I admit that I avoided reading this book while reading it. That is, if I had something else to distract me (role-playing game manuals, my phone, dishes, cleaning toilets), I'd often opt to do those more interesting things than read this.

The thing is Frankenstein creates a monster. He doesn't think about what he's doing while he's doing it. He doesn't notice that he's suffering ill-health while creating it. He doesn't consider what the implications of his act will be. And in that regard, the story can be a cautionary tale about our habit of jumping into a technology without considering its effects. Yet, consider Frankenstein's warnings against searching for knowledge instead of remaining ignorant; he himself admits his original goal was for riches, not necessarily the betterment of humanity. Is the caution then against growth and knowledge? Or is it against thirsting for knowledge at the desire for filthy lucre?

Now consider that after Frankenstein creates his monster, he's beset by the evil he's created. Only after he's created it does he actually look upon it, and finds it abhorrent. He runs from it, he hides from the monster during a dark, cold rain. He admits, upon reflection, that his is a terrible act, illegal and morally inept. He lacks the courage to face the monster, and I think in his act of cowardice, this moment of tossing aside his creation, is itself the instigating moment of his creation truly monstrous.

I think the monster is ultimately a reflection of Frankenstein's cowardice. His inability to choose love, his willingness to sacrifice others to save himself. His retelling, both of his point of view and the monster's, focus on their wretchedness. A shared wretchedness that Frankenstein is ultimately responsible for, and totally unable to actually act upon to save himself, his friends, or his family, let alone his own creation. In many ways the monster and Frankenstein mirror each other. I suspect that, taken further, we can surmise that Frankenstein's initial step to creation was itself cowardly; that by refusing to consider his actions, he acted without honor. Is that ultimately the story's point? That we, by refusing to consider what repercussions our actions may have against nature, are as cowardly as Frankenstein? That we aren't condemned just by choosing to jump without consideration, but because we chose to jump without asking, for a moment, if what we're about to embark on really is a wise idea?

Frankenstein is dark, as I assume Shelley intended. It's a bit slow in parts, especially as humanity's darkness is further exposed (both against Frankenstein's monster, and later the monster against Frankenstein). A short book in size felt long in the reading. It leaves several possible interpretations to its meaning.