it out. I admit I was initially against the idea of Watchmen prequels, even with the great J. Michael Strazcynski on board: the story was told by Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons. We know enough of the early days if you read the original story carefully and attentively, especially the "bonus" material at the end of each part. These two series did not change my mind about the superfluity of this enterprise. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this Minutemen series contradicts Watchmen. I subscribe to the "Captain Metropolis and Hooded Justice Aren't Dead" theory, even if Gibbons and Moore take their "oh, that's an interesting thought" attitude about it, so if you don't believe it's them in the restaurant, you can stop reading now and go on believing the Before Watchmen stories, even when they contradict what is in Watchmen. If they aren't dead, then certainly Nite Owl didn't do what he did at the end of Minutemen, and neither did Metropolis. If they are dead, which is doubtful (made even more doubtful considering the multiple theories Minutemen adds to the theories on their deaths), and the version presented by the Comedian is to be believed, the older Hollis in Watchmen would have behaved differently, especially to Dan and with everything else going on. Minutemen also presents Hollis as disliking Dan, which may have been initially true, but why say it, then? How did their relationship get better? does Hollis just start tolerating him? Some of these tidbits just don't make sense. (Did Gretchen miss with her getaway shot? or just wound him? And what in the world is with that panel of the African-American guy in the woman outfit right in the middle of all that stuff going down? Is that in the wrong book? was he there at the time? What is with that?)
Minutemen is on the whole much darker than Watchmen, likely another reason I didn't like it much. If the "they aren't dead" theory is true, and Rolf Muller is Hooded Justice, he has apparently calmed down and is a much better person in Watchmen. The emphasis on Muller and the child kidnapping/murdering in Minutemen is unpleasant, naturally (and again contradictory), and the need to give us more reasons to dislike the Comedian just is unnecessary. Sure, there may be people out there who like the Comedian and think he's cool (or whatever the kids are calling amoral antiheroes these days), but I'm not one of them. Metropolis, likewise, is a confusing mixture of a strong, intelligent, together ex-Marine who is doing this for the right reasons and a mealy-mouthed, indecisive, passive crybaby when it comes to Hooded Justice. I don't get it. I mean no disrespect - I just truly don't understand the apparent contradictions (yes, I know people have contradictions in their characters, but this is a bit much, especially given, again, what we are told in Watchmen). Comedian wants us to believe there is no "truth," only "truths." Well, no thanks.
The interesting thing in this series is the Silhouette time, even if it is all made up by Cooke and not what Moore had in mind at all. Yes, the majority of her storyline is creepy, but we are given great reasons to root for her and be all the more frustrated by her death (but if that restaurant picture is of HJ and CM, is that really the source of Silhouette's death? doubtful). It may be difficult to read A Child's Garden of Verses without being creeped out (how does "Muller" know they read that book?), but at least getting more of her character (some version of it) was mildly interesting.
One intriguing aspect of the book is the idea the version of Under the Hood we think we know from Watchmen is actually a watered-down, redaction-laded version to keep everyone happy and the memories more sentimental. That's an intriguing notion, true, and it makes us think better of Hollis ... at first. This makes Minutemen a kind of "In the Pale Moonlight" concept. Plus, it wants us to disbelieve what we are told in Watchmen ... something that doesn't really say "hey, we are being totally respectful to the original source material." So it's intriguing, yes, but not very creditable.
Both Minutemen and Silk Spectre are too full of obvious "knowing winks" to the audience. The ubiquitous circles/watches/clocks/smiley faces in Minutemen is not a cool inside joke or subtle easter egg for the "real fans." It's like a Star Wars book that spends too much time saying "remember the time we were in that trash compactor?" or "this is just like when we escaped from Hoth" or "I haven't seen this many trees since Endor" or obvious forehead-slapping comments to that effect. The semi-circles and other geometric patterns throughout Silk Spectre are too much "hey, look, we are being respectful to the original source material!" when in reality they are just come off as foppish fourth-wall-breaking irritants. Darwyn Cooke is no Thomas Magnum.
Silk Spectre gives us truly nothing except one more reason to dislike the Comedian. We knew essentially everything about this from what we can read (attentively) in Watchmen. The drugs, the language, the nudity ... why? Because it was the '60s? Is this "real life"? Or are we just supposed to learn valuable lessons through this excess? I dunno. And Amanda Connor's salty addendum at the end of this "deluxe" hardcover doesn't give us any reason to give her any benefit of any doubts. What is with the bands? Are we supposed to believe The Beatles and The Doors were in on some Sinatra/not-Sinatra-driven anti-hippie consumerist movement? I can't quite tell who that other band is supposed to be, so I won't try. We are left frustrated that Laurie never knows her dad is responsible for the breakup with a guy who really cares about her and about whom she really cares. This only gives us another reason to dislike Dan Dreiberg and how Laurie has to basically settle for him even more (and I don't want to dislike Dan Dreiberg, but these Before Watchmen series are just trying to make me dislike Dan Dreiberg). The point of this series, apparently, is that Sally was a mean ol' gal to her daughter. We got that already. Cooke and Connor try to redeem it all with this grandiose speech of Laurie's that she has now had a passion for defending the poor and fighting crime awakened within her ... which is quite lovely, but it again doesn't seem to match well with what we read in Watchmen. Ah well.
Part of the success of Watchmen is the absence of detail on these "missing years." We can figure out enough of what we need to know by reading attentively, multiple times, and thinking it out. We will never figure it all out, true, but we aren't meant to. Filling in these gaps with speculation, contradiction, and ubiquitous obscenities (trying to be "realistic," I suppose) does not actually add to this universe - it detracts.
