That was a nice enjoyable article from the other side of the fence (the fans enjoying SSM) and I would've agreed with you. But after reading JMS's and Paul Jenkin's and Mark Millar's, and Aguirre-Saccasa's treatment of the character it convinced me that there are still fresh, mature, inteligent and original stories you can do with a 50+ years old character. It just takes imagination and good writing. Spider-man has not had those since OMD. I mean, the stories since 2009 were stale and un-original and the writers ever since didn't seem to grasp the character of Peter Parker as they wrote him as an annoying ADD teen when he's supposed to be in his mid-late twenties. A fun story here and there, and that's it. So I get why they did it, but Marvel put themselves in that predicament. And I'll agree that SSM is "original" but to me is not interesting. But I understant why fans are liking SSM, because of how Peter Parker was being written just before thw mind swap. Had this change happened after the 1999 reboot then yes, I would have also though that every conceivable Spider-man story had been done and we need Doc Ock. No. Not after the amazing stories we got in 2001-2008. You're right in one thing. It is easier to write this megalomaniac. But I call it lazy writing.
Thanks for reading and commenting on my article! It's always great to know that people are actually reading it. (-:
I think there are plenty of great Spider-Man stories to tell, but few writers really want to put forth the effort and time to do so. I really find it sad that it's the case, but it's absolutely true. BND was full of terrible writers (Kelly, Gale, and sometimes Guggenheim) and Spidey's character was pushed to such a poor state that it became increasingly hard to write good stories with him. I mean, even Mark Waid, possibly the greatest writer at Marvel right now, was having a tough time writing the character!
Looking back at Spider-Man stories from 2001-2008, in my opinion, the quality of the era was sporadic, but not as bad as BND. JMS, an all-star writer, started well, but ended weak. I think Paul Jenkins overstayed his welcome as well. Mark Miller's short run was good, but we must remember that it was only a year long. And Aguirre Saccasa didn't impress me at all. Of course, this is simply my opinion of that era, but it isn't quite as flawless as we wish it was.
Anyways, I mean not to offend you in any way. This is all, of course just my opinion and nothing more. I hope you enjoyed my article and I'll surely be writing many more soon.
With all due respect,