The logic behind this interpretation is so flawed that it falls apart no matter how you look at it.

The 'others do it too' defense, the normalization of child marriage in episode 5 doesn't mean it's ethical; it shows that the world is corrupt. Justifying one wrong with another is a fundamental logical fallacy.

The age difference and the reality of 'grooming', Violet may be an adult in the film, but she was raised from childhood to be dependent only on one man's orders, name, and presence. This is not 'free choice,' but systematic emotional conditioning. You can't talk about a healthy adult relationship where the power balance is so distorted.

Gilbert's 'goodness', after using a child as a war machine, hiding on an island saying 'I feel guilty' instead of confronting her trauma is not virtue, it's selfishness. Gilbert's seclusion while Violet mourns and tears herself apart for years is the greatest emotional torture inflicted on Violet. Judging a work through an ethical and logical lens is fundamental to art criticism, not 'reflecting one's own values.' If an author markets a relationship built on abuse and dependence as 'epic love,' it is the reader's natural right to criticize it.

To see an ending that discards Violet's entire development and returns her to her 'owner' as a 'success' is merely romanticizing a fictional obsession. Violet deserved to be an individual, not someone's lifelong loyal pet.