Such story elements can easily be recognized through the variety of features. Moreover the story plot itself can be interpreted differently, when scapegoating moments are found, understood and properly adapted.
This way a narration in a story of real person, Guillaume de Machaut, and tales told by fictional Sindbad the Sailor is similar. They both describe events that took place in front of their eyes. And they both narrate from their point of view – and so become subjective in their judgments. Moreover both of them where stressed at the moment of described events, and thus could not estimate situation thoroughly and adequately. They both where limited in their abilities to study situation widely and analyzed situation using information, gained from gossips and human beliefs. These facts influenced the truthfulness of both stories. In the Machaut’s case Jews eventually turned out to be unbelievably strong water poisoners – tough the poison of such quality didn’t exist in their times. And so they were prosecuted because of the prejudice. In the Sindbad’s case, every part of a story was accompanied by note that described a bright and frightening story, told to Sindbad by the other sailors. And that obviously could influence his point of view when he had met something he could not grasp. And thus real events in his story mixed up with gossips and Sindbad’s ignorance – and he added everything, described in Girard’s book, into sailor’s story: unbelievable monsters, probably undefeatable creatures, probably vicious person that definitely deserved death that Sindbad caused to him. Every his act, that become more aggressive with each part, was justified by means of scapegoating of both events and enemies. Still a giant fish could have turned out to be usual island that drowned according to an earthshaking. The famous sailor used bright examples of