Was Maud really that naive and why?

I think growing up in a small English town and being a woman of the time, she was that naive. However, I think she did have clues that Morel and Sylvie were not who they said they were. This part was too predictable in the book for me.

One thing I find difficult about books set in the past is that many characters' naivete seems unrealistic. I think people are so cynical today that it's hard to remember how much more sheltered people were in the past. People like Maud were well-brought-up young ladies with very little experience of the world so it's expected that she would be more likely to take people at face value.

There are clues that explain it, but at first she really did seem so guarded and naive, especially when she learns in her job interview that Sylvie is on opium, and decides not to even mention it to Tanya. At that point, Maud seemed so dull a protagonist it was hard to keep reading. But the more we learn about her past -- not just that she was poor, but that she was traumatized by neglect, abuse, and a total lack of any encouragement -- that explained it for me. Especially after learning that she was the one to set the fire that freed her... She was naive because she was in a state of numbness, emotionally, a kind of post-traumatic stress in a way. She was in a protective shell, and I know from my own experience of trauma (of a different cause) that this can dull one's perceptions and judgments.

After I learned she had set the fire and gotten away with it, I didn't believe she was naïve. That took brains and a survival technique; she fooled everyone.

JLPen77 brings up some interesting points about how her past possibily created that state but once she was able to get away from that environment she was able to break free and experience life in a different way. I also think that speaks to the question of how her art and view of art changed once she moved into the city.

I think Maud was naïve to Sylvie and Morel, but I think a lot of people would be. People are taken in all the time by internet fraud and financial schemes, just to name a few. Overall, a lot of people are fairly trusting of others even today.

I am not sure of how naive Maud was...especially after the fire of her fathers home became known. My idea of her changed after that. She set the fire because she needed money to go to Paris and again she needed money when she became involved with Sylvie. It didn't take her long to find out that Sylvie was involved with drugs and was a thief but still she stayed....to take care of herself.

I agree with some of the comments that Maud was not really so naive, especially as we learned she was quite aware of her circumstances after her father's death and was able to set the fire. JLPen77 does a good job of explaining that with her being in a foreign city and struggling to make her way on her own she had become very needy. With the Morels she was so enamored with their kindness and generosity that she was lulled into thinking she was satisfied and happy with her life and lost her edge so to speak. She was truly conned.

I think Maud was naive with regard to her relationships but not at all with regard to her circumstances. The fire revelation made it clear she had some e perience beyond what was first apparent.

Maud wanted to leave her small town and found a way to do it. I think she was naïve in not realizing how hard to would be to make her way in Paris. I believe she thought her art was much better than it was before she went to classes with other students

I thought she was naive in the beginning or at least afraid to live. I thought she was living through her passion for painting. But later when I found out she started the fire, I changed my mind. This girl was trusting of people, but I don't think she was naive about life.