Is Maud's quest for revenge understandable or just destructive?

Do you think Maud should have taken the chance to go home quietly at the beginning of the second part of the book? Is her quest for revenge understandable or just destructive?

Although her quest for revenge seemed extreme initially, after thinking about how she gave of herself and what she subsequently endured it seemed a bit more understandable. Certainly I don't think it was destructive per se although quite dangerous.

I found it to be destructive as she allowed the situation to be her main focus .

I understand why she wanted revenge but I think its better to put it behind you. Being consumed with hate and revenge is always bad for anyone.

Both characterizations apply. Certainly she was abused by Christian and Sylvie - to the point of a murder attempt - and she had reason to go after them - so "understandable" applies. It was destructive in the sense that she became consumed with her quest for revenge - but then she won. SO maybe not so destructive - at least to her - after all. Also the outcome gave her a way to return to England with Yvette and so to protect her friend. It would seem that, as in all morality plays, the good guys won.

Maud had every right to be angry; however, her obsession with revenge almost destroyed her. Without the unwavering friendships of Yvette and Tanya and their help, her outcome would have been devastating. As it was, her cleverness allowed her and Yvette to enjoy a pleasant and productive life away from Paris and its bad memories.

I think the answer is a resounding yes! It's absolutely understandable that Maud would want revenge. She was treated so callously; Christian obviously considered her as less than human. But I do think the lengths she went to were certainly destructive, and like other posters said, if it weren't for Tanya and Yvette the outcome would have been disastrous.

Sure, wanting payback is natural and they surely deserved retribution. She was clever in that she could use her " death " as a cover to torment Morel. Nevertheless, I don't understand why the authorities wouldn't have played more of a role is investigating her claims. After awhile the obsession became damaging to me, the reader. I found everything in the book exaggerated and yet the characters were rather two dimensional.

It's understandable, especially on a psychological (not just plot) level: she had been abused in her past, and this brought it all out, and it needed to be "faced down" if she was ever to move forward in her life. That is true for victims of abuse. Revenge is of course not the only way to do that, but within the story context, and the time period, there weren't other ways to choose. In reality (but this is a story) it wouldn't work this way, and it would be destructive; even here, it's meant to be dangerous, but to release her, not destroy her. Her friends have her back, and in life, that's what helps people face down and work past their abusers.

The way she chose to get her revenge was very dangerous and foolhardy. I don't think her obsession was healthy either. I did not really like the person she became.

I think it was totally understandable. I think she saw her survival as a call to action to do what she could to destroy her killer and wife. She was definitely reckless and foolhardy but she thought it justified and almost a duty. But her success was really a case of having some really brave friends to have her back.

i think it was understandable and if we hadn't had this motivation there wouldn't have been a second half of the book. It was definitely needed for the plot but I didn't find it contrived.

To me, it was perfectly understandable. She almost died! Perhaps she took it to the extreme but I can't say I wouldn't have done the same

I feel her quest for revenge is understandable, I am sure most people would feel the same way. Usually, they would get help from the police, but since that was not in the books, the girls had to do it their way.

I think her quest for revenge is both understandable and destructive. In her situation it would be very difficult to just forgive & let it be - and fuel would be added to the fire knowing that they were going to essentially get away with it; it wasn't even a given that the Countess' men would find the Morels in New York. However, she allowed herself to be consumed by it. I feel the fact that she was not destroyed by it in the end was not of her own doing - I agree with the above comment that she was lucky to have her friends to support her. Had they not been on her side and fighting with her, I think her revenge would have destroyed her; certainly mentally but possibly physically as well if the Morels had figured out what she was up to.

My opinion is that her obsession with revenge was harmful to her. Physically she put herself in harms way and could have caused her own death as well as that of her friends. I know that forgetting about what happened to her would have been impossible but the length she went to was not going to help her or make her feel any better.

I thought it was overboard, but I didn't think it was fair that the Countess just dismissed Maud's ordeal and was only concerned with the monetary loss of the diamonds and wanted Morel to pay on that level. It was almost as if the "murder" wasn't important. So for Maud to seek retribution in Paris made sense. Also, otherwise she had to disappear and still be thought of as the thief. She couldn't get her life back unless she exposed Morel. Unfortunately the way she went about it didn't cause that to happen, although the Epilogue showed the success that Maud and Yvette achieved.

I think her quest is understandable - but that does not make it the right thing or the best thing for her to do. But is hard to look past anger and revenge when you have been so wronged.