Frankenstein has way more depth then I had imagined.  There are several ideas in this book.  You can compare this with Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.  Both main characters hew there action was wrong but did it anyhow.    It seems the idea that we can control things and keep things secret is still happening today. 

You can look at the upbringing of Victor F. and try to determine where things went wrong for him in trying to create a monitor and then running off when he decided it was to shocking to deal with.  

You can look at the arguments of nature v. nurture or the role and responsibility of science/technology.

When looking at the ideas of virtue and vice (excessive or deficient virtue)  there seems to be a work that I would like to add to the discussion and that word is anti-virtue which is being defined as dong the wrong thing but knowing the right thing. 

I believe Victor knew what he was doing was wrong but pursued his ambition with a singlemindedness that destroyed all those around him.  When he had awoken the monster he deemed it ugly and ran away.  Why create something that you name ugly and run away?  Is it because you knew what you were doing was wrong and then could not stop the result?  Running and keeping secrets was such a huge part of Victor's life!  He had the option of talking with several people about what he was doing but when he was banned from continuing his experiments, what did it do?  Continued on in secret.  He cut himself off from all those that would have or could have helped him work through his problem and choose a different way.  He created a monster and then hide what he did, never taking responsibility for what he had created and deserted.   The cost was paid by all of those around Victor.   We can turn this mirror toward ourselves and look for ways that we knowingly do what we know is not right and then try to hide that from all those around us.  What will the end result be?  Will we keep going on to destroy all that we hold dear or will we decide to stop the secrets and take responsibility for our actions and do all that we can to repair the damage?

This novel might have been written as a campfire ghost story but has so much depth to it.  

I believe if you label the protagonist as Hyde and the Antagonist and Jekyll with the foil as Dr. Lanyon you can come away with an interesting idea.  Dr. Lanyon (and Dr. Utterson) is a rational Victorian gentleman in the story.  If he has all the virtues of a Victorian gentlemen than Dr.   Jekyll has excessive of the virtues (rash, single-mindedness, boastful) and Mr. Hyde has the deficiencies of the virtues (deprived, mean, addictive).    Through decision with the Scholar Moms group, I would agree with the idea that Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde are not opposites but both bad.  One has an excessive of a trait and the other the lack of the a trait.   So are we too letting our virtues slumber instead of actively pursing virtue?