Also (and this is kind of a spoiler), she was a member of the Justice League Elite, albeit in disguise.

Then again, I don't think anyone at DC acknowledges that book as ever happening.

The perfect Avengers example of this is Justice, during the brillian Busiek/Perez run.

And the only Marvel character I can think of who has absolutely no team affiliations of any sort is the original Omega the Unknown. (not sure if the new one is in 616 or not)

The reason that I don't "count" those four issues where Cap offered and Spider-Man agreed, is because the cover blurb on all four issues says, "Guest Starring" Spider-Man. From a marketing standpoint, he wasn't an official member, or else the cover would have said, "Now Featuring", or "Introducing the newest Avenger."

Also, from an in-character standpoint, I don't think Spidy was ever given a membership card. Although, yes, he did show up in the big two page spread of Every Avenger during one of the crossovers.

Theno

Spider-man was also members of--fantstic four, the outlaws, secret defenders, fantastic four., frightful four, and helped found the misfits.

Man-thing was also a member of the daydreamers with howard the duck was was a defener for one story.

Punisher was in marvel knights and secret defenders and deadpool was in great lakes avengers and heroes for hire.

There is a set of stories where the Avengers are depicted as media darlings -- where US Weekly (and the world) is breathlessly awaiting the announcement of a new Avengers lineup. The first one of those stories that I remember was Avengers #151, written by Steve Englehart. (Maybe there was an earlier Roy Thomas version, I dunno.) I think this type of story might be part of the source of the perception that the Avengers "is a comic about the heroes that the average person in the Marvel Universe idolizes, the heroes that people actually look up to." Because there have actually been issues devoted to this idolization. Englehart's was a fresh and interesting take. But when Kurt Busiek reprised it 25 years later, I only found it annoying. Anyway, while this has become an Avengers cliche, I don't think it's anywhere close to the heart of the series.

There is also a leitmotif in team books where a team member is a bit in awe of the big boys he's running with now, and anxious to prove himself / fearful he won't measure up. You see this sometimes over the history of the Avengers. This might be another part of the idea that the Avengers is about the heroes that people look up to. I wouldn't call this leitmotif "central to the Story Engine of the Avengers", so much as a recurring bit of characterization. The best example that comes to mind is actually Kyle Raynor's Green Lantern during Grant Morrison's run on JLA, so I wouldn't consider this specific to the Avengers, at all.
(I think John Byrne had She-Hulk do this during his run on Fantastic Four, too).

The Avengers isn't "about" heroes trying to earn public adoration. I mean, sure there are often subplots along those lines. But The Avengers basic story is always this one:

"And there came a day, a day unlike any other, when Earth's mightiest heroes were united against a common threat! ... to fight foes no single hero could withstand!"

The tie that unites the Avengers is not that they are idolized by the public, nor that they are trying to win over public trust, nor that they are trying to live up to an ideal. The common thread is that they all perceive the threat and are motivated to work together to meet the threat. Members would be heroes who see a big picture, feel a strong sense of responsibility toward the civic good, have the bravery to stand together rather than hang separately, and are "good" (skilled) enough or "important" enough to play with the big boys. It hasn't even been important that members be team players: "lone wolves" often join, but then one of their character arcs involves them becoming team players.

All the public acceptance etc comes afterward. It can't be the main thing, because then the characters aren't really heroes. And this was the huge flaw of the Kurt Busiek run on Avengers, because he had all the public acceptance / trust / am I living up to the ideals of the Avengers stuff be the MAIN story. Banding together against important threats was always secondary. The Avengers seemed like a lot of self-involved soap opera addicts during most of his run, except the big Ultron story. When Avengers stories focus on the "ideal" etc, they bog down terribly. (It's fine for one character to have some fleeting thoughts etc.) When they focus on the heroes banding together to meet big threats, the stories tend to be good.

So anyway, point being that the mansion (or the island or Stark's tower) and the quinjets and the public acceptance come secondary to the performance of the heroes.

Spider-man: If Avengers are defined partly by bravery and a strong sense of responsibility toward the civic good, then obviously Spider-man qualifies, possibly more than any other hero in the Marvel U. The questions about him would be: possible criminal past, not a team player, doesn't contribute enough, doesn't see the big picture. And maybe most importantly, doesn't want to be there. The first two are shown to be irrelevent by the whole history of the Avengers; Cap and Iron Man seem to think he contributes; and the last two have been kind of dependent on the last few years of storylines. Mind you, I don't think Spider-man works great in the Avengers, and by the time the current mess cleared-up I like to see him say "It's been fun." I think the Marvel U works a little better with him respected by the other heroes, but not part of their club. It might even make sense as part of his character's arc, for him to now be "good enough" for Avengers membership, and to have given it a try, but to conclude that it's really not for him. But it's silly to say that his membership "invalidates" a storyline.

Wolverine: I don't want to defend too strenuously the notion that Wolverine "should" be an Avenger, because I'm not completely sold on the story logic of it. Why would Wolverine be an Avenger, but Cyclops or Colossus etc would not? But as to him not "deserving" a spot in the group: Cap has killed, Thor is a mass murderer, and I think the backgrounds of Hawkeye and Black Widow might reveal a body or two. I'm sure that list is not comprehensive. Just the fact of having killed in the line of duty has not disqualified heroes from Avengers membership. Wolverine is a former soldier, and has shown a willingness to modify his behavior to be more in line with civilian authorities: he doesn't just butcher randomly anymore. I don't think this argument holds as much water as you think. Maybe 20 years ago.

Bendis: If the Avengers are defined by a group of heroes banding together against a threat no one of them could withstand, then the first issue of New Avengers fits that model beautifully. Of course it was purposely designed to fit that model, so that's not surprising. Cap's comment to Iron Man in the first couple issues of the series, about how he thinks the Avengers have already formed, that makes a lot of sense: the whole point of the Avengers is not that they are appointed. These heroes gather themselves. THAT's what makes them Avengers.

Obviously the current Skrull business qualifies as "heroes banding together against a threat no one of them could withstand", pretty well.

"Cap's kooky quartet" was a milestone in the book's run for exactly that reason as well; Hawkeye, Quicksilver and the Scarlet Witch didn't just join because they were popular characters, they joined because they were sincere about wanting to redeem themselves and wanted to make it clear in a way that couldn't be ignored. They joined the Avengers to let the world know, "We can be trusted, we are heroes." And it worked.

That's also what Namor did, in Stern's run. He joined the Avengers to show the world that his "attacking the surface" days were past, that he was now a trusted member of the global community. Sometimes, the Avengers isn't about heroes who are already trusted, it's about heroes trying to earn that trust. (Justice joined, and his character's arc on the series was all about proving he could play with the big boys. Moon Knight joined, as did Mockingbird, and their arcs were all about showing how sometimes people could be good superheroes, but not good Avengers.)

"Avenger" carries a certain quality, an ideal that heroes try to live up to. Sometimes they succeed, sometimes they fail, but all the best Avengers runs have been about that ideal as much as they've been about the characters on the team at the time. Bendis, though, just threw together a bunch of random characters and had them go hit things until they died. He's not writing an Avengers book. (He's actually writing a Defenders book, which should have been blatantly obvious to everyone as soon as he put Doctor Strange in the series, but that's a whole other topic.)

...oh, and Wolverine stabbed Rachel because he thought she was going all Dark Phoenix, and he figured he'd nip that in the bud before she took out another solar system.

Wups, sorry.

We raise the same points.

He said it, but that does not make it true, despite the great insight he typically shows in the Storytelling Engines posts. It was not true in Avengers #1 in 1963, when the Hulk was a founding member of the team; it was not true a year or so later, when the team was Cap and a bunch of ex-villains.

Vision? Swordsman? Mantis? Tigra? Beast? Wonder Man? Ms Marvel? Falcon? She-Hulk? Roger Stern's Captain Marvel? Starfox? Stingray? Dr Druid? The Forgotten One? Quasar? Sersi?

Rage?

It wasn't true during the unreadable Bob Harras era, with Black Widow/Black Knight/Crystal and whoever else was on the team.

Bendis' run on the book is far truer to the origins of the book than has been made out in some posts here.

You're confusing an argument here.
We aren't talking about the real world/industry reasons why characters are added to the Avengers, we're talking about Marvel universe reasons why those members were added to the Avengers. Seavey said "It’s a comic about the heroes that the average person in the Marvel Universe idolizes, the heroes that people actually look up to."

We're not discussing industry reasons why these characters are members of the Avengers, but Marvel Universe reasons.

Whether Wolverine & Spidey "should" be Avengers or not, I don't see how the most interesting and compelling Avenger stories of the last 2 decades or longer qualify as a "joke". The presence of those two characters may not appeal to purists, but at least they represent recognition that the Avengers franchise was in desperate need of retooling, and a serious attempt to do it right.

I think Gravity came back (again) in Dwayne McDuffie's Fantastic Four run... Though he might have been killed (again) at the end of that... Bit hazy... I was getting a bit annoyed by the TimeFrogs...

I remember that issue! Rachel Summers was about to kill the Black Queen, but Wolverine stopped her by stabbing her in the heart and leaving her for dead.

@Blackjak

I believe Batwoman is going to be a member of Hal Jordan's and Green Arrow's Justice League. And isn't Gravity dead?