John Mietus said: The trick should be to draw a thirteen year old girl who's hot to thirteen year olds.

And how would you define that? 

I remember being 13 years old and quite frankly, it was the older girls (15 and up) who I and my friends thought where the "hottest," because they had developed.

On the other hand, there are some girls who, at the age of 13, look 18 or older for obvious reasons.  Although we might not like it, it isn't impossible that Cassie is a 13 or 14 year old girl who looks older. 

Or it could just be that most artists aren't good enough to draw 13 year old girls, but are comfortable with making them look 16.  Take your pick.  Now, if you excuse me, I'm going to go wash myself. 

This is something we have lost. The books are hardly ever written in layers any more --- and doubly sad, when they are, the loudest internet fanboys complain, claiming to be "confused".

With all due respect.... WHAT?!

Spider-man should be a high school student again to appeal to new, younger readers?  I honestly do not believe that (and I've thought about this for a few hours before posting).  In order to appeal to a new, younger audience, Spider-man needs to put his colorful costume on, go out and fight some super villains.

Gene Colan once said that when he went back to drawing Daredevil a few years ago it just didn't make sense to him that he would draw whole issues without a single appearance of Daredevil.  That sums it up for me.

Yes, it's great that there are seemingly real people under the costumes with real lives and real problems, but that's a bonus, a plot twist.  Nothing more.  When a kid picks up a copy of Spider-man, is he really looking to find out what happenned to Puny Parker at school today?  Of course not!  He's looking for a wise-crackin' hero in a colorful outfit, swinging from buildings and punching Doc Ock's lights out.

Superman was always portrayed as an adult.  Did that keep kids from tying blankets or towels around their necks and running around the house pretending to fly?  I think not.

For the record, when I started collecting comics as a teen, Spidey was already an adult and married.  Neither that, nor his history, turned me off from his comics.  Instead, I was fascinated and sought to slowly learn about his past.  Having done that, btw, I think his college days are actually my favorite era of Spidey stories (might also have to do with the fact I'm a sucker for Gil Kane's Spider-man).  And here's another little fact, Peter Parker graduated from high school in the 60's, way back in the Lee/Ditko days, no where near any decline in his book's sales.

A little over a year ago, someone decided to translate Ultimate Spidey to hebrew so kids here would be able to start reading the book.  I was at his store when he tried selling the first issue to some kid.  Here was a story about a kid in school having a normal kid's problems, which should supposedly should have been very appealing, right?  Well, the kid didn't want it.  Why?  Spider-man was no where to be found in it (except on the cover, of course).  But then, i better not get started on the whole Ultimate rip-off.

The real problem with the whole aging and advancement deal is that it works for some characters better than for others.  I suppose it's not as ok for Johnny Storm to age as it was (IMO) for Peter Parker to age, but then we do want Franklin Richards to be born and not be a baby forever.  Maintaining the 'suspension of disbelief' for a whole universe of characters under those terms is problematic.  But then, why overthink it?  Does it really matter how old Peter is, or if he only ages to a certain point?  Does it matter Johnny Storm didn't age as much?  I say it doesn't, and if someone says it does then maybe that someone HAS aged past the point of collecting comics.  I never wondered if a bite from a radiated spider could give one super powers, why the gamma radiation didn't kill Bruce Banner, or if a lightning bolt (with the aid of certain chemicals) would increase one's metabolism either, for that matter.  Ultimately, that's a fairly negligible plot device that enables us to write stories of hulks and speedsters.

Having said all that, I do agree that changes and 'growth', just like everything else that doesn't fall under "thrilling super-heroic tales", should be done moderately, subtly and rarely.  It is not to be done simply to improve sales or give a creator a chance to 'make his mark' on a character.

Excuse me? Last time I saw numbers, Archie Comics sold something like 850,000 units per month. Per month. And they sell thru venues like newsstands and grocery stores, when Marvel and DC have either given up or never even had a toehold.

And here's another little fact, Peter Parker graduated from high school in the 60's, way back in the Lee/Ditko days, no where near any decline in his book's sales.

Yeah, and as soon as Stan figured out that Marvel wasn't going to dry up and blow away in three years, they completely halted the aging of the characters.

I remember being 13 years old and quite frankly, it was the older girls (15 and up) who I and my friends thought where the "hottest," because they had developed.

**************************************

That's sort of the problem, though. I love Supergirl (Kara Zor-El) and something struck me when I was re-reading some of her classic ACTION COMICS appearances -- she was never depicted as "hot" -- more the girl next door, your approachable kid sister -- more Betty Cooper than Veronica Lodge. The current Supergirl, with her halter top costume, is a bit too obvious.

*****************************************

Does it really matter how old Peter is, or if he only ages to a certain point?

*****************************************

Yes. Peter Parker should be eternally a teenage high school student. For one thing, it's *unique* ("growth" is not about making a character less unique in my book). He was a teenager who lived with his aunt and had money problems. Now, nothing of that remains but the wise-cracking*, the money problems* (occasionally), and the powers.

You can age Peter but after a point, it reminds me of the film HOOK. Sure, that was Peter Pan, alright, and he flew and fought pirates, but boy did he look ridiculous.

*In the early comics, Peter's wisecracking was sort of a means of masking his own insecurity (a common teenage act). His doing that as an adult closing in on 30 is arguably immature. Same with the money problems. What teenager doesn't have money problems or feel that nothing goes right for him? When you're an adult with those same problems, you're not relatable, you're a loser.

Basically, Spider-Man suffers the most from "growth." Superman and Batman can have a long history behind them (though really, a 40 year old Batman, which is really what the comics are depicting now if Dick is in his mid-20s, strains credulity), but Spider-Man needs the ability to "screw up." A Spider-Man who is a "pro" or has years of experience just feels wrong.