Linda’s comment > Likes and Comments
1 like · Like
It's a good point but I can't feel sorry for Rebecca so I tend to take Maxim's side.
True, Rebecca wronged Maxim. I can't excuse her. But I can't excuse Maxim either. Instead of taking her to court, he took the law into his own hands. Instead of letting the court decide, he made the final decision.
He appointed himself her judge, jury, and e...
Compared to Rebecca's wrong, Maxim's final wrong was by far the worse.
From my viewpoint, this is not a case of who was right. Neither Rebecca nor Maxim was right. Both did wrong. But, which was the lesser of the two evils?
Taking our personal feelings for Rebecca out of the way, the fact then stands out the more clearly that hers was by far the lesser evil.
From reading Agatha Christie's books from this era Maxim's actions would have probably been considered a 'crime passionnel', a much lesser offence especially as it was the woman who had committed adultery (such unlady-like behaviour!!)
But Poirot would never have rested until he had tracked down a murderer and brought him to justice. Regarding a "crime passionnel", he might have felt some sympathy for the killer, but he'd never have let him off. He would never have pardoned a killer. And for him, a murder would have been a much worse crime than adultery.
I do agree with you, though, that a court would probably have taken into account the extenuating circumstances. Maxim would still have had to face at least some consequences - the court would never have let him get away completely with what he took from Rebecca.
True, if the case had gone to court, Rebecca would have paid a much higher social price than Maxim. Especially as an adulteress - and in the 1930s. She'd certainly have been branded. Her reputation would have been torn to pieces far more than Maxim's. She'd never have been able to set foot again in the type of society she craved so much, let alone snare another rich upper-class man for her future security.
Maxim should have noticed this Achilles' heel of Rebecca. And used it to pressure her into giving him a quiet, scandal-free divorce, based on some mild, appropriate excuse, rather than exposing her unfaithfulness - for the sake of both their futures.
As I've written elsewhere - in the "Maxim and divorce" discussion - I feel sure that Rebecca would thus have agreed to a quiet rather than a scandalous, show-all, tell-all divorce.
To sum up, I don't in any way approve of or support Rebecca's conduct. She did do something evil to him. But what he did to her, in the end, was far more evil.
back to top
date
newest »
newest »
It's a good point but I can't feel sorry for Rebecca so I tend to take Maxim's side.
True, Rebecca wronged Maxim. I can't excuse her. But I can't excuse Maxim either. Instead of taking her to court, he took the law into his own hands. Instead of letting the court decide, he made the final decision. He appointed himself her judge, jury, and e...
Compared to Rebecca's wrong, Maxim's final wrong was by far the worse.
From my viewpoint, this is not a case of who was right. Neither Rebecca nor Maxim was right. Both did wrong. But, which was the lesser of the two evils? Taking our personal feelings for Rebecca out of the way, the fact then stands out the more clearly that hers was by far the lesser evil.
From reading Agatha Christie's books from this era Maxim's actions would have probably been considered a 'crime passionnel', a much lesser offence especially as it was the woman who had committed adultery (such unlady-like behaviour!!)
But Poirot would never have rested until he had tracked down a murderer and brought him to justice. Regarding a "crime passionnel", he might have felt some sympathy for the killer, but he'd never have let him off. He would never have pardoned a killer. And for him, a murder would have been a much worse crime than adultery. I do agree with you, though, that a court would probably have taken into account the extenuating circumstances. Maxim would still have had to face at least some consequences - the court would never have let him get away completely with what he took from Rebecca.
True, if the case had gone to court, Rebecca would have paid a much higher social price than Maxim. Especially as an adulteress - and in the 1930s. She'd certainly have been branded. Her reputation would have been torn to pieces far more than Maxim's. She'd never have been able to set foot again in the type of society she craved so much, let alone snare another rich upper-class man for her future security.
Maxim should have noticed this Achilles' heel of Rebecca. And used it to pressure her into giving him a quiet, scandal-free divorce, based on some mild, appropriate excuse, rather than exposing her unfaithfulness - for the sake of both their futures.
As I've written elsewhere - in the "Maxim and divorce" discussion - I feel sure that Rebecca would thus have agreed to a quiet rather than a scandalous, show-all, tell-all divorce.
To sum up, I don't in any way approve of or support Rebecca's conduct. She did do something evil to him. But what he did to her, in the end, was far more evil.
True, she goaded him and drove him over the edge, and I do have some sympathy for him.
We are all human, and as such, none of us can ever be perfect. But in this particular case, the basic truth remains that Maxim could have stopped the problem from escalating. How? By divorcing Rebecca, at once. No matter the social consequences.
Instead, he let things drift, let the pressure build up inside him, until the day came that he...
On that final day, having done what he did to Rebecca, he ought to have given himself up.
What befell Maxim afterwards reminds me of the saying "Pay now. Or pay later."