But Spider-Man was created as a teenage super-hero, and this was a huge part of his appeal and a key aspect of his characterization and life circumstances.

Reading about adult superheroes who were conceived and introduced as adults from day one is fine, but Spider-Man was introduced as a teenager, and reading about an adult Spider-Man is a very different experience involving a very different character.

After giving up on trying to get Romita Sr to stop drawing Peter as handsome, Lee started WRITING Peter as a hunk, with MJ and Gwen fawning over him. I love the Romita years, too, but his version of Peter was not the same guy as Ditko's.

********

SER: One could also argue that SPIDER-MAN 50 was also a critical turning point in who Spider-Man was. Previously, Spider-Man was a means of escape for Peter Parker. It was like a geeky kid who escapes from his crummy life by going online, where's he's cool. By the Lee/Romita years, Spider-Man had become a "curse" (something the movies picked up on) and the implication was that if he "grew up" and stopped being Spider-Man, he could enjoy a great life (Gwen Stacy, Mary Jane, his friends, and so on). SPIDER-MAN 50 *could* have been a Superman or Batman story in the idea that the hero must sacrifice a great life in order to serve his fellow man.

Now, this was all a natural outgrowth of Peter getting older. The "escapes" of our childhood often become a "curse" if we don't realize it. This is how some people wind up like Comic Book Guy on THE SIMPSONS. Peter Parker walking away from Spider-Man costume, which is lying in the trash, is a mature act. But it's the wrong note to play for Spider-Man -- or at least the character at his best.

Don Zomberg wrote: Your examples of Batman and Superman are way off. They don't make any substantial changes to the character, do they?

I guess Robin would be a better example for Batman than Alfred, but Superman?  Superman finding out he was Kryptonian informed the Weisinger and Schwartz periods to such a degree that the Superman of the 60s was a MUCH different character than the Superman of the 40s beyond both being nice guys.  We just don't really notice it that much these days, because it's one of those "before we started reading" changes.

QUOTE: And it wasn't so much Peter going off to college that changed the character; more that it was the first step down a slippery slope. Then he had to graduate college. Then on to grad school. Then marriage. Then a child.

While it's true that "starting a precendent" isn't necessarily the best plan if you want to leave the characters in one place, the slope is only as slippery as writers want it to be.  Either way, college is probably the easiest status quo to play with.  More wiggle room for "illusion of change" stuff.

QUOTE: He was popular DESPITE getting a bit older than his target audience, not because of it.

What exactly do you base this on?  Almost every non-comic project he's been involved with has involved a college age (if not older) Spider-Man.  Even the movie that started in high school trotted him off to college as soon as it could.  And in comics, once again - high school graduation in #28 which was followed by an upward trend in sales figures for the next few years and then fluctuations along with the rest of the market.  Spider-Man has had his fair share of new readers coming in all throughout his existance.  So he had to have something going for him.

And I really do wonder how many people really cared about how old Spider-Man was.  I know JB is one who did, but when I was a kid I couldn't care less.  I liked Spider-Man because of the outfit, powers, sense of humor and villains.  When I did start to get more attached to the Peter Parker side, the "evolution" (between the Marvel Tales reprints I was reading and the present day books) was part of the reason I like him so much. 

So there's anecdotal evidence for both points of view, and no way to compare sales figures between alternate realities.  From there, it's all personal preference.  If you prefer high school age, more power to you. 

QUOTE: And Stan Lee, once Ditko was gone, seemed to forget what made the character work so well. After giving up on trying to get Romita Sr to stop drawing Peter as handsome, Lee started WRITING Peter as a hunk, with MJ and Gwen fawning over him. I love the Romita years, too, but his version of Peter was not the same guy as Ditko's.

Depends on what REALLY "made the character work so well."  We all have our assumptions based on why we became fans of the character in the first place, but there's no real way to know if a more "Archie-esque" Spider-Man would have the same appeal that the soap opera version did.  Too bad.  It would make these debates a lot easier...

QUOTE: And you're still missing the L&O analogy. Back in the day, even with ongoing subplots and the occasional two-parter, comics were still easily jumped in to by new/casual readers.

That's everything to do with storytelling approach and nothing to do with status quo.  Married Spider-Man is just as accessible as Single Spider-Man to new and ongoing readers on a "setting up the issue" basis.  (Even for the movie fans, since it's just a question of them realizing that Spider-Man got married to the girl he was dating in the movie at some point.)  Heck, the married version is more stable, which is more conducive to "done in ones."

Stephen Robinson wrote: By the Lee/Romita years, Spider-Man had become a "curse"

It was earlier than that.  In #4 he finally gets a date with Liz, only to have to break it off because he had to go after the Sandman.  In #9, he's worried about giving a blood tranfusion to Aunt May because he's afraid his blood might be harmful to her.  Starting with #11, Spider-Man becomes a rift between Peter and Betty that he doesn't ever manage to close.  In #17 he wasn't able to get Aunt May to the hospital after her heart attack because he was off being Spider-Man and the issue ends with Peter doing the "Is this the price I pay for being... Spider-Man?" speech.  In #18, aka the "Spider-Man No More" story no one ever seems to remember, he finally has enough and quits.  In #31, the blood tranfusion from #9 gives Aunt May a fatal illness.

Spider-Man has always been as much a burden as an escape for Peter.  Heck, that's where all those "romantic problem" stories that were apparently so sorely missed came from!

John, I was actually being sarcastic about the "Spider-Teen" thing...

But as for the LSH reference, it's true that they grew up (though many of the readers hated the adult legion series that was done in the 80's)

Now DC reverted them back to teens in at least two reboots (I've lost count), many have the "boy" "girl" "lad" etc attached to their names, yet almost all of the members are clearly depicted (and thinking) like they're in their late teens or early 20's.  So why would they want to be called "....-boy" anyway?  Especially nowadays.

Stan probably got it right when almost all of the original X-Men had codenames that didn't have "boy" or "man" in them (with the exception of Iceman, who was actually the youngest member of the original x-men and clearly depicted as a teen - this may have been an unconscious joke on the part of Stan and Jack).

Notice too, that many female heroines don't have a problem being called "girls".  The only one I can think of that consciously changed her codename was Sue Richards, who under John's watch became "The Invisible Woman" from "The Invisible Girl" and, with rare exceptions, was never actually called out by any teammates as anything except "Sue".  Even the villains called her Ms/Mrs. Richards (or Susan) in the heat of battle.

QUOTE: But as for the LSH reference, it's true that they grew up (though many of the readers hated the adult legion series that was done in the 80's)

Sorta.  The Paul Levitz stuff was one of DC's best sellers for awhile and is widely considered to be one of the few truly "classic" Legion runs.  It's the Giffbaum run that followed that tends to be reviled.  I don't think it was the adultness of the characters that turned people off so much as the darkness of the plots.

Spider-Man has always been as much a burden as an escape for Peter.

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

This is absolutely true. The trick is in keeping Peter's problems relatively mundane enough to avoid becoming dark and gloomy.

Peter missing a date with Gwen or M.J. because he had to stop Dr. Octopus? Peter flunking a test because he was fighting Electro instead of studying? That stuff works great. Aunt May in a vegetative state after being shot? Not so great.

Personally speaking, I never found the 'sad sack' aspect of the character something I wanted to focus on (or even appealling).

I'd skip the pages with melodrama and jump to the cool battles with the colorful villain du jour <g>.

It's a delicate balance.

These days, people like Quesada keep saying that "it's always been about Peter Parker".

And while Peter and his personal life are important and interesting aspects of the series, at the end of the day, people should be reading because they like the adventures of Spider-Man, not just the adventures of Peter Parker.