I hate to talk about an issue I haven't read, as I haven't read a Spider-Man comic in some years (outside of guest appearances in other books I've bought,) but I can't fathom the logic behind this move to "kill" Peter Parker and replace him with an amalgamation of a villain infused with Peter's high moral/ethics.

I mean, I can kind of see how writing Peter Parker in any context would suck, given how the character has become a caricature for every post-college art student type who ever Dreamed Big. The Loser who gets the Super Model. The Super-Powered Zero Charisma. I kind of thought that was the whole point of Peter Parker, though I'd prefer Peter to just be a young guy, dealing with young guy issues in perpetuity. Of course you can't have that when Peter, like his fans, have to "grow up" and "die."

All right, accepting that, Peter Parker dies so Spider-Man can become more diverse as a character, more conflicted (this time by having a little devil on one shoulder, an angel on the other.) This Spider-Man is a different man altogether, who might do hardcore things like allow villains to die in fiery wrecks and beating people to death with his bare hands. I get the allure of that, if I wasn't already in the camp of letting Peter be a young guy who has Spider Powers, has clumsy dates with girls and gets yelled at by Jonah Jameson. Since it's a long-running serial character I've outgrown, I don't see the need to destroy Peter Parker to have this conflict in the story-telling.

What is probably the impetus behind Dan Slott's thinking is how Spider-Man is, or can be, more interesting as a menace. Spider-Man is a lot frightening, and that aspect used to be played up regularly in the comics of Ditko and Lee. The contrast of Peter's bungling awkwardness was necessary, to counter the Spider-Menace persona he articulated. What Slott seems to want is more the Pulp Spider than Spider-Man, a madman in a mask.

Again, I find it interesting, but unnecessary, to change Spider-Man in exactly this way. You could have a dark Spider-Man without sacrificing Peter Parker. Surely...surely a less odious way could have been imagined to rid Peter of his moral center and give the world the creeping menace of Spider-Man? This whole thing sounds weird and confusing and, well, amateurishly unclear to a new reader of any stripe. 

I think they could have borrowed a page from Firestorm; Octopus would have primary control over Spider-Man, while Peter watches in horror but manages to exert his will to avert the worst circumstances.