WATCHMEN prequels - are you excited?

D.C. Comics announced yesterday that it was going to develop a prequel series to Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons' graphic novel WATCHMEN, apparently without Moore's blessing. There are a few narratives to this story:

• Moore is famously opposed to any adaptations of his work, including the 2009 movie.
• D.C. owns the characters so he more or less has no recourse as far as that goes. (The Hollywood Reporter quotes artist Dave Gibbons as giving the series his blessing, with reservations.)
• WATCHMEN has a cult following if not a large one, so it's inevitable that these characters weren't just going to sit in the metaphorical vault forever.

As a casual fan of WATCHMEN who didn't completely hate the movie (although a lot of things went awry there, a lot) I am actually sort of excited that there are going to be prequels -- I think there is a lot of depth and richness to the story that, if done right, could span a bunch of new works. It's a shame they couldn't do it in a way that garnered Moore's blessing, but if he was never going to give it, then how should D.C. proceed?

What you shouldn't be reading

How do libraries deal with material its patrons find offensive? In the wake of the West Bend censorship campaign (ongoing though upstaged in outrage by He Who Shall Not Be Named), CityRoom explains how the Brooklyn Public Library handled a recent complaint against a Tintin book. But we can't let this pass without comment:

At a library run by [former Connecticut Library Association president Alice] Knapp, she said there was a complaint from a member of her own staff about Alan Moore’s LOST GIRLS, for sexual explicitness. Ms. Knapp considered reclassifying the novel as an “823,” a call number that would effectively hide the book inside the vast literature department where erotica was parked, or leaving it where it was, grouped in plain sight with other “graphic novels.”

She chose to tough it out.

Why? “It was in constant circulation,” she said. “The reviews for it were outstanding, and then we decided we bought it to be used, going back to the idea that books should be used. That’s why we’re buying them.”

First, I wonder if there was a City Room debate over whether to print the "hidden" call number on the blog. Hey, it's cool, if they're on the Internet, they're not going to the library anyway. Second, I haven't read LOST GIRLS (if you're also unfamiliar, Neil Gaiman's review should get you briefed) but would have assumed most libraries wouldn't have bought it in the first place, so as not to face that decision. I couldn't find it in the NYPL catalog when I looked today.

Third, I would be interested in a similar piece on cases of offense-related defacement, as I once thought I might have seen (but probably didn't). And finally, do the libraries count written requests for removal that are composed entirely of obscenities? I don't know if that was my letter they got about Ann Coulter.