In The Myth of Superman by Umberto Eco, Eco writes that in industrial civilization a hero is obligated to demonstrate features that a typical human want but doesn’t and cannot obtain. Intelligence, swiftness and having the skill of fighting in times of conflict are gifts. Eco gives his readers Superman’s background and story. He writes about Superman’s strength being virtually limitless, how he can fly through space, move to other epochs etc, but he also writes about Superman living an average life as journalist Clark Kent. Eco discusses how Superman’s story varies from other superheroes because of its development. Superman’s storyline is unfailingly almost identical; the only difference is the events that take place. The reader is conscious of the ending but never knows how Superman defeats the villain or villains. How Superman conquers any obstruction is always a mystery. This suspense keeps the readers eager to discover what occurs. Eco’s main point is that the reader knows how the myth ends but doesn’t know what Superman faces to overpower.
I think Eco and Weinstein would possibly agree because they both make reference to history and culture even though Eco writes about Greeks and Weinstein writes about Jews. Eco’s concept is that superheroes are mythological and Weinstein writes about superheroes having moral impressions, but who’s to say that nonexistent characters don’t hold upright and moral beliefs.