The Michelinie/McFarlane run brought fresh air to the title, especially after the years following DeFalco and Frenz's departure. Even though he had many problems with his art (anatomy, perspective etc), his style was fun to see.

McFarlane's run on the adjectiveless Spider-Man was really bad, though. I think that's when his decline started.

The main problem with Spider-Man are, in my opinion, the enormous number of titles running the same storyline. This was what turned me off on the Clone Saga and most of the more current storylines.

"Also I was referring to the Mcfarlane written/drawn Spider-Man comics."

Well, that's a whole other kettle 'O fish.  McFarlane's writing was pretty stinky.  His art though, when he first started, was so vibrant and so exciting and so different that he deserves any accolades he gets for making post-Marriage Spider-Man interesting.  Shame 'McFarlane style' soon became the norm...

"Or ones you left off like Defalco/Frenz"

I wasn't attempting to list all the great work that's been done on Spider-Man since 1972.  But, for the record, I don't think that Defalco/Frenz stuff IS up there with the best.  Different Strokes and all that.  Whilst it was enjoyable enough, Defalco seemed to concentrate on angst at the expense of everything else and that stops me enjoying his run without reservation.  Although that was around the time I ditched comics so may be I was just growing up.

However, no Spider-Man comics in the past 10 years have been as stinky as the period inbetween Defalco/Frenz and Michelinie/McFarlane. 

Andy

Mike Murray wrote: How does a "Sins Past" or "The Other" storyline carry on that tradition?

Hey, even the vast majority of the pro-marriage folks don't agree with those particular stories.  Thing is, those had nothing to do with Peter being married and could easily have been done with a single Peter.  And probably would have with JMS at the helm.  Even with all the backpeddling he's been doing with those stories lately, I've never seen him say anything to the effect of "well, it's not like I could do anything else with a married character."

Stephen Robinson wrote: I'd agree with you but the marriage was but the worst of many changes to Peter Parker: No longer a teenager No longer a student No longer lived with his elderly aunt All three things -- just to name a few -- were things that set him apart from other heroes of the period.

Interesting that most of the changes you cited were initiated by the guy who created him (1 of them around the four year point of a 55 year and counting publishing career) and the remaining one is easily fixable.

Anyway, I think here's the other "philosophical disagreement" between the pro and anti crowd.  A character isn't unique simply based on the current status quo (although it's not like there are all that many married superheros), but also where he started and how he got to where he is now. 

Maybe a bespectacled teenager living with his Aunt and going to high school is more unique than a married adult teacher (don't think either are in any danger of being cliched anytime soon, to be honest), but Spider-Man is the only character to go from one to the other.

Bringing up Peter ceasing to be a student in the mid-1980s is an overlooked development. But I'd say it did more to age the character than the marriage to Mary Jane.

For 20+ years, Peter had been a student, whether in high school, college or grad school. As long as he was a full-time student, kids could relate to him. Sure, he may have been taking advanced calculus instead of fifth-grade math, but the concept was the same - Peter was a student, not a a full-fledged adult.

When he left school, the dynamic changed. He instantly became older, and not nearly as sympathetic. It's one thing for a college student to struggle to pay the bills. It's another for a grown man to be semi-employed and barely able to make ends meet; it smacks of irresponsibility.

Add me to the list of folks who liked the Michelinie/McFarlane run. They largely told good, entertaining stories and McFarlane's art really got people interested in Amazing Spider-Man once again. They came along right as Marvel got swept up in the whole mega-crossover craze, but their work was solid.

The problem came in giving McFarlane his own book. He was great working as part of a team. On his own, not so much. Just goes to show you that comics are a group effort.

I enjoyed the DeFalco/Frenz era, too. The Puma, the black costume, the "Gang War" storyline, etc. However, I don't think their work in the 1980s is as good as their current work on Amazing Spider-Girl.

I have no ready reference, but the impression I always had was the Peter was in the "middle years" of college during Stan's late years and on through Gerry Conway's run, so he would be right around twenty.

I also personally believe that you move from teenager to young adult at 18.

I also personally believe that you move from teenager to young adult at 18.

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

Some people do, Ron. But I don't think there's an automatic transformation. Going to college delays that shift to a large degree, since you aren't in the workplace and don't have all of the other responsibilities that go along with being an adult.

I never thought of Peter Parker as a full-fledged adult when he was a college student or even when he was in grad school. I mean, he wasn't a child certainly, but he also wasn't my dad.

That changed when he dropped out of school (I think this happened during Bill Mantlo's long run on Spectacular, which would be a rare misstep for Mr. Mantlo, who is one of the best Spider-scribes ever, in my opinion.)  When Peter dropped out of grad school, he became an adult in my eyes - and a no-so-successful one at that. I really think that did more to age him than the marriage.

A quick question....

several people here are commenting on what youngsters can or can not relate to...to you people I ask how old are you, and what do you base this judgement on?

To everyone else I ask, when you were younger (say 10-17 to pick some arbitrary ages) were you into things that were considered unusual at your age? And were they considered unusual for a good reason or just based on baseless assumption?

In that age and even earlier I was reading Carl Sagen, L Ron Hubbard, Stephen King, Robert Ludlum, and was nuts about history (particularly pre-Roman Europe). That is not the type of stuff you would expect at that age. But I read DKR, Watchmen, and similar stuff at around age 12 or so when it came out, and I got it. At around the same age I passed those books to my nephew. He got it. Why would I assume that no one else at that age would be interested in it?