But the problem is that a large number of Girard's examples don't support his position. He's not comparing literature; he's looking for things that might be an

But the problem is that a large number of Girard's examples don't support his position. He's not comparing literature; he's looking for things that might be anywhere in the neighborhood of his thesis, and then torturing them until they fit. That's closer to topiary than botany (to torture an example of my own). Sure, once he ignores parts and says other parts are wrong, then what's left supports his position, but that is not comparative literature. And, yes, in comparative literature you can take a minor theme from a particular piece of literature (or even several pieces). But it should never be untrue to the piece it's pulling from. And Girard is, repeatedly and egregiously.