These Chinese books featuring Spider-Man are always a strange experience. Like visiting a foreign country where things seem familiar, but at the same time just a little bit... "wrong".
This cellophane-bundled, hook-hanging activity pack is indicated as originating from "Jinx-NG Stationary", which is unusual because most of these rip-off products avoid naming the entity which is responsible for these egregious acts of intellectual property theft and cultural desecration.
The pack contains four items. The main book is 32pp of black and white colouring page content, 7.5" x 10.25" with a cardboard stapled cover. Also in the pack is:
Note that the small book says 12 pages, but it actually means "12 leaves, 24 page faces".
The chosen visual motif for this product is "gingham", and quite naturally. I always find that the friendly, red-checked pattern reminds me of Oklahoma hay-rides, Italian restaurants, and Spider-Man. Gingham features on the cover, and (albeit in black and white) on the border of every page in the main book.
As ever with these Chinese-designed products, no consideration is given for layout, variety, quality, accuracy, or integrity. Hence you'll find inside the usual mishmash of oversized Spider-Men rotated at unnatural angles and packed sometimes two per page. See "Spider-Man driving his motorbike into the ground." Marvel as "Spider-Man totters backwards." Gasp as "Spider-Man clips his body parts gratuitously against the page border."
Line art and reproduction quality is erratic and careless. There is no variety to speak of, just Spidey, Spidey, Spidey without context or backgrounds. Of course there's no attempt to build any narrative or evoke any world outside the costume and web. Spider-Man logos are plastered liberally and tastelessly.
The smaller book contains near identical content but smaller and without the charm of the gingham edge pattern (opting instead for Minnie Mouse's classic white on red polka-dot). Why a second book? Perhaps simply an attempt to make up in quantity what this material lacks in quality? An insincere apology of sorts for the inadequacies of the primary product?
Oh, it's awful. It should never have been made, should not have been shipped overseas, and I really have no excuse for having purchased it – not even for the NZ$3 (USD$2) that I paid.