I certainly share Andrew McKenna" s enthusiasm for some of René Girard" s ideas, and admire his effort to mediate between Girard and aspects of post-structuralist thought. Yet I am afraid we disagree on a number of very basic points. This disagreement does not concern the tenets of some kind of Girardian orthodoxy; rather, what is at stake are different ways Girard" s insights may be interpreted and extended. In this regard, the most basic difference between McKenna" s position and my own involves my skepticism about the proposed bridge between deconstruction and Girard" s anthropology.