To me, the most repugnant part of Girard is how he tampers with the evidence. Take Oedipus, for example. Does it support Girard's position? No, Oedipus deserved his exile, he was not a scapegoat. "Oh, but that part is a lie; of course a myth doesn't tell the truth." So Girard rewrites Oedipus to make it fit his theory, and then claims Oedipus as evidence that he is right! That's not evidence; it's forgery. And Girard does it all the time - the linked article lists example after example.
So, no, I can't take Girard seriously. And, sorry, but I can't take a Girardian analysis of anything seriously either.
Now, you can claim that the end of WFH is bogus. That's fine. Just don't think of it in Girardian terms.
To me, the most repugnant part of Girard is how he tampers with the evidence. Take Oedipus, for example. Does it support Girard's position? No, Oedipus deserved his exile, he was not a scapegoat. "Oh, but that part is a lie; of course a myth doesn't tell the truth." So Girard rewrites Oedipus to make it fit his theory, and then claims Oedipus as evidence that he is right! That's not evidence; it's forgery. And Girard does it all the time - the linked article lists example after example.
So, no, I can't take Girard seriously. And, sorry, but I can't take a Girardian analysis of anything seriously either.
Now, you can claim that the end of WFH is bogus. That's fine. Just don't think of it in Girardian terms.