Box 13 comic review
Box 13
Publisher: Red 5 Comics
Review based on the trade paperback, original published on Comics by ComiXology iPhone app
Writer: David Gallaher
Art: Steve Ellis (inks), Mike Paar (colours) & Scott Brown (letters)
Technologic
OK, let me start by saying that Box 13, if nothing else, is a noble experiment. Conceptually, a comic book divided up into mini issues, just 8 pages long (including cover), designed to be read on your phone is pretty freaking cool. After all, in so many ways the comic book format seems ideally suited to reading on a smartphone; they’re a visual medium, but one that doesn’t require you to stare at line after line of tiny text on your phone’s screen, whilst being jostled by fellow commuters on the subway, and the dimensions of a typical comic book panel do not regularly exceed those of a smartphone’s screen.
Indeed, most of the major publishers either have a comic reader app out for the iPhone, or are rumoured to have one in the works. So it would certainly make sense for writers to sit down and start figuring out how to adapt their work to the particular constraints of this new forum. Well suited though they might seem, smartphones still impose a unique set of challenges, and perhaps offer some unique opportunities as well.
Blinded By The Light
So, that’s the theory. Comic books, chopped up into smaller chunks, and with art and layouts well suited to screen reading. Gotcha.
Results? Not so promising. David Gallaher seems to have approached the knotty problem of reinvigorating the idea of comics as a form of burst culture, something to be consumed in tiny bites during the brief periods of downtime in our busy lives, by taking a solid concept, and then ripping out all that pesky characterisation, plot, good writing, coherent story flow, and just about everything else that actually makes a good comic book. Yeah, this thing is a mess.
Y’know, before I go any further, let me just put in good words for both Steve Ellis and Mike Paar, whose work on inks and colours, respectively, is easily the best thing about this comic. If there’s one thing to be said for Red 5 Comics in general, it’s that their stuff always looks fantastic, thanks to some great art talent, and tight, high quality printing (the first thing that struck me about Brian Clevinger’s Atomic Robo, when I was picking up the singles, was just how solid each issue felt. I didn’t even feel like asking for the usual bag and board).
Here on Box 13, Ellis lays down solid work, full of energy and movement, and bold shading that adds some nicely claustrophobic atmosphere, as befits a conspiracy story. Mike Paar works well with a very limited colour palette, adding an impressive amount subtlety with what more or less amounts to just red and grey. It’s good stuff, even if it doesn’t quite manage to “pop” in the way that really excellent art does.
Trying To Find The Words
The script is where everything really falls apart.
The hero, Daniel Holiday? Likable enough, I guess, in that utterly bland The Da Vinci Code sense of a generic lump of a male, mid-thirties, everyman hero. Oh, hey, and he’s a writer, because inserting yourself into the story is always a good way to make things interesting.
(OK, caveat; there are some fucking amazing author inserts out there, but you’ve got to do it right. For point of reference, Douglas Coupland’s Jpod, which is one of those novels every self-respecting geek should have read by now.)
Then we’ve got the girl; tough reporter chick type, picked up a few illicit skills to make her seem resourceful and give her that naughty girl sex appeal. Oh, and if you don’t see her big reveal coming from 10 miles, and a couple of buses away, you’ve obviously never seen North By Northwest (if it seems like I’m potholing this entire review with references, I’m sure it’s just because my brain keeps trying to crawl away to thoughts of better things than this. Well, except The Da Vinci Code. I don’t think anything could actually be worse than that).
And then we’ve got the story. An author, investigating the truth behind the MKULTRA project, who begins to receive a series of numbered boxes, which slowly unlock pieces of the mystery. OK, so now you’re thinking “Wow, that’s cool.” right? I mean, yeah, it is. Sure, MKULTRA has been done to death, but the thing with conspiracy stories is that there’s always more mileage because there are no facts. Something like MKULTRA can be whatever the hell you want it to be. It’s a just a name, a signpost for the reader that says “Here be conspiracy stories.” I mean, just look at what Deus Ex pulled off with it (there’s that ‘mind wandering to better stories’ thing happening again. Fuck it, I’m going to go watch the Human Revolution trailer again. See you in 10).
Ah, that’s better.
So, yeah, good concept, right? Except that’s not what happens. What happens is that a hopeless schmuck gets sent a series of boxes, all of which do exactly the same fucking thing; make him go crazy and smash shit. Really, wow; I see that the Illuminati were really working hard on this one. The immediate problem here is, if all the boxes do the same thing, why the hell do there have to be only 13? Can’t we just keeping sending the guy boxes whenever we want him to smash shit?
And, hell, why does he keep opening them. Why not just send a polite note saying “Please go absolutely fucking crazy and break everything.” with a shot of PCP attached? Wouldn’t that have pretty much the same results?
In fact, it’s even more obvious that Gallaher hasn’t thought the whole “13 boxes” concept through when he resorts to handing 4 of them to the hero at once, and then having said hero, like the good monkey he is, open all four, for an extra big dose of crazy. Seriously, why? It’s like pulling the same prank on a guy, over and over, but he keeps willingly walking into it because he assumes that after a certain number of iterations you’ll explain why you were pulling the prank, and buy him an ice-cream.
Oh, yeah, and the eventual “why” of it all? It’s pretty fucking stupid. In fact, this whole thing is pretty fucking stupid.
All Conspiracied Out
Nice idea. Nice experiment. Nice art. Result; pretty much worthless. Granted, for something to fill 5 minutes, it’s more exciting than popping paper for your iPhone (this is a real app, and the fact that people will spend hours playing with it terrifies me beyond belief), but as a demonstration of the potential of digital comics it falls far short of the mark.
>> Dave Gallagher seems to have approached the knotty problem of reinvigorating the idea of comics as a form of burst culture, something to be consumed in tiny bites during the brief periods of downtime in our busy lives, by taking a solid concept, and then ripping out all that pesky characterisation, plot, good writing, coherent story flow, and just about everything else that actually makes a good comic book. Yeah, this thing is a mess>>
I don’t mind the negative review, but when you can’t even bother to spell my last name correctly — it brings into your question your ability to pay attention as a reviewer. It’s Gallaher. Please correct your review accordingly.
Hi David, Sorry about the incorrect spelling. As editor in chief, I’ll take the heat for that.
There are several incorrect assumptions in this review that I’d like to take a moment to address.
>> OK, let me start by saying that Box 13, if nothing else, is a noble experiment. >>
Thanks. The feedback and readership has been fairly positive overall. Sorry you didn’t care for it — thousands of others did.
>> Results? Not so promising. David Gallaher seems to have approached the knotty problem of reinvigorating the idea of comics as a form of burst culture, something to be consumed in tiny bites during the brief periods of downtime in our busy lives, by taking a solid concept, and then ripping out all that pesky characterisation, plot, good writing, coherent story flow, and just about everything else that actually makes a good comic book..>>
This is where the first assumption starts. Outside of the fact that your review completely neglects comiXology’s impact or role in this project is shameful. You never never once mentioned them by name. It’s their app, their technology, and their project.
Secondly, you make several assumptions about the creative process that are inaccurate or flat out wrong. More boldy, you assume I didn’t think any of this through. Is the story fairly simple? Sure. It has the emotional complexity of an old radio program or pulp. Which brings me to my next point …
The main character of the series is a writer, because this project is a re-imagining of the old BOX 13 radio serial, where the main character — Dan Holiday — is a writer. I’ll concede that you might not have had that information when you wrote the review, but you make the assumption I just threw myself in there because I literally had nothing better to do with my time.
>> (this is a real app, and the fact that people will spend hours playing with it terrifies me beyond belief), >>
BOX 13 isn’t an app at all. You won’t find it in Apple’s APP store. COMICS is the app. COMICS is made by comiXology. BOX 13 is a serialized comic that was made available for free to the readers of the app.
>> Oh, yeah, and the eventual “why” of it all? It’s pretty fucking stupid. In fact, this whole thing is pretty fucking stupid.>>
Well, thank you for taking the time to read it. I’m sorry your initial review butchered my last name when it was spelled clearly on the cover – and I’m sorry you didn’t care for it — I’m sorry there were gross errors in your review – and that you chose to voice your displeasure with vulgarity. I’m sorry you chose not to include the contributions of Scott Brown, whose lettering makes the comic so readable on the iPhone — and again — that you chose to neglect comiXology’s contributions.
I hope to see the appropriate corrections to this review posted shortly,
– David Gallaher
Hi David,
Obviously, I fully understand that you’re not exactly chuffed by my opinions on your comic, and that’s completely understandable. I won’t apologise for voicing my opinions, because refusing to criticise does nobody any good.
You’ve raised a few points that you feel need correcting. I’ll address them in order:
>This is where the first assumption starts. Outside of the fact that your review
>completely neglects ComiXology’s impact or role in this project is shameful. You
>never never once mentioned them by name. It’s their app, their technology, and
>their project.
Whilst the fact that Box 13 was intended to be delivered through an unorthodox channel is germane to it’s purpose and design, ultimately I am reviewing the content, not the technology. To actually read Box 13, I sat down with the paperback collected edition, because when you’re planning to read through something half a dozen times over it’s easier to do so with a paper copy. I apologise if ComiXology feel slighted by the lack of mention, but my intent is to discuss the value of Box 13 to the reader, not to the people who created it, or assisted in that process.
>Secondly, you make several assumptions about the creative process that are >inaccurate or flat out wrong. More boldy, you assume I didn’t think any of this >through. Is the story fairly simple? Sure. It has the emotional complexity of an old >radio program or pulp. Which brings me to my next point…
>The main character of the series is a writer, because this project is a re-imagining
>of the old BOX 13 radio serial, where the main character — Dan Holiday — is a >writer. I’ll concede that you might not have had that information when you wrote
>the review, but you make the assumption I just threw myself in there because I
>literally had nothing better to do with my time.
Again, I’m reviewing the finished product. Whatever you, as the writer, may have intended, if the results do not translate to something enjoyable for the reader, then it really doesn’t matter what the though process was.
You were attempting to emulate the style of the old pulps? Good on you. That’s an awesome style to go for, and I’m a big fan of it. However “it’s a pulp” doesn’t give you a free pass on writing engaging characters. Nothing in the comic gave me any reason to care about what Dan Holiday was doing. That makes for a boring story, whether it’s a thriller, a pulp adventure, or a romantic comedy.
A badly written character is a badly written character, period. I’ll grant that the thought process may not have run the way I characterised it, but the results are the same. I try to approach my reviews with a certain amount of satirical humour, because it’s a fun way to illustrate a point. I understand that it’s not the kindest of approaches, but then neither is tough love. Of course guessing at the author’s thought process will always just be guesswork, but the alternative would be rather dry.
>BOX 13 isn’t an app at all. You won’t find it in Apple’s APP store.
I was referring to the popping paper app. I forget the name of it, and it really didn’t seem important enough to look up. I mean, it’s popping paper. Kinda speaks for itself.
>Well, thank you for taking the time to read it. I’m sorry your initial review
>butchered my last name when it was spelled clearly on the cover – and I’m sorry
>you didn’t care for it — I’m sorry there were gross errors in your review – and that
>you chose to voice your displeasure with vulgarity.
Yes, people swear on the internet. It’s a thing we have here.
Ultimately, it’s no surprise to me that my review displeased and offended you. I mean, these things are bound to happen Still, it’s not my job to make the author happy. It’s my job to give the readers of RGBFilter an honest opinion, and I have endeavoured to do so.
And, hey, congratulations on the numerous glowing reviews the comic has garnered. I’m really not sure what they saw in it, but clearly a lot of people really liked it.
So yeah, best of luck with your next project. I’ll keep an eye out for it.
And I really am truly sorry that I misspelled your name. That was my bad.
Best Regards,
Pete
Thanks for addressing the name misspelling.
Again, I appreciate the author’s time in reading the book. I’ve read my fair share of reviews over my lifespan – both negative and positive – and I am open to feedback, certainly. He didn’t like the book — or my writing — and that’s fine. People are entitled to their opinions — but there are factual errors in piece — and that drives me nuts.
Hi David,
Peter has not been able to respond to your comments about the content of the review yet, however I have edited the credits to mention Scott Brown and ComiXology.
Thanks for taking the time to read the review, and respond to the criticism within — hopefully Peter will post his responses soon.
>>Peter has not been able to respond to your comments about the content of the review yet, however I have edited the credits to mention Scott Brown and ComiXology.>>
Thank you. I appreciate it.
>> Thanks for taking the time to read the review, and respond to the criticism within — hopefully Peter will post his responses soon.>>
No pressure. I’m always available to have a dialogue about the work.