Comic Book Resources

Yup! There's always been a theme of struggling against the world, using humour to get him through.

The humour and one-liners are his way to distract his opponents and take his own mind off the danger of what he's doing...

He's actually a really serious character in a serious story with occasional flashes of humour...

I've always said the same thing. When people say that a dark Spider-Man is wrong and the character is lighthearted, i always wonder what they're talking about. Just because the character makes jokes doesn't make him a lighthearted character. I'd even argue that Spider-Man has a stronger tradition of darkness than Batman. Batman was only truly dark for like 3 issues when he first started out in the 30s and immediately became lightheaerted and fun and remained that way for decades until the late 80s. Even after Denny O'Neil and neal Adams came on the book became darkER in palette and tone but not actually dark. Meanwhile in Spider-Man's first ten years of existence he was a poor orphan, lost his uncle, almost lost his aunt several times, was blamed for the death of girlfriend Betty Brant's brother, was always alone, had his best friend get addicted to drugs, had his girlfriend killed in front of him, and struggled with poverty. Spider-Man is a funny character but never a "fun" book.

The humour and one-liners are his way to distract his opponents and take his own mind off the danger of what he’s doing…

since neither Steve Ditko or Stan Lee ever claimed the latter part of Spider-Man joking to ease his nerves while fighting, I never considered that gospel. I think of that as something created by later fans-turned-writers who wanted to make the character more relatable ("He's just like us!") When reading the original stories in a vacuum without the influence of retroactive psychoanalyzing by later writers, I don't see much nerves at all. He's actually remarkable confident and cocky, in his first issue alone he attacks the Fantastic Fiyr singlehandedly and storms off in a self-righteous huff afterwards. I think when read in a vacuum, those stories just show a guy who was bullied and now revels in the chance to finally have an outlet to start belittling bullies himself.

When I was reading it most avidly in the late 1960s and early to mid-1970s, it was VERY serious and "dark", but that is what we wanted at the time. There wasn't this "We want FUN comics! outcry. It wasn't so much grownup people reading, it was kids who wanted the drama and danger, or so it seems in retrospect. If someone wanted "fun" comics there were "Richie Rich" and "Little Lotta".

I'd say that that the times when Spider-Man has gone wrong over the years have invariably been when things have gotten too dark rather than when its gotten too silly.

Of course, like all the enduring superhero books Spider-Man has more than one string to its bow. The strengh of Spider-Man comes from the balancing act of real world problems and larger than life adventures; i.e. the serious Spidey and the humorous Spidey are both the real Spider-Man. I think the BND writers have struck the right tone so far.

"When reading the original stories in a vacuum without the influence of retroactive psychoanalyzing by later writers, I don’t see much nerves at all. He’s actually remarkable confident and cocky, in his first issue alone he attacks the Fantastic Fiyr singlehandedly and storms off in a self-righteous huff afterwards."

Are you really looking for consistency in '60's-era Stan Lee's characters?

Didn't he quit being Spider-Man within the first five issues because he got beat up?

As much as I hated the whole One More Day/Brand New Day idea, I do think the "Brain Trust" is a great idea. You've got four really good writers with just the right balance who will oversee all the Spidey stories and keep them all consistent and coherent...

I just wish Dan Slott was still doing She-Hulk as well as being in the Brain Trust...

T. : I agree that when he first started out the humour certainly sprang from his cockiness, but I don't think he's cocky anymore... Certainly not since events like Kraven's Last Hunt...

There's always been a bittersweet element to Spidey, but he's always been a character that could see the humor of his predicament. As written by Stan Lee and those that wrote him best, he's a humble character that always tries to look on the bright side of life. Call Spidey a "dramedy", call Spidey action-adventure, call it a soap opera... but drama, I don't know.

I'm not trying to be a troll or sound relentlessly negative, but I've never seen the fun in Spider-Man comics. They're full of tragedy and moping about and Spider-Man wishing he didn't have any powers.

People often compare the current Blue Beetle series to classic Spider-Man, but to me, BB plays like Spidey would IF the main character wasn't constantly beset my problems and emotional complications. It's Spider-Man, but actually fun.

Are you really looking for consistency in ’60’s-era Stan Lee’s characters?

Didn’t he quit being Spider-Man within the first five issues because he got beat up?

Yes he did. What;s your point?

'60s-era Stan Lee characters are probably the best and most consistent characters of any era preceding or following. He changed not only the way characters were written forever more at Marvel but also at DC. I don't know exactly why 60s-era Stan Lee characters are supposed to be considered examples of inconsistency.

Umm, when did funny become synonymous with fun?

The “can’t catch a break”, “kick him when he’s down” formula of the Spider-man titles is fun.

I think dramedy probably is the best way to put it. Kind of like the first two or three seasons of Scrubs - there is humor, but Spider-Man's story is definitely loaded with tragedy, danger and life lessons.

But I'll tell ya this much - I think you can make a stronger argument for Spider-Man being fun than you can for being dark. Dark seems to depend more on how you define it. Spider-Man certainly doesn't wear the "gothic/broody" hat very well, for instance, but again there is a lot of death and tragedy. As far as being fun, I think that comes from the perspective of the audience - the fun comes from connecting to the character, relating to him and wanting to see good things come his way, as though he were a dear friend or somehow an avatar for oneself.

Maybe the best way to describe the saga of the Amazing Spider-Man, at its core, is a parable of the journey of life...with radioactive spiders.

Maybe the "fun" factor stems from the idea that Spider-Man is really the only hero who has more than two non-superpowered friends who are relevant to the plot? All the other heroes just get one Foggy Nelson and one Pepper Potts, and that's it. I think what writers would have forgotten after the marriage and the death of Harry if such crazy things had happened would be that Peter's problems stem from trying to balance being Spider-Man with dealing with the vast number of people (none of whom are Avengers) who want Peter in their life/don't want Peter in their life/want each other in each other's lives/get into hijinx/get into trouble/get into shenanigans/get kidnapped by Lightmaster. The great thing about the best stories isn't that there's a character who antisocial geeks can relate to, but that there are characters who everyone can relate to, and who actually have roles in actual story arcs (ideally). That's translated into "fun," I guess, cause coffee shop misadventures are a more relatable kind of fun than summer tours of the city via web.

Where Wacker fails, like so many others, is in assuming that because you have drama and tragedy, you can't also have light-heartedness and fun. Because that's the real secret of Spidey's success: That he's not a one-note character. His adventures (and I think a well-nuanced reading of most of the material Wacker mentions will bear this out) run the gamut of emotional experience, with both highs and lows.

But then, "fun" seems to be a four-letter word in superhero comics these days, so it's not surprising to see Wacker stick to the party line.

Hells f'n yea it's fun!!!

The in gags, the letters page, the drama with Peter and his friends. THE ENFORCERS IN AN AMUSEMENT PARK!!!

Look.... just forget that the Mephisto thing happened, pick up the book and read it. It's great! I think the most people that have issues with it just can't get past what's happened.

Let it go.... just..... let it go...........

This version of Spidey manages to be dark and fun:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=_LaXMFAKnBA

Jamie: I think the moment that the Spider-Man brain trust gives us something, anything to show us why the Mephisto thing needed to happen, there's a chance we can let this go. Otherwise the BIGGEST problem this period of Spider-Man adventures have no relevance. They're just a bunch of stuff that happens, that you can either take or leave. All relevance is gone. That's why Marvel fans read Marvel comics - for the potential of relevance in the larger tapestry.

Yeah, reading the Lee/Ditko and Lee/Romita stories, and especially later stuff like Gerry Conway and Len Wein you end up feeling sorry for Peter more than amused. Well, sorry in a good way.

And then the fighting starts, and it's fun, and you get the emotional catharsis, and you feel great.

But hey, Poor Johnny One-Note got in Aida, and that's all that matters.

I think it comes more from the cartoons than anything in the comics. Spider-Man and his Amazing Friends is probably the gold standard for "Fun" Spider-Man, and I still hear Dan Gilvezan's voice when reading Spider-Man.

Fun? I dunno.

Spider-Man was probably the first superhero that had his powers weakened because he got a cold, he was probably the first superhero that f*cked-up when trying to catch some bad guys because he attacked would-be robbers before the criminals actually commited a crime, they were only suspiciously looking at a store, getting read to hit it, then Spider-Man beats them up, and they threaten to sue Spider-Man.

It is heresy to some, but I think what Stan Lee was trying to do with Spider-Man was more or less the same thing Mark Millar is doing now with Kick-Ass: push the envelope and create a superhero that is a lot more "realistic" than the ones that came before. He lives in Queens, not Metropolis.

And there is humour to that, because Spider-Man can afford to be more pathetic than, say, Captain America. He is the hero that can have zits on his face. But I don't think his comic has ever been FUN in the way people use the term to refer to stories about giant apes and talking brains and other Silver Age silliness.

For me, the quintessential Spiderman---

Peter has been moping about the death of Gwen, and he decides it's time to move on. MJ and the gang has invited him to meet them for coffee/ice cream, whatever....and the only clean shirt he has is a gag-gift, pink, Strawberry Shortcake t-shirt.

So that's what he wears downtown.

And then he fights some villians, and is quipping like an idiot....

and it was perfect.

Spider-Man was always fun. Then some jerk named JQ decided that Gwen Stacy was a slut who slept with the Green Goblin, got pregnant, had twins. Then there was the Pact With Satan story that was dictated by JQ. First he ruins a supporting character, then he ruins Spider-Man. Nope. Not fun any more.

@ Lord Paradise
"Maybe the “fun” factor stems from the idea that Spider-Man is really the only hero who has more than two non-superpowered friends who are relevant to the plot?"

And that's just what appealed about the earlyy Wally West-Flash issues - the other Supes were always saying "Not bad, but Barry would have done it differently..."

Which made you sympathise that more with Wally...

I agree with Alan Coil, Spiderman was always fun into that asshat Joey Q became editor in chief

People get the impression that Spider-Man is funny because that's how he has been presented in Media outside of comics for decades. Only since the movies started coming has the humor been taken out. Certainly, when I started reading Spider-Man as a kid, I enjoyed Peter in costume, fighting crazy villains and spouting one-liners, better than I ever did the angst parts. As I grew up I learned to appreciate those as well, but I think it's absurd to write Spider-Man as *only* grim, with no humor at all.

And how about all the INTENTIONALLY silly Spidey stories? Like the time he had to wear a paper bag on his head while stopping some crooks (with a kick-me sign on his back) thanks to Johnny storm? That wasn't meant to BE funny? Please.

And I'm still hoping for the Mephisto thing to be eventually resolved in a satisfying way that makes sense (and brings Peter and MJ together again.) It'll happen, bet on it.

I wonder if the false impressions are really fond memories of Spider-Man in other media during the 70's and 80's. The 60's cartoon is best remembered for its catchy theme song. The Spider-Man in Electric Company and the associated Spidey Super-Stories comic was lighthearted. So was Spider-Man and his Amazing Friends. The live action Spider-Man TV show was not lighthearted, but neither was it overly dark. Add in all the merchandise directly aimed at young children and you easily have a composite image that screams "fun".

It's just one more in a long line of apologies and excuses for what they did to this book. The point is, they haven't built him on tragedy. They've built him on a cheap deus ex machina, or not even that, exactly, since a DEM usually moves the story FORWARD to a conclusion, rather than BACKWARD to a stale status quo from 20 years in the past. They haven't built it on tragedy, unless you count a tragedy that NO ONE in the book is aware of.

They really just need to admit that they screwed up, like DiDio and Co. did with Countdown, and try to make things right from there.

Man, I wish I read Spider-Man so I could make a point to STOP reading Spider-Man. I was, at best, an infrequent Spider-Man reader and even I still can't over the Mephisto thing. Joe Q's the boss, he doesn't want Peter & MJ married? Fine. Divorce 'em, kill her off, whatever. But Spider-Man does not make deals with the devil. And even though in this altered reality Peter and MJ were never married, the readers know they were and when either of them hooks up with anybody else, how can a long time Spider-Man fan not help but think they're cheating on each other. Whatever good Wacker, Slott and the rest are doing right now, this whole mess is dragging it down.

But as I said, not a long time Spidey fan...so why do I care? Yet it still bothers me.

Honestly, Spider-Man wearing a paper bag and kick-me sign is fun in a "I feel sorry for the guy, everything goes wrong for him" way rather than fun in a "holy shit, the Flash is playing chess with 3-eyed aliens!" way that most people think of when they talk about "fun comics".

The paper bag incident happened right after Spidey had freaked out when he discovered his alien costume was a symbiote feeding off him when he was asleep, and he was feeling particularly depressed, so the prank Johnny played on him was like adding insult to injury and to illustrate Parker's hard luck in the sharpest way possible.

Not to say Spidey hadn't some stories that were really "silly", with guys like Gibbon, the Big Wheel, and others, but no more than most other superheroes.

"People often compare the current Blue Beetle series to classic Spider-Man, but to me, BB plays like Spidey would IF the main character wasn’t constantly beset my problems and emotional complications. It’s Spider-Man, but actually fun."

Yup, much like how Nightwing has been mostly written in his own book as a version of Daredevil that's fun.

(As opposed to when Devin Grayson wrote Nightwing AS Daredevil)

I think the Spider-Man character isn't really a fun one, but a lot of the surrounding circumstances are. All the goofy animal-themed villains, for instance.

I think the tragic elements of Spider-Man are handled the same way as in Charlie Chaplin or Charlie Brown for that matter. There's tragedy, but it's treated with a comedic sensibility.

The unbelievably sucky things that happened to Peter, particularly in the Lee/Ditko/Romita days were often like a comedy punchline-- he saved Jameson's son but made himself even more of a hated menace in the public eyes. He fought the Vulture but couldn't get the pictures for Jameson. He stopped Doc Ock, but he made Betty Brant hate Spider-Man and prevented him from telling her the truth. It's not complete and total tragedy, because if it were Peter Parker would be ground down. Rather, tragic things happen but he still soldiers on.

So yes, I do think he's fun because in spite of the bittersweet element there is something fun in watching someone keep getting existential pies in his superhero face.

Spider-Man is, in some ways, the Anti-Batman. Both Bruce Wayne and Peter Parker had their lives shaped by tragedy. But while Bruce devotes his entire life to the cause of fighting criminals(because he can afford to), Peter instead balances the responsibility of his powers with having a life of his own. And apart from a few tragic moments and the occasional romantic misunderstanding, he has done so splendidly for most of his 40+ year run.

This is why I cringe when I hear Joe Q or any of the Brain Trust refer to Spider-Man as a loser. If Spider-Man were always the loser that the current writers paint him to be, the title Amazing Spider-Man wouldn't have lasted 50 issues, let alone 500 issues. Spider-Man is an Everyman, not a loser. Spider-Man is the hero whom fans can relate to, but still wish to emulate, not the person we look at and say, "Sucks to be you."

Dan Slott, ironically enough, hit it on the head in the last issue of his Spider-Man/Human Torch mini, when Johnny Storm revealed that he was always jealous of Peter Parker, since he had a loving family life, an exciting job(action photographer), a brain the size of Reed's and more than a few babes on his arm over the years. When Johnny referred to "The Parker Luck", he meant it as a positive. The truth is that Spider-Man isn't a loser, but he wrongly believes himself to be one. He's the George Bailey of the MU. He's not fully aware that he does have a Wonderful Life. Seriously, one of these days, I'd love to see Uatu show Spidey a What If universe where Peter was never born.

Seriously, at any given time from ASM #1 to when he married MJ, Peter Parker has had at least one, and more often than not two, gorgeous women interested in him. All men should be such losers!

Why can't something be both?
During the 70's & early 80's Spidey stories could easily & convincingly bounce between dark/serious & fun.
Event he dark stories can be fun.

And even after the early 80's sometimes Spidey was both.

I propose this is a false dichotomy.

Yea, Spider-man works best as a mix between drama fun (yes, a dramedy). it's when you lean towards one more than the other that the balance becomes lost, and the book isn't as good, imo. That's what damaged the title for me for a long time now, it was focused too much on the darker, drama aspect. On the flipside, I wouldn't want the title to be all fun, because FOR ME, the best Spider-man stories work when there is a good balance. I wouldn't say BND is a 'New Golden Era' for the character - it's too early to tell - but it is an improvement over, oh, let's say the previous 10 years or so.

"The paper bag incident happened right after Spidey had freaked out when he discovered his alien costume was a symbiote feeding off him when he was asleep, and he was feeling particularly depressed, so the prank Johnny played on him was like adding insult to injury and to illustrate Parker’s hard luck in the sharpest way possible."

Actually, it was likely meant as way to lighten up the series after the creepiness of the first symbiote storyline. Oh, I'm sure that, from Spidey's POV, it was embarrassing, but considering that Peter and Johnny are friends -the kind of friends who play pranks on each other- I'm sure he took it in stride.

And then got Johnny back for it later.

Yeah, it's a dramedy. Probably the best of its type ever seen in mainstream superhero comics, too.

It's weird to me that Wacker doesn't think that Stan Lee was writing a fun comic or that he himself is not currently producing a fun comic, because he was and he is. Spider-Man has themes that are "dark" but are handled with a light touch. Just because New Ways to Die is somewhat serious and has high stakes doesn't mean it can't also be fun. That's like saying Raiders of the Lost Ark can't be fun because it has Nazis in it, and there's nothing fun about Nazis.

Spider-Man stories work best with a balance. A morose, neurotic Peter is balanced by a high-flyin' Spidey, and Peter having a good time with his friends is balanced by a grueling adventure to put Spider-Man through the wringer.

As a couple other commenters (Graeme Burk, Kirayoshi et al) allude to, Spider-Man has tragic things happen to him, but he is not necessarily a tragic figure — he's a *mediocre* figure. He was the kid who was supposed to go far after graduation but never seems to get ahead, and just when it looks like he might, the status quo gets reset and he's living in a crummy apartment working at the same job he's had since high school. There's the sense that it should have been *better* (and would have been if not for his responsibilities as Spider-Man) but at least it's *okay*.

"They really just need to admit that they screwed up, like DiDio and Co. did with Countdown, and try to make things right from there."

They did. It was called One More Day. That's exactly what happened. The screw-up was the last twenty years. All of it, not just the marriage.

To Greg Manuel:

You said, " That’s why Marvel fans read Marvel comics - for the potential of relevance in the larger tapestry." I have two problems with this statement. First, you seem to be assuming anyone who reads Marvel comics is a "Marvel fan" and not just a comics fan. Second, I personally read comics (Marvel or others) because I want a good story. If you look at current Marvel books like Captain America and Daredevil, they mostly stay out of the "greater tapestry" and yet still tell compelling stories.

Sijo -

I think Spider-Man is definitely fun, but not FUN, if you get my meaning. Not in the way fans nowadays mean when they say "this is a fun comic", refering to a comic that goes out of its way to be light-hearted and irrelevant and purposefully silly and ironic.

Well, not in the main Spidey titles anyway. If there ever was a Spidey comic that came closer to "fun comics" it was Marvel Team-Up. But even that comic had stuff that people nowadays would say isn't appropriate to a "fun" comic. Bill Mantlo and Chris Claremont wrote a lot of issues.

The Wraith storyline that run in MTU 48-51 had Jean deWolff as a main character, and had a very strong theme of parental abuse, as her Dad had emotionally scarred Jean and her brother throughout. There was a time travelling adventure that run in MTU 41-46, so Spidey doing travel time, that must be all zany fun! Sorta, since the story dealt with themes of religious fanaticism and witch-burning in Salem that bloggers today would say is Mantlo being depressing and "partisan" and anti-religion, and certainly would not be considered a "fun comic".

T. -

I just re-read Denny O'Neill's Batman stories from the 1970s, and I thought they were quite dark. One typical story had a bitter journalist suffering from a terminal disease commiting suicide in a way as to frame Batman for his death. This is not light-hearted fun, I think. It's true that O'Neill's Batman is more emotionally balanced that today's Batman - he is a dedicated, tough detective, not a paranoid control freak, but he is still quite the menacing creature, beating criminals to intimidate them. I agree that the stories are not as dark as today's stories, but neither are they light-hearted fun.

"They did. It was called One More Day. That’s exactly what happened. The screw-up was the last twenty years. All of it, not just the marriage."--They had die-hard fans before. Now they just have Marvel Zombies who want to validate Quesada's bonehead play. Real Spider-Man fans don't exist anymore. So what's the screw-up?

Even tough he may not be "fun" in a super-light zany way, humour is an essential ingredient, even if his life is going so badly that that humour is of the blackest variety.
"Down" doesn't mean humourless and "humour" doesn't automatically mean "tra la la, no thinking, no worries." The idea that it's an either/or choice between grim, oppressive humourlessness and witless zaniness has resulted in a lot of crappy comics.
The worst "grim" versions of Spider-Man are the ones that forget this, such as McFarlane's "adjectiveless" run.

After going on a 60's Marvel spree, I have to say that the Spider-Man issues were a lot funnier, and often a lot sadder, than anything else going on in contemporary Marvel stuff. It makes me think that from the beginning, Spider-Man had two faces - the wisecracking guy and the put-upon tragedy magnet - and that the book at its best seems to involve deftly switching gears from one tone to another, sometimes within the span of a page.

It's a brilliant balancing act when someone can pull it off, but even the very good writers among Stan Lee's successors seem to have a harder time doing it consistently. This is probably why it's so easy for even a good writer to do a Spider-Man story that runs off the rails completely, just by over-relying on one or the other of the main Spider-Man tones. Usually too much tragedy in modern books, since sadness is the style of the time, but I've read comedy-oriented back issues that were pretty damn bad, too.

I think you're right, Lynxara. It's not as easy as it seems, to capture the Spider-Man magic.

After Stan Lee left, we had basically 10 years of mediocre Spider-Man stories, IMO. The next writer in the Amazing Spider-Man title that I think was really, really good was Roger Stern, and that was in the early 1980s! (Though there were several good Spidey stories in the 70s, it was more in Marvel Team-Up).

It may seem like heresy, but I also think JMS really got the mix of drama and comedy that makes Spider-Man great. Unfortunately, he also fixated on making Spidey a magic totem and retconning Gwen Stacy for the thousandth time.

Rene, your viewpoints are once again not too far from mine. I read some of the Gerry Conway issues recently, and while Mr. Conway is a gentleman and scholar, I was kind of appalled by the sudden dip in story quality. The issue when Gwen dies struck me as especially lousy. Given your reccs of both, I may be digging up the Stern Spidey and Marvel Team-Up soon. The latter I've read some issues of, and it was one of the first Marvel books I can remember enjoying at all.

I really enjoyed the early issues of the JMS run and didn't actively object to Spidey's powers becoming explicitly magical, since the way his abilities work doesn't make a whole lot of logical sense (but does make a lot of dream-logic sense). The "Other" stuff was ill-timed and too ham-fisted, though, and the Gwen Stacy storyline is exactly what I was thinking of when I mentioned how easy it is for someone who should know better to perpetrate a completely terrible Spider-Man story.

It's neither one nor the other.
Spider-Man is like M*A*S*H (the series, not the movie). A largely light-hearted tone which allows the darker elements to gain more resonance by contrast.
Yes, Peter's life is marked by tragedy, however, one of the things that makes him a hero is that he refuses to succumb to it. Bad things may happen, however, the love of family and friends, and the sheer joy and exuberance of life remind us of why we continue to struggle against that darkness.
Joy, life, hope, love and FUN are also parts of the whole Spider-Man thing.

Is Spider-Man a 'fun' book?
Yeah, sure. Does that mean that it can't be occasionally tinged with sadness, darkness or melancholy? Hell no.

To get back to the M*A*S*H analogy, Spider-Man should be the early episodes. Where, yes, it's a serious world, and bad things happen, but sometimes, you just have to find the laughter at the heart of it, or be overwhelmed.
The danger is in becoming the later episodes, where any sense of comedy, or light-heartedness, of fun, has been buried beneath a ton of mawkish sentimentality and selfconscious melancholy.

I think Steve Wacker is talking out of his hat.

I'll say it in short here, since I'm sure everyone's sick of wading through endless paragraphs of commentary from yours truly: the idea that "with great power comes great responsibility" only works as a superhero story engine so long as the reverse is true. With great responsibility must come great power, and the hero's power should be equal to their (superheroic) responsibilities. Peter Parker can be a lovable loser so long as Spider-Man, however crappy his public image, gets his job done. Then Parker's status becomes the price of his responsibilities as Spider-Man. If most of the villains -- the Goblin, the Kingpin, etc. -- are advancing their goals and succeeding, then Peter's loserdom stops being part and parcel of his heroism. And that's when Spider-Man and Peter Parker stop working as a character.

The fun started to go away with the double tragedy of the Stacy's deaths. It started to go away with the aging of Peter, the Punisher, the graduation, the affair with a married woman, the death of the burglar. With Kraven Last Hunt, the lack of fun became fashionable. Even McFarlane wanted to imitate it. I have to laugh when people say it started with Sins Past or One More Day. I guess they are very recent readers and I understand they don't get the new tone. Too bad for them, really. How sad that they can't appreciate real Spider-Man stories.